Atheism/Satanism/Humanism/New World Religion

[SnakeLord]

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.

Without doubt the funniest statement I have read all week, (in context).

With regards to some people saying that most atheists see life as having "no meaning", and "no purpose" - there is a purpose: reproduction. From cells to elephants, it's all about multiplying.

 

[water]

Any human-centred philosophy is ultimately unable to

1. consistently provide for the rights it espouses,
2. consistently sanction the transgression of these rights.

To look at some rights from the Declaration of human rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html :

Article 1.All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Really? All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights? The millions, the millions who are born in poverty, and die in poverty. All the children forced into prostituion.

Whom should they sue? For their rights have definitely been violated!

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Really? And if a tornado strikes, shall you sue the government?

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Then why are the news full of reports of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment?!

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Yes. It is just that it is arbitrary whether this right is respected or not.
Those people in charge take a lot of time to look into a violation of rights.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Whom shall I sue? Gendanken has attacked my honour and reputation.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Everyone who was ever stolen something, reported it to the police, and nothing happened, knows that the right to property is violated, and the violation not sanctioned as a rule.

If you insure yourself and your property, this means you are expecting that if your rights do get violated, the violation won't necessarily be sanctioned. So you make provision for the non-sanction of the violation of your rights. With that, you doubt the Declaration to be true.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Human rights end with money, the lack thereof. Are they thus still to be deemed "rights"?

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Those unemployed and without any compensation -- should sue the state, for their rights have been violated?

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

And if they do?

* * *

Human justice is always relativistic, depending on circumstances. As such, it cannot be considered justice anymore.
And as such, the laws and rights that humans set, can never be obligatory and just. Most of the time, the practice of justice is a farce. Human justice is not something one could rely on.


So how then is humanity to be deemed as the highest authority on human rights and justice, when humanity is unable to consistently provide for those rights, neither is it able to consistently sanction the transgression of those rights?

 

[SnakeLord]

Just out of interest:

Really? And if a tornado strikes, shall you sue the government?

Ironically enough this comes under "an act of god". Wonder how that became an integral part of society - that whenever something natural and disasterous happened, god was the one behind it. Guess he gave off that impression in his biography.

The rest of your post I personally find pretty meaningless given the posts of the people before you. I think it perhaps worth going through their posts again.

 

[Sarkus]

With regards to some people saying that most atheists see life as having "no meaning", and "no purpose" - there is a purpose: reproduction. From cells to elephants, it's all about multiplying.

I certainly agree that reproduction is what cells to elephants all do - but I wouldn't go so far as to say that reproduction is the "purpose".
Possibly 'cos to me "purpose" has the implications of deliberate creation, which I don't subscribe to.

But I would agree that reproduction is probably the lowest common denominator of life - but purpose? Hmmmm.

 

[SnakeLord]

I certainly agree that reproduction is what cells to elephants all do - but I wouldn't go so far as to say that reproduction is the "purpose".
Possibly 'cos to me "purpose" has the implications of deliberate creation, which I don't subscribe to.

But I would agree that reproduction is probably the lowest common denominator of life - but purpose? Hmmmm.

Yeah, I can see what you're saying, (but of course being an atheist I didn't intend to have "purpose" sound like a sky being was behind it all)

 

[ellion]

Without doubt the funniest statement I have read all week, (in context).

With regards to some people saying that most atheists see life as having "no meaning", and "no purpose" - there is a purpose: reproduction. From cells to elephants, it's all about multiplying.

life is just about sex. you been reading freud Dr?

 

[SnakeLord]

you been reading freud Dr?

There's no need for that. Just take a look at any living organism.

Failing that you could always read the bible. If you pay attention to the OT you'll see god does point it out on occasion.

 

[SnakeLord]

Btw, just to point out some quick statistics concerning a discussion Sarkus has been involved in concerning prison inmates..

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison3.html

 

[Sarkus]

Btw, just to point out some quick statistics concerning a discussion Sarkus has been involved in concerning prison inmates..

http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison3.html

Very interesting - although I didn't think "no religion" would be that high.
Interestingly, the number of self-proclaimed "atheists" in prison as at 31 March 2000 was only 122 out of a total population of 65,256.

It be interesting to see whether the majority of the "no religion" are theists or not.


Also interestingly, at the 2000 census, 390,000 UK people (0.7% of the population) put Jedi as their stated religion.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/ethnicity.asp#religion

 

[Arditezza]

Any human-centred philosophy is ultimately unable to

1. consistently provide for the rights it espouses,
2. consistently sanction the transgression of these rights.

To look at some rights from the Declaration of human rights http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html :

blah blah blah blah... ad naseum.

What are you on about? You make no sense, and none of what you have said applied to anything I see posted in this thread. Are you even reading the posts, or just so busy jumping to conclusions, making assumptions and holding grudges that you can't even write a logical post?

You make all these grand generalizations and conclusions and then fail to back up your assumptions, or attempt to do so with something completely off topic. And attacking Gendanken without her to defend herself... such hypocritical bull.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Silas,

Some people consider that self-evident.

The Ten Commandments

You shall have no other Gods but me.
You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
Respect your father and mother.
You must not kill.
You must not commit adultery.
You must not steal.
You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour

Above is the ten most basic laws which form the basis of God-centered 'religion'.
Why shouldn't a government have the right to impose these basic laws upon the people?

Argument, please!

...... "We reject the divinity of Jesus, the divine mission of Moses, Mohammed, and other latter day prophets and saints of the various sects and denominations. We do not accept as true the literal interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, the Koran, or other allegedly sacred religious documents, however important they may be as literature. Religions are pervasive sociological phenomena, and religious myths have long persisted in human history. In spite of the fact that human beings have found religions to be uplifting and a source of solace, we do not find their theological claims to be true.".....

Taken from the Humanist Declaration, in response to:

James R: Secular humanists believe that governments, in particular, don't have the right to impose religion upon the people. That is different from advocating non-belief in gods.


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

One doesn't really have to look too far, their declaration, is purposely and actively, being advocated in society, and growing stronger each day.

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.

How is it possible to be devoted to GOD and agree with that snipet of a declaration at the same time? This I have got to hear.

'Christianity' (the institut) is not a God-centered religion, which is why they can recruit Bishops whose sexual practices are openly abominable to God. That is not to say that 'Christians' or homosexuals themselves are not God-centered in their approach to life. But it makes it difficult for those that are to practice their religion.
The atheist and humanist approach to that, is no doubt: "Christianity (religion) has to move with the times." The "times," are, that people just want to sexually gratify their senses, whenever, wherever, however many times, and with whomever they feel. This is one of the tenents of 'satanism' (Indulgence instead of abstinence). That is the new direction.

What type of a devout Christian do you think Tony Blair is?

Well, thank heavens for that!

Whatever gets your goat.

"Satanism" as a religion is an extremely minority cult that does not have many serious followers.

It depends how you see it.

Now you're imposing the values of your religion on people of other religions.

There is no need for me to do that. The original religion whether espoused by Jesus, Mohammad or Krishna gives full information of what 'Religion' is. It is not hard to understand.

The one genuinely non-theistic large scale religion, Buddhism, certainly would strenuously deny that their beliefs are man-centred.

Buddhists strive for liberation without God. What is that desire if not self-centered?

Applying "Satanism" to any belief other than Christianity is merely sectarian, intolerant and ignorant.

You're not listening.
Reality goes beyond the titles we give ourselves.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Water,

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

An atheist doesn’t believe in God, and is an absolute materialist.
What else can they think?



Mystech,

Well you're describing nihilism or possibly existentialism, not atheism

So there is a deeper meaning to life then?

Besides, one need not feel that there's some mystical higher-reason for existence to want to create a better world to live in

That is not the point.
She mentioned nothing about feeling some mystical higher reason in the hope of creating a better world.
Why did you feel the need to insert 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

Are you implying that people only believe life has a deeper meaning, because they want a fabulous afterlife?

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

What does this statement have to do with anything?

+

Sarkus,

But I do not pretend that some deity has given me a meaning, or a purpose. THAT is irrational

You’re quite right.
But it is also irrational to believe that anybody (past, present and future) who believes in God does so out of pretence.
You’re an atheist, a materialist, which means you don’t believe in God, so how can you know anything about God?
Do you believe that God does not exist?

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 you seem to think that morality and rules and laws of any given society are the same thing.

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

An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in God, which is characterised by their everyday actions. A religious person may say they believe in God, but act as though they don’t which make their actions ‘atheistic’ because an atheist does not believe in God.
What say you to that?

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

Can you identify an atheist just by looking at them?

Jan Ardena.

 

[Arditezza]

Jan,

Hammurabi's Laws predate the existence of Moses's God given Ten Commandments.

Laws are not reliant on or inherent to religion, and predate religions forray into controlling it's populace. No more than morality and virtue are reliant on, or inherent to religion. Your argument that they are is a fallacy.


Hammurabi's Code of Laws

[long cut-and-paste deleted]

Please let me know when you find something from your Ten Commandments that doesn't already exist in these laws with the one exception being, "You shall have no other Gods but me." Which is obviously, the one law that atheists seem to take issue with. Myself included.

An atheist doesn’t believe in God, and is an absolute materialist.
What else can they think?

We can think that humanity is more important than materials. Your statement describes your close-minded attitude towards atheists and underminds your argument. I have the ability to see both sides of the argument and at least make an attempt to be sympathetic to your cause, but when you make false generalizations and ignorant comments, you stop being objective and people stop listening.

 

[Mystech]

The corollarium of atheism is nihilism.

Certainly not. At least not in the sense that we've got to mope around and behave in a self-defeating manner while we secretly wish that there were some higher meaning to ascribe too. Just because one doesn't believe in some conveniently absent cosmic sky-father, doesn't mean he can't believe in the idea of objective truth.

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.

I am sorry that you are so dependant on the mental crutch of religion that you feel this way. Secular humanists would very much disagree with this sentiment. Morality and society does not merely come from the idea that someone once wrote it down and told everyone that the tooth fairy or other associated figments told them to write it.

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?

And faith in some religion will somehow prevent this? Criminality is simply part of the human condition, deal with it. I'd also note that a very small percentage of America's prison population claim to be atheists, a much smaller percentage than in the general population. I'll look for a link to the particular survey I'm thinking of here and post it later today.

he oil runs out in ... how few years?

Beats me, but once it's gone will creationists deny that it ever existed? Fossile fules sort of puts a damper on the whole "Earth is only 6,000 years old" thing.

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

Well I'm saying it. And I believe Nietzsche also said it, and claimed that Christianity was inherently nihilistic for that very reason. I’m somewhat inclined to agree. Forsaking this life for some promised second seems rather imprudent to me.

 

[Mystech]

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

I don't belive that that was his point at all. You, however, tried to say that being an atheist opens one up to being criminal, and that by being religious one is somehow immune to being a criminal. This, of course, is simply not the case.

 

[ellion]

what does it mean to be religious? is being religious about taking part in certain culture and adopting the ethics and practices or is it about ticking a box on equal opportunity and census forms?
does ticking catholic on a form make me religious, when i havent been to church since i was a boy, i have never confessed to a priest and i dont feel guilty about my sexuality?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Arditezza],

Please let me know when you find something from your Ten Commandments that doesn't already exist in these laws with the one exception being, "You shall have no other Gods but me." Which is obviously, the one law that atheists seem to take issue with. Myself included.

If it were possible to create a society who lived completely by the 10 commandments, there would be no need of the above laws.
The commandments aren't just ordinary laws, they're perfection.
They seem to cover every aspect of human life in very few words.

We can think that humanity is more important than materials.

Ultimately humanity will be seen as materials, the declassification has been underway for many a year. Haven't you seen it?

Your statement describes your close-minded attitude towards atheists and underminds your argument.

My statement cuts out the BS, and goes directly to the point.
Atheists do not believe in God, that is their primary position, that is what makes them 'atheist'.
Their position means they can only see life from a materialist percpective. It stands to reason that an atheist will understand God and spirituality from a materialist/naturalist point of view, and their conclusion is that they cannot see God or anything that has Gods mark on it, so God does not exist.
If God does not exist, then there is no deeper meaning to life, only the meaning we can directly sense.
So an atheist has no choice but to conclude that life has no meaning, because any deeper meaning would mean God exists.

I have the ability to see both sides of the argument and at least make an attempt to be sympathetic to your cause, but when you make false generalizations and ignorant comments, you stop being objective and people stop listening.

Actually I don't have a cause, I just enjoy discussing these subject matters.
Atheist, that I have encountered (especially in cyber-space) have defined and redefined the definition of 'atheist', in my opinion, to cover all angles, and to give themselves credibility This is, of itself, a testiment to their materialism. My aim is not to degrade the character, but while I am here, I would like to challenge their definition to see if I am right or wrong.
They always claim the christian peoples religion falls apart under scrutiny. What about their 'lack of belief' system?

Jan Ardena.

 

[Arditezza]

You keep telling me that I have no reason to live, and no purpose in life because I do not believe in your God. If other human beings is not a reason to live, God or no God, I don't know what is. I don't have a lack of belief. I have a lack of belief in God. They are not mutually exclusive.

As for materialism, that is a product of the ugly runaway locomotive of capitalism, which is not to be confused with atheism. People are not material to me, they are minds and hearts that carry our history to the next generation to give it purpose as well. If there is no history, there is nothing to learn from and the world is as neanderthal as it started when creation brought us to our conscious selves. We continue to evolve, and telling us that there is no meaning other than God is paramount to attempting to make us forget history in favour of a one-sided story of one religions beginnings that forsakes all other religions and all other peoples.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Arditezza,

You keep telling me that I have no reason to live, and no purpose in life because I do not believe in your God.

I have said no such thing.
Do you think your interpreting things differently to their original meaning, could be a deep sub-conscious characteristic?

If other human beings is not a reason to live, God or no God, I don't know what is.

I never mentioned anything about 'reasons to live', this is your gig.
Why do equate 'deeper meaning' with 'reason to live'?

I don't have a lack of belief. I have a lack of belief in God. They are not mutually exclusive.

Why do you lack belief in God?
I think it is because you want to.

As for materialism, that is a product of the ugly runaway locomotive of capitalism, which is not to be confused with atheism.

Ultimately, materialism is belief and surrender to the senses. Beyond these there is nothing.

Atheism/humanism/satanism = New world order/New global religion.

People are not material to me, they are minds and hearts that carry our history to the next generation to give it purpose as well.

This has nothing to do with anything.

If there is no history, there is nothing to learn from and the world is as neanderthal as it started when creation brought us to our conscious selves.

Creation most certainly implies a creator. Doesn't it?
Why would an atheist allude to this?

We continue to evolve, and telling us that there is no meaning other than God is paramount to attempting to make us forget history in favour of a one-sided story of one religions beginnings that forsakes all other religions and all other peoples.

You've lost the plot.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Arditezza]

If God does not exist, then there is no deeper meaning to life, only the meaning we can directly sense.
So an atheist has no choice but to conclude that life has no meaning, because any deeper meaning would mean God exists.

You have indeed stated that an atheist would believe that there is no deeper meaning to life, i.e. no purpose for life. This is a fallacy. Despite your twisted little game of trying to put me in the psychoanalyists chair, is utter bullshit. I don't actively "not" believe in God, I simply just don't know how to believe in something that seems utterly illogical to me.

Creation most certainly implies a creator. Doesn't it?
Why would an atheist allude to this?

No, it implies that the earth had an enviroment that was habitable to a one celled organism that eventually found it's bed here after the big bang, and it created copies of itself. Those copies made copies and so on. Don't put your dogmas into my statements to attempt to make them true for you.

I lost the plot because you didn't have one to begin with. Unless you mean the circular argument you keep spouting off along with the generalizations you make that no matte rhow many times you utter them do not become true. Quality over quantity I always say.