Atheism/Satanism/Humanism/New World Religion

[Yorda]

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.

Things multiply because they miss God (our true self). They are not whole, because they think they are physical... like a man is just one side, and the other side is woman. God is the unification of male and female. But it doesn't matter how many magnets you put together, they will never feel complete, as God. Matter isolates. The spiritual purpose of life is not to multiply, but to not multiply.

 

[Cris]

Jan,

Why would he not exist?

The same reason that any fictional character does not exist.

Jesus said he was the direct son of God, the Supreme Creator.

No that is incorrect – this is only an unsupported claim made by Christians – you are erroneously implying it is fact

And that 'faith' could move mountains.

And clearly it does not.

 

[Cris]

Jan,

An atheist doesn’t believe in God, and is an absolute materialist.

Not necessarily – disbelief in a god does not rule out a belief in reincarnation – and that is not a materialist perspective.

 

[Cris]

Jan,

The commandments aren't just ordinary laws, they're perfection.
They seem to cover every aspect of human life in very few words.

You must surely be joking. You cannot really believe such total BS.

Four of them refer to an imaginary god – so they are effectively useless.

And the rest can be simply replaced by – “it is not in your best interest to harm others or yourself”.

And all of that we can deduce for ourselves without the need for redundant religious packaging.

 

[James R]

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.

That is incorrect. I don't mind people scrutinising atheism. I close threads which degenerate into flame wars - arguments based on personal insults. That is why the "I hate atheists" thread was closed. Read the forum rules to discern other reasons why a thread may be closed.

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

Why not?

Because secular humanists recognise that people can have a variety of different beliefs. They advocate a right to "freedom of religion" (which includes "freedom from religion", at the choice of the individual).

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.

I think you can be.

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

When people are surveyed as to their religious beliefs, about 95% (or higher, depending on the country surveyed) espouse some kind of religion (which doesn't include atheism or secular humanism).

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.

This seems to be a non-sequitur. Do you disagree or agree with my statement?

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.

No it isn't. You'll have to explain for those of us who can't see as clearly as you can.

The Ten Commandments ...

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?

Some governments have imposed these, or similar, rules on their citizens. But in some cases, the people have decided that they will not grant the right to their governments to impose these rules.

What makes these rules superior to any other random set of 10 rules? Your answer: these ones came from the One True God. Well, what if your god is not the One True God, after all? What value do your rules have then?

How would you feel if I drew up 10 rules at random, and expected the government to implement them? "6. Thou shalt not eat jelly beans!" Makes sense, doesn't it? Jelly beans are fairly unhealthy. Why should the government not have the right to outlaw them?

...... "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.

The above quote from the "Humanist Declaration" doesn't seem to mention belief in gods.

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

It depends how you see it.

How do you see it? It seems you see it as:

Satanism = Secular Humanism

But Satanism would seem to me to imply belief in a kind of supernatural deity called "Satan". Am I taking things too literally?

The commandments aren't just ordinary laws, they're perfection.
They seem to cover every aspect of human life in very few words.

By what standard are you judging them to be "perfect"?

 

[James R]

water:

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.

So, if God came down from heaven and told you He was changing the rules, and that from now on it is the right thing to do to murder your family, would you do it?

Are things only right or wrong because God says so? If so, aren't the rules ultimately arbitrary?

Any human-centred philosophy is ultimately unable to

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

Does ability or lack of ability to enforce mean that the philosophy is wrong?

Can Christians force all the other peoples of the world to be Christian? No. So, does that make Christianity a waste of time?

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!

I think you misunderstand what the Universal Declaration is trying to achieve. This is the UN's view on what laws should be based on. It is up to member states to enact laws to support these rights. Who should the people sue? They should strive to create political and legal systems which support these rights. They should tear down dictators who ignore these rights. And those who have these rights should work to ensure that others get them, too.

Isn't this obvious?

How would your religion differ in these aims?

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

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

You need to realise that this Declaration aims to set a standard for the actions of people, and, more importantly, states. States and people can control certain factors which might impact on life, liberty and security of person. They should strive to control these things in a positive way. Doesn't that make sense? But nobody can control the weather (yet).

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?!

Because not all governments and societies have the will or ability to enforce these rights.

I'll stop here, because I think you're probably getting the gist by now.

Think about it. The Declaration is supposed to set a standard. It doesn't say what is, but what should be. It's a mark to aim for, not a statement of what we already have.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Cris,

The same reason that any fictional character does not exist.

Do you have evidence that Jesus was a made up character?

No that is incorrect – this is only an unsupported claim made by Christians – you are erroneously implying it is fact

The wording was my own, but Jesus being the direct 'son of God' can easily be analysed in the Bible.
But apart from that, that is not the point of this thread.

And clearly it does not.

For one who does not have faith.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus,
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.

Agreed, "pretend" was the wrong the word to use.

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?

No, I don't have a belief that god does not exist.
But why should I not be allowed to know anything about something merely 'cos I don't believe in it's existence?
I know about Unicorns, Leprechauns, invisible green monkeys etc.
I know what I have read about God, and what I was taught at school and in Church about God - more specifically the Christian and Catholic version.

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

No - but one gives rise to the other. The Laws and rules of society are there to try and enforce the moral views of the majority on the whole.

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?

Firstly, how do my "everyday actions" show that I'm an atheist? How do they characterise me as an atheist?
Secondly, you're effectively saying that, BY DEFAULT, all "sins" are committed by atheist people - 'cos as soon as you sin you are acting "unreligious". This is a cop-out and defines religious people as only those that never sin or break the law.

 

[SnakeLord]

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.

I seriously thought you were above writing such utter tripe.

I do like the "respect your father and mother", but find it somewhat lacking given that there's no "do not beat your children up", commandment. And so, as is often the way, a parent will seriously abuse their child, (which the ten commandments you highlighted seem to have no problem with - and yet you call it perfection lol), and then demand that child respect his parents.

Just one example of many. We might aswell listen to the wiccans: "do as you please as long as it doesn't harm others" - which is ten times shorter than your ten commandments, and yet so much more meaningful and complete.

Perfection.. lol.

 

[Light Travelling]

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

There has to be a distinction made here between a person who belongs to a religion, and a person who is religious. Many people belong to a religion out of cultural necessity, they would be ostracised if the were not. Escpecially in third world countries. Aslo many people will tick the box marked *christian* in a poll, because they were once baptised, but really they never usually give religion or god a second thought.

Hence you may say, the majority of crimes are commited by people who belong to a religion, but you may not say the majority of crimes are committed by religious people.

Also to make your statement above, you need to show as a pertentage, the percentage of the 10% of atheists who are crimanal against the percetagge of the 90% of people who belong to religions. Without that your statistics are meaningless. And then bearing mind what I say above, the percetage of people who are actually religious who are criminal.

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 true that a person who believes in a religion will strive to follow the teachings of that religion. You cannot extrapolate that though, into anyone who does not is an atheist. They are simply not 'really' a believer in that religion.

One may believe in God without belonging to any religion, in which case which teachings / laws are they supposed to follow.

Firstly, how do my "everyday actions" show that I'm an atheist? How do they characterise me as an atheist?
Secondly, you're effectively saying that, BY DEFAULT, all "sins" are committed by atheist people - 'cos as soon as you sin you are acting "unreligious". This is a cop-out and defines religious people as only those that never sin or break the law. ?

Of course our everyday actions will tell nothing of our religion or atheism. Bad people belong to religions as well as good - the same can be said of atheists.

They may tell something of our 'religiousness' though, and here we could get into a debate about superficial religion and the nature of 'true' religion. But if (as I do) we were to define 'true' religion as;
The path of self mastery, of selflessness, of humility, charity, love and compassion. Which is what I understand to be the broad message given by ALL the founders of the world religions. And given this definition, I think it is perfectly possible for an atheist to be religious (and indeed many are).

It is true though, that very few people in the world today are actually religious in the true sense of the word. Although your definition of zero sin is over the top, as it is the striving towards a goal that is important.

 

[stretched]

Quote Jan:
"If God does not exist, then there is no deeper meaning to life, only the meaning we can directly sense."

* Would live not be worth living if there is no "deeper meaning" to life?

Quote Jan:
"So an atheist has no choice but to conclude that life has no meaning, because any deeper meaning would mean God exists."

* This statement is silly, because you said it yourself: "It depends how you see it."

See?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Firstly, how do my "everyday actions" show that I'm an atheist? How do they characterise me as an atheist?

Because your actions are what defines you as a human being.
There is nothing wrong in being an atheist or a theist, the only things that are right or wrong are your actions. If you decide that there is no right and wrong, every thing is relative, you only have one existence. Then that means you have decided to be an atheist and have refused to understand anything else. So you will act according to what you believe.

Secondly, you're effectively saying that, BY DEFAULT, all "sins" are committed by atheist people - 'cos as soon as you sin you are acting "unreligious". This is a cop-out and defines religious people as only those that never sin or break the law.

You may have qualities which are good, this doesn't mean you are religious or atheist. Religion is a way of life, a set of rules and regulations, because one is religious does not mean they are automatically good. That would be like saying someone is good because they're wearing an "i'm good" T-shirt.

Jan Ardena.

 

[superluminal]

Jan,

Are you a christian?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Light Travelling,

It is true that a person who believes in a religion will strive to follow the teachings of that religion. You cannot extrapolate that though, into anyone who does not is an atheist.

Believing in a religion is not necessarily belief in God. If the teachings of that religion are contrary to spiritual life, i.e. a life of devotion to God, then it ceases to be a God-centered religion. If this occurs then everybody connected becomes atheistic (by their actions). This is why Lord Buddha advented, to stop the atheist priests from commiting any more serious errors.

One may believe in God without belonging to any religion, in which case which teachings / laws are they supposed to follow.

If they believe in God, they can follow any of the sectarian religions which suit their position, as all, in their pure state, have bona-fide spiritual instruction. A God-conscious person will be able to discriminate to some degree or other depending on his level.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

superluminal,

Are you a christian?

Not in the institutionalised sense, but i have respect for Jesus Christ and his sincere followers.

Jan Ardena.

 

[superluminal]

Oh. Do you believe that the only way to god is by accepting Jesus as your personal savior?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oh. Do you believe that the only way to god is by accepting Jesus as your personal savior?

No, not the only way.

Jan Ardena.

 

[superluminal]

Ok then. Thanks.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

That is incorrect. I don't mind people scrutinising atheism. I close threads which degenerate into flame wars - arguments based on personal insults.

That’s very handy, because you know that any scrutiny of atheism will degenerate into flame wars, by some atheists. But when atheists regard theists as ‘morons’ or ‘retards’ that appears to be perfectly acceptable by yourself, as no warnings or thread closures are or have been impounded.
I apologise in advance if I’m wrong.

Because secular humanists recognise that people can have a variety of different beliefs. They advocate a right to "freedom of religion" (which includes "freedom from religion", at the choice of the individual).

That is no reason why a government shouldn’t have the right to impose religion on the people.

I think you can be.

How.

When people are surveyed as to their religious beliefs, about 95% (or higher, depending on the country surveyed) espouse some kind of religion (which doesn't include atheism or secular humanism).

Because they are not seen as ‘religions’ does not mean they are not. In the UK for example, football or soccer is seen as a religion to some fanatics. Why? Because according to them, they eat, sleep and drink football.
That is what ‘religion’ is, a way of life.

This seems to be a non-sequitur. Do you disagree or agree with my statement?

On the surface, yes.
But as I have stated, religion is a way of life, and none of the religions advocate strict fundamentalism apart from aspects of Islam which is currently getting a pounding. It seems that to be a successful religion nowadays, there has to be large doses of secularism and it must move with the times. This takes it out of the spiritual domain and enters into the material which is consistent with atheism, humanism and Satanism.

Some governments have imposed these, or similar, rules on their citizens. But in some cases, the people have decided that they will not grant the right to their governments to impose these rules.

Examples.

What makes these rules superior to any other random set of 10 rules?

They encompass every aspect of human behaviour. With these rules there is no whimsical killing, no unwanted pregnancy, no stealing etc… They curb the evil lust, greed and envy, qualities which seem acceptable today.

Your answer: these ones came from the One True God. Well, what if your god is not the One True God, after all? What value do your rules have then?

These are the basic rules of all major sectarian religions, therefore there is only one true God. You say you are agnostic, but you argue like an atheist which is why you don’t have a true understanding of God.

Makes sense, doesn't it? Jelly beans are fairly unhealthy. Why should the government not have the right to outlaw them?

They are not that unhealthy that they have to be banned outright.
Your mind set seems to lock on to 'banning', 'depriving', yet the commandments have no restrictions or bans.

The above quote from the "Humanist Declaration" doesn't seem to mention belief in gods.

Belief in’ gods’ is different from belief in God. People who worship ‘gods’ do so in order to gain material wealth and pleasures for their own purpose.

The declaration is worse, it seeks to destroy the very heart of God-consiousness by destroying the credibility of the linking personalities without whom, the world at large would become totally ignorant of God.

….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….

But Satanism would seem to me to imply belief in a kind of supernatural deity called "Satan". Am I taking things too literally?

Satanism is a way of life contrary to spirituality.

By what standard are you judging them to be "perfect"?

Can you think of anything more perfect for society?

Jan Ardena.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

That is no reason why a government shouldn’t have the right to impose religion on the people.

The strongest argument, in my opinion, as to why a government should not be able to impose a religion on its people, is that governments are made up of people, and people make mistakes. What if the government gets it wrong? What if they pick the "wrong" religion to impose, out of the many hundreds of alternatives? Would that serve the people well?

That is what ‘religion’ is, a way of life.

I know you dislike dictionaries, so I won't refer to one, but I think most people would say that the formal definition of religion involves belief in supernatural forces or entities. When people say things like "football is my religion", they are speaking metaphorically.

But as I have stated, religion is a way of life, and none of the religions advocate strict fundamentalism apart from aspects of Islam which is currently getting a pounding.

There are Christian fundamentalists, just as there are Islamic fundamentalists.

It seems that to be a successful religion nowadays, there has to be large doses of secularism and it must move with the times. This takes it out of the spiritual domain and enters into the material which is consistent with atheism, humanism and Satanism.

Are you of the view that religion should be set in stone, and never change as society changes? Would you keep all the laws in Ecclesiastes, for example?

I must say, I agree with you to some extent. The "watering down" of religions to try to attract more followers is a bit of a sell-out, if you ask me. If the religious really have the courage of their convictions, they should not compromise. There is a trend these days for people to pick and choose what they like about their nominated religion, and to conveniently ignore the parts they don't personally like. But if you really want to call yourself a Christian, for example, you ought to accept all the major tenets of Christianity, taking the good with the bad. If that restricts your lifestyle, then so be it. It would be hypocritical to call yourself a Christian yet not to follow the dictates of that religion when they didn't suit you. Sadly, there are many who display this kind of hypocrisy. At least atheists are up front about what they really believe and how they live their lives.

Some governments have imposed these, or similar, rules on their citizens. But in some cases, the people have decided that they will not grant the right to their governments to impose these rules.

Examples.

Examples of imposing religion: Iran, Afganistan, Former Soviet Union.
Examples of religiously "free" states: United States, Great Britain, France, Australia.

These are the basic rules of all major sectarian religions, therefore there is only one true God.

In practice, I think you'll find that atheists, by and large, also follow similar codes of conduct to your "ten commandments", but not because of anything to do with God. Can you think of another reason why they might follow rules such as "Thou shalt not kill"?

You say you are agnostic, but you argue like an atheist which is why you don’t have a true understanding of God.

And you do, I suppose?

The declaration is worse, it seeks to destroy the very heart of God-consiousness by destroying the credibility of the linking personalities without whom, the world at large would become totally ignorant of God.

….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….

The texts referred to cannot be taken literally. They are full of contradictions, for a start. This should be obvious to any thinking person.

Satanism is a way of life contrary to spirituality.

Pulling out my dictionary again (sorry), I think you are widening the meaning of "Satanism" here.