Jan Ardena said:
But the atheists who take the time to debate or discuss subjects of a spiritual nature are under pressure to be anti-religious.
Couldn't it be that there are atheists who are generally very tolerant of the religious (i.e. christians), but enjoy the opportunity to debate and discuss their worldviews in a public forum that offers some anonymity, such as sciforums? A person who appears militantly atheist here, might, in actuality, seem very tolerant in person. I like to think
I am, at any rate. Many of my Christian friends (as well as friends of other religions) don't even know I'm atheist. The ones that do, or suspect that I am, appear to trust me enough to share their own personal thoughts and feelings on a variety of subjects, including religion.
Jan Ardena said:
In short they are resentfully anti-God and anti-christ, and [of] anyone who is not resentful. This is the business of secular-humanism and satanism.
It may be the business of "satanism," I really cannot comment much on that religion, but it certainly is not the business of humanism.
What is Humanism?
Jan Ardena said:
Atheism is no more a religion than theism, but there are organisations for both camps which comprises of belief systems. The atheist falsely believes that you cannot have a religion that does not believe in God, gods, or some kind of supernatural subject (they will always point you to the dictionary definition of religion to prove their point). But the fact is ‘religion’ is a system of how life is to be lived and surrendering to God is one method.
What you're speaking of is a
worldview. All relgions have them, but they are not diagnostic of being religious. Being religious implies worship and desire to appeal to the supernatural. Being religious implies the use of ritual and defining the sacred and the profane as it relates to one's life.
I'll agree that there are those atheists that can
act religious in their zeal and fanaticism (even myself at times), but atheism in the strictist sense of the word is not religion. It is the absence of religion and the absence of the supernatural as a means of worship.
All people of the world are born atheist just as they are born naked. They only don the clothing of their religions after it is placed on their backs by their respective cultures. Whether that clothing is a dress, a sari, a burka, a loincloth, or a pair of faded jeans will depend on the culture and family. The atheist either never dons his clothing or later choses to remove it and greet the world as naked as he/she was born.
Jan Ardena said:
Religion is vastly becoming a man-centered ideal, a more secular organisation such as secular humanism which is an atheist organisation.
Modern religions that are, in the words of
Robert Bellah, post-axial are all "man-centered" and patriarchal by definition. Women do not get a fair shake in the Bible nor the Koran and certainly not in the Torah (first five books of the Bible). Nor does religious heirarchy make organized modern religions
welcome to female members of its elite. A look at the number of women "cardinals, preists," and "popes" and even the number of women pastors of Protestant faiths that claim to be equal will qualify that assertion.
Jan Ardena said:
Atheists do not ‘believe in’ God, theists do, nothing more nothing less.
Partially correct. Theists believe in
god(s), not necessarily
God, the latter implying the Judeo-Christian deity. Theism also includes
polytheism as well as
monotheism and even a believer in Quetzalcoatl would be considered a theist. Beyond that, I fully agree with your statement above.
Jan Ardena said:
That is because ‘secular-humanism and Satanism are materially powerful in the world today, and like any other organised religion, it needs masses of people under its control.
I don't believe either of the above entities are "materially powerful" at all. Secular Humanism, as a single entity with a common source of wealth doesn't exist. Humanist organizations today are loosely connected, desparate for donation and membership dues, and have little to no lobbying power with any world government. Organized religions, on the other hand, are quite the opposite. I
wish that a Humanist organization had the power, wealth, and lobbying potential of the so-called Religious Right, for example. This would provide a much needed rational voice in our society.
As to the "material power" of satanism, I see no evidence that satanism even exists beyond the counter-culture of a few teens and young adults or a very few people who seek to cash in on their curiousity and need to rebel. Satanism is very likely the invisible "other" of of Christian organizations, used in much the same manner as "terrorist" and "communist" has been by the government in motivating followers (voters) in rallying behind the leadership. No evidence points to any organized "satanist" movement that has any real wealth or power.
Jan Ardena said:
Some atheists cannot understand why someone would argue against their understanding.
Others may not be able to, but I can understand it. I've examined the beliefs and worldviews of many people of the world. The more I examine, the more I see a similarity between their beliefs and mainstream religions like Christianity and Islam.
Jan Ardena said:
They think it a forgone conclusion that God was made up by primitives,
I believe that this is a conclusion based on evidence. Ancient religion, worldviews and rituals are an area of anthropology/archaeology that I have a special interest in. When religions are examined from modernity and traced back through historical records and beyond into the archaeological record in
prehistory, one thing stands clear: a steady rise of complexity in the evolution of religion. From early ancestor worship, to the association of the divine with living elites, to recognition of pantheons of gods that tend to divide and segregate societies and cultures, to the realization that a
monotheistic worldview would be the only way to keep a culture together.
Jan Ardena said:
that Jesus (if he existed) was an ordinary guy,
There is no evidence to suggest that he could have been anything
but an "ordinary guy" with regard to physiology. However, if he existed, he was probably a very extraordinary guy with regard to personality -otherwise he would not have had the cult folowing he did. I have a lot of respect for Jesus Christ as a figure, whether he be mythological or actual (assuming that the biblical account is accurate).
Jan Ardena said:
that Darwins specific theory of evolution (macro-evolution) is undisputed fact,
Evolution happened. Much, much evidence indicates it to be so from many, many fields of science. In each field (chemistry, biology, astronomy, archaeology, paleontology, geology, etc.), the data that is known are complimentary and convergent. Such certainty is rare in many things we readily accept as "truths."
Jan Ardena said:
that all religious people are mentally-ill,
That would be an illogical assumption, since it would imply that the majority of the world was mentally ill. However, the human need to believe is probably a mental predisposition, but perhaps a necessary one.
Jan Ardena said:
that Albert Einstein was an atheist,
Einstein does appear to have been an atheist. An extremely agnostic person to say the least.
Jan Ardena said:
They are defending their belief system, that is their business. It doesn’t matter what is discussed, if it does not fall into their belief system, it is invalid. It is the same with every institutionalised religion. There is no reasoning.
I disagree. I *do* think that the beliefs and worldviews of others are equally valid and that they all deserve to have the opportunity to pursue those beliefs without persecution by the majority. The majority voice in any society needs a vocal and critical balance, either from within or without. This is what many who consider themselves atheist or agnostic do with regard to Christianity, the defacto majority of the religions in the United States. Other religions and their worldviews are suppressed and ridiculed by Christianity as invalid and their religious freedoms are frequently oppressed by Christian domination.
Christians argue for "creation" being taught as alternatives to evolution, but it is only the "christian" version of creation that they want taught. They argue for the "right" to allow school falculty to lead prayers in
public schools, but it is only the "christian" version of prayer that they want led. They argue the right to display religious idols and icons in front of
public buildings, but it is only "christian" idols and icons that are acceptable. And so on.
Jan Ardena said:
I must say, it is a pleasure to engage in a
genuine discussion with someone who believes differently than myself, and without insults and jabs regarding one's intellect. I respect your belief in your religion and, to some extent, I'm actually trying to understand it from your perspective, even if it seems that my mind is completely made up.
Thank you for your patience in this forum.