Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

As in the title.

What is the relation between Secularism and Atheism exactly and how would you define these terms.

secularism is a practice of athieism.

Both are pretty empty and have literally nothing of value to offer other then a sense of selfishness and irresponsibility.

To be atheist is to lack belief in the divine. To be secular is to make decisions without consideration for the divine.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
To be atheist is to lack belief in the divine. To be secular is to make decisions without consideration for the divine.

Or how one person put it. "When You don't Believe in (God) You will believe in Anything!"

Secularism makes this a very true statement.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Or how one person put it. "When You don't Believe in (God) You will believe in Anything!"

Secularism makes this a very true statement.

How do you do it, Fly?

Originally posted by NewGuy01
How do you do it, Fly?

Oh anybody can do it.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
To be atheist is to lack belief in the divine. To be secular is to make decisions without consideration for the divine.
Honestly, the distinction seems to me to be a little blurry.

BTW So Atheists assert that there is no God, or that they don't understand the question "does God exist"?

Originally posted by Stigma
Honestly, the distinction seems to me to be a little blurry.
Well I think there is a distinction because a religious person can argue in a secular way to engage with someone else on grounds they can agree to.

For example, if I'm talking to an atheist about morality and wisdom, my views are rooted in my faith, however I'm not going to make an appeal to authority an atheist doesn't ascribe to. Instead I am going to speak to some of the values my belief in God leads to because I might actually be able to find some common ground there. One example of that would be that my beliefs in "love thy neighbor as thyself" and that each person is made in the image of God implicate the value of the moral worth of the individual, which is something you could find to be a presupposition many atheists also hold even though they don't believe in God and you could engage them in a moral conversation on those grounds because it is a common ground that could hopefully be reached.

Same with someone like Ben Shapiro who has made it a point to say that he doesn't cite God in political debate on things like abortion because it would be a citation to an authority his opponent doesn't accept so instead he approaches it on different grounds.

Originally posted by Stigma
Honestly, the distinction seems to me to be a little blurry.

Like I said, to be atheist is to lack belief in the divine, and to be secular is to make decisions without consideration for the divine. Of course, someone who lacks belief in the divine would not consider the divine when making decisions. An atheist will naturally practice secularism.

However, theists sometimes practice secularism too, in order to coexist with those with different belief systems. This is especially true with regards to government. For example, Christians and Muslims have different ideas about the divine; as the divine is not measurable, there is no way of determining who is right or who is wrong, but each side is passionate about their beliefs nonetheless. Were a government to sponsor one side's ideas about divinity over the other, it would almost certainly lead to religious conflict and/or persecution. Secularism is practiced to avoid this, because by disregarding the divine when making policy decisions, we are forced to then make decisions based on things that are measurable. As things that are measurable are neutral, this is thought to be fairest to all parties involved.



Not necessarily. There's no reason a god couldn't exist, but rather that we no reason to assume that one does. We don't really have to assert anything, because not believing in (or devoting our lives to) something we can't observe or measure is self-evident.



Lol, no, I'm pretty sure I understand the question... Unless there's some nuance to your post that I didn't pick up.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well I think there is a distinction because a religious person can argue in a secular way to engage with someone else on grounds they can agree to.
I see. TBH as far as political life goes, Christians are by default secular, though.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
For example, if I'm talking to an atheist about morality and wisdom, my views are rooted in my faith, however I'm not going to make an appeal to authority an atheist doesn't ascribe to. Instead I am going to speak to some of the values my belief in God leads to because I might actually be able to find some common ground there. One example of that would be that my beliefs in "love thy neighbor as thyself" and that each person is made in the image of God implicate the value of the moral worth of the individual, which is something you could find to be a presupposition many atheists also hold even though they don't believe in God and you could engage them in a moral conversation on those grounds because it is a common ground that could hopefully be reached.
Good point.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Same with someone like Ben Shapiro who has made it a point to say that he doesn't cite God in political debate on things like abortion because it would be a citation to an authority his opponent doesn't accept so instead he approaches it on different grounds.
Yeah, I think I rememeber him saying that. That's a very reasonable policy. But it has some problems conceirng the Atheist side of the argument.

I'm an atheist, but it's not that I don't believe in the metaphysical. I just don't believe one omnipotent being exists who created everything.

Wouldn't that be closer to an Agnostic?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Wouldn't that be closer to an Agnostic?

Looking up the definition of it:

"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God"

I definitely do not believe in any deity. So I don't think it would apply.

Yeah, I think Fly is right, Surt. Given that you leave an open door for the possiblility of the metaphysical realm, somewhere down the road it implies the possibility of deity.

Originally posted by Stigma
Yeah, I think Fly is right, Surt. Given that you leave an open door for the possiblility of the metaphysical realm, somewhere down the road it implies the possibility of deity.

Well I definitely do not believe in an omnipotent being. So I don't know.

Ok, fair enough.

I don't even know if there is a word for what I am lol. I notice most atheists do not believe in things like spirits. I do. I just don't think there is a heaven or hell.

And who would that be?

Jumpy

Originally posted by Stigma
I see. TBH as far as political life goes, Christians are by default secular, though.

Lol, no, I wouldn't say so. Believe it or not, Christianity had not always been on board with the whole separation of church and state deal.



Why am I suddenly getting the feeling you made this thread as some way to kiss your own ass and credit secularism to your religion?

...in any case, that has nothing to do with what I said, so I'm moving on.



I can't say I see a difference of any significance between the two phrasings. Could you give up on trying to be cryptic and give me an idea of the point you're trying to make, here?



Well of course you think you know what's right and true regarding the divine, you're a theist.



Then go ahead and give me an example, so I can show you the difference.



What beliefs are you referring to, specifically?

You're right, it doesn't. It does, however, undermine the claim that "Christians are by default secular," which is what I addressed.



Yeah, I figured this is what you were aiming for. Your comparison indicates that you don't understand the nuance behind what I said, though.

The lines Atheists assert that there is no God(your words) and Atheists lack belief in God(my words) are not equivalent to the ones you've presented me here. The former implies that atheists purport to know that an intelligent creator behind the universe couldn't exist. But not all atheists are comfortable making bold assertions concerning the origins of the universe, of which we currently understand too little.

However, despite this, we still lack belief, or if you prefer, do not believe in a God. That is because we see no evidence that compels us to believe such a being actually exists.



You really seem to be fond of making false equivalencies.



Maybe not. But I also wouldn't say justice literally exists.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
An atheist will naturally practice secularism.


This is usually true, but there are a few atheists who want to include explicitly Christian elements in the government because they find them socially useful. They're in the minority though.

@NewGuy. I'd like to continue our duscussion but in a day or two, too busy at work. Just a heads up.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
This is usually true, but there are a few atheists who want to include explicitly Christian elements in the government because they find them socially useful. They're in the minority though.

Which "Values" would those be?

And yeah. I can understand that....Seeing as how Atheists really don't have any Values of their own that they didn't steal from others.

I still can't tell if you're a troll or not

No, they do not. The former affirms there is no god, the latter denies there is a god.






One does not have to believe he has the correct answer to not be convinced that you do.

Imagine a jar of marbles. The theist holds that there are an even number of marbles in the jar. The atheist is not convinced that the number is even. However, it does not follow from this that he holds that the number is odd either.

The atheist is not claiming to "know better" than the theist, nor is he even making a claim about the number of marbles in the jar. He is only stating that he is not convinced that the claim of the theist is correct.

Why subscribe to Atheism at all? Because the appropriate time to hold a belief is when it can be demonstrated to be true and independently verified by others. Because the null hypothesis is the default position, and the correct one.

At worst, Atheists conduct themselves as if they have a higher standard of evidence than you do, and they do.

You can twist it however you like, but one of those statements is still empirically false, regardless of the validity of the other.



The aim is to be intellectually consistent. Making claims that we have no way of proving is hypocritical, not to mention a waste of time.



nice b8 m8



--and it is. Period.



Well for starters, you've misdefined agnosticism. The word "gnostic" comes from the greek word gnosis, which means knowledge, usually referring to divine knowledge. Gnostics claim to have divine knowledge. Agnostics claim to have no divine knowledge. In other words, someone who is agnostic finds the answer to the question, "does God exist," to be unknowable. Most people take this to mean that agnostics sit between theists and atheists, but this isn't true. Theism and atheism pertain to personal belief, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism pertain to personal knowledge.

So answer your question: I'm an agnostic and an atheist; I'm entirely unconvinced that there's a god, but neither do I purport to know either way.

Oh, and your definition of atheist is wrong again, too. I'm not going to go into it again, though, so feel free just to reread my previous post.



No, because then your beliefs would depend on atheists' ability to prove a negative. facepalm



I really hope you're not sure, because if you are it means you're intentionally taking my words out of context. Of course atheists don't "know better" about the will of God, we don't even think god is real.

But hey, let's take a couple steps back. Why don't you actually try and answer a question for once in this conversation. Say the Holy Bible and the Qu'ran, which both purport to be the word of God, contradict each other. How exactly would you, "taking into the account the limits of human reason," go about determining which one you should follow in order to go to heaven? What objective measure is there for the divine legitimacy of a holy text?



Sweeping generalization. Atheism is just the lack of belief in god, nothing more and nothing less. We're not a cult, that's literally the only thing we all have in common. Attributing any other characteristics to atheists just because certain atheists act a certain way is obviously erroneous.



I'm sure you do think it's important that I give you a yes or no answer to a needlessly vague and convoluted question like that.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One does not have to believe he has the correct answer to not be convinced that you do.

Imagine a jar of marbles. The theist holds that there are an even number of marbles in the jar. The atheist is not convinced that the number is even. However, it does not follow from this that he holds that the number is odd either.

The atheist is not claiming to "know better" than the theist, nor is he even making a claim about the number of marbles in the jar. He is only stating that he is not convinced that the claim of the theist is correct.

Why subscribe to Atheism at all? Because the appropriate time to hold a belief is when it can be demonstrated to be true and independently verified by others. Because the null hypothesis is the default position, and the correct one.

At worst, Atheists conduct themselves as if they have a higher standard of evidence than you do, and they do.

Jesus, I've been racking my brain for the last hour on how to get this point across, and here you've made it look easy. What a post. cry

No, not okay.






Atheists are merely responding to the claims made by theists. They are accepting a hypothetical framework for the purposes of argument. That is not the same as making claims themselves.





I can declare that pink elephants can fly, but it does not follow from this that there is such a thing as pink elephants, or that if there is that they can indeed fly.

The argument is still logically equivalent, your objection notwithstanding.






Agnostics are Atheists by definition. Belief is a true dichotomy. Either you believe, to use your example, there are marbles in the jar or you do not. If you do, you are a theist. Everyone else is an atheist.






What about it? Anything that can be observed can be quantified.






It is demonstrably higher in that they do not accept the evidence presented as sufficient and you do.

The standard of proof is higher when you're purporting to know the specific properties of God rather than speculating about some random higher entity.

Even the best arguments I've seen in favour of God's existence only ever make points in relation to the latter, not the former. They're also usually made with prior knowledge of the intended type of deity; I find it hard to believe that anyone who doesn't presuppose the existence of that specific god (e.g. the Christian God) would reach the same conclusions as them.

@newguy, 99% sure stig is just trolling you.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
@newguy, 99% sure stig is just trolling you.
Well, that was just mean ....



BTW Guys, thanks for the input. As I said I'll be back in a week or so, so I cannot give it time for now.


In the meantime, I was thinking about language as a symbolic representation of what reality is and how it may affect our positions.

Examples of the issue:

1. I think this is not the solution.

2. I don't think this is the solution.


Obviously we in 1 aand 2 we use different grammatical structues to express what we think, but but at the same time the "end result", so to speak, remains the same. Language is just a symbolic way to express reality, not the reality that we express.

I also think we do use both models of 1 and 2 in our daily conduct on all levels without any backlash as to what is meant to be said.


I was also thinking (given that English is not my native language) that it might be the case of language differences. After giving it some thought I don't think it is, but I will ponder it more.

But, if it is the problem of the language barrier, then the question arises:

So the problem (of intelligibility of 1 and 2) exists only in English (and perhaps other languages) but not in Polish (and perhaps other languages)? hmm

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Wouldn't that be closer to an Agnostic?
Haven't read the rest of the thread, but the answer is no. Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. I'd argue they are the exact same thing in most instances tbh. You either have belief or you don't. There is no middle point where you can simultaneously believe and not believe, which people incorrectly assume agnosticism is. Agnosticism is just a statement of certainty.

Atheism doesn't require a claim. It describes a lack of belief. Any individual atheist can of course say "there is no god", but saying "I don't know" is still perfectly atheist. You don't know, but lack belief in any god. Your belief gauge still reads 0.

This empty belief gauge is the default lack of any assumptions we're all born with. You don't assume anything about the natural world until given reason to. Atheism is essentially saying "I don't know what's out there, but you've offered no reason to assume something is out there, so I will continue to assume nothing until shown evidence of something."

If you went through life and never once considered the question of god, you'd still be an atheist. Only theism actually requires a statement of belief.
Originally posted by Stigma
Yeah, I think Fly is right, Surt. Given that you leave an open door for the possiblility of the metaphysical realm, somewhere down the road it implies the possibility of deity.
Some atheists believe in an afterlife and any number of supernatural events. They just aren't convinced a diety caused it.

Secularism is as real as there being other things in the world. God said it is a choice people make and both are fine. Remember how He came to talk about love. Like your jobs toady because life surly goes on.
Atheists believe in life so that aesthetics live make sense.