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.
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.
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.
BTW So Atheists assert that there is no God,
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.
Or that they don't understand the question "does God exist"?
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
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.
Also, if you don’t mind, can you tell me what you think about this definition of a Theist.
"Theists believe in God" and "Theists have a believe in God."
Can you tell me how do you consider these statements and their meaning?
Originally posted by NewGuy01
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.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
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.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
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.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
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 Flyattractor
[b]Wouldn't that be closer to an Agnostic? [/B]
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.