PDA

View Full Version : secularism


Jane Eyre
July 28th, 2016, 09:55 AM
Okay, so I have heard a lot of people, almost everyone I know, tell me how I ought to be a more religious girl and worship God often. But I don't really believe in any supreme creator, we only have ideas not evidence of His existence. And being a citizen of a secular state, I guess I am entitled to the right of being an atheist. Yet it is unacceptable to almost everyone.
We have the freedom of choosing our beliefs, yet we are shunned by the society if we choose not to believe in God. is being an atheist wrong?

Paraxiom
July 28th, 2016, 10:02 AM
Jane Eyre

Being an atheist is not inherently objectively wrong, so do not assume that those who already oppose it for that, are right.

I'm wondering if you have a lack of belief in any god, or if you believe in the lack of any god. There is a difference; I call the lack of belief in any god to be proper 'a-theism', and the belief of a lack of any god to be actually 'anti-theism'.

Anti-theists actively oppose gods. A-theists don't see it as relevant for them, in some or all aspects of life.

I am more an a-theist, a proper atheist, with this.


As for the secularism, the 'Religion' thread currently active in this subforum too, is talking about secularism. I'm holding the view that a secular state/society can work, and it is not paradoxical as some people may think.

Here's some of my discussion in it:

For one thing, many religions expressly teach that the state has a duty to affirm them as true. For a state to embrace the notion that it should not decide whether any religion is true or false, is to decide that the claims of those religions are false.


Being invariant to a religion is not the same as seeing it as false, at all.


X is invariant to deciding if any Y is true or not. This is not the same as X deciding that all Ys are false.


I can embrace the idea that I should not decide whether certain food dishes are tasty or not. It does not then mean that I am generally deciding that they are not all not tasty.

If this is faulty reasoning, then the abstraction I've done needs a specification on your POV.




Thus secularism by necessity requires the state to reject certain religious claims, and is therefore self-contradictory.


No. An invariance to something ≠ a general view on that thing. Neutrality is not general opposition.

Hope this make sense.

Judean Zealot
July 28th, 2016, 02:29 PM
Having the legal right to do something or be something doesn't mean that everybody has to accept it, you know.

Arkansasguy
July 28th, 2016, 04:08 PM
Okay, so I have heard a lot of people, almost everyone I know, tell me how I ought to be a more religious girl and worship God often. But I don't really believe in any supreme creator, we only have ideas not evidence of His existence. And being a citizen of a secular state, I guess I am entitled to the right of being an atheist. Yet it is unacceptable to almost everyone.
We have the freedom of choosing our beliefs, yet we are shunned by the society if we choose not to believe in God. is being an atheist wrong?

For reference, what is your religious background?

Ragle
July 28th, 2016, 04:45 PM
tell me how I ought to be a more religious girl and worship God often.

I still don't get it, why I should worship God. But if I would believe in those entities, worshipping'em would be like this:


me: Heya, God. How was you day?

God: I'd trouble with those worshippers. All the time they pray: Please, gimme gimme. Or they complain how cruel life is. I wish they would man up.
I wonder if that was such a good idea with the free will.


me: Works for me. Go(o)d idea, by the way.


God (grinning): Thanks. I wish, I would hear that more often. I'm kinda sick of those worshipping prayers. Every day always the same canon.


me: Maybe you'll make you a new world with new species.


God (waves it aside): Oh, no. The whole multiverse is full of those species. It always takes the same path.

me: I'm sorry?

God: Don't. I enjoy talking with guys like you. Then I feel at least not quite that alone, among my creatures.

me: You are welcome. :D

Deactivated
July 28th, 2016, 09:33 PM
The reason as to why Atheism isn't accepted greatly in society is because we still live in a society where the majority of people are religious, and do not accept those who are not. It's a social thing, really.

Periphery
July 28th, 2016, 09:42 PM
Having the legal right to do something or be something doesn't mean that everybody has to accept it, you know.

But it helps if it is accepted by those around you. Especially when people close to you like family members don't accept for your beliefs. Which happens.

Paraxiom
July 29th, 2016, 05:32 AM
But it helps if it is accepted by those around you. Especially when people close to you like family members don't accept for your beliefs. Which happens.

Judean Zealot does have a point though. Legal acceptance is not the same as personal/moral/etc acceptance (if he meant it this way).

A secular society and state in today's environment is the way to go, for me.

Ghaem
July 29th, 2016, 09:23 AM
Judean Zealot Paraxiom, I really do not know what more a secular state can offer. You know, comparing secularism with our current situation I really do not see any advantageous difference.

Judean Zealot
July 29th, 2016, 09:28 AM
@Judean_Zealot Paraxiom, I really do not know what more a secular state can offer. You know, comparing secularism with our current situation I really do not see any advantageous difference.

One essentially avoids the sectional tensions and potentially discrimination manifesting themselves on a governmental level. For the record, I've always been in favour of a sort of state sponsored Rousseauian civic religion centred about some form of Deism and Stoicism.

Ghaem
July 29th, 2016, 09:33 AM
One essentially avoids the sectional tensions and potentially discrimination manifesting themselves on a governmental. For the record, I've always been in favour of a sort of state sponsored Rousseauian civic religion centred about some form of Deism and Stoicism.

We both know a huge part of religion is about the way of life. To be clearer, The Optimal Way of Life.

What I mean is that comparing our current constitution with a secular government, let's say Japan, I don't see any advantageous difference. Actually in many parts I see things which are pretty disadvantageous, at least for my own society.

Judean Zealot
July 29th, 2016, 09:38 AM
What I mean is that comparing our current constitution with a secular government, let's say Japan, I don't see any advantageous difference. Actually in many parts I see things which are pretty disadvantageous, at least for my own society.

Again, the gain is that there is far less likelihood of the dominant religion morphing into something less tolerant, such as the Almohads in Al-Andalus.

The disadvantages are largely offset if the state were to adopt a religious model of the sort I've described above.

Ghaem
July 29th, 2016, 09:49 AM
Again, the gain is that there is far less likelihood of the dominant religion morphing into something less tolerant, such as the Almohads in Al-Andalus.

The disadvantages are largely offset if the state were to adopt a religious model of the sort I've described above.

That a thing, but it all depends. Almohads were a corrupted version of government, not even sticking to basic beliefs of their religion, yet persecuting people in its name. At the same time you can compare them to early Muslim Governments like the one ruled by Muhammad himself and Ali son of Abi Talib.

What I say, is that what advantage is it offering me? Why should I change the current constitution for a secular one? It gives me and my society no benefit.

Periphery
July 29th, 2016, 09:59 AM
Judean Zealot does have a point though. Legal acceptance is not the same as personal/moral/etc acceptance (if he meant it this way).

A secular society and state in today's environment is the way to go, for me.

True true. But would you rather be legally accepted and not in your social life or the other way around?

Bull
July 29th, 2016, 10:04 AM
I am a Christian. I have been taught, and I embrace, that nonbelievers in God will perish to an everlasting hell. I have an obligation to warn a person who I see in danger of that danger, same with nonbelievers, I have an obligation to warn them. I will not be in your face about it, but I will be concerned for your soul. You are free to accept or reject God (accepting God is not the same as accepting a religion). However, in a religious society you will face some dislike. Arguing is pointless and just frustrates both parties.

Judean Zealot
July 29th, 2016, 10:04 AM
That a thing, but it all depends. Almohads were a corrupted version of government, not even sticking to basic beliefs of their religion, yet persecuting people in its name. At the same time you can compare them to early Muslim Governments like the one ruled by Muhammad himself and Ali son of Abi Talib.

What I say, is that what advantage is it offering me? Why should I change the current constitution for a secular one? It gives me and my society no benefit.

I'm not saying that the Almohads were necessarily a legitimate form of Islam, but that's entirely beside the point. The Ummayad Caliphate (in Al-Andalus, as opposed to the earlier caliphate of Mu'awiyeh) was one of the high water marks of Islamic civilisation, and even so it was able to be corrupted into the destructive tool the Almohads used it as. And herein lies the advantage of not tying the constitution to any particular religion: a secular state is far less likely to corrupt the religion itself than a constitutionally theocratic regime. While I have concerns of a theocracy being used against it's citizens, that's not even my main concern. My primary concern is that the religion itself will be thoroughly corrupted, a concern borne out by governments of every major religion: Israel has corrupted Judaism as the Almohads and Salafists have corrupted Islam, as European imperial politics have corrupted the papacy, and as the governments of India and Myanmar have corrupted Hinduism and Buddhism respectively. The separation of ecclesiastical and civil powers protects not only the people from the religion, but also the religion from the people.

nebula
July 29th, 2016, 10:08 AM
True true. But would you rather be legally accepted and not in your social life or the other way around?

This can be determined based on someone's personality and overall background so in a way it is extremely varied.

Say, if someone was to work in the law enforcement of governement, it would be crucial that they follow these guidelines of the law that a non-secular state (is it non-secular?) provides, but one can easily deduce that some people can easily fake it... They could pray for all they wanted and be an atheist to please others and their country.

Flapjack
July 29th, 2016, 10:26 AM
Okay, so I have heard a lot of people, almost everyone I know, tell me how I ought to be a more religious girl and worship God often. But I don't really believe in any supreme creator, we only have ideas not evidence of His existence. And being a citizen of a secular state, I guess I am entitled to the right of being an atheist. Yet it is unacceptable to almost everyone.
We have the freedom of choosing our beliefs, yet we are shunned by the society if we choose not to believe in God. is being an atheist wrong?
Being athiest is not wrong:) I suspect you are being shunned because athiests are the minority in your community and your commuity thinks you're being stupid? I think what we should take away from this is acceptance:)

City Kid
July 29th, 2016, 03:24 PM
I'm wondering if you have a lack of belief in any god, or if you believe in the lack of any god. There is a difference; I call the lack of belief in any god to be proper 'a-theism', and the belief of a lack of any god to be actually 'anti-theism'.

Anti-theists actively oppose gods. A-theists don't see it as relevant for them, in some or all aspects of life.

I am more an a-theist, a proper atheist, with this.
Just wanted to tell you that your version of atheism is actually agnosticism. An agnostic is "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", while an atheist is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods".

Ragle
July 29th, 2016, 03:43 PM
(accepting God is not the same as accepting a religion).

just according to your definition.

Flapjack
July 29th, 2016, 03:50 PM
just according to your definition.
Noo that is correct what he said!

Paraxiom
July 29th, 2016, 05:20 PM
I really do not know what more a secular state can offer. You know, comparing secularism with our current situation I really do not see any advantageous difference.

What relevant current situation do you refer to?


One essentially avoids the sectional tensions and potentially discrimination manifesting themselves on a governmental level.

This I was going to say, basically.


We both know a huge part of religion is about the way of life. To be clearer, The Optimal Way of Life.

Religions may offer loads on how to live optimally, but seeking to live optimally does mean one has to follow a religion. In addition, different religions have different view on what living optimally means (things can get complicated).



What I mean is that comparing our current constitution with a secular government, let's say Japan, I don't see any advantageous difference. Actually in many parts I see things which are pretty disadvantageous, at least for my own society.

You can specifically mention these disadvantageous things.

With being cautious as to not make presumptions, I am making the guess that your faith and society work well together / have a public relationship, am I right? If so, the a secular state is expected be less favourable for you, of course, but not for actively negative reasons.



What I say, is that what advantage is it offering me? Why should I change the current constitution for a secular one? It gives me and my society no benefit.

A secular constitution may not give you benefit in sight of your faith, but it gives far greater benefit overall for any faith, through not having the risk of a societal-scale presence of one religion being 'in the way' of any other.


True true. But would you rather be legally accepted and not in your social life or the other way around?

I would prefer social/personal acceptance over, of course. Neither way around is going to happen fully though.


Just wanted to tell you that your version of atheism is actually agnosticism. An agnostic is "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", while an atheist is "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods".

Not necessarily, though I see how they can overlap quite a lot.

Preferably 'my' version of atheism is the technically proper one, but I don't care about technicality in that sense, because atheism is mostly understood in an actually anti-theist way. A-theism can work.

The atheism definition you are saying is what I see as anti-theism; anti-theists believe in the lack of the existence of any god. This is different from lacking belief in a god.

All anti-theists are a-theists, but not all a-theists are anti-theists.


An a-theist (for here): Someone who lacks belief in the existence of any God.

An agnostic (for here too): Someone who believes that there is insufficient evidence for or against the existence of any God - the existence / lack of existence of any god/gods is unknowable.


Someone can be a current a-theist and not an agnostic, as they could be searching for some god with seeing it as their existence being fundamentally knowable - they just haven't found it yet.

In the larger picture, agnosticism is a general view system that sees some/all metaphysical/beyond-the-world truth/falsehood claims as just unknowable.

A-theism is simply the lack of belief in a god/gods. Someone can be an a-theist and be not an agnostic in another way too, in that they don't believe in gods, but do believe that stuff can still be found out about what is 'out there beyond' the world. Metaphysics is not only about gods, though it could be I suppose if some wanted it that way.

Ghaem
July 29th, 2016, 08:21 PM
Religions may offer loads on how to live optimally, but seeking to live optimally does mean one has to follow a religion. In addition, different religions have different view on what living optimally means (things can get complicated).


Basic Optimal Life Principles are always the same. Relative religion even have most in common. Like Judaism and Islam in some ways. Judean Zealot, am I right?

You can specifically mention these disadvantageous things.

As I see such constitutions permit threatening Family Cores and Cultural Matters. Our current one can do better.


With being cautious as to not make presumptions, I am making the guess that your faith and society work well together / have a public relationship, am I right? If so, the a secular state is expected be less favourable for you, of course, but not for actively negative reasons.

Of course.


A secular constitution may not give you benefit in sight of your faith, but it gives far greater benefit overall for any faith, through not having the risk of a societal-scale presence of one religion being 'in the way' of any other.

I do not see any ban in the way of other religions in our constitution. People can practice their religion freely. There are just restrictions on matters related to Putting Minority on Majority.

Periphery
July 29th, 2016, 10:06 PM
This can be determined based on someone's personality and overall background so in a way it is extremely varied.

Say, if someone was to work in the law enforcement of governement, it would be crucial that they follow these guidelines of the law that a non-secular state (is it non-secular?) provides, but one can easily deduce that some people can easily fake it... They could pray for all they wanted and be an atheist to please others and their country.

Paraxiom

The actual answer would be neither, which is the problem. Often things like these are legal but socially not accepted and at those times it comes down to the choice, the 2 options I mentioned. People need to be more open about these things.

City Kid
July 30th, 2016, 06:32 AM
Not necessarily, though I see how they can overlap quite a lot.

Preferably 'my' version of atheism is the technically proper one, but I don't care about technicality in that sense, because atheism is mostly understood in an actually anti-theist way. A-theism can work.

The atheism definition you are saying is what I see as anti-theism; anti-theists believe in the lack of the existence of any god. This is different from lacking belief in a god.

All anti-theists are a-theists, but not all a-theists are anti-theists.


An a-theist (for here): Someone who lacks belief in the existence of any God.

An agnostic (for here too): Someone who believes that there is insufficient evidence for or against the existence of any God - the existence / lack of existence of any god/gods is unknowable.


Someone can be a current a-theist and not an agnostic, as they could be searching for some god with seeing it as their existence being fundamentally knowable - they just haven't found it yet.

In the larger picture, agnosticism is a general view system that sees some/all metaphysical/beyond-the-world truth/falsehood claims as just unknowable.

A-theism is simply the lack of belief in a god/gods. Someone can be an a-theist and be not an agnostic in another way too, in that they don't believe in gods, but do believe that stuff can still be found out about what is 'out there beyond' the world. Metaphysics is not only about gods, though it could be I suppose if some wanted it that way.

http://www.strangenotions.com/wp-content/uploads/Chart.jpg
Source (http://www.strangenotions.com/is-atheism-a-belief/)

"A-theist" = weak atheism
"Anti-theist" = strong atheism

Is this what you're saying?

Ragle
August 1st, 2016, 05:47 PM
Noo that is correct what he said!

ok. but I'll only believe that when God confirms it to me personally.

Judean Zealot
August 1st, 2016, 08:27 PM
ok. but I'll only believe that when God confirms it to me personally.

I'll only believe in calculus when an infinitesimal knocks on my front door.

Ragle
August 2nd, 2016, 10:55 AM
I'll only believe in calculus when an infinitesimal knocks on my front door.

you win

Microcosm
August 3rd, 2016, 02:02 AM
Most top religions make their believers feel obligated to try and convert anyone who isn't in their creed. Sometimes this obligation manifests itself in forms of public shaming. They're in the wrong.

Porpoise101
August 3rd, 2016, 01:11 PM
Most top religions make their believers feel obligated to try and convert anyone who isn't in their creed.
Hinduism. Jainism. Sikhism. Shintoism. (also maybe Judaism, but I'm not sure)

These are all religions with a decent following, and none are really into proselytizing. Of course they are all eastern religions. Buddhists, Christians, and Muslims all feel obligated to share their beliefs because they belief mankind needs to be saved in some way. So these religions tend to encourage missionaries and proselytizing. I'd wager that most people that shame others do it for two reasons: A lack of understanding and respect and prejudice.

Anyone else who still does so is some sort of fanatic.

Flapjack
August 3rd, 2016, 01:19 PM
Hinduism. Jainism. Sikhism. Shintoism. (also maybe Judaism, but I'm not sure)

These are all religions with a decent following, and none are really into proselytizing. Of course they are all eastern religions. Buddhists, Christians, and Muslims all feel obligated to share their beliefs because they belief mankind needs to be saved in some way. So these religions tend to encourage missionaries and proselytizing. I'd wager that most people that shame others do it for two reasons: A lack of understanding and respect and prejudice.

Anyone else who still does so is some sort of fanatic.
I'm confused are you criticising the missionaries or the people criticising them?

Porpoise101
August 3rd, 2016, 05:21 PM
I'm confused are you criticising the missionaries or the people criticising them?
I'm not criticizing the practice of missionary work, I don't find it bad. I was just trying to say that I don't believe the shaming part doesn't come from the religions, but from two groups: fanatics and ignorant people. This is because you see people shaming others for many other reasons besides just religious beliefs (or lack thereof), but also race, ethnicity, and many more aspects of people.

Paraxiom
August 3rd, 2016, 07:04 PM
Basic Optimal Life Principles are always the same. Relative religion even have most in common. Like Judaism and Islam in some ways.

If you are referring to how each person should treat other people fairly and such, then yes. There is more to living an optimal life than that though, as different religions teach different paths of varying degrees of devotion that are necessary for it.



As I see such constitutions permit threatening Family Cores and Cultural Matters. Our current one can do better.

Secularism can argue for the value of family not needing reference to religions, such as seeing the importance of love, relationships overall, and responsibility, without reference to gods, as sufficient.

If you mean 'cultural matters' as culture that has the running of a state as part of it, then secularism could limit that, yes. However, secularism needs only exclude religion by neutrality from a state's maintenance, without intruding into the cultural diversity that a society within can have, once that state is maintained.

Hope you get me here.



Of course.

Good.



I do not see any ban in the way of other religions in our constitution. People can practice their religion freely. There are just restrictions on matters related to Putting Minority on Majority.

Nevertheless, I see secularism as being a better way of removing possibility of hindrance by certain religions on the practice of others.


Paraxiom

The actual answer would be neither, which is the problem. Often things like these are legal but socially not accepted and at those times it comes down to the choice, the 2 options I mentioned. People need to be more open about these things.

If you mean that it is impossible to only either be socially accepted but not legally, or legally accepted but not socially, then realistically of course. I'm not understanding what you mean otherwise (might be me though, so you can explain further if needed).



"A-theist" = weak atheism
"Anti-theist" = strong atheism

Is this what you're saying?

Yes for the anti-theist / 'strong atheism' part.

Not so for the weak atheism though, as the category can be used for some a-theists, but not all of them. By being an a-theist, I simply mean that one has a lack of belief in a god. The thought "there might be a god..." is bringing in an aspect of agnosticism that is an extra for me, which is not part of the basic definition. I also don't agree that there is a "more honest answer", that answer being agnosticism.


I'll only believe in calculus when an infinitesimal knocks on my front door.

This is going in my signature.

PlasmaHam
August 4th, 2016, 08:59 AM
I'm not criticizing the practice of missionary work, I don't find it bad. I was just trying to say that I don't believe the shaming part doesn't come from the religions, but from two groups: fanatics and ignorant people. This is because you see people shaming others for many other reasons besides just religious beliefs (or lack thereof), but also race, ethnicity, and many more aspects of people.

I agree with you regarding religious shaming. In most religions, someone is not lesser because they don't follow the religion, but are instead seen as lost and needing of salvation. Those who shame aren't typically following the religion, but human nature. As you said, people shame others over far other things beside religion.