Formal Debate Peanut Gallery - Atheistic Secular Humanism...

[MarkRohfrietsch]

This is the Peanut Gallery for those who wish to discuss the Formal Debate topic Atheistic Secular Humanism is every bit a Religion, as Christianity ; but are not part of the Formal Debate thread which is located here: Formal Debate - Atheistic Secular Humanism is every bit a Religion, as Christianity .

 

[Paradoxum]

Religions involve the transcendent supernatural; like deities, and perhaps karma. Otherwise it's a worldview.

 

[Chany]

Religions involve the supernatural, like karma, deities, ghosts, magic. Otherwise it's a worldview or philosophy.

It's actually really hard to come up with a concise definition of religion that conforms to all of our usual thoughts on religion.

I agree that there is a major difference between a worldview philosophy with definite tenets. Some might even pursue their philosophy in a similiar fashion as people do with religion. However, Randian Objectivism or Mill's Utilitarianism are not religions.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think the worship of deities would be the definition which we all pretty much think of when we think of religion.

A 'church' without the supernatural is just a social gathering or lecture.

 

[Chany]

I think the worship of deities would be the definition which we all pretty much think of when we think of religion.

A 'church' without the supernatural is just a social gathering or lecture.

Are Buddhism and Jainism religions? Does that mean Deism and Epicureanism aren't religions? Scientology?

 

[variant]

It's actually really hard to come up with a concise definition of religion that conforms to all of our usual thoughts on religion.

The only purpose I can see to defining "atheistic secular humanism" as a religion is to draw a false equivalence between the basis of it's positions and those traditionally taken by a religion.

The second word though is quite funny in this debate "secular" as the definition of it is....

Secular:

denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

So, I can't imagine you can have a secular religion as it is an oxymoron.

 

[Chany]

The only purpose I can see to defining "atheistic secular humanism" as a religion is to draw a false equivalence between the basis of it's positions and those traditionally taken by a religion.

The second word though is quite funny in this debate "secular" as the definition of it is....

Secular:

So, I can't imagine you can have a secular religion as it is an oxymoron.

Oh, I agree this is really about an attempt to take something properly labeled as a secular worldview or a secular philosophy and equivocate it with a religion.

I have a feeling there is going to be an attempt to create parallels between secular humanism and Christianity. For some examples:

1. Humanists have a manifesto; a sort of list of beliefs and an explanation of the philosophy behind them. Christianity has the Bible.

2. Secular humanists may have Humanism be a major part of their lives and identity. They may really be into their philosophy and make major life choices based upon it. Christians do the same thing with their religion.

3. Humanists often group together, having meetings and social events that tie the community of Humanists together. Christians often do the same the around the church community.

Now, I'll be incredibly saddened, but not entirely suprised, if something like this pops up:

4. Secular humanists worship man/science/atheism and have faith in man/science/atheism. Christians have faith in God.

 

[variant]

Oh, I agree this is really about an attempt to take something properly labeled as a secular worldview or a secular philosophy and equivocate it with a religion.

I have a feeling there is going to be an attempt to create parallels between secular humanism and Christianity. For some examples:

1. Humanists have a manifesto; a sort of list of beliefs and an explanation of the philosophy behind them. Christianity has the Bible.

2. Secular humanists may have Humanism be a major part of their lives and identity. They may really be into their philosophy and make major life choices based upon it. Christians do the same thing with their religion.

3. Humanists often group together, having meetings and social events that tie the community of Humanists together. Christians often do the same the around the church community.

Now, I'll be incredibly saddened, but not entirely suprised, if something like this pops up:

4. Secular humanists worship man/science/atheism and have faith in man/science/atheism. Christians have faith in God.

If the debater is good the equivocation will fall more subtlety on the term "religion" as you can do any number of things "religiously" and not have a religion.

Secular is the problem here though because it specifically means "not religious", and it is hard to get around the idea.

The interesting thing about proposing such a debate to try to equivocate religion and secularism is that it seems to indicate that the religious person doesn't care much for authority of religion in general...

Which I suppose isn't much of an issue because they seem very comfortable dismissing other religions.

Doesn't this mean though that if secularism isn't properly a religion that it is more valid as an idea?

That seems like an idea that I would come up with but it seems strange when proffered by the religious person.

 

[Deidre32]

We don't have a "manifesto." Please tell me those are just hypothetical examples. Lol

 

[Ana the Ist]

The only purpose I can see to defining "atheistic secular humanism" as a religion is to draw a false equivalence between the basis of it's positions and those traditionally taken by a religion.

The second word though is quite funny in this debate "secular" as the definition of it is....

Secular:



So, I can't imagine you can have a secular religion as it is an oxymoron.

I'm not the only one who sees where this is going to go, right? I have a gut feeling that Dave is going to basically attach a bunch of views to both atheism and secularism that have nothing to do with either and attempt to show how these views are "destroying society".

I wouldn't doubt that very little actual effort will be spent on making a case for "atheistic secular humanism" being a religion.

 

[Chany]

We don't have a "manifesto." Please tell me those are just hypothetical examples. Lol

http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II

 

[variant]

I'm not the only one who sees where this is going to go, right? I have a gut feeling that Dave is going to basically attach a bunch of views to both atheism and secularism that have nothing to do with either and attempt to show how these views are "destroying society".

I wouldn't doubt that very little actual effort will be spent on making a case for "atheistic secular humanism" being a religion.

Well that will be sad because it doesn't seem it has anything to do with the debate question.

 

[Paradoxum]

Are Buddhism and Jainism religions?

If they involve the supernatural, then probably. If it just means meditating and trying not to desire things, then that's just a philosophy.

Does that mean Deism and Epicureanism aren't religions?

Deism is belief in a God (religion), and Epicureanism is a philosophy, as far as I know.

Scientology?

I don't really know enough about it to say.

 

[Chany]

If they involve the supernatural, then probably. If it just means meditating and trying not to desire things, then that's just a philosophy.

Deism is belief in a God (religion), and Epicureanism is a philosophy, as far as I know.

I don't really know enough about it to say.

If Deism is a religion, then Epicureanism is also a religion. Epicurianism, although ultimately ignostic, traditionally held belief in gods. Epicurus thought that there were gods, just that the divine didn't or couldn't care about humanity, therefore making any worship of them for interventions pointless.

I disagree with your definition, though. Some forms of Deism and Epicureanism are not religions. Their inclusions of gods in their worldviews are simply metaphysical claims; they don't really act upon their gods anything other than another aspect of their metaphysics.

 

[Paradoxum]

If Deism is a religion, then Epicureanism is also a religion. Epicurianism, although ultimately ignostic, traditionally held belief in gods. Epicurus thought that there were gods, just that the divine didn't or couldn't care about humanity, therefore making any worship of them for interventions pointless.

I disagree with your definition, though. Some forms of Deism and Epicureanism are not religions. Their inclusions of gods in their worldviews are simply metaphysical claims; they don't really act upon their gods anything other than another aspect of their metaphysics.

Well perhaps Epicureanism is a religion.

You think religion has to have traditions for gods, or have a particular reverence and concern about the gods? That the worldview is centred around gods? Perhaps... that could easily be included in my definition.

 

[quatona]

Dave seems to be solely interested in semantics.
Finding a definition that includes Christianity and atheism doesn´t make the structural differences between those two views go away.
If Dave were interested in a serious discussion he would ask questions like "What are the communalities between Christianity and atheism?", "What are the differences?", etc.
So if atheism could be called a "religion" - and there are indeed some metaphorical definitions that would make this possible - what´s the point?

Just to show how this works:
Here are some definitions of "devil", provided by Merriam Webster:
: a person who does bad things or causes trouble usually in a way that is not too serious
a : something very trying or provoking <having a devil of a time with this problem>

b : severe criticism or rebuke : hell &#8212;used with the <I'll probably catch the devil for this>
c : the difficult, deceptive, or problematic part of something <the devil is in the details>

Just like Dave can easily show how atheism - if applying certain definitions - is a religion, he could easily show how atheists typically believe that - if applying certain definitions - the devil exists.

 

[Chany]

Dave seems to be solely interested in semantics.
Finding a definition that includes Christianity and atheism doesn´t make the structural differences between those two views go away.
If Dave were interested in a serious discussion he would ask questions like "What are the communalities between Christianity and atheism?", "What are the differences?", etc.
So if atheism could be called a "religion" - and there are indeed some metaphorical definitions that would make this possible - what´s the point?

Just to show how this works:
Here are some definitions of "devil", provided by Merriam Webster:
: a person who does bad things or causes trouble usually in a way that is not too serious
a : something very trying or provoking <having a devil of a time with this problem>

b : severe criticism or rebuke : hell --used with the <I'll probably catch the devil for this>
c : the difficult, deceptive, or problematic part of something <the devil is in the details>

Just like Dave can easily show how atheism - if applying certain definitions - is a religion, he could easily show how atheists typically believe that - if applying certain definitions - the devil exists.

I haven't looked at the official thread yet, mostly because I'm expecting the same thing. It could be interesting to see exactly how to try to define religion and seeing how different things like Christianity and Secular Humanism line-up, but that's not going to happen.

 

[stevevw]

Religion can be applied to a lot of things. Its like when you hear someone say a person follows their team religiously when it comes to sport.

 

[Paradoxum]

Religion can be applied to a lot of things. Its like when you hear someone say a person follows their team religiously when it comes to sport.

That isn't the same use of the word as we would use it when applied to religions.

 

[Tree of Life]

Deism is belief in a God (religion), and Epicureanism is a philosophy, as far as I know.

What if God made his existence plain to our senses? He appeared in physical form and could be clearly seen and heard by everyone. Would belief in God continue to be religious?