TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Atheism And Seclusion

Atheism And Seclusion

By definition, what is the difference between the 2?

Ive never heared of that second term....Are u sure you aren't referring to Secularism?

Re: Atheism And Seclusion

quote:

Originally posted by oDrori By definition, what is the difference between the 2?

errr... atheism is the belief of not believeing in God's existence...

seclusion basically means isolation.. or i guess, physically dettachment from the given normal circumstances <-- if that makes sense to you, then u deserve a cookie


u best check the dictionary either way if u want the true definition.

-BLuEOcEaN420

Trance Giant: Yes that's what I was reffering to

Blue Ocean :
No I mean, I know that Atheism is not believing in any religion, and secularism is not believing in god but remaining in your religion, but I can't really see the difference.

So here I am having nothing better to do than searching for definitions of secularism in order to help my israeli friend

Secularism is a name denoting not a process of but crystallization, as it was the process of the secularization into a particular and distinct from ideology.

Secularism is the meant to donate not merely secular ideology such as communism and socialism in its various form, but encompass also all expression of the secular worldview including that projected by secularization, which is none other than a secular historical relativism, which called secularizationism
It also means an ethical system founded on the principle of natural, morality and independence of revealed religion or super nature
Secularism assert the right to discuss and debate all vital question, such as opinion regarding the foundation of moral obligation, the existence of God, the immorality of the soul and others.
Its aim to find the material condition in which it shall be impossible for man to deprived or to be poor.
In this life there are assert, material agencies and that cannot be neglected without fully or hurt that is wisdom, mercy and the duty to attend them.
It does not combat the postulate of Christianity nor thus it say there is no light or guidance safe in nature.
Rather it maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, which condition and sanction exist independently and act forever.



"You need, as my title suggests, a historical perspective I venture to add that it is not just a selfish interest in my own discipline which leads me to say that you cannot understand secularism as it functions unless you have a historical perspective and not depend solely on definitions found in lexicons. Look at the world around. In the erstwhile Soviet Union secularism was understood as atheism. To be fully and truly secular, was thought, one should eliminate God.! ............." and so on , can be found here:

http://www.vmft.org/files/documents/gopal.htm

Aiiit, thanks a bunch for that!

P.S.

Hayta paam be Hul? Ahla Anglit yesh 'ha

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant P.S. Hayta paam be Hul? Ahla Anglit yesh 'ha

LOL Shanx

My "Hul" trips sum up to 5 @ Prague and 4 in Rome ...

quote:

Originally posted by oDrori secularism is not believing in god but remaining in your religion, but I can't really see the difference.

in the title it says seclusion, not secularism
might want ot change that, unless it is wat you meant =)

quote:

Originally posted by liquidxxd in the title it says seclusion, not secularism might want ot change that, unless it is wat you meant =)

At first I thought it was seclusionbut I got fixed later, we'll leave it at that.

READ!!!!!!

As promised (to the guy that said he�s an atheist), my take on why Atheism is irrational.

ATHEISM
Definition: one who denies the existence of g-d.

There are three possible attitudes one could have towards g-d: First, one can be absolutely sure that g-d exists. People who posses such certainty are known as believers (which I think comes from a middle-English word which means "complete knowledge").
Second, one can be unsure whether there is a g-d. Such people are called agnostics (which comes from a Greek word which I�m again not sure of but means "not known").
Third, one can be absolutely sure that g-d does not exist. These people are called atheists (from the Latin word 'a-theos, which means "without g-d"). Only the first two of these theological attitudes are potentially sensible. The third, atheism, is necessarily irrational.

There are two ways one can be rational and believe certainty in g-d. First, it is possible (at least in theory) that g-d might introduce himself to you. Although we have a right to view any such claim with extreme scepticism, we must also admit that someone could possess absolute certainty about g-d's existence through such an event.
Second, one could come to know that g-d exists through indirect evidence, that is, through circumstances and phenomena that cannot be explained without positing g-d's existence.
A great deal of what we know today, we know only through such indirect evidence. For example, we know that there was once an American president named Abraham Lincoln. We know this not because we knew or met Lincoln, but because there is no other reasonable way to explain the existence of a universally accepted tradition that he lived. Whether direct or indirect evidence of g-d actually exists is a separate issue. The point here is that it is possible for such evidence to exist, and therefore we cannot a priori know that someone is irrational just because he claims to know that there is a g-d.
It is also possible to be rational and be uncertain if g-d exists, just as it is possible to be rational and uncertain if any particular person, force, or object exists. Until one has either direct or indirect evidence, it is reasonable to remain unsure.
In contrast, it is impossible to be rational and know with certainty that g-d does not exist, just as it is impossible to be rational and know that any person, object, or force does not exist. Knowing with certainty that something does not exist requires first being aware of all things that do exist. This would mean simultaneously examining every cubic centimetre of the universe for objects or forces in question. Because we cannot monitor every corner of the universe, we cannot reasonably declare the non-existence of anything, including g-d.
Any student of history knows how many men have made fools of themselves proclaiming the non-existence of things: of a continent west of Europe; of a particle smaller than the atom; of a natural force besides gravity and magnetism. Atheism � the state of knowing that g-d does not exist � is inherently irrational!

Why then, do some very rational people claim to be atheists?

Most of them do not understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism. These people are really just healthy sceptics; lacking any evidence of g-d existence, they are unwilling to call themselves believers. Once introduced to the category of agnosticism though, these people happily re-label their attitude.
Other professed atheists understand the distinction between the two, but do not fully appreciate the formers inherent illogic. Most of these people we�re raised in non-religious homes. Since religion was a non-issue for their parents, it became a non-issue for them, and their atheism was affirmed out of inertia more than conviction. These people slip comfortably into the agnostics� camp when seriously questioned.
A smaller group of atheists affirm their atheism as rebellion against their religious parents or school. Since most of these people rebel for emotional reasons (not intellectual ones), they are not deterred by any demonstration that their position is irrational. Their desire to condemn religion or religious people closes their minds.
The smallest group of declared atheists are highly sensitive and intelligent people. Most have never encountered argument for g-d�s existence, but they are woefully familiar with the single most powerful argument against it: bad things happen to good people. Most of these people have experienced real suffering, either firsthand or through a friend or relative. For these people, personal tragedy speaks only too eloquently of g-ds non-existance. Still, when faced with atheisms inherent irrationality, even these people retreat to highly sceptical agnosticism.
This post is getting must longer than I had expected�. Sorry guys�.

To sum things up:
Of the three possible attitudes one can take towards g-d � belief, agnosticism, and atheism � only the first two are rationally defensible. The third is a viable option only for someone who either does not know or does not care what atheism really is.

Done and done!
Peace.
I.Y.



I'd like to hear what you guys have to say... agree, disagree?

Well, first of all, I now consider myself a sceptical agnostic as I never claim to certainly know whether there is or is no god (I didn't know being an atheist means being sure there is no god).

2nd, perhaps my understanding could use some improvements, but I don't really get how being sure there IS god is rational, while being sure there isn't, isn't. I mean, if you or even anyone inside this little piece taken out of this universe called earth can't explain a phenomenon, that doesn't mean god is responsible for that and that there is no logical explanation to it, hence no reason to immediately credit him for it and believe of his existance completely (while being considered rational) .

I guess somewhere in your explanation I got lost as to why being a believer is rational, if you would be so kind as to rephrase?

An Agnostic Perspective

quote:

I'd like to hear what you guys have to say... agree, disagree?

Good post melech_mike. I don't agree with you entirely, but you made a lot of good points.

quote:

In contrast, it is impossible to be rational and know with certainty that g-d does not exist, just as it is impossible to be rational and know that any person, object, or force does not exist.

You can be certain something does not exist if and only if that thing is defined as having self-contradictory properties: a triangle with four sides, for instance. Some atheists argue that God has self-contradictory properties. I do not, however, feel that their argument is valid. Therefore I would call them irrational.

quote:

First, it is possible (at least in theory) that g-d might introduce himself to you. Although we have a right to view any such claim with extreme scepticism, we must also admit that someone could possess absolute certainty about g-d's existence through such an event.

Were our perceptions perfect, you would be correct. However, what if God introduced himself to you shortly after someone spiked your drink with some hallucinogen.

Also, consider that if you were to travel 3000 years into the past, brining with you a plethora of modern technologies, it would probably not be difficult to convince the people living then that you were God.

quote:

Second, one could come to know that g-d exists through indirect evidence, that is, through circumstances and phenomena that cannot be explained without positing g-d's existence.

To some extent, I agree. Just as you can know something does not exist if and only if it has self-contradictory properties, you can know something does exist only when its absence would create a contradiction.

I don't see how it could reasonably be asserted, though, that God fits this profile. The most frequent argument stems from the lack of a strong alternative explanation for all phenomena of the universe. But since there are a theoretically infinite number of possible explanations for the phenomena of the universe, most of these explanations never have been contemplated (indeed, this would be true no matter how many had been contemplated). Therefore it would obviously be ludicrous to claim certainty that God exists merely because he might be the most justifiable explanation that has been contemplated.

quote:

A great deal of what we know today, we know only through such indirect evidence. For example, we know that there was once an American president named Abraham Lincoln. We know this not because we knew or met Lincoln, but because there is no other reasonable way to explain the existence of a universally accepted tradition that he lived.

I think a distinguishment needs to be made between three types of belief:

1. "Passive Belief" or "Suspicion" is a state of belief in which one is aware that one has no way of really knowing with certainty whether or not something is so, but has an irrational feeling one way or the other. With this form of belief, one would not traditionally modify their behavior in any significant way because of the belief.

2. "Conditioned Belief" is a state of belief arising from past experiences either directly or vicariously from sources of information you deem reliable. For example, you believe that you ought not to touch the hot stove, because either you did once, and it burned you, or you expect that it would burn you through a source of information you believe to be legitimate.

3. "Active Belief" or "Certainty" is a state of belief in which one is or believes themselves to be absolutely certain of whether or not something is true or false. Rationally, it can only arise through contradiction or axiom.

I have a passive belief of the former existence of Abraham Lincoln. I have a passive belief that my body is composed of cells. I have a conditioned belief that when I look down and see the road in front of me, I can take a step forward without falling into an invisible hole. I have an active belief that a triangle has three sides.

A theist who claims to have an active belief, or certainty, that God exists, is one I would call irrational.

Re: An Agnostic Perspective

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter A theist who claims to have an active belief, or certainty, that God exists, is one I would call irrational.

According to Melech Mike, the rational ones are infact agnostics (sp?).

Re: Re: An Agnostic Perspective

quote:

Originally posted by oDrori According to Melech Mike, the rational ones are infact agnostics (sp?).

His claim was that both agnosticism and theism are rational, while only atheism is not. I, on the other hand, believe agnosticism to be the sole rational doctrine of belief.

Re: Re: Re: An Agnostic Perspective

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter His claim was that both agnosticism and theism are rational, while only atheism is not. I, on the other hand, believe agnosticism to be the sole rational doctrine of belief.

As do I.


What I meant was that a person fitting your description of the a rational Atheist would fit Melech Mike's description of a (kind of) Agnostic.

In response to Melech_Mike,
I basically thinko of myself as an agnostic which is very inclined to the atheist belief that god doesn't exist. That's why I said I'm an atheist because I'm pretty sure god doesn't exist, although I do allow a possibility of its existence. However I definitely do not believe in god as it is being portrayed in the bible nor do I believe in its direct involvement on earth.

And I agree with the other posts, the only rational way of thinking is agnosticism, the two others are beliefs which can't be proven. Therefore atheism in itself is a belief which is founded upon facts as much as is any of the other religions, or maybe even more so saying that someone being an atheist is BS, like Mike said, is like saying someone being a Jew is also BS. So in general, I would lean towards agnostic view, but if I had to choose between atheism and any of the other theistic religions that ever appeared in this world, I'd choose atheism.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 In response to Melech_Mike, I basically thinko of myself as an agnostic which is very inclined to the atheist belief that god doesn't exist. That's why I said I'm an atheist because I'm pretty sure god doesn't exist, although I do allow a possibility of its existence. However I definitely do not believe in god as it is being portrayed in the bible nor do I believe in its direct involvement on earth. And I agree with the other posts, the only rational way of thinking is agnosticism, the two others are beliefs which can't be proven. Therefore atheism in itself is a belief which is founded upon facts as much as is any of the other religions, or maybe even more so saying that someone being an atheist is BS, like Mike said, is like saying someone being a Jew is also BS. So in general, I would lean towards agnostic view, but if I had to choose between atheism and any of the other theistic religions that ever appeared in this world, I'd choose atheism.

Ditto on that post

Thanks for your thoughts boys.

I'm agnostic then, never categorised myself religiously (or non-religiously )before
Melech_Mike, where did you lift that from

quote:

Melech_Mike, where did you lift that from

haha, you wish!

quote:

Originally posted by melech_mike haha, you wish!

No really, because you haven't signed it with "mike" it was
"Done and done!
Peace.
I.Y."
and the sub standard intelligence you've shown in previous posts means you can't have possibly written it, so where from

quote:

No really, because you haven't signed it with "mike" it was "Done and done! Peace. I.Y." and the sub standard intelligence you've shown in previous posts means you can't have possibly written it, so where from

Excuse You!!!
I dont feel i have to prove to you or anyone else that i wrote thise, but because there are so many haters out there who would have loved for this to be scammed from somewhere, i've reconcidered.

This paper was actually originally written by me when i was in my last year of highschool (OAC).
My philosophy teacher said he was an Atheist, and me being who i am said out in front of the class that that view is bullshit!
My teacher took me on my opinion and made me write this paper, or i would be kicked from his class for putting down his belief.
So i did.

This post wasn't as good as my original paper. while i was suspended i went through old binders to find my notes and brainstorming sheets on the matter. i rewrote it the best i could for the board, and when i got tired of writing anymore, i ended it off sumerizing my points, and ending it with done and done.
Guess i was just relieved i was done writing this shit all over again, and didn't end it off the way i intended.

If you still dont believe me, you could suck my cock!
or goto Vaughan S.S. and ask the head of the philosophy department why he's not an atheist any more!

Done and done!
I.Y.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.