CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Although secularists CAN be religious, secularism itself is neither a religion nor does the separation of religion and politics have anything inherent to do peace, or most other issues.
That's what some secularists mistakenly think or pretend to think. Either because they don't understand what religion is, or they do, and are being deliberately deceptive.
Either because they don't understand what religion is
No, they just don't ascribe to your particular definition of religion. Religions require faith regarding the functioning and/or origins of the universe and some mechanism to explain afterlife/eternal non-physical existence/soul. These are arguably the two characteristics featured in every faith defined as a religion by both the majority of its adherents AND the majority of detractors. And you can't say just having an opinion on those two factors (which, by the way, not all secularists necessarily do) makes one religious. Having an opinion on war doesn't mean you are a pacifist, thinking vegatarianism is a good idea doesn't make you a vegetarian.
No, they just don't ascribe to your particular definition of religion.
Definitions of religion are tools for understanding the phenomenon. If we stereotype all religion according to only the largest sects, we blind ourselves to the fact that religion is practiced in wildly diverse ways some of which don't fit the overly simplistic descriptions of religion that so many find adequate.
Religions require faith regarding the functioning and/or origins of the universe
To consciously set out to accomplish anything requires the kind of faith you describe here. We use our admittedly incomplete understanding of "the powers that be" (secularists hate using the god metaphor) because it's all we have to go on. All of us have this type of somewhat poorly informed faith.
and some mechanism to explain afterlife/eternal non-physical existence/soul.
Hmm....(please bear with how I interpret what you say).... So attempts to explain why we should be concerned with what happens after we die, and how, like all other things, we don't have utterly clear and absolute beginnings and endings, are only done by the religious? I think I can agree with this.
These are arguably the two characteristics featured in every faith defined as a religion by both the majority of its adherents AND the majority of detractors.
Actually, I think you are wrong about that. I think most people who haven't got a problem with religion in general, but ADMIT that they do have a problem with specific variants, look at any social class expressing it's core values as the practice of religion.
And you can't say just having an opinion on those two factors (which, by the way, not all secularists necessarily do) makes one religious. Having an opinion on war doesn't mean you are a pacifist, thinking vegatarianism is a good idea doesn't make you a vegetarian.
This seems correct. However, the only logically defensible way to claim to "not be religious" that I know of, is to NOT identify exclusively with a specific religious sect.
Definitions of religion are tools for understanding the phenomenon.
Which is precisely why such a definition should be fairly specific. The more vague you make a notion, the harder it is to practically experiment with and generally make sense out of. This is why disciplines such as science and philosophy come with gigantic vocabularies.
If we stereotype all religion according to only the largest sects, we blind ourselves to the fact that religion is practiced in wildly diverse ways some of which don't fit the overly simplistic descriptions of religion that so many find adequate.
Have you ever considered the EXACT OPPOSITE of that proposal? That the definitions that you offer (which, by the way, are far more simplistic than anything you've caught me supporting) allow too many things to be counted as religion that shouldn't be? Your method is more of a critique on your perspective on human nature than it is an objective statement about the nature of religion.
To consciously set out to accomplish anything requires the kind of faith you describe here.
I do not believe you understand what "kind" of faith I'm talking about here. In this context, I'm using to faith to mean beliefs that are taken as certainty regardless of physical evidence or logical necessity. I don't that kind of faith to conduct ANY aspect of my life. I argue that nobody truly does.
We use our admittedly incomplete understanding of "the powers that be" (secularists hate using the god metaphor) because it's all we have to go on. All of us have this type of somewhat poorly informed faith.
This is because it is worth assessing whatever informed the claim. "Revealed" or personally experienced wisdom is always suspect. With a well-known scientist, it is possible to go through and see their work, especially when they publish, and theoretically possible to get similar results if we actually duplicated the procedure exactly. Further, if reality clearly refutes their proposal, we admit that it is wrong and move on. Religious faith typically is extremely resistant to that clearly more logical approach, preferring to redefine things, create weak excuses or flat out ignore the real facts. These two wildly differing approaches to knowledge attainment don't fuel up at the same faith station.
So attempts to explain why we should be concerned with what happens after we die, and how, like all other things, we don't have utterly clear and absolute beginnings and endings, are only done by the religious?
No. You don't have to be religious to have these explanations, but a group that does not do so is not religious within the contexts of that group. In other words, you don't need to be religious to believe in souls, but a group philosophy needs to have some variant of the soul construct to properly be a religion, IMHO.
I think most people who haven't got a problem with religion in general, but ADMIT that they do have a problem with specific variants, look at any social class expressing it's core values as the practice of religion.
I find that unlikely, but if you care to elaborate and maybe provide one or two examples, go right ahead.
However, the only logically defensible way to claim to "not be religious" that I know of, is to NOT identify exclusively with a specific religious sect.
If you don't identify with a religion, than you are not religious. I think I've been saying that to you for a year or two now.
If you notice, I didn't say an organization of people, the phrase I used was "a group of people categorized". There is a subtle but important difference.
Nevertheless, There are several officially established organizations that promote secularist doctrine. To answer your question, I would have to give quite a list. Maybe not as big of a list as I would have to provide if you asked "Who's the authority on what it means to be christian?", but still.
We don't look to a single organization to understand the religion of christianity and neither do we do that to understand the religion of secularism. Am I an apostate atheist or what?:)
How do we distinguish a religious value system from a secular value system? They may be described differently, but name one truly significant difference between the two that can't be reduced to pure semantics. How do those categorized as secularists behave (besides that they describe their value systems differently) significantly different than those categorized as religious?
What is a religion if not a group of people categorized by commonality of belief about what's most important?
This argument is nonsensical, secularism is the absence of religion. Even if you are a religous person, whenever you do a simple activity (like brushing your teeth) that does not involve praying or praising your God, then it is a secular act.
Here on planet earth, we do not have such a thing as "absence of religion" we have differing perspectives concerning religion.
Even if you are a religous person, whenever you do a simple activity (like brushing your teeth) that does not involve praying or praising your God, then it is a secular act.
That seems nonsensical to me. People do activities they either consider very important, or not very important. We don't classify people as importantists and non-importantists because everybody has ideas about what they think is more or less important.
Some of us like using the god metaphor to describe what we value most, and others don't, this doesn't really make what we value most fundamentally different.
We can tolerate a certain amount of value system variance but on core issues (religious issues) we are willing to fight and die just to make sure we are surrounded by others with similar enough values.
secularism is not a religion, it is a principle. as long as its implications are concerned i (personally) believe that the religion and the state must be separated. one should follow his religion with full faith and the state would be responsible for secular welfare, health, communications, foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. that is everyone's personal concern.
Care to explain how a concept proposing that humanity moves towards a world where governments remain neutral on issues concerning religious beliefs, freedom of worship is guaranteed and religious institutions aren't given legal authority is a religion?
It's an alternate religious ideology that falsely claims 1. Not to be itself a religious ideology, and 2. That it's possible for a government to be neutral on such matters.
I asked for an explanation as to why secularism is a religion and in response you simply stated that it is a religion and that you believe secularist claims to be false. This isn't the most convincing of explanations, I'm afraid I'm going to need more than just this before I can understand your stance on this matter.
Secularism is the religion practiced by people who have such a poorly informed idea of what religion is, that they think practicing religion differently means not practicing religion at all.
Whenever you have a group of people who all share a religious belief, they can rightly be considered a religious sect. A religion
Secularism isn't all of the religions wound into one, it just allows people who have separate beliefs to practice their religion of choice without being persecuted by religious institutions or governments who enforce a state religion. Secularists aren't trying to combine all religions into one, they are advocating for a political and legal neutrality on issues of religion. Because of this neutrality, secularism is not a religious sect, but a political ideology.
Secularism isn't all of the religions wound into one
Never said it was. It (like other religions) is a particular type of religious belief. We could call it "religious dismissivism"
it just allows people who have separate beliefs to practice their religion of choice without being persecuted by religious institutions or governments who enforce a state religion.
If a religion promotes values contrary to state interests, the religion will be attacked by the state.
Secularists aren't trying to combine all religions into one
Never said they were. They are pretending that it's practical to be religiously neutral or "non-religious"
Because of this neutrality, secularism is not a religious sect, but a political ideology.
So if I could convince you that a state cannot really be religiously neutral, would you concede that secularism is a religion?
Never said it was. It (like other religions) is a particular type of religious belief. We could call it "religious dismissivism"
There is no religious belief associated with secularism, it's a political stance. Advocating for religion to be a private issue instead of a political issue isn't a religious belief, it's a political stance.
If a religion promotes values contrary to state interests, the religion will be attacked by the state.
If a religious organization is breaking the law, then it would be acceptable for the state to punish them. If a state was secular it would be forbidden from attacking organizations over religion because of the neutrality on the issue.
Never said they were. They are pretending that it's practical to be religiously neutral or "non-religious"
What does secularism's practicality have to do with it? Thinking that the policies of this ideology are ineffective is reasonable, but using it to help your rationalize your claim that secularism is a religion is pushing it too far.
So if I could convince you that a state cannot really be religiously neutral, would you concede that secularism is a religion?
There is no religious belief associated with secularism, it's a political stance.
It's both a political stance and a religious stance. If secularism could be reasonably defined without any reference to religion, I would concede defeat in this argument. A religion related position is a religious position.
Advocating for religion to be a private issue instead of a political issue isn't a religious belief, it's a political stance.
Suppose a religion springs up that very effectively teaches that it is a god given right to make one's homes on any vacant land. What do you think will happen? The government will step in and forcefully deny people the right to privately practice their religion, that's what will happen.
If a religious organization is breaking the law, then it would be acceptable for the state to punish them.
Suppose I wanted to have several wives what would the "secular" reason be for denying me this right?
If a state was secular it would be forbidden from attacking organizations over religion because of the neutrality on the issue.
And who gets to decide which issues are religious and which are secular?
What does secularism's practicality have to do with it?
If it's impossible to be religiously neutral, concerning serious religious differences, than secularism is a farce.
Thinking that the policies of this ideology are ineffective is reasonable, but using it to help your rationalize your claim that secularism is a religion is pushing it too far.
Secularism is a direct challenge to only certain kinds of religion, therefore it is not religiously neutral.
It would depend on the reasons, I'm all ears.
Social institutions based on shared values. This describes both religions and governments. I made some arguments above that show how governments cannot remain neutral, but If you can name one thing governments do that religions categorically don't (or vice versa), I will concede defeat.
Dealing with religion doesn't make it a religious belief. A religious belief is a belief rooted in religion. A belief rooted in the lack of religion can't meet that criteria.
Secularism the [delusional] belief that religion should not [Along with the delusion that it could not] play a role in government, education, or other public parts of society
Sometimes I really want to rewrite your debate titles. You're going to completely throw people off by referring to secularism as a religion and using the term peaceful. Political principle is a better term than religion and I'm not sure what you're getting at when you ask whether it is peaceful or not. Maybe I'll try to figure it out tomorrow.
You have to realize that I haven't been exposed to a distinction between what a religion is and what a government is that I find valid, to understand where I am coming from. I was inspired by the title of a different debate "Is Islam a peaceful religion"
They are all just socially established value systems to me, and the ostensibly "non-religious" value systems are in no way more peacful than others as far as I can tell.
I was pretty sure that people would focus on whether or not it's reasonable to consider secularism as a religion more than whether as "a political principle" it is conducive to peace. But I am fine arguing either.
I live in Spain and in our modern history we had General Franco, a dictator, in control. Many countries in Europe refused to support Franco's Spain but the catholic church funded education, among many other aspects, in Spain to the point where 100% of the schools were catholic and every student had the follow this doctrine. Their huge influence in Spain meant that, to a large part, the catholic church were governing Spain. This is what secularism is against. It isn't "oh our president shouldn't allow Christian beliefs to effect his judgements" - this would be silly because of course all of his beliefs, including religious ones, are going to effect it. Rather, it is say that no religious body should govern.
The definition of secularism that I am most familiar with his the idea of the separation of power. That the government should have distinct branches (the executive, the legislative and the judicial) that should have equal but distinct powers that cannot be negated by the other branches. I would suggest religious bodies are another branch.
It boils down to wanting certain groups to wield more power than others. Most religions, unlike the religion of secularism, at least admit that this is their aim. They don't try to get people to buy the bullshit story that they're religiously neutral.
The definition of secularism that I am most familiar with his the idea of the separation of power. That the government should have distinct branches (the executive, the legislative and the judicial) that should have equal but distinct powers that cannot be negated by the other branches. I would suggest religious bodies are another branch.
Nothing about that jumps out as objectionable. Perhaps you can pursue this angle to help me improve my thinking on the subject?
Religion: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
The idea of a god or gods existing or even the idea of it making a difference if one exists, is delusional itself. Do we want society run by delusional people? No.
My original post [I feel] did not fully address the topic of the debate. My new argument supporting my original is this:
Just google all of the religious wars and genocides that have happened. Also look at the theocracies in history and in present. Compared with this secularism would have to be, if not more, peaceful.
I also do not consider secularism a religion (look at my original post).