They're too different matters, just like theism and gnosticism. Either a theist or an atheist can be involved with secular social structures and events. Take government offices, for instance. You're adding needless complexity to the issue.
I don't see how my distinction differs appreciably from this statement. Secular social structures do not consider theological questions by definition. So, as I suggested, secularism does not oppose theism or atheism, but rather are matters considered without regard or reference to a particular theological position. Maybe I am not understanding what your specific complaint is here.
Deism and atheism are mutually exclusive. Deism is a subset of theism.
Perhaps they are, as atheism is commonly understood. But language is dynamic, and my suggestion is that it would be beneficial and more useful if we reconsidered the denotation of the word atheism. After all, do the behaviors and interactions of deists more closely resemble theists or atheists?
Again, theism and atheism are matters of personal belief only. Secularism, empiricism, and positivism deal with the structure of social constructs and the nature of human interactions. qwhy do you insist on attemopting to omplicate and confuse the issue by using 'atheism' where the term, is not properly applied? What are you trying to achieve?
I agree they are matters of personal belief, and the slight alteration of how we define "atheism" that I suggest does not contradict this point. At its root, the word "atheism" means "without god(s)". As it stands now, it is colloquially interpreted to denote a personal rejection, in public considerations or private reflections, of any god's existence. I merely suggest that an effort be made to promote an interpretation in which any personal belief that rejects consideration of any divine authority as a valid approach to governing social interactions and epistemology in general.
What am I trying to achieve? Well, it is a pragmatic approach which considers two major motivations that I believe drive theological debates and attempts to prioritize the objectives. The motivations:
1) For the enjoyment of philosophical exploration and discussion.
2) To establish a particular foundation for epistomological validity and shared social institutions.
The first motivation speaks for itself. The second can be more clearly defined as a conflict which almost always finds battle lines drawn between one side which promotes the primacy of rational thought or logical reasoning, and another side which promotes the primacy of divine authority or revelation. This second motivation, I believe, takes priority considering that a decrease in its success leads to an increase in the futility of the first motivation.
While there may be other words used at various times to distinguish an inclusive group of those advocating the primacy of rational thought (like freethinker), these have become antiquated, forgotten, and in some cases are considered to implicitly pejorative (sort of like how "pro-life" implies opponents are "anti-life" and so when used for self-identification, it is intended to indirectly insult opponents).
Also, there is already a great deal of confusion about various terms identifying theological positions- leading to the development of distinctions like "weak atheism", "strong atheism", "agnostic atheist", "agnostic theist", "big A Agnostic", etc... and a great deal of confusion within like-minded communities and wasted time debating nuanced philosophical positions that really have no effect on larger issues like the decline of enlightenment values, historical revisionism, exclusive exceptionalism, and manufactured realities. So I am not trying to complicate the issue- the issue is complicated by its nature- and I am not trying to confuse the issue, since there is already confusion. After all, how many times does the claim that "atheism requires faith" pop up despite information which suggest that most atheists do not 100% discount the possibility of a "god" but merely assert there is not enough evidence to accept such a claim.
By being fractured with no unifying indentification, those various groups which support the primacy of rational thought waste time in arguments between each other and make themselves easy targets for opponents. Without unity, each separate sub-group, may not come to the defense of others, since they do not perceive the attack as directed at them. It is also easier to create straw men, and demonize shared enlightenment values, by attack what opponents perceive as the least popular or most "wicked" group, and then painting our shared values with the perceived "evils" of the least popular.
With the recent rise of "New-Atheism", not only has the word "atheism" risen in public awareness, but has begun to inspire a certain amound of activism. It also presents an opportunity to use the label "New-Atheism" to define what is "new" about atheism. If we merely leave it as "outspoken" atheism, I believe we will miss out on a great opportunity. Instead, we should invite all who practice social and epistomological "atheism" into the fold. This would grow the movement and separate the polical/social debates which have real and practical effects, from the more general philosophical debates which have been ongoing for millenia and aren't likely to be resolved any time soon. We need to focus the goals of "New Atheism", prioritizing the establishment of enlightenment values and rational thinking as the primary foundation of epistimology and social institutions- especially social authority. When we too frequently engage in the more general philosophical debates, beyond what is needed to support our social goals, and fight among ourselves based on absolutist lines of division, we end up sounding "preachy" and effectively are just engaging in mental masturbation.
Theism is a very large tent as it stands. And as currently defined, some of them have very little in common. As long as atheism is defined in such a way that makes it exclusive, and rejects those who share social principles and values to maintain some form of philosophical purity associated with the label "atheist", then it will limit its own growth, and limit its own impact in the social discourse. In short, it will limit its own practical effectiveness in society. The label atheist is recognizable at this point. We should take advantage and swell our ranks to create a unified group promoting reason rather than divine authority as a foundation for our culture. A group that explicitly rejects theological beliefs (even those members may hold) as a useful or valid source of knowledge and authority. Don't cede those who are our natural allies to theism simply by defining them out of the group. That's all I'm trying to accomplish, since I personally don't care what people imagine is possible in their own head- as long as they agree with me that faith and divine authority should always be reason's *****.
)
