secularism causes antitheism

Anti theism is the result of secularism or governmental secularism

Secularism is not a "problem" anymore, it is part of our everyday life in this modern age. Humanity, willy nilly, needs to find new meaning apart from religion.

@@arusirham3761 secularism is a problem in society

@@arusirham3761it won’t find one. When the religious void is big enough a tyrant will lead the radicals to genocide Either we Get our God or we get death. We need God or else.

Indeed. As phil zuckerman argues that secularism is the result of tensions between religion and modernization. Secularism is not a "problem" anymore, it is part of our everyday life in this modern age. Humanity, willy nilly, needs to find new meaning apart from religion.

@@arusirham3761 humans are creators, gods themselves. Creation (changing the world) is the meaning..

@@matterasmachine well put sir

@@arusirham3761 - Phil Zuckerman is also Dishonest. His Research is Simply Polemic done to push His Religion. And Secular Humanism is a Religion. Phil Zuckerman's "Research" is a Poorly Done Joke Easily Debunked as well. There is No Rational Basuis for the Silly CLaim that Humanity Needs to Find New Meaning Apart from Religion. People WHo say that are Themselves Religious, and Simply Lie to us about Not being Religious/. Secularism is Not Really a Result of the Tensions between Religion and Moderrnization. That is a Laugha ble Lie. Its One that has No Historical Support whatsoever. Especially since Phil Zucvkerman's Adherance to Secularisation Thesis is One He Holds to In Spite of the Fact that The Secularization Thesis was Disproven over 30 Years Ago. The Science is in a State of Warfare with Religion Thesis was Discredited over 70 Years Ago. And Phil Zuckerman was an Activist for His Own Secular humanist Religion Before he did His Research. And All you have to do is Read what he says of Christianity and You Know He is Incredibly Biased. Seriously, do You Honestly Think Morals can be Determined by if You Vote for Liberal Policies? Zuckewrman does. His Idea of what makes Secular People More Moral than Religious People is Evangelical Christians Vote Republican and Secular People Vote Democrat. That is Not Science. That is Polemic.

​@@arusirham3761 This is an incorrect philosophic teaching based on the idea of clean slate birth and that man is inherently good. Which if you look just one second at history shatters that theory. Science says we have behavioral genes, science says environment impacts behaviors as well. Therefore no one is truly born with a clean slate.

Morality cannot be founded without religion.

Funny you have to borrow a Christian belief to justify your moral position. Try again.

Rubbish. Secularism today is Far More Authoritarian and Controlling than Any "Religion" We see in The West. Secularism won't Automatically Protect Rights, and Secularism Will be given a Privledge Position. Secularism is Not Neutrality to Religion, Secularism is a Religion, and Once You Mandate Secularism be followed in Forming Laws, In Our Schools, and in Our Society, You give is Privledge and Denying Freedom. Also, it Really is Not True that Religion is Mutually Exclusive to Freedom. That is absurd. I Know it is what Mindless Atheist Drones Say but its Based on a Silly Idea that You can tell Just So Stories or Historical Anecdotes that Usually aren't True and Pretend You have provided Evidence for a Proclamation on How Religion is Inherently Controlling and Anti-Freedom, which won't even Describe the Actual Religions People Follow, and Pretend the Tolerant Religious People are Moderates Whose Tolerance somehow is Because of Secularism, even Though Your Only Evidence for This Will be the Assumption that Religion is By Definition Mutually Exclusive to Freedom and cannot be left in Charge. Its Not Really True, its just You being Absurd. Especially since Atheists Who Push This Argument Never Argue in Good Faith. You won't even Admit Atheism is a Belief that no gods Exist and Pretend it is a lack of Belief in a god so You can Claim God does Not Exist then Deny Claiming God Exists and that You have No Burden Of Proof. You Also Hide behind the Word Atheism to Not have top Admit You are a Secular Humanist and This is a Belief System, and that You Really follow a Religion Yourself.

In theory. In practice we can't stop children from learning about LGBTQ and having the state encourage transitioning. Any opposition to this is met with "separation of church and state". Do you see the problem with this? The state can push any morality it wants and can deny the democratic process to restrict or ban it. Secularism is also impossible as many religions laws and principles can line up with "secular law"

@@souzajustin19dno actually rights are not a uniquely Christian idea and they can be justified separate from religion, look at what happens throughout history to people when we don’t uphold an ideal of human respect like this

@@cfroi08not really because you can argue for and against those cases using statistics and facts that effect society in any significant way and many people do the whole trans debate is mostly just this and even the religious people who have religious reasons to oppose lgbtq rights are also using secular justifications to attempt to back themselves up in those discussions, government corruption is a problem for all government systems that is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with, also notice how said principles you mention that align with secular laws tend to be the most basic building blocks to maintaining any society at all such a restrictions on murdering or stealing which in it of itself is a secular justification for preventing its collapse yet at the same time there many other religious principles that aren’t as clear cut like sexuality which tends to conflict with facts etc.

Interesting thought? I understand that pro-creation is important in most religions. However, I do think that low birth rates have to do with industrialisation more than anything

@@allthingshumanities5328 Good point. Secularism and modern industry were both products of the Enlightenment period.

That’s exactly right! Check out my video on ‘How Protestantism made us rich’. I cover those ideas in it!

Of course it is.

you conveniently forgot climate change and the rising costs of food, housing, healthcare, etc.

Right,. Comparing Secularism to "Theocratic Countries' iis silly. Especially since You Wil Cherry Pick what a Theocratic Country is. I also don't see a Real Issue since The Soviet Union and Communist China are the Logical End of Secularism, which is Really just a Religion in its Own Right. Secularism does Not Really Protect Religious Minorities, it imposes its own Views on Everyone Whilst Pretending to not have Views to Impose and being Neutral. Also, if You Deny Any Spiritual Expeirnce is Credible in "Determining Public Policy" then You Really are Denying them any Credibility, and there is No Reason to Allow Your Artificial Naturalistic Views to Dictsate Public Policy other than the Mythology that We Wither have Secularism thus Freedom of Theocracy Thus Tyranny, which is itself Reductionist and Absurd.

@@skwills1629 The issue is not secularism here China and the USSR are not the logical end of secularism, because they are actively hostile to religion, while a secular country can not be hostile to religion And in a secular country, the credibility of any spiritual experience will be denied because policy should be made about facts or logic or arguments, not about the experience or the belief of one person

@854 - The Problem with Secularists is, You not Only Refuse to Accept You Have a Religion, You also Apply the Dogmas You beleive in even when it is Obvious it makes No sense to. "The issue is not secularism here" Yes it is. It is Literally the Topic We are discussing. "China and the USSR are not the logical end of secularism, because they are actively hostile to religion, while a secular country can not be hostile to religion" Am I Really supposed to Believe a Secular Tyranny is Impossible and secularism can Never be Hostile to Religion? By this Logic, it would Be Impossible to Prove a secular country was ever Hostile to Reigion siunce Once You show a country was Hostile to Religion it is no Longer Considered secular. It is defiing the Issue Away, and Not onest.. In Reality We have No Reason whatsoever to beleive a Secular State Wll not be Hostile to Religion. Also, It is Not Really true that a Nation with an official Religion would Automatically Impose that Religion on its Citizens. It is a dogma to Your Secular not Religious beliefs, but the Thing is, just asserting Religion Removes Freedom and secularism preserves Freedom is Not Evidence, it is Dogma. I could for example say Christians believe in Allowing Freedom of Choice in Religious Matters thus to Christian Nation ever Denied You Freedom, and if You Point to Any which did, I could simply say they were Not Truly Christian. The Reality is, I Have No Reason whatsoever to assume a "Religious State: as You Think of the term would Deny Freedom Nor do I have Any Reason to Assume a Secular State Allows Freedom. I am also NOT Arguing in Absolutes like You are, so My Point is Not Secularism is Always Tyranny, but it can be Tyrannical, just as a "Religious' Country as You call them can Be Free. "And in a secular country, the credibility of any spiritual experience will be denied" So Secularism is Not about Freedom. Secularism is Also Not about Truth. " because policy should be made about facts or logic or arguments, not about the experience or the belief of one person"" In Other Words, secularism is based on the Assumption that All Religious belief is Not true, something You can't actually demonstrate is True. We also have to assume Secularism is Not itself a religion when in Reality it is. Once You say secularism bases All of Its Policies on Facts and Logic, You assume Modern Materialism and Atheism are Simply Factually true, and We Both Know that isn't the case, and the Values of Modern secular Countries are Simply true, which is, again, Not Self Evidence. You also assume any Spiritual belief is Purely based n Subjective Experience or "Indoctrination, not Education", which is just assumed. Secularism is Not about truth, its about Imposing the Humanist Religion in Us All.

​@@skwills1629 "The Problem with Secularists is, You not Only Refuse to Accept You Have a Religion, You also Apply the Dogmas You beleive in even when it is Obvious it makes No sense to." It's not a religion, having beliefs doesn't mean you are religious And I debated and I believe secularism is better than having a state religion because this way, no religion is promoted over the other, and laws aren't based on one religion over the other "Am I Really supposed to Believe a Secular Tyranny is Impossible and secularism can Never be Hostile to Religion?" No of course not, any state can be hostile to one or multiple religions, but a secular state does not entail a state hostile to religion "Also, It is Not Really true that a Nation with an official Religion would Automatically Impose that Religion on its Citizens." True, in England, Anglicanism is the state religion, but it's not imposed The issue is that this religion has advantages over other religions "I could for example say Christians believe in Allowing Freedom of Choice in Religious Matters thus to Christian Nation ever Denied You Freedom, and if You Point to Any which did, I could simply say they were Not Truly Christian." So all medieval european monarchies were not truly christian? And the issue is not that if they were really christian or not, the issue is that they used christianity to repress other beliefs Secularism can prevent that because there's no discrimination of some beliefs over the other ""And in a secular country, the credibility of any spiritual experience will be denied" So Secularism is Not about Freedom. Secularism is Also Not about Truth." So secularism will simply not promote the interpretation of one's "truth" over the other You can still believe what you want, but you can't make laws based on your beliefs because it will apply to everyone, even those with no or other beliefs "In Other Words, secularism is based on the Assumption that All Religious belief is Not true, something You can't actually demonstrate is True" Not really, I would say secularism is based on the assumption that all beliefs are equal and one shouldn't be promoted or valued over the other And that arguments should be made based on something we can all agree on, not something some people with a specific set of spiritual beliefs can "You also assume any Spiritual belief is Purely based n Subjective Experience or "Indoctrination, not Education", which is just assumed." Sorry if I came like that, I'm not anti-religion or anti-theist or anything like that, I'm completely neutral when it comes to religion in the political sphere I don't assume anything, I'm not denying one's experience and spiritual beliefs, I just think those beliefs belong to the person and the person only (and can be talked to with other persons belonging to the same religion), and thus shouldn't be used for making policies because we can't argue about what someone's spiritual experience as we can argue about arguments in favor and against

@854 -You are not Debating Anything, You are making Decrees. When You say Having Beliefs is not the same as Having a Religion, all that Means is whatever You Arbitrarily Decree is Secular ism Permissible Whilst that Which is Religion is Not. Secularism is a Religion, and I Explains Why. You On the Other hand simply Insist Secularism is Not a Religion simply because You need Us to define it as not Religion. In Reality, While You say secularism is better than having a state Religion, because that was We o;t have one Religion promoted over others and Our Laws are not Based on One Religion, the Truth us We have a State Religion called Secularism, Which We aren't allowed to question and Must Comply to and All of Our Laws are based on. It is also a Reductive Argument since You can have a Society that does have a state Religion and still allows Other Religions to Exist, and even Allows people Who Hold those beliefs to Shape Policies Based on Their Beliefs. For that matter, You can Have a Society with No State Religion that Also Allows People to Base what They Say on Any issue on their Religious beliefs and argue for them and Influence Society. Religion is Not Really this Absolutist and Always Divisive Thing that Secularists Claim it is, and it Certainly is not true that if a “Religious Person”: is I Conflict with a secularist the fault is Purely on The “Religious person: for Not Comp;lying with Secular values and the “Religious Person” is Wrong to Want to “Impose Their Religion” on Society. It is Also Not Really true that All Secularist ideas are Rational and based on Evidence, Nor is it true that all Religion is based on what secularists like You Arbitrarily Decree Faith toi mean, That being, Faith is belief Without Evidence, and the Slly Idea that a “Religious person”: Only believes Things because their Holy book and Religious leaders said So, and never have a Rational Basis for Their beliefs and Simply believe with the Evidence what they are Told is just false. In The Real World those “Religious People” Often ut More Thought and have more Rationality , More Logic, and more Evidence for Their positions than do secularists who instead Rely on us pretending that they have No Religion to Automatically Gurentee we see Secularist Positions as Rational and Logical and Evidence based Purley because They are called Secularist. In fact, secularists Want to Impose Things on us for No Reason other than They are Branded Secularist. The Term Secular is One You Slap On Anything You Approve of to make it Sacrosanct and Insit it be Implemented or Imposed or mandated, and Never Ever Ever Questioned, Whilst Castigating Other ideas as “Religious”: thus somehow Irrational, Not Logical, not Based on Evidence, and Tyrannical all because it Bares that label of “Being Religious” as if that Alone proves it is Wrong. You also Steadfastly Refuse to address the Real issue. I said This; "Am I Really supposed to Believe a Secular Tyranny is Impossible and secularism can Never be Hostile to Religion?" You Replied with This; “No of course not, any state can be hostile to one or multiple religions, but a secular state does not entail a state hostile to religion” This is You Agreeing with My Point but pretending I am Wrong. It is an irritating Tactic, and Dishonest. If secularism can be Tyrannical, then it is Not Automatically Superior. I said This; "Also, It is Not Really true that a Nation with an official Religion would Automatically Impose that Religion on its Citizens." You said This; “True, in England, Anglicanism is the state religion, but it's not imposed The issue is that this religion has advantages over other religions” Why is it an issue? If We All have Freedom its Not a Real Problem. This nxt bit is Historically Iunnaccurate and also Missed the Point. I said; "I could for example say Christians believe in Allowing Freedom of Choice in Religious Matters thus to Christian Nation ever Denied You Freedom, and if You Point to Any which did, I could simply say they were Not Truly Christian." You said; “So all medieval european monarchies were not truly christian?” Not by Your No True Secularism Line of Thinking. The Entire Point I made was that You Discount as Secular Anything that Does Not Conform to Your Narrative that a Secular Society Allows Freedom. If We do not Count Communist Nations as Secular, for Example, Why should those Hypothetical European Medieval Monarchies Qualify as Christian? You Exclude Communist Governments from Secularism simply because they Run Contrary to Your Desired Result that secular Nations Grant Freedom, Which is Inherantly Dishoinest. “And the issue is not that if they were really christian or not, the issue is that they used christianity to repress other beliefs” Communists used Secularism and Atheists to Repress Other Beliefs. And Still do. “Secularism can prevent that because there's no discrimination of some beliefs over the other” Rubbish. Seciular states Favour Their secularist Religion over Others and Communism proves Secularism Can Easily lead to Repression of Beliefs and Impositions and Loss of Freedom. This is Why Secularism leads to tyranny. I said; ""And in a secular country, the credibility of any spiritual experience will be denied" So Secularism is Not about Freedom. Secularism is Also Not about Truth." You said; “So secularism will simply not promote the interpretation of one's "truth" over the other You can still believe what you want, but you can't make laws based on your beliefs because it will apply to everyone, even those with no or other beliefs” Of Course All Laws are based on Beliefs. If You have a law that says Do Not Steal You believe people can pOwn Things that can be taken by others, and that it is Wrong to do so. If You say it is Illegal to enter a house and Kick out the people Living There and take Over, you have Beliefs about Pousing and Land and Rights. If You believe it is wrong to Kill People and call it Murder, that is belief. All laws are based on Beliefs. And by Putting “Truth” in Quotation makes, you are saying I am Free to believe in lies. My “Truth” in quotation mark is understood as not Really true, and Only the truth secularists Know is “Real Truth: can be imposed on Us all. You Still End up Favouring Your Secularist Religion. I see no Reason Why Your Beliefs should be the basis of All Laws. I Certainly Resent having My Beliefs called Lies by saying they are only my “Truth” in Quote marks and Yours are not just You “Truth” in Quote mark, and Not Your “Truth” at all, but THE TRUTH. If Being a secularist means you are Always Right and I am a delusional Fool. How Free and Liberating your Secularism is. We are all Free to Agree with You, or else we are Free to live in the Shadows with No Say in Society. What Wonderful Freedom that is. This is Nonsense. “I would say secularism is based on the assumption that all beliefs are equal and one shouldn't be promoted or valued over the other And that arguments should be made based on something we can all agree on, not something some people with a specific set of spiritual beliefs can“ There is Nothing We All Agree on. That is Why people Debate Things. And Materialist Assumptions do Not Really Find us in Universal Agreement Either. I Agree more with Har Krishnas I Talked To than I do Atheists who Push Secularism. People of Diverse Religions can Debate Topics and Don;t have to Embrace Cultural Atheistic Secular Humanism and a Materialist Perspective to do so. What You Don't Understand is, Your secularism carries its Own assumptions about ow the World works and What a Society Should and should not be like and Allow and Disallow, and Your Secularism is Not going to End Division in Society, it is Causing it. This is Unworkable. “Sorry if I came like that, I'm not anti-religion or anti-theist or anything like that, I'm completely neutral when it comes to religion in the political sphere” That is Not really Possible. “I don't assume anything, I'm not denying one's experience and spiritual beliefs, I just think those beliefs belong to the person and the person only (and can be talked to with other persons belonging to the same religion), and thus shouldn't be used for making policies because we can't argue about what someone's spiritual experience as we can argue about arguments in favor and against” Everyone Bring their personal expensiveness to The Table, and shouldnt; have to Seal off psrt pf Who They are to Be Allowed to make Decisions. Especially since Religious Belief is not just Some Abstract set of Personal Experiences.

When you amend the constitution to ban religion in public schools at the state level that is "disfavoring" religion the "separation of church and state" phrase people use largely goes back to Hugo Blacks quote on the SCOTUS ruling in Everson vs The Board of Education but prior to that ruling the right to read the bible in public schools was respected. Our rights come from God first and foremost the government is merely there to safeguard them and when they stop doing so it is our obligation to replace said government the founding fathers couldn't have made that any clearer.

You didn't have the right to read the Bible in public schools because of the first amendment or in spite of the first amendment? Separation of the church and the state is a secular ideaology long before 1947.

@@someul Yet it doesn't mean what you think it does you can read Jefferson's letters on the matter in full if you beg to differ and hes largely seen as the most secular of the founding fathers. The notion that the "separation of church and state" was what lefties say it is now is laughable and ahistorical. It was to protect the church from the state not the other way around up until Everson vs The Board of Education and the now famous quote from Justice black which again is where modern libs get their understanding of "separation of church and state" from. Up until 1947 it was common to have public school readings from the bible. This specific legislative power was not delegated to the federal government for a purpose and can you tell me what it means when a specific power is not delegated to the federal government ??? Where does that power fall back to ? This was obviously a way to safe guard the church from the state not the other way around LOL if the founding fathers wanted the federal government to have that power they would have delegated it that power but their not doing so shows their intent to protect the church with the enumeration clause giving each state and thus the people to choose how they will be legislated in their state. So the bible belt would have public church schools and the rest of the country probably wouldn't and you can choose which kind of state you'd like to live in by voting or moving.

6. means nothing

the latter is commonly associated with secularism.

Different, certainly not "deeper".

Thanks!

Not when you're on a plane waiting to crash. Then suddenly you realized there's a higher power and hope it will save you.

@abdulhanan8935 this is true.

@@abdulhanan8935 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼 we’ve all got to go sometime. But I don’t believe in anything after death.

If humans are born atheist, how did religion come then? Really low quality comment

Religion and Theism are Not the same Thing, and being an Atheist does not make One Non-Religious. And Really, We are Not All Born Atheists, and Secularism is itself a Religion. Saying The World would be better without Religion is Silly. Its also a Lie to say We Only Follow a Religion based on Geography. That is Clearly not True. And the Irony is, most Atheists are Concentratred in Specific Geographical Locations, notably in Europe or North America. One can easily Argue You are Only an Atheist base don where You were Born., Especially given You Quoted all this Gibberish from an Atheist Website.

You’ve got it!

@@allthingshumanities5328 thnx bro

All these wicked ideas don’t have any solid foundation to preserve their influence and hegemony in people’s minds. That is why the west will either get replaced by a more fundamentalist external force or become more conservative to eradicate these ideas if they want to survive.

Well why is that a bad thing? Why does treating lgbtq people with equal rights, giving women the right over their own bodies and seeing that climate change and covid are threats to society a bad thing? How does having a society where Christian fundamentalist society where individual freedom is taken away and people are persecuted if they aren’t part of Christianity any better? First off what even is the definition of wolf because that word has been thrown so much to just mean, “what I don’t like about society”

@@guyguy7634 abortion is bad and immoral. Pro life or right wingers are correct about the abortion issue. Abortion is wrong because it is murder. A guy on Joe rogan named Babylonbee gave a very good secular argument against abortion

how would you explain objective right and wrong cause that why we believer god is the ordainer of objective morals.

I am

yet people try and try, all the while ignoring their own flaws and inhumane acts

And that's why it's a problem to have religion involve in politics or state affairs and why secularism is a thing

No such thing as Judeo-Christian values. Judaism is not Christianity.

@@miguelatkinsonSecularism is a Religion in its Own Right and Secularists are Not Kno0wn for Tolerance or allowing Freedom or Maximising Freedom.

⁠@@miguelatkinsonIf you remove one religion, another form of religion “secularism” will be in control. That’s what’s happening now in America and look how trash society is 😂. I think the fall away from Christian values and increase in homicides, suicides, domestic terrorism, Marxism, sexually transmitted diseases, other diseases, pedophilia, perverted society, mental health issues, greed, hate, arrogance, lack of love, corruption, theft. But this is all predicted in the word of God.

Cancer is mentioned, so is The Universe, and I am Not sure why Not mentioning something in The Bible is Relevant for Anything.

@@skwills1629 the relevance in the fact that the bible is not a good manual for present life.

@@ingenuity296 - The Bible is The Best Guidance for Life in Any Time Period, and I see No Reason to Beleive Nonsensical and Hateful idiocy from Atheist Who Push Discredited Secularist Ideas that gave us Communism and Fascism. By the way the whole Slavery Nonsense Yoyu Idiotas Spew is Innacurate too, and Christians don;t Push for Slavery because The Bible Teaches THem Not to.

How is secularism an awful idea? It promotes laws and rules based on rationality, instead of authority of religious nutjobs. How is this a bad thing?

@@LeonardLeon Rationality? If that's the case why do republics come up with different ideas of morality and ethics? America and the Soviet union were both rational republics and yet came up with different codes of ethics and morals (often changing them for the benefit of the state). Also morality is not something that should constantly change and the state ends up forcing it's beliefs onto everyone while claiming to protect the people's beliefs. Also the morality stems from the religion of a republics founders not from the state itself.

@@LeonardLeon. As many have theorized, secularism is a myth. Take it out of its abstract state, and its neutrality cannot persist. There is no true separation of church and state. Secular progressivism merely replaces less materialistic systems with a brand new hegemonic religion. We are starting to see the results of that now, and the results are anything but pretty. I don’t have any idea what actually WILL work to produce a tolerant society, but this ain’t it!

@@cfroi08this is a problem with religion too just because religion claims it’s morals are absolute doesn’t mean they actually are as evidenced by history, what makes purely secular moral justification marginally better is the fact that said justification are actually observable and aren’t based on purely abstract ideas about virtue and being pure

@@enzoarayamorales7220 There's no such thing as purely abstract or purely rational. Spartans thought throwing deformed babies off of a cliff was purely rational. Early Roman Christians and Christians to this day adopt unwanted babies left to die. Indeed if one is purely rational and abstract there is no need to help those who are objectively inferior to us. As far as the exceptions to morality in Christianity, it is always condemned by The Church and never the State.

That's bad bait

Right. That is WHy Secularism leads to Tyranny and Wastral Lives.

We’ll explain why America is becoming more immoral, violent and corrupt as we have moved into a secular system?

Sane enough to churn deluded people like you thinking you hold the power on yourself. You wouldn't even know where, when and how you die. Let alone stop it.

What exactly is the "God delusion"? Why did you capitalize god if you don't believe in a god as a supreme being? It's like capitalizing "truth" if you don't believe there is a universal truth. I'd research the perennial philosophy before you can claim to understand the belief in a universal being. I'd say that anti-theism is the poison and is most often linked to ignorance (limited understanding). I don't like when any person claims to be knowledgeable about religion when they only understand one aspect of it. Same goes for theologists-- theology is the study of religion, and a theologist who only understands one religion shouldn't be claiming the title.

I see the opposite.

@@EmperorofChinaItwillgrowlarger Consider the position of power of one religion which you do not practice holding influence over government. Would your opinion be protected or squandered? Secularism provides equal protections for both parties to choose to either be religious or not without enforcing one view onto the other. You’d be free to practice instead of forced to obey the dominant religion in charge.

Secularism doesn't necessarily lead to a more peaceful and religiously tolerant society

I disagree look we’re we at at a secular society while is a good thing in politics it’s crashing the human spirit with libertinage and shallow ideas ..

@@FrozenSpector - Why don't You Imagine a Secular Society where Religion is Suppressed in the Name of Freedom, Tolerance, and Safety? By the way it is Not True that By Defini9tion Religion is Antethetical to Freedom and Would Dominate Others. There is No Reason to Think This. And considering what Peter Boghossian and Steven Pinker and Yuval Noah Hararim Say, such as Demanding if Religious Values Conflict with Religious Values The Religious Must set aside their Religion in the Name of Secularism, it Really doesn't Strike Me as Freedom. It Looks like Forced Compliance and Mandatory Obedience to the Religion Of Secularism.

So, do you agree with natural law theory? Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle were very big on it.

Do you hold these beliefs?

​@@eriksucioboy686aham bhramasmi. Look it up

That's why we should call it as "Sickularism" or " Sickfellow ism"😀

So true!

Nah Christopher Hitchens speaks nonsense

@@jonjonboi3701------‐- 🐩💨

Cope

The Joke is You Quote Hitchens like a Christian would The Bible and pretend You have No Religion.