Isn't freedom of religion an inherently atheistic idea?

Religion should be outlawed its a cancer on humanity.
.t atheist

>>1453513
It's one of those ideas meant to keep the "all against all" aspect of humanity at bay.

>>1453513
Secularism =/= Atheism, nignog.

Unless of course, your government doesn't believe in that, but still one finds countries with state religions forcing to cut corners like the hypocrites they are.

File: Dragon Torque.png (53KB, 230x173px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 230x173px

>>1453513
> you think it's totally, absolutely true
Why would you? If Gods are real it is perfectly reasonable to think that there are some things, that are simply not known and other that could change once on a while because of divine acts.
> Wouldn't you want every other religion banned from your territory, your country?
Because you want Gods of others to be mad at you or some shit like that? If anything, your idea that there can only be one god or true religion is monotheistic one and monotheism intellectually dishonest as it is easy to show plenty of logical paradoxes that exist one on that system.

>>1453513
>Isn't freedom of religion an inherently atheistic idea?

Yes, basically. The philosophy of "do whatever I want, as long as it doesn't hurt you." is also atheistic

>>1453513
Freedom of religion came about after endless wars of religion devastated Europe and consumed the most bigoted and irrational zealots, leaving more pragmatic men to discuss compromises.

It's like claiming the UN and the European project must be the creations of rootless cosmopolitans because true patriots would want their country to destroy and dominate all the others out of chauvinism. But it's just the natural reaction to two devastating world wars.

Of course, atheists do find freedom of religion extremely suited to their interests and sensibilities, much like rootless cosmopolitans find the dissolution of borders convenient.

>>1453513
>Isn't freedom of religion an inherently atheistic idea?
No. Why would atheists come up with the idea that the freedom to worship God as you please being important?

>>1453553
It can also be theocratic.

File: 769.jpg (208KB, 500x643px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 500x643px

I cover myself with the blood of Jesus Christ. I post our lady of 4chan.

The whole of religion is a mess. It needs to be reordered by wise people that think logically. Its all to divided.

>>1453560
Nah. The concept of political equality, freedom of choice, etc are atheistic in nature

>>1453513

>Isn't freedom of religion an inherently atheistic idea?

No, in fact its a Catholic one


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcuin
"In this role as adviser, he tackled the emperor over his policy of forcing pagans to be baptised on pain of death, arguing, "Faith is a free act of the will, not a forced act. We must appeal to the conscience, not compel it by violence. You can force people to be baptised, but you cannot force them to believe." His arguments seem to have prevailed – Charlemagne abolished the death penalty for paganism in 797"

>>1453513
Separation of church and state isn't protecting the state from the church, it's protecting the church from the state.

>>1453564
No, basically judging other religions to be false is a lot more atheistic. For the percentage of that religion. Because there is only one God as the meaning of the OP-post>>1453513

The concept of political equality, freedom of choice, etc are some true meanings of religion. But the division in religion spoils every good thing

>>1453553
What the fuck I hate freedom now!

>>1453513
> Isn't freedom of religion an inherently atheistic idea?
It is just pluralistic idea and your "devout believer" isn't a pluralistic type of person. Monotheism isn't very pluralistic by its nature, anyway. There could exist pluralistic religions without forced dogma so they would be able to accepts point of view of the others and their believes. Some atheists also can be more close to "devout believer" type and prefer to just ban all religions and shit on freedom of will.

>>1453564
No, it can still be theistic as long as the religion in question is not dogmatic.

>>1453635
This. Dogmatic religions are cancer.

>>1453586
Why would anyone hate freedom? Like in free money, free sax, free living. This can include ordinances, but why wouldn't this be ok?

So why hate freedom?

I'm nor an atheist anyway

>>1453648
"What the fuck? I hate ____ now!" is a meme response, if you did not know.

>>1453635
It doesn't even need to be that. In fact, Dogmatic religions are more inclined towards it because they have more understandable boundaries, and can easily understand the clear divisions of religious conscience.

You realize freedom of conscience was developed in Christian societies, right?

The religion thing is just insane. It needs pragmatically logically realistic really working

And all that

There is a spiritual world and a God. If I don't say this my post sort of fails.

How confirming it needs all that

Look what this is saying. Still its like noone is on it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZwJDPaWsaA

>>1453513
Its such sort of madness that can't really exceed what a hobby costs. It is so drawing in at times to some. How is this not a possible effect of irrealistic things in a world in which this too would be a-ok?

>>1453513
I feel that you are right. Throughout history, people have disagreed with each other over religious beliefs. These disagreements can lead to us-versus-them mentalities, which can even escalate to war and other conflicts.

As a religious man myself, I can even admit that our culture today has been heavily influenced by those choosing not to take any sides, because they don't believe in those sides.

There are many religious people today who have had their minds expanded to become more tolerant toward other religions and people of other religious beliefs due to intervention of those who do not believe in either of them, yet still believe they have a right to practice them.

These atheistic beliefs are not completely without fault though, as some don't take a neutral stance and instead wish to do away with or lessen the religious freedoms of others, such as banning of prayer in schools, simply as they are not comfortable with those beliefs being practiced around them, ironic considering the above paragraphs.

Let me know what you think on this.

The Republic of Venice was extremely religious and yet it had a separate church and state since it began trading up and down the Eastern Mediterranean.

Freedom of religion isn't a relevant concept in the context of religions that don't make exclusive claims to the truth or aren't based on orthodoxy.