By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HappySqurriel on 20 July 2011
Edit Thread
Rath said:
HappySqurriel said:
 


Atheism is still a religion and is therefore still protected under "Freedom of Religion" ...

Agnosticism could actually be seen as a lack of religion though because, unlike other religions (including atheism), agnosticism does not require an individual to hold beliefs in the absense of any proof.


Atheism is not a religion and it is very odd that you would claim that it is. It kind of indicates an ignorance of the meaning of the word religion. To be a religion requires essentially requires a form of dogmatic beliefs and a set of ritual practices. Atheism has neither of these, to be an atheist requires only the lack of a belief in a God or Gods, and as such includes religions (with dogma and rituals) such as Buddhism that do not have any deity.

Agnosticism is also not a religion but can be part of a religion. You can be a Christian agnostic if you believe in Christianity but you do not believe that God can ever be proven or known.

HappySqurriel said:
I would use the term "progressive" rather than "liberal" because they reduced the rights of individuals through "hate-speech" and gun control laws to protect the "public good"; and it was the resentment produced by, or unintended use of, these laws which made it possible for a fascist nation to be formed from a "progressive" nation.

 

You have to be kidding me. So it wasn't resentment over the Treaty of Versailles, long brewing Anti-Semetism and the Great Depression that lead to the rise of the Nazi party. It was gun-control and hate speech laws. That's just a joke.

Religion requires the irrational belief in something in the absence of evidence or proof ... It is impossible to provide evidence for or proof of the non-existance of anything (including a god) therefore Atheism is inherantly a religion based on the irrational belief in the non-existance of god without evidence or proof.

Being non-religious implies that you're agnostic, but (you're correct) being agnostic does not necessarily mean you're non-religious.

 

As for my comment on the rise of fascism in Germany, I didn't imply that the surpression of rights drove the rise of the Nazi party or even that they were the main factors but only someone who was ignorant to history would claim that these laws didn't contribute to their rise to power. You can not surpress resentment to a group of people by making it illegal because it eliminates open debate, and in the absense of open debate you ensure that people will only hear one side of an issue; and that can be the horribly slanted view that you were trying to ban in the first place. Beyond that, a government being afraid of the citizens is called liberty, citizens being afraid of their government is called tyrany, and by disarming your people and creating laws to silence them you eliminate the "tools" the public has to "harm" a government.