Atheist movie coming out in New York and Los Angeles

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That may be so, but how does making bad and/or patronising films help matters from your point of view? Just throwing that out there, you don't have to reply with a wall of text.

Shhhh! If you get people thinking that way, Michael Moore will be broke and have to go to Cuba when he needs free health care.  Cuba doesn't need its problems made worse.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Dibble, even if one were to accept the idea that religion in general is a problem, you haven't shown that secularism in general or atheism in particular are solutions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Dibble, even if one were to accept the idea that religion in general is a problem, you haven't shown that secularism in general or atheism in particular are solutions.

I think it's well demonstrated by history that living conditions and respect for human rights tend to be better in secular nations that don't try to force a religion or ideology down the throat of their populace when compared to those that do try that. Or am I missing something?

You haven't shown that secular societies are less apt to force their beliefs upon others than religious societies are.  There are plenty of examples to be found in history of religious societies that are tolerant and of secular societies that are intolerant.  Nor do I see any evidence that when it comes to intolerant societies that there is any noticeable difference in the methods that have been used to be intolerant.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think we are using secular in different ways.  You are focusing upon "government" and I focusing upon "society"  For example, the United States has had a secular government for some time now, but it is still a religious society, and likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future.

But even considering just governmental forms and not the broader society, considering that the dominant forms of secular government in history have been dictatorships and oligarchies, I'd say that your case is not proven.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But even considering just governmental forms and not the broader society, considering that the dominant forms of secular government in history have been dictatorships and oligarchies, I'd say that your case is not proven.

And again, I note the qualifier that includes ideology. Secularism is but one piece of the puzzle. Lack of the government trying to force a religion on you is helpful, but I don't think I claimed it to be everything.

But you still haven't shown that the difference between secularism and religiosity has anything to do with how intolerant a government or society will be of other belief systems.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, I'm disagreeing that secular societies are better than religious ones.  Not that there aren't some secular societies that are better than some religious ones.

In particular, I disagree with your apparent premise that secular societies tend to be more tolerant than religious ones.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, I'm disagreeing that secular societies are better than religious ones.

By definition that means you support (using modern definitions) societies based on religious (usually one religion) principles enshrined in law over secular societies that do not have religiously inspired law.

So Iran over Denmark. Are you quite sure?

Not all.  I'm denying that it has been shown that there is an order relationship for betterness based on degree of religiousity, not that it is the reverse.  Are some secular societies better some religious ones yes, but ...

So North Korea over Bhutan.  Are you quite sure?

Indeed, even North Korea over Iran.  Are you really quite sure?