(February 3, 2016 at 1:56 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: (February 3, 2016 at 1:18 am)MTL Wrote: it might also be that Evie does not share my personal view
that all participants in religion are responsible for the perpetration of the existence of religion.
(Emphasis mine.)
How do you define responsible, in this case?
Well first of all, Religion is more than mere Belief.
If people have a belief structure about God and keep it to themselves,
(and as long as their beliefs do not motivate them to endeavor to control, oppress, or hurt others)
then I don't really care what a person's BELIEFS are.
(It is still possible that even if they do NOT proselytize that belief to others,
that their beliefs could motivate them to harm others, in some capacity)
But RELIGION, by contrast, often, if not usually,
involves the imperative of social promotion of that belief structure, in one way or another;
....for instance, raising one's children in that belief structure,
passing off that belief structure as fact, to others, instead of calling it mere theory,
and indeed even using that belief structure as an unassailable justification for passing laws in a country.
(and again, I acknowledge that some Religions are more noxious than others, in their structure).
Having acknowledged that Religion takes a proactive stance, in most instances,
in these ways,
Yes, I hold people responsible, for their personal adult choice to participate in a Religion.
I have to be responsible for my choices....why don't they?
I have to be responsible for my integrity...why don't they?
Something about Religion didn't sit right with me,
and I took DECADES of trouble and pain to apply my brain to the problem,
with no help and no guidance,
and caused enormous upset to my family in the process,
lost relationships with people dear to me,
and suffered through depression and suicidal thoughts,
...all to arrive at a point that I finally felt had integrity.
(And, most ironically, if there IS a God out there somewhere,
I feel that in my dogged pursuit of painful Truth,
I actually served Him better, for all my challenging of Religion,
than most Theists ever do;
because they serve their RELIGION,
more than they are willing to consider an uncomfortable TRUTH...
...all the while claiming that they believe GOD and TRUTH are synonymous,
in the same breath).
I had an argument like this not long ago;
And I tried to illustrate that holding someone responsible for perpetuating religion by being a member of it,
and therefore perpetuating its potential for perversion and harm,
is not quite the same thing as holding all members of a religion responsible for the violent acts of other members.
I maintain this.
A religion might be totally non-violent, for instance, in its entire history,
and even in its Holy Writ;
but because religion is always subject to interpretation and translation,
and because, unlike politics, it is always said to be the unassailable and mysterious Word of God,
it is dangerous.
Evie observed recently that some untrue beliefs are not dangerous.
I would agree.
But as I've pointed out,
RELIGION is not merely BELIEF.
RELIGION involves dogma, and in one way or another, perpetuation.
So while some untrue
beliefs are not dangerous,
IMO, ALL
RELIGION IS DANGEROUS.
Quote:It seems to me like you're saying you do think you're both antitheists, but the degree to which you are such differs. Would that be a correct assessment of what you are saying?
Well, again, it comes back to how closely you want to adhere to some current dictionary definition.
By the definitions I've read here, I wouldn't qualify as a true "Anti-Theist", either...
(or perhaps I should say "Anti-Theismist" so as to make the distinction
that it is NOT the actual THEISTS I hate, but their THEISM)
...because I'm not opposed to someone cherishing the belief that God exists, by itself;
it is the RELIGION, the DOGMA, that I take issue with.
But while I acknowledge that definitions count,
I would also be quick to point out that many definitions are not satisfactory.
For instance, the Oxford English Dictionary currently defines "faith" as follows (in part):
Quote:1 Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof
2 A particular religion: [i]the Christian faith[/i]
....and I completely disagree with that definition; I find it dangerously inaccurate.
To me, it is possible to have Faith in God, without Religion, at all;
and the two terms should certainly never be used interchangeably,
although they constantly are.
So, an Anti-Theist being, by necessity of the offered definition,
not merely one who opposes Religion,
but also one who essentially opposes the idea that the existence of God is at all feasible,
or objects to anyone else believing in god,
...then I am not an Anti-Theist.
What I am very much against is systematic Religion:
perpetuated, passed off as fact, unassailable,
unproven in its beliefs...
...whether it is a violent Religion, or not.
But if someone simply believes in God, without any dogmatic gobbledegoop attached to that belief,
then I don't give a shit.
