The emotional responses are great.
Well let's define hatred.
1 : extreme dislike or disgust : hate
Note common definition 2 from webster bolding by me
2 : ill will or resentment that is usually mutual : prejudiced hostility or animosity
Why is it usually mutual? Isn't resentment at something regarded as a wrong, insult, or injury? It doesn't have to be that they individually have been hurt by religion. You are a prime example. You were not born into religion, yet a self proclaimed anti-theist. So I assume your resentment is based on the value/ lack of in the institution to society. I'm entirely certain that anti-theism was originally envisioned as a bulwark to that trend
, however it only goes to show how intolerance and hatred breed mutual hatred.
"feed fuel to the fire" is both...
A; an implication of their having been polluted...but by what? Hate
and
B; an instance of religion having influenced me to make such an implication in the first place.
Water does try and find it's level. But continuing to add speed and volume is what carves canyons over time. Now I know you're trying to topple the dam that is religion, and I'm trying to bulwark the institution. I do so acknowledging it's shortcomings (and working on them from within) and try to uphold it's virtuous aspects. You have not proven that hatred doesn't cause more hatred, only demonstrated that with your emotional pleas. At least I'm trying to build something better.
On preaching hate from the pulpit, support your assertion. Hatred and intolerance can be used to move and motivate people, as is evidenced here, but to my knowledge it doesn't sell as well publicly on a society level. I can't see how a religion espousing hatred, without a theocracy enforcing it, could be successful in that endeavor.
There is no stoning of women which had sex before marriage in modern non-theocratic societies. The fact in theocratic societies there is stoning proves the point that it's relevant. It is also evidence that you can have religious institutions without an enforcing political theocracy and not have that particular tenant, so it's obviously not a universal tenant. That points to a problem with the political regime using theocracy to enforce their beliefs not their religious tenants.
Religion does inform and influence people and that is exactly why it is relevant to people finding comfort. A belief doesn't inform our reality. It's not a one to one relationship, it's a many to one. I am informed by my love of psychology, and philosophy as well as my religious belies and my family and society. These inputs make me feel comforted. Perhaps you don't find comfort in religious doctrines and wish others not to find any comfort in religious doctrines? Why must you, as an anti-theist, feel just in a desire to remove a sense of comfort from those comforted by religion, if they're not proselytizing to you. Even if they were coming to your door and evangelizing every day, how would you still justify a desire to have someone stop believing in something that informs their happiness and comfort in life? If you're solid in what you believe and don't and know why, is there a need for an anti-anything at the individual level? Don't your beliefs stand on their own? Anti-theism isn't just a slam the door in their face thing though. In practice it's just as annoying, intolerant and hateful as what they're professing to be fighting against.
I understand the arguments from annoyance and wasting time. I understand the desire for retribution of a personal wrong. I could even understand retribution at the institutional level for wrongs. My bottom line is if it doesn't really affect your beliefs why would YOU feel justified in limiting or restricting that belief in someone else. I'm all for limiting harmful ACTIONS for a societies sake, but beliefs, not so much.
Take religious no-vaxers for instance. They are entitled to their belief, regardless of how wrong/right I think it is. Schools and daycares are also entitled to limit their children's access to public places because of their actions on that belief. I would even go so far as a public registry or medical bracelets like that of child molesters or asthma sufferers to protect the public.
(December 27, 2018 at 6:19 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:
Well let's define hatred.
1 : extreme dislike or disgust : hate
Note common definition 2 from webster bolding by me
2 : ill will or resentment that is usually mutual : prejudiced hostility or animosity
Why is it usually mutual? Isn't resentment at something regarded as a wrong, insult, or injury? It doesn't have to be that they individually have been hurt by religion. You are a prime example. You were not born into religion, yet a self proclaimed anti-theist. So I assume your resentment is based on the value/ lack of in the institution to society. I'm entirely certain that anti-theism was originally envisioned as a bulwark to that trend
, however it only goes to show how intolerance and hatred breed mutual hatred. "feed fuel to the fire" is both...
A; an implication of their having been polluted...but by what? Hate
and
B; an instance of religion having influenced me to make such an implication in the first place.
Water does try and find it's level. But continuing to add speed and volume is what carves canyons over time. Now I know you're trying to topple the dam that is religion, and I'm trying to bulwark the institution. I do so acknowledging it's shortcomings (and working on them from within) and try to uphold it's virtuous aspects. You have not proven that hatred doesn't cause more hatred, only demonstrated that with your emotional pleas. At least I'm trying to build something better.
On preaching hate from the pulpit, support your assertion. Hatred and intolerance can be used to move and motivate people, as is evidenced here, but to my knowledge it doesn't sell as well publicly on a society level. I can't see how a religion espousing hatred, without a theocracy enforcing it, could be successful in that endeavor.
(December 27, 2018 at 6:51 pm)notimportant1234 Wrote:
There is no stoning of women which had sex before marriage in modern non-theocratic societies. The fact in theocratic societies there is stoning proves the point that it's relevant. It is also evidence that you can have religious institutions without an enforcing political theocracy and not have that particular tenant, so it's obviously not a universal tenant. That points to a problem with the political regime using theocracy to enforce their beliefs not their religious tenants.
Religion does inform and influence people and that is exactly why it is relevant to people finding comfort. A belief doesn't inform our reality. It's not a one to one relationship, it's a many to one. I am informed by my love of psychology, and philosophy as well as my religious belies and my family and society. These inputs make me feel comforted. Perhaps you don't find comfort in religious doctrines and wish others not to find any comfort in religious doctrines? Why must you, as an anti-theist, feel just in a desire to remove a sense of comfort from those comforted by religion, if they're not proselytizing to you. Even if they were coming to your door and evangelizing every day, how would you still justify a desire to have someone stop believing in something that informs their happiness and comfort in life? If you're solid in what you believe and don't and know why, is there a need for an anti-anything at the individual level? Don't your beliefs stand on their own? Anti-theism isn't just a slam the door in their face thing though. In practice it's just as annoying, intolerant and hateful as what they're professing to be fighting against.
I understand the arguments from annoyance and wasting time. I understand the desire for retribution of a personal wrong. I could even understand retribution at the institutional level for wrongs. My bottom line is if it doesn't really affect your beliefs why would YOU feel justified in limiting or restricting that belief in someone else. I'm all for limiting harmful ACTIONS for a societies sake, but beliefs, not so much.
Take religious no-vaxers for instance. They are entitled to their belief, regardless of how wrong/right I think it is. Schools and daycares are also entitled to limit their children's access to public places because of their actions on that belief. I would even go so far as a public registry or medical bracelets like that of child molesters or asthma sufferers to protect the public.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
