Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Magical Realist, Aug 22, 2014.
Are you still wearing those god goggles? That might explain it.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Interesting statement - care to explain it in any fashion resembling a coherent thought, or is it meant as a simple jab and nothing more?
God Goggles - Can you provide a definition or meaning?
Are you implying that, because of my Religious affiliation, I view women "differently"?
Alright Trooper, I'm going to assume, given that nearly two days have passed without further reply (despite you having been on the site since then) that you are unable to clarify or otherwise defend your statement, and as such, I accept your implied retraction.
I'm not only an atheist. I'm an antitheist. Women are more religious than men. Why is that, Kitt?
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
(The church) prepared as a bride adorned for her husband…WTF!
Oh my god! Can one believe that such things are still believed? :bugeye:
How in the hell can women define themselves through religion, through submission to a masculine god, the ultimate bad ass, the ultimate alpha male? Well, codependents need acceptance to the point where they martyr themselves. You see...victimhood is power. Ya, I think they like it. It glorifies their weaknesses.
They give themselves airs, even when they—give themselves.—Nietzsche
Woman, even more than man, is a fetich worshipper, and though her idols may change, she is ever on her knees, ever holding up her hands, ever blind to the fact that her god has feet of clay. Thus woman has been the greatest supporter of all deities from time immemorial.
Religion, especially the Christian religion, has condemned woman to the life of an inferior, a slave. It has thwarted her nature and fettered her soul, yet the Christian religion has no greater supporter, none more devout, than woman. Indeed, it is safe to say that religion would have long ceased to be a factor in the lives of the people, if it were not for the support it receives from woman. The most ardent churchworkers, the most tireless missionaries the world over, are women, always sacrificing on the altar of the gods that have chained her spirit and enslaved her body.—Emma Goldman
Hm. That was very interesting, Trooper. I thankee.
Concession accepted then.
Ah, so not only do you not believe in a religion (which is perfectly fine), you actually actively seek to oppose religion... interesting. Pray tell, do you wish to abscond with any other basic rights while you are at it? Perhaps the freedom of speech or freedom of press? Maybe the right to a "fair and speedy trial"? Or is it the first amendment specifically you wish to oppose?
Do I need to remind you what the First Amendment ensures? Of one of the very reasons the USA came to be: the escape from Religious Persecution
First, I would like to see an actual statistic for this.
Second, if it is true, it is simple: Women tend to be a little more passionate than men. Men today are brought up to be "manly" and to "be strong and rely on only themselves" and blah blah blah... outward expressions of religion would be going against this "macho" thing we seem to think all men should abide by.
You are grossly misquoting Matthew chapter 5, verse 5:
which is one of the Beatitudes, also known as the "Sermon on the Mount". If you take it from the multitude of scholars and philosophers who have analyzed this, you will see it refers not to women, but to the humble:
Then again, Matthew Henry also summarized the creation of woman:
Indeed, it may seem that way, especially when your primary source is one who professes the ideals of the "death of God", among others. Then again, perspective bias IS a rather common thing.
An interesting quote from Emma Goldman's Womens Suffrage... an Anarchist and Atheist who advocated murder and violent, armed revolution to "get what she wanted"... her outlook is unsurprising when you look at her upbringing...
Her school years are no better...
So... she was unable to pursue one of her passions because of her religion teacher... she could not actively pursue another because her father (an Orthodox Jew) was an asshole and didn't feel it was "a womans place" to do so... and then she was raped.
If she is your role model in all this... well... actually, that would explain a lot.
It's a bit less cut and dried than that - Most of the religious colonies were formed by people who were not actually persecuted in their home countries, but rather prevented from persecuting others. They established colonies in the wilderness in order to have entire towns subject to their religious edicts, with their religion written into the law and enforced by the police. They were establishing, not escaping, religious persecution.
The First Amendment was included in part to prevent these people from abusing other US citizens, especially by gaining national political power.
Indeed, but some people fled the Eurasia area to escape that same persecution as well. The need for tolerance of religion is a founding principle of this country... one that has seemingly fallen by the wayside in recent years, especially with regards to Muslim and other middle-eastern religious beliefs.
Yep, I believe that the influence of churches and religious belief is harmful.
Your freedom of religion is a privilege, but it does not mean that you’re privileged, or exempt from mockery. Keep in mind that there is no single subject matter that should be excluded from scrutiny. Challenging a belief is not an act of intolerance. I’m not violating anyone’s rights. People disagree all the time. The 'live and let' approach may sound good but in excess it can be dangerous. Critical inquiry should be encouraged because critical thinking is in necessary in all aspects of life. Atheists are concerned and their concerns shouldn't be discouraged by branding them with religious intolerance. There are things that should be tolerated and many, many things that should not be tolerated.
Love the believer, hate the belief.
Scrutiny and mockery are not one and the same, nor are they interchangeable; much the same way, new ideas and pseudo-scientific woo-woo are not the same.
I am not of the belief that atheists are "religiously intolerant", or at least, they do not need to be. But again... atheist =/= anti-theist.
If it be true, I find it to be a very shallow mistake.
I find this troubling for our species but not surprising. It effectively says the human attraction mechanism is set in reverse, against itself. Up is down, down is up.
I have my own hypothesis that human individuals are evolutionarily predisposed and, partly driven by cultural choices, to get on each others nerves and drive each other away eventually, unless those predispositions are consciously overridden.
It makes me very cynical about relationships.
Be cynical then. I once heard a Catholic priest in Las Vegas quip that marriage is like a deck of cards. It starts with two hearts and a diamond, and ends with a club and a spade.
Separate names with a comma.