Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Corwin · 02-14-2002, 02:13 PM

Shall I wrap this up, cut through the crap, and make it all very simple?

Why bash Christians?

Because you're just so DAMNED amusing, and everybody needs a hobby. Right?

-Corwin

Deputy42 · 02-14-2002, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
I said:

When everyone has dispensed with the attitudes you've expressed on this thread.

Deputy Dawg replied:

thats bullshit, especially coming from those who profess free speech and thought. apparently you are equally as dogmatic and inflexible as a christian....be careful

I really don't see how this follows from my comment. If you think my comment is "bullshit," you need to give some reason for it. You have every right to your opinion, of course. However, when someone expresses opinions that are racist/sexist, even if clouded in religious or other rhetoric, I feel it's my duty to speak out against them. There are, quite simply, some "opinions" which we'd be better off without as a species.

to attack christianity on the grounds of its doctrinal intolerance and then turn around and say that there are thoughts and opinions what we are better off without as a species, you tend to become a lot like that which you criticize.

i'm just attempting to show that your views arent that far apart. is it really that hard to see?

professing "free thought" is easy and popular. however few take it to its extreme, and even fewer live by its dictates.

lpetrich · 02-14-2002, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deputy42:

according to genesis, man came first, in the image of god, then came eve out of the rib of adam. patriarchal, but again that tradition has always been that way.

However, Genesis 1 states that both sexes were created at the same time, in the likeness of Ol' Mr. G. -- and created after the land animals.

Genesis 2, however, has the order: first man (Adam), then the land animals, then the first woman (Eve).

Also, in G1, God creates by commanding that something is to happen, creates step-by-step, and is very happy with what he had created. While in G2, God creates in a more physical fashion, has to fix his creation as he goes, and must certainly be exasperated with his favorite creations at the end of that story.

Thus, G1 and G2 are best understood as two separate stories.

Deputy42 · 02-14-2002, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
I for one, don't "take a stance against" or "attack" christians. I do, however, stand against what I perceive as harmful aspects of christianity (or any other worldview), for example, the subjugation of women imposed by (at least some of) christianity and other religions.

d-first i think you must admit that atheism is a worldview. second, the criteria used to critize other world views also apply to your worldview.

d-the mere subject of "subjugation of women" is complex. you must make certain mental contructs and have specific mental maxims. what you call subjugation of women taken in a different context and time could just we "the way things are". i'm surprised you don't see this.

d-were we to engage in a systematic enumeration of your beliefs as an atheist, i believe that the very same criticisms you apply to christianity would apply equally as well to your worldview.

And name for me what "mental prejudices and evils" I've expressed here.

d-christians must make certain mental formulations in order to follow. you in the same way must also make formulations of the same sort to apply your epistemology and morality. what is thought bad in one generation, is the norm in another generation, and vice versa. i guess this borders on cultural relativism.

if you are a woman you wouldnt understand. you asked for a state that only a man would understand. its sort of a catch 22

??? Once again, you've lost me. I'll reiterate: there are no emotions experienced by a woman that a man can't also experience, and vice versa.

the very one emotion that a WOMAN cannot experience is being a MAN. in order to experience being a MAN, the person in question must be a MAN. a WOMAN cannot at the same time be both WOMAN and MAN. therefore there is one emotion women cannot experience that men can.
[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

Deputy42 · 02-14-2002, 02:36 PM

ip-

i'm sure you know that chronologically g2 comes during the 5th day of creation. g1 is about all seven days. g2 is more like a clarification and a more detailed story about g1.

Queen of Swords · 02-14-2002, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deputy42:
the problem with mandating equality is the implementation of the dogma. yes dogma thats what it is.

From <a href="http://www.m-w.com" target="_blank">the Merriam-Webster Online</a> :

Main Entry: dog�ma
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

I will assume you don't refer to definition 2. Therefore, we are dealing with definition 1. Please refer specifically to what you believe is a "dogma" and why you see it as a dogma, not a fact.

Quote:

absolutely, i think any woman can have much to teach.

Then you disagree with Paul's statement that, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to be silent"?

Quote:

the differences between men and women are more dramatic than you lead on. different hormones trigger different responses to stimuli, casue different emotional states, humans....but different.

Please provide references that 1. "different hormones (what hormones, specifically?) cause "different" emotional states (what emotions, specifically?) that result in men and women having different behavior patterns. Your constant repetition of the word "different" is vague in the extreme.

Quote:

additionally, with regards to the workplace. homogenizing men and women in the workplace requires an equally sterile, unnatural, and objective workplace......again interesting.

1. You find "sterility" to be objective and interesting?
2. So it's unnatural to have men and women working together? Guess what, it's also "unnatural" to insert a pacemaker or have a blood transfusion, because that sure doesn't happen in nature. And what about driving a car or using a computer? I sure hope you don't do any of those unnatural things.
3. Are you even aware of the meanings of the words you use?

Quote:

i think it would be dangerous to say that people have a specific ergon because it objectivies the subject.

What is an ergon and what is the meaning of "objectivies"?

Quote:

i dont have time here to treat the topic properly. for this reason i refrain from proclaiming gender roles.

But you just did that by saying men were meant to be teachers and leaders because the god of your religion is kinda-sorta male.

Quote:

regarding role models.....
i think you will agree that while a woman can do perform many of the same tasks that a male role model would, a man in that role would be more desirable. two people being otherwise equal, a man would function as a male role model better than a woman.

Could you tell me specifically what a male rode model can give a child that a female role model cannot give - or vice versa? Note : I'm not disagreeing with you here, but you appear to be so confused (and confusing) about what you believe that I'd like you to be as specific as possible.

Quote:

the more beautiful the mystery, the more paradoxical need be the language used to express it.

No. Science is beautiful and mysterious, and the language of science is anything but "paradoxical".

Quote:

arbitrary symbology, why debate it?...

Why even bring it up, if you're not prepared to debate it?

Quote:

metphor being unscientific....
i hate to tell you science is just as arbitrary and just another mode of thought like everything else you decry here.

That's right. Next time you're on top of a tall building, jump off saying, "Gravity is arbitrary!"

Quote:

does science lead to wisdom and understanding?

Understanding, yes. Define wisdom.

Quote:

i would say science is your religion.

Considering that you also say, "Man sows the seed, woman incubates it", if you said the sky was blue I would open the window and look outside.

Quote:

paul the woman basher.....
the problem with your assesment here i think lies in your apparent conviction of the supremacy of your view. no matter how much you try to escape it, you still view st paul and early christians ethnocentrically.

If Paul was writing his thoughts that would be one thing. He was supposed to be inspired by a god. Now if you want to claim that your god is bound by the constraints of a patriarchal culture, or that at heart your god is a misogynist, and that is why he inspired Paul to discriminate against women, that would be different.

Quote:

tsk tsk, i expected so much more.

<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> for you.

Corwin · 02-14-2002, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deputy42:
ip-

i'm sure you know that chronologically g2 comes during the 5th day of creation. g1 is about all seven days. g2 is more like a clarification and a more detailed story about g1.

Heard this one before.... problem is, it's nothing more than a rationalization.... and isn't actually true. The two stories are quite specific, and mutually exclusive.

lpetrich · 02-14-2002, 02:48 PM

However, in G1, Mr. G. was so happy with what he had done that he decides to take a day off. That would not be very apparent from G2, however.

Also, there is this odd comment, presumably from Deputy42:

Quote:

i've seen a million pages decrying the energy industries cover up of alternative fuel. the introduction of a car that runs on water in the 1980's while seeming totally positive, would have been disasterous. again sometimes the ears aren't ready for the message.

First, that water-powered car can only be called one thing: physically impossible. It's just like a perpetual motion machine that delivers usable energy. If Deputy42 or anyone else here disagrees, let them provide a counterexample, or at least a theoretical reason why a counterexample can possibly exist.

As to "not being ready for a message", that is absurd. If a message is supposed to be a universal one, then there is no reason why it cannot be revealed to everybody. And directly imprinted on everybody's consciousness. And composed in a fashion that is as unambiguous as possible.

That way, it will never be mistranslated or corrupted in transmission, and misunderstanding it would be *very* difficult.

Corwin · 02-14-2002, 02:52 PM

Water powered vehicles aren't actually impossible, they're just difficult to implement. (And do actually have to be refueled. That's what prevents them from being 'perpetual motion' machines.)

The water powered car is an old urban legend.... the auto manufacturers have been working on the problem for a while, but in general they haven't even really gotten to the prototype stage. (It would be a HUGE marketing coup for them to be able to pull it off.... but as I said... while it's possible in theory it ain't easy....)

hezekiah jones · 02-14-2002, 02:53 PM

Any chance of Johnny Dep getting around to supporting his assertion that the Buybull was "written" 4,000 years ago, and is therefore not "archaic"?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-14-2002, 02:13 PM	#101
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Shall I wrap this up, cut through the crap, and make it all very simple? Why bash Christians? Because you're just so DAMNED amusing, and everybody needs a hobby. Right? -Corwin

02-14-2002, 02:36 PM	#105
Deputy42 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: pittsburgh Posts: 99	ip- i'm sure you know that chronologically g2 comes during the 5th day of creation. g1 is about all seven days. g2 is more like a clarification and a more detailed story about g1.

02-14-2002, 02:52 PM	#109
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Water powered vehicles aren't actually impossible, they're just difficult to implement. (And do actually have to be refueled. That's what prevents them from being 'perpetual motion' machines.) The water powered car is an old urban legend.... the auto manufacturers have been working on the problem for a while, but in general they haven't even really gotten to the prototype stage. (It would be a HUGE marketing coup for them to be able to pull it off.... but as I said... while it's possible in theory it ain't easy....)

02-14-2002, 02:53 PM	#110
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Any chance of Johnny Dep getting around to supporting his assertion that the Buybull was "written" 4,000 years ago, and is therefore not "archaic"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.