Homemaking is Hate?

beliefnet
If I infer correctly you are holding up the following as an example supporting your religion is hate thesis.

A radical feminist quoted:

You know what? She needs to be working on breakfast. She needs to be working on lunch. She needs to be working on dinner. She needs to be working on homeschooling the children. And teaching them, and cleaning, and that’s enough work.  "Pastor Anderson"

For most of human history this was a necessary reality if the human race was to continue.  When child and maternal mortality was in significant double digits women had little choice if they were to get their 2.3 replacement offspring to puberty but to provide for the man who was providing external resources to the family, keeping the home sanitary, feeding the family, and educating the children to be productive citizens of their community. 

As late as the early 20th century my own grandmother had 7 children two of which were stillborn, and died in childbirth with the 7th.  The family was well off and well-educated, so four of the five surviving became productive adults.  The two women although independent, well-educated feminists were still relegated by their society, not their church, to homemaking. The fifth was incapacitated with childhood diseases and became a ward of the family. 

I am not arguing that modern medicine and contraception have not changed the equation and that religion should drag itself into the modern world, but religion is very conservative, and a significant portion of the world population is still locked in the septic, hidden estrus world that is our genetic heritage. 

You may rail from your position of privilege that religion should be changing.  That is what positions of privilege are good for.  I have done my share from my position of privilege, but accusations of hate, misogyny, and bigotry as if that is all there is, are in my opinion counterproductive. 

Judging Religious Beliefs

 beliefnet
I have spent a good part of a fairly long lifetime, studying religions as social systems.  I have come to the conclusion that anyone who chooses to remain in a religion deserves what hesh chooses. It is not my problem as long as it basically stays in the church.  I also have no standing to comment on how they are bringing up their children.  I may deplore it, but it has to stay in my church or lack thereof, as they are not my children. I can only hope that once the children reach their teens they will be exposed to enough other options that they can make an intelligent choice.  They may well decide to stay in the comfort of their church, and once again that is their choice not mine to make or even influence unless I have been chosen as a mentor.  As a humanist (lc"h") I can do no other. 

Is Religion Useful?

beliefnet

I find fundamentalism to be a victimless crime as long as it stays in the community of fundamentalists.  I am not convinced that bringing a child up to fit into herm community is child abuse if the community is large enough to provide for the needs of all in the community.  In the well connected cosmopolitan society in which they are embedded I suspect that they are non-competitive, but that is their problem not the larger society.  Political proselytizing can and should be discouraged politically, but most societies are able to do so long term.  

Other than political activity I have no issues at all with believers in some supernatural focus for their lives.  It provides a prepackaged social and ethical structure that can be at the very least comforting and satisfying, and relieves them from the difficult activity of making sense of being alive and having to die.  If the great mother Goddess or the misanthropic God takes care of all the spiritual needs one can devote ones attention to the social and material needs of living with greater focus.  

I find deconversion activity is useful for the community, but I suspect that SBNR is the reasonable expectation rather than atheism. 

Relationships and Getting Fucked

beliefnet
I think that far too many women hold grudges when personal relationships fail. They, in a sense, remain emotionally attached to the failed relationship. I also think that far too many atheists hold grudges against religion. Even after years of separation, many seem permanently attached to the failed relationship.

What else can one expect from religious misogyny and misanthropy?  God and the man demand a relationship, when in reality all God and the man care about is dominance.  Is it any wonder that one promised a relationship and discovers that all that is happening is that hesh is getting fucked holds a long lasting grudge against the fucker?  And then tells the world to beware of fuckers?

Morality might be defined as warning the world about fuckers.

Music in Religion

beliefnet

I am relatively familiar with Russian Orthodox as well due to my interest in Russian Orthodox music.  The music of religion is particularly useful in understanding the tradition, as it is the major vehicle for the transmission of the emotional basis of the tradition.  One can't really appreciate the terror of the Dies Irae unless one has heard an Italian Requiem.  Either Verdi or Berlioz will impress but many others will do the job.  Then one must go to Mass for the Et Expecto to get back to Jesus.

WEPC, Morality and Humanism

beliefnet

In my opinion, preaching the innate superiority of Western European Protestant Culture as he is doing skirts very close to fascism.amcolph

You realise that you are insulting the majority of atheists who post here, amcolph?  For them, morality is mere fashion, and Twenty-First Century Western Liberal Culture (which is a not-very-developed development of "Western European Protestant Culture") is the zeitgeist which molds their fashion, so it must be "superior".  Thus, for example, they frown on slavery because Western Liberal Culture considers slavery to be "bad"; but in the rest of the world, slavery is the norm. Thus, again, they consider women to be full members of society, equal to men; but in the rest of the world, women are chattels of men.Lavengro

The morality of many of the atheists who post here is humanism which is complete and utter repudiation of the elitist "Western European Protestant Culture" (WEPC).  The WEPC is being dragged, kicking and screaming, to a more humanistic morality. 

Humanists oppose slavery, all forms including wage slavery, as slavery only benefits the fascist elite and the syncophant WEPC priests/preachers/pastors/vuvuzelas who provide God's moral blessing on the fascist elite in exchange for a tithe.  But as one of the elite warns, the pitchforks are coming. Here as well as the rest of the world.  In the immortal Janis Joplin line "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose."

The rest of the world is finding out that women as chattels of men is not working too well as women gain control over their fertility.  Hobby Lobby notwithstanding.  That minimum wage slavery is easy to buy into and an independent nuliparous woman can use it as a springboard to personal fulfillment while working men's egos for pleasure and additional support without a care about hosting some prick's seed.  She may choose to do so but the choice is hers in the US as well as India, China, and much of the western world.  So much for WEPC misogyny.

Belief as Life

Beliefnet

I don't think that problem is a matter of 'religion' at all!   There are some individuals, yes, who DO use religion as a substitute for making their own choices based on their own thought.

But then there are people who will NEVER go against their political party's most idiotic 'talking points'.  And people who insist on defining absolutely EVERY situation according to their political rubric. -  LeahOne

Some believers, and believers come in many varieties, religious, political, ethnic, even local sport team fanatics, have no ability to evaluate their beliefs.  This is attributed by scientists studying the phenomenon to an imbalance in risk of countering belief and accepting it unquestioning.  As a result information contrary to the belief system is not even registered in the brain of the believer.  See The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer for an accessable discussion of this science.  It is well documented for those wishing to check his conclusions.  

Simply, the cost of losing ones major social support group due to shunning as a heretic is so high, relative to the value of intellectual integrity, that the brain rejects without recognition any challenge to the beliefs of the social support group.

Or one might ask 'Does a true atheist put so much effort into attacking religion, as opposed to simply explaining - and defending - atheism?' -   LeahOne

The question for atheists is not as unrelated as it might seem.  There is no belief system or social support group associated with "True atheism" that conditions the brain to trigger either confirmation bias or self-justification bias.  While there are some atheist groups that resemble religions, typically the group conformity imperative is very weak.  Atheists even argue about and with their "Four Horsemen" anti-theists. 

Even on a board like this which attracts atheists who like to discuss religion, "attacks" are not on religion in general, but on specific religious or politico-religious beliefs that strongly affect atheists. There are a few exceptions to add a bit of spice to the board, but you will notice that most of the atheists here attack specific beliefs brought up by theists rather than the religion of the theist promoting those beliefs.  Even for those way out there on the belief irrationality scale are challenged on specific beliefs rather than their religion itself. I find it amusing that a specific religion is challenged here more by the theists participating than the atheists. 

One of the problems for atheists in challenging specific strongly held tenets of belief systems is that the challenge is interpreted by the believing brain as a general challenge to the belief system rather than a challenge to a small and perhaps unimportant part of the belief system.  And the believing brain overreacts to protect the belief system as a whole rather than just the specific challenge.  This is a necessary reaction of the believing brain, as any crack in the belief monolith can have disastrous consequences.  

We have on occasion on beliefnet seen the disastrous effects of an "insignificant crack" in a belief system, and may be seeing it in a creationist who has admitted just recently that God's real world creation may be another source of information to supplement the biblical account.  It will bear watching.  She is quite old, but may still have time to let her intrinsic reason and intelligence take over to reject Creationism for a more reasonable version of Christianity.  She seems to be relatively isolated, so the social support group may not be significant.  

Major cracks in the belief system especially life style choices incompatible with the belief system are obvious and traumatic breaks with family and friends in a tight belief circle, but as these frequently take place in a diverse school setting with other social support groups to replace the church family they are normally successful.   

Genesis 3:16

Beliefnet

DotNotInOz wrote:

The Garden of Eden story is one of the nastiest in the Bible. It was a setup from the get-go.

Somebody wanted to explain why people so often have "grass greener" syndrome, why we have to work, why women have labor pains and, generally speaking, why men get themselves in trouble when they listen to women.

How much you wanna bet a man who liked playing the misogyny card came up with that story?

teilhard wrote:
Every Mythological Story has some Level of "explanatory" Aspect ...

No Doubt MANY Women throughout History have resonated to Genesis 3:16 -- " ...in Pain you shall bring forth Children, yet your Desire shall be for your Husband ... "

Just to refresh your memory as to how this started.  You used the truncated Gen 3:16 to counter(?) or justify the accusation of misogyny.  Incidentally using Bible quotes to justify anything on an atheist board is generally a bad idea.

Nonetheless, linking the undeniable pain inherent in childbirth to the wrath of God and suggesting that women should "resonate" by associating the pain of childbirth with the dominance of the husband, is just what Christine and I have been talking about as one of the horrible exploitive aspects of the Abrahamic religions.  As I noted before Gen 3:16 is the worst verse in the Bible for half of the human population.  And in my opinion for men as well as it justifies abuse of women which degrades men as well as women.  On the other thread you indicated that owning slaves was degrading for slave owners.  Does abusing women cause similar approbation from you and your religious tradition?  It certainly does from my humanist tradition and I would submit from the tradition of Jesus as well.  

Atheists vs Religion, not God

beliefnet
I see the big issue not as atheism vs. God, but atheism vs. religion.  Atheists are in a unique position to separate the two and help people focus on the evils of religion.  Cede them their God(s) they aren't going to give up Big Daddy, but help them see that just because the religion claims God, believers don't have to agree. 

There are two big religious issues that are in the process of changing, but must change from within.  The first is the authoritarian tradition in religions.  God, the hierarchy, the pastors must be obeyed in every way, and the associated transfer of this authority to secular powers.   The second is the incompatibility of faith and learning, especially learning for all people.  Religions know that learning destroys faith and therefore do all they can to impede learning.  

About all an atheist can do to help is to show that learning has intrinsic value and promote it always,  the internet is a powerful tool for this, and to the extent possible prevent politico/religious interference in the learning process. 

As for the authoritarian issue, I suspect atheists can usefully abandon their own authoritarian issues, and recognize and work with those religious groups that are trying to be free.  I don't care if they believe in God or not, as long as they are challenging their faith traditions of authority.  There are many Christians who are going back to the Synoptics and Jesus' personal view of God and Jesus' concern for his neighbors, all of them.  I view them as fellow travelers on the anti-religion path, and encourage them and respect their God beliefs.  As many here know I promote the Jefferson Bible to all and sundry believers and others for its basic humanism.  They can keep their God intact, and focus on the message of Jesus, not as God but as God's exemplar on earth.  It is a powerful anti-religion book, which is why I am sure Jefferson extracted it from Religion's Bible as an important part of his presidency. 

An ex-UU none on the blue road.

UUWorld/Morales/comment

As an ex-UU none who studied religion and spirituality at the university and beyond at All Souls in NYC and later beyond UU I have a couple of suggestions.
1. Take our spirituality seriously. You lost a promising UU spiritual leader (it wasn't me) by banning an atheist from a God discussion group at a UU Church. Keep in mind that spirituality is a human attribute that has nothing at all to do with God or religion.
2, You may keep and use the God meme, as long as it is clear that it is a spiritual learning meme rather than something to pray at or worship. You can even still pray if it is clear that prayer is a way to focus thinking usefully.
As an aside, not a suggestion, we all have our own social and political action vehicles that we choose for ourselves. Social pressure to conform to particular social values is Katy, bar the door! for most of us even if we agree with them. 

I love the scene of Ben and Elaine barring the door with a cross in The Graduate.  I have  been tempted frequently as I left a UU church for good, prevented only by not being able to find a cross. 

The Gish Gallop

beliefnet

As I demonstrated earlier in this thread, all the founders of the major branches of science were Christians, modern hospitals were invented by Christians, Christians ended slavery in the US and Britain, modern universities were invented by Christians, the largest charities in the world were founded and are run by Christians, the United States was founded by primarily Christians, and has been one of the countries that has produced the most good in the world and I could name more.

A classic example of the Gish Gallop.  If you put enough lies in a short enough paragraph it is impossible to refute them all in any reasonable way.  In this case each phrase has been the topic of many posts on this thread alone clearly defining the lie and misleading partial truth in the phrase.  

Thanks to Daily Kos for pointing out that the Romney debate was won with this technique. 

Retroactive Culture Change - Fail.

September 30, 2012

The Kissing Sailor, or “The Selective Blindness of Rape Culture”

• 96 Comments

Most of us are familiar with this picture. Captured in Times Square on V-J Day, 1945, it has become one of the most iconic photographs of American history, symbolizing the jubilation and exuberance felt throughout the country at the end of World War II.
http://cratesandribbons.com/2012/09/30/the-kissing-sailor-or-the-selective-blindness-of-rape-culture-vj-day-times-square/

Retroactively trying to change a culture or even using a past culture to criticize a current culture is a fool's errand.  I grew up in that culture and never imagined that the sailor asked for prior informed consent of the nurse.  Sailors at liberty from an all male environment were expected to be aggressively promiscuous as were most single men at the time.

It was in fact a male aggressive culture, a reflection of the dominant religious culture of female submissiveness.  Ask any cheerleader at the time about the victory parties.  Or the loss parties for that matter.  It was an article of manliness dogma that if you could get a woman in a compromising position good for you!  The then current excuse for the man was if the woman didn't want to be molested she should have stayed home.   Directly related to the current Muslim attitude to women.  It isn't the man's fault if the woman is alone and improperly dressed. 

Better to focus on examples of current non-consensual sexual contact which have a better chance of changing current culture than bitching about the past. 

Lets fight about this shit:
 http://unwinona.tumblr.com/post/30861660109/i-debated-whether-or-not-to-share-this-story

excerpt:

I often ride the Metro when I commute from North Hollywood to Long Beach in order to save money.  I bring a book, pointedly wear a ring on my ring finger to imply I’m married (I’m not) and keep to myself.
Without fail, I am aggressively approached by men on at least half of these commutes.  The most common approach is to walk up to where I am sitting with body language that practically screams LEAVE ME ALONE and sit down next to me or as close to me as possible, when the train is not crowded and there are many empty rows.  Sometimes an overly friendly arm is draped over the railing behind me, or they attempt to lean in close to talk to me as if we are old friends.  Without fail, the man or boy in question will lean to close and ask me
What are you reading?
Is that a good book?
What’s that book about?

Free Will and Religion

beliefnet

Why am I misunderstanding freewill?

Let's cut to the chase. People make choices. These choices have various levels of constraint on them for a variety of reasons. This has nothing to do with free will in a religious context.

Free will in a religious context is whether human choices are controlled by God, or if certain choices such as a choice of a religious tradition or belief in God are unconstrained by God. For an atheist there are no choices constrained by God as there is no God. It is really that simple.

If you want more on constrained choices, all social animals have what passes for a conscience which is trained initially by mama smacking herm on the butt when hesh does something not permitted by the herd or society. As hesh gets older mentors and/or alphas take over from mama with increasing severe punishments up to exclusion from the herd or tribe which is in effect a death sentence quick or slow depending on the environment. Those who watch the fate of one "thrown to the wolves" very quickly internally constrain the behavior that led to the action.

None of this is really conscious behavior, either in training or accepting the constraints of the conscience. It is simply part of staying alive in the group. Humans and perhaps other animals have some conscious control over the dictates of conscience, and may choose to behave differently from the group if necessary or desirable. You may call this free will or intelligent choice, it makes no difference. The alpha says frog you may or may not choose to hop. But you know in some cases refusing to hop is to be thrown to the wolves. In some cases the wolves are a better choice. This is free will.

In a religious context if a major component of your self worthiness is defined as sin, say not believing in the local God or one of His stupid rules, the atheist wolves may be the only choice. We really aren't as scary as mama tol' ya we are, but for some religious people especially teens suicide is a reasonable alternative. Always talk to an atheist first.

From Bible-Belt Pastor to Atheist Leader

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/magazine/from-bible-belt-pastor-to-atheist-leader.html?hpw

After a few quick searches with the terms “pastor” and “atheist,” he discovered that a cottage industry of atheist outreach groups had grown up in the past few years. Within days, he joined an online network called the Clergy Project, created for clerics who no longer believe in God and want to communicate anonymously through a secure Web site.

Early in the article it mentioned that he couldn't pray for a parishioner in difficulty. This is typical of converts of every sort. Many atheists resent prayers and resent being asked to pray.

As a life long atheist, with many good friends who are devout, I have learned both to pray and recieve prayers without hypocricy. I learned this when a devout Catholic friend was in a profoundly tragic situation and asked me for help in the form of prayer. He knew I was an atheist but also had been to performances where I had sung catholic prayers. He said "Please pray for me. God even listens to atheist prayers. They are special for God since he gets so few of them."

I chose appropriate prayers for all involved and sang them as devoutly and meaningfully as I could. Certainly as far as I was concerned I was singing into a void, but a void which contained my friend's God. Where is the hypocricy here?

The Future of the Religious Right

beliefnet

As the religious right is systematically destroying the education and hence competitiveness of their children in the secular world. They will end up in religious enclaves with no visible means of support. This is known as bad luck.

Scientific inquiry, and human rights for all will continue to flourish outside those enclaves. It may take a while, but probably not long as they have made half of the country's population their enemy. Politically this is suicide. But in the USA politics has been irrelevant for the productive sector since Regan, and the religious and the rich can fight over the scraps.

Religion, Music and Art

beliefnet

I have explored the entire realm of seeking called religion and found absolutely nothing useful for living except the music and art that probably have nothing to do with religion except a payday. Religion tries to hijack every basic human need in the service of whatever God is handy and will pay for the privilege. Intelligent and creative people are happy to accept the paycheck, and some of them may believe, but their belief proves nothing but that even intelligent and creative people can be duped by shamans and priests.

Defining Right and Wrong vs Morality

beliefnet

we're confusing DEFINING right/wrong... from KNOWING right/wrong.
Aka me, all

Not we, you and religions. Most of us social animals have no problem knowing right from wrong which is the natural imprinting of proper social behavior by the herd, pack, or tribe necessary for the survival of the herd, pack, or tribe (or equivalent social structure whatever the arrogant human animals call it.)
Most religions have elaborate definitions of right/wrong for the benefit of the shamans to control the tribe, occasionally for the benefit of the God of the tribe, less frequently for the benefit of the tribe itself and always for the benefit of the shamans. Thanks RAH.

animals are incapable of knowing WRONG. they don't have an internal moral compass. what they have is instinct through genetic programming

You are a bit confused here, animals don’t define wrong, they generally do not have shamans to tell them what it is. They do have a moral compass, partly genetic, mostly imprinted by parents and alphas where the genetic social structure is alpha driven. All social animals have the equivalent of the canine “play bow” to indicate learning behavior, including play fighting and hunting to learn proper behaviors.

The difficulty here is accepting humans as being more than animals, because then we have to start talking about "what" makes them more than animals, and conversation is then heading in the direction of discussing souls.

Again the difficulty is religious as religions have to impose a soul or equivalent on the human animal to define right and wrong for the benefit of the shamans. Without a soul the human animal generally gets along well with at least the extended tribe, including the women and children.

it's not hard to see the cause of the current frustration.

Yeah, we don’t believe in the shamans or God.

Why Atheists Study Religion

Since I was a small child many of my good friends have spent significant portions of their life in the worship of and dependence on God. I was naturally curious about what drove this "waste" of time, and tried to discover the value in it. I came to some tentative conclusions, but none of them made sense in my life. It was in no sense a waste of time as I learned much about living from their religious views and my study of religious music. There is much to learn in myth and fiction, but it helps to be aware of the fact that it is myth and fiction.

It is probably true that I know more about most religions that I have studied than believers, as I can think about what they are saying without worrying about blasphemy or annoying God. So I can pick out the useful teachings and reject the useless ones.

It is very useful to read the New Testament without God or anti-God blinders on. There is much that is useful there and it is important to know the source of the dysfunctional values that drive much of the society I live with. I say with instead of in, as my ERSSG has very little commonality with the larger society. But it is valuable to know the drivers of the larger society to know how to deal with it.

Experiencing God

Experiences - beliefnet

In my studies of the religion of my friends and neighbors I never made any secret of the fact that I was an atheist trying to find out more about their religious lives. They had no problems with my mirroring their devotions, as they knew I was doing so reverently.

In fact the closest I have ever come to experiencing God was in a community RCC with a good friend. We were nearly late for the service. Most were at their devotions in the pews. I mirrored my friend's genuflection knowing it was an acknowledgement of the presence of God. I could feel a presence like someone in the church with me that was not my friend. I did not have the background to associate any attributes to it, but whatever it was remained through the mass.

My post experience analysis was that the community had created a community consciousness that they identified as God. I could only feel the hem of the gown if you will as God attended to Herm duties with the parishioners as I was not a real part of the community to share in the consciousness.

I could discuss it with my friend and did so. My friend said "Of course you were touched by God. We all were." My friend wouldn't even consider the possibility that the community created God, and I didn't press the issue. God visited the community from wherever Hesh was when the devotions started. That was faith, and I know better than to argue with faith.

Psalm 14:1

Atheist Inspiration - beliefnet

You have repeatedly throughout this thread stated there is no god. If you believe David speaks the truth where does this leave you?

As for the Psalm, a fool disguises herm ambiguities about God or gods and hides them inside. A wiser person knows exactly how they relate to God, gods, or some numinous all highest being and speaks it clearly, unambiguously, and right out loud. I will tell you clearly and unambiguously that there is no God, gods, or numinous all highest being that has anything at all to offer me. Therefore, whether there is a God, gods, or a numinous all highest being is of no importance.

Perhaps you could as unambiguously state your relationship with God, gods, or a numinous all highest being. At this point it is hard to avoid associating the Psalm with you.