Assault on Fraternities - Sexual Variety

Holy shit, folks. Check out reference at beginning of this Toronto S**t piece on what SAE really stands for in many circles.

Yawn. 

Sexual Assault Exaggerations are news.  Where is the most likely place to be sexual assaulted today? At the festivities around professional sports events.  Why isn't that news? D'uh.  Where is another likely place to be sexually assaulted? A church social  Why isn't that news? D'uh. Let’s look at the Military.  Why isn't that news? D'uh. What's left? Colleges.  When are you most likely to be sexually assaulted on campus? Game Day! Why isn't that news? D'uh.

Hey, college fraternities throw parties that women attend.  Everybody hates fraternities because they weren't tapped.  Now we got news.

The Ryley Rule.

beliefnet

His kitchen looks clean.   christine3

I hope you have not inadvertently revealed a sexist bias in the society: That a man in a clean kitchen either doesn't cook or has someone clean up after him when he does. 

Be it known to all people: He (gender intentional) who cooks cleans up to Mrs. Ryley's standards. 

This is affectionately known as the Ryley rule by the men in my family most of who do much of the cooking for the family.  Mrs. Ryley was a fastidious housekeeper.  Her traditional husband quickly gave up his aspirations to be a gourmet chef when faced with this rule, but her sons did their share of the cooking under it.

Religious Persecution

I doubt you're being persecuted.  Why do you play the victim?

Because "me" would be in fact persecuted by any religion she is being asked to respect.  In fact "me" would be persecuted in any culture dominated by any religion she is being asked to respect.  Could "me" go to Saudi Arabia on business, rent a car and drive it in western clothing? Could "me" go to the good old USA and visit Planned Parenthood without being harassed?  Could "me" go to Paris and publish an article on child abuse by Muhammad?

Now tell me again from your position of male religious privilege why "me" should not play your victim?  Please be specific.  Tell "me" what respect atheist women have from you that they should respect your religious views. 

Atheist Value Development

Atheists find value in most of the world religions in formulating their social values.  Confucianism especially as it is basically humanistic.  Atheists must necessarily develop social, moral, and ethical values in order to survive in a fundamentally religious society.  Religions have had 2-3 millennia to develop those values, some useful and some disastrous.  When you remove the "God Sayeth" from them all it is easy to tell the difference between them.  This means that it is necessary for atheists to have an understanding of the dominant religious values, as well as alternatives for the bad ones.  Confucianism, Hinduism and Buddhism have been very successful for a couple of millennia +.  Christianity and Islam not so much.  Zen is a popular first step away from the modern Abrahamics.

Trascendence and Reason.

beliefnet

But you've had 'transcendental' moments, how do you make 'sense' of them.

I'm sure you dont just think 'rationally' all the time so how do you deal with these experiences?

Transcendental moments are the brain's way of saying: Stop. Pay attention.  Something important is happening here.  Neurotransmitters flood certain areas of the brain depending on the nature of the transcendence and essentially cause the whole brain to focus on the experience.  Some are purely a reward for being alive.  Rainbows and halos are one trigger for me.  They are my brain's way of telling me that I am the focus of all the beauty and wonder in the world.  Rational thought is not excluded, indeed one of the purposes of transcendent experiences is to explore why the brain is calling my attention to the experience.  At the very least rain and sun are necessary for life, and although rain may be an annoyance when it stops and the sun comes out I am rewarded by the brain for being outside in the unpleasant but necessary rain, and enjoying "My moment in the sun."   

The experience is far, far older than modern man, and indeed should be unremarkable for one whose only worry is that the car won’t skid on the wet road, but the brain remembers our ancestors who were out planting, weeding and otherwise getting sustenance for the family in the “bad” weather.   

Religion tries and generally succeeds in capturing transcendence and slaving it to the service of God, e.g. a rainbow is God's promise that Hesh won't kill all "that has the breath of life" ever again, with the not so veiled threat that Hesh could if Hesh wanted to.

Pain of Rejection

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/10/24/brain_chemistry_emotional_wounds/

Evolutionary biologists would say that it’s not surprising that our emotions have hijacked the pain system. As social creatures, mammals are dependent from birth upon others. We must forge and maintain relationships to survive and pass on our genes. Pain is a strong motivator; it is the primary way for our bodies tell us that something is wrong and needs to be fixed. Our intense aversion to pain causes us to instantly change behavior to ensure we don’t hurt anymore. Since the need to maintain social bonds is crucial to mammalian survival, experiencing pain when they are threatened is an adaptive way to prevent the potential danger of being alone.

 Emphasis added J'C   One of the best, concise definitions of what it is to be human.  

Socially or physically pain is nature's way of saying you fucked up.  How bad you hurt is an indication of how bad you fucked up.

She spends too much self indulgence discussing music and self expressions as anodynes for emotional pain but McCartney said it better "Hey Jude, don't make it bad, take a sad song and make it better. "  

Moral Conflicts.

Beliefnet
There are always two communities involved in any moral decision.  One is the "face group community:" my tribe, my church, my village, my SSG.  The other is the larger society one may consider oneself to be a part of: my city, my state, my religion, my nation, my fellow humans. 
I find it is almost impossible to violate face group moral standards.  If my church says God Hates Fags, I will drive to military funerals and try to protest with my handmade sign.  If my village says dark skinned people in hoodies are unwelcome it is moral to shoot them. 

It is when face group morality conflicts with the larger society that moral decisions may take us away from personal survival or community survival.   In both of the cases cited above the larger community may take issue with the local morality and prosecute the shooter, or prevent the protest.  Even to the extent of destroying the face group community or forcing the face group to adopt the morality of the larger society. 

The major moral issues that can shread a community occur when the larger community, the religion, or the nation, tries to impose its moral standards on other religions, or nations. Usually it takes a God to create "the other" that is not considered "one of us" and therefore undeserving of moral consideration, but there have been exceptions.  These lead to the ultimate moral violation where both individual and community welfare are violated: war between the larger societies.  Face group morality is irrelevant. Choose to go to war or the Gulag. 

Meaning and purpose Religion vs Science and Technology

Beliefnet an interesting discussion
Not mind boggling at all.  It is an evolutional necessity that the mind find a way to drag the body out of its nice warm bed every single morning, spend the day doing what it takes to acquire food, others to share it with, and repeat ad lib.  Any brain which didn't do this would find only a non-survival option. 

For the glory of God and not incidentally the vuvuzelas in fancy dresses in over decorated balconies is a tried and true option.  Conservative and stult stable it provides meaning and purpose even for the idiot stick operators who can believe that they are building a Cathedral. 
It takes a heretic who finds meaning and purpose in improving the lives of those important to herm to shake up this self-perpetuating institution of the prevailing church which is why heretics are routinely scourged, tortured, and crucified or otherwise killed slowly and painfully.  The usual way out is to pretend to be a believer and start a new religion, usually with the same basic crap with a new vuvuzela.
 
Rarely an innovative group will find mutual support and quietly undermine the prevailing religion and enable others to find their own ways to meaning and purpose in living.  They and the innovators will always be a small group but their influence on the world will be, for better or for worse significant in changing the way the world works.  Evolution works on innovators as well and most fail, sometimes spectacularly, but their failure may in fact be caused by stimulation other innovators to find fresh solutions to living without God, the vuvuzelas, and the politicians who are their sock puppets.  

Science and technology may in fact be emerging as a secular alternative to the religious infrastructure.  It is not without issues, but innovation and improving the lot of the average person is basic to the system. 

Are Irrational Emotional Coping Mechanisms Necessary?

Beliefnet

That is just an admission that god is an irrational emotional coping mechanism.

Yep.  That is exactly what God is.  Nonetheless, humans are hard wired to employ irrational emotional coping mechanisms for irrational situations.  Rationality does not always have solutions to all problems, especially human emotional issues.  

Please explain the rational steps to deal with the following:  A long term apparently devoted partner and parent of one's children, finds it necessary to go live with herm same sex lover in a different community.  No emotional reactions permitted.  Simply provide rational steps to resolve the issue. 

Spirituality, God and Skeptics.

Beliefnet

there is nothing, not one single thing, in any of science as we presently understand it which does not point to how glorious God is.

 you're going to need a boatfull of empirical evidence to even scratch the surface of your conjecture. 

Quite the contrary every phenomenon that feeds the human sense of wonder, beauty, peace with life, and other "spiritual" desiderata may in fact be proof of the glory of God for a believer.  Just because I can explain the physics and draw the ray diagrams that make it necessary that I be the unique focus of every rainbow (you don't see the same one even if you are right next to me,) doesn't mean I cannot enjoy the spiritual gratification of being the special focus of that particular rainbow.  It is all in my head of course but neither you nor I can present a tight rational argument that God did not put it there. You are welcome to try, but boatloads of evidence works both ways.  Got any?

I know some extraordinarily intelligent people that believe in some God as the source of inspiration to keep trying in the face of adversity. I have convinced myself that I don't need one but I have no proof that that is a fact.  Maybe as long as I keep trying God doesn't care whether I believe in Herm or not.  If Hesh can put up with all the religious idiots, Hesh can certainly be amused by skeptics.   

Fundamentalist Atheists.

beliefnet
There are two types of atheists that seem to acquire the label fundamentalist. 
One type insists that insists that to be an atheist one must refuse to accept a supernatural god in any way, shape, or form.  No nuance permitted.  A-theist: No god. No discussion.  

The other type insists that any type of religious teaching is abuse. 

Both types are relatively rare, but like all fundies are certain that they are right and are not shy about promoting their cause. Preaching to their choir and accepting the flak from those they are preaching against is one of the few ways to acquire fame and fortune as an atheist. 

Most atheists don't have congregations or PACs for support as most atheists are too busy quietly making a difference for their family and friends by competing in a religion dominated world.  In this sense they have a common cause with the quiet feminists, and other minorities who simply are so competent that they can succeed without connections.  As some woman who broke the glass wall into a male dominated profession noted, in order to succeed in this business you have to be twice as good as the average (white) male.  Fortunately this is not difficult.  Atheists are generally better educated, more flexible and rational in their thought processes, and less dependent on networking.  As a result if competence is a virtue and it usually is they can usually make a difference.  Also like religious minority groups they tend to seek out professions where competence is both measurable and rewarded.  STEM, arts, academia, medicine, and finance.  

Since they usually do well in these important professions, it is yet another reason they are hated.

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. 

Love, Sex, and Chocolate Ice Cream

A conversation with  Blü and subsequent posts on an otherwise useless thread. Quoted in full and in order.  

Apologist:

If you think love and sex are the same thing, I feel sorry for you.

BlüIf you think love and sex aren't connected then I suggest you have a private talk with your parents about where you came from.

I have to agree with the apologist on this issue. 

Scripturally love and sex are two unrelated issues.  Scriptural sex is the means by which men exchange protection and support for bearing his seed, raising his children, and satisfying his lust once a week. 

Love is an emotion reserved for God and occasionally other men, but only once in the bible is it associated with sex and even that is danced around by most Scriptural analysis. (1 Samuel 20:41 KJB)

Love associated with a male-female pair bond is a modern invention, still resisted by most religions as empowering women, although given lip service in modern wedding vows. 

Love associated with a male-female pair bond is a modern invention

Romantic love's a relatively modern notion - the flowery troubadour kind from the 11th century and the bodice-ripping RITA Award kind from the 18th century.

Meanwhile, pair bonding, and the emotions associated with it and with child protection and nurture, are as ancient (and as practical) as can be.

I would suggest that neither the troubadour nor the romantic kind has anything to do with the love discussed in Scripture that El Cid is posting about. 

Also the oxytocin mediated pair bonding for child protection and nurture bears little resemblance to either Scriptural love or courtship love.  Once the husband cleaves unto his wife and forsakes (sort of) all others, the oxytocin kicks in at the birth of the first child and never really lets go.  Particularly where there is little opportunity for the man to stray, which for practical purposes is most non-elite married men.  Scientists are even finding oxytocin bonding in empty nesters long after the fires of love and sex are mere embers. 

For practical purposes in the postmodern post religious world love is such a muddied concept as to be useless in any sense other than the vernacular love for movies or chocolate ice cream.  

Love associated with a male-female pair bond is a modern invention

Romantic love's a relatively modern notion - the flowery troubadour kind from the 11th century and the bodice-ripping RITA Award kind from the 18th century.

Meanwhile, pair bonding, and the emotions associated with it and with child protection and nurture, are as ancient (and as practical) as can be.

But you know that.

love is such a muddied concept as to be useless in any sense other than the vernacular love for movies or chocolate ice cream.

The commercialization of love (movies, TV and magazines, Valentine's Day, Mothers Day, cosmetics, fashions &c) may indeed bring the familiarity that breeds contempt.

But having been in love myself, I can describe what I mean by the term, how I figure it relates to my biochemistry, how much I've enjoyed the trip and why I think it's important.

Or, from another angle, there's some wonderful love poetry out there, not to mention great songs. And how about Rodin's The Kiss? They can resonate with us deep in our human make-up.

Been there, done that several times, many times if you include art.  I just don't call it love.  I have simply internalized Heinlein's "that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own."  I manage to cram in "and welfare" after happiness and it is still a single concept.