"Creation"

[JohnOfSheffield]

I wish folks would start saying "the scientific theory of X" instead "the theory of X" so we could get beyond this whole "it's just a theory" idiocy.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I wish folks would start saying "the scientific theory of X" instead "the theory of X" so we could get beyond this whole "it's just a theory" idiocy.

Obfuscating the word "theory" is the best argument they've got. It won't end anytime soon, no matter how many times the difference is pointed out.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I wish folks would start saying "the scientific theory of X" instead "the theory of X" so we could get beyond this whole "it's just a theory" idiocy.

Obfuscating the word "theory" is the best argument they've got. It won't end anytime soon, no matter how many times the difference is pointed out.

Well, it isn't an argument at all, neither is the "missing link" or "no macro evolution has been observed" (since it has).... It's just plain denial so it won't get in their way of feeling proud over ignorance or not being properly educated. (any kid out of high school that doesn't know about evolution as a fact is a kid that hasn't been properly educated, it's like if they didn't know what Pi is)

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: LunarRay
I think we should simply agree with what we see and, in this case, maybe accept that there is no Proof that humans didn't simply get planted here and moved on in a dual track scenario. There is nothing there that puts our faith in question. We don't know what we don't know.

Negate the Negative FTW.

BTW Apes and Humans share a common ancestor, so no we didn't evolve from a monkey or an ape.

Let's simplify that, apes evolved from a common ancestor, all hominids are apes including humans.

And yeah, we most definently evolved from an ape, whether that ape was Homo neanderthalis or if Homo Sapiens Idult is different enough to be regarded as a different species is up for debate, IMHO, they are different enough.

Don't use ape and monkey interchangeably because they are not the same thing.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Get Up, Stand Up, stand up for your right (3 times)
Get Up, Stand Up, don't give up the fight

Preacher man, don't tell me heaven is under the earth
I know you don't know what life is really worth,
Is not all that glitters is gold and
Half the story has never been told
So now you see the light, aay
Stand up for your right. Come on

Get Up, Stand Up, stand up for your right
Get Up, Stand Up, don't give up the fight
(Repeat)

Most people think great God will come from the sky
Take away ev'rything, and make ev'rybody feel high
But if you know what life is worth
You would look for yours on earth
And now you see the light
You stand up for your right, yeah!

Get Up, Stand Up, stand up for your right
Get Up, Stand Up, don't give up the fight
Get Up, Stand Up. Life is your right
So we can't give up the fight
Stand up for your right, Lord, Lord
Get Up, Stand Up. Keep on struggling on
Don't give up the fight

We're sick and tired of your ism and skism game
Die and go to heaven in Jesus' name, Lord
We know when we understand
Almighty God is a living man
You can fool some people sometimes
But you can't fool all the people all the time
So now we see the light
We gonna stand up for our right

So you'd better get up, stand up, stand up for your right
Get Up, Stand Up, don't give up the fight
Get Up, Stand Up, stand up for your right
Get Up, Stand Up, don't give up the fight.

I am the one, Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

epic /facepalm

And to top it all of they still called it a theory. We have been witnessing adaptations in lab animals for how long now?

 

[shira]

I just read an interesting opinion piece in - of all places - Scientific American, which dealt with skepticism and science and the central importance of the null hypothesis (going in, the assumption is that any positive proposition is false; only when sufficient objective evidence is accumulated to reduce the level of uncertainty to some small amount - 5%, 1%, whatever - can science begin to say that the proposition has merit).

As part of the piece, the author points out that merely arguing that a theory "cannot explain X" is NOT a valid counterargument to the theory, since science is always dealing with what is not known and pushing back the boundaries of ignorance.

Therefore, it's unavoidable that virtually every theory will have gaps - areas not yet fully understood. An example provided by the author was when - a decade or so ago - the estimated ages of the oldest stars were actually greater than the independently computed estimated age of the universe. But cosmologists operated on the assumption that the disconnect was a consequence of a lack of understanding, not some fundamental error which would cause them to discard all contemporary theories of the origins of stars and the universe. And, in fact, that disconnect has now been resolved, and the estimate age of the universe - 13.7 billion years - is greater than that of any star.

The most interesting part of the article for me was his discussion of the existence of God. He rightly points out that there is no possible direct, objective measurement that can address the claim, "God exists." But he DOES point out that various claims about God's acts can be addressed. For example, those who claim that God occasionally miraculously heals the sick can be asked to provide an undeniable, medically documented example where a soldier who lost an entire limb in battle re-grew the entire limb after praying to be healed. Surely, an all-powerful God who engages in healing would not limit his acts of grace to only ambiguously miraculous cures of diseases that have non-zero cure rates in the first place; growing an entire new arm or leg has NEVER been documented in the history of medical science, so God could easily provide an unambiguous miracle.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: eskimospy

only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

epic /facepalm

And to top it all of they still called it a theory. We have been witnessing adaptations in lab animals for how long now?

The time frame is less important but for the sake of the argument, let's say since the first batch of lab animals were ever used. (even though it wasn't interpreted as that at the time there have actually been a lot of progress made by just reading them and following the offspring of today).

I have personally witnessed physical evolution right before my own eyes, in a controlled lab and no, it's not an illusion, anyone can do it if they want to.

The most significant jump is the ones from species to new species, like Darwins finches or the E. Coli experiments. Unlike what some creationists think this can be a smooth or a very harsh process which explains why jumps only occur at a natural disaster.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: shira
I just read an interesting opinion piece in - of all places - Scientific American, which dealt with skepticism and science and the central importance of the null hypothesis (going in, the assumption is that any positive proposition is false; only when sufficient objective evidence is accumulated to reduce the level of uncertainty to some small amount - 5%, 1%, whatever - can science begin to say that the proposition has merit).

As part of the piece, the author points out that merely arguing that a theory "cannot explain X" is NOT a valid counterargument to the theory, since science is always dealing with what is not known and pushing back the boundaries of ignorance.

Therefore, it's unavoidable that virtually every theory will have gaps - areas not yet fully understood. An example provided by the author was when - a decade or so ago - the estimated ages of the oldest stars were actually greater than the independently computed estimated age of the universe. But cosmologists operated on the assumption that the disconnect was a consequence of a lack of understanding, not some fundamental error which would cause them to discard all contemporary theories of the origins of stars and the universe. And, in fact, that disconnect has now been resolved, and the estimate age of the universe - 13.7 billion years - is greater than that of any star.

The most interesting part of the article for me was his discussion of the existence of God. He rightly points out that there is no possible direct, objective measurement that can address the claim, "God exists." But he DOES point out that various claims about God's acts can be addressed. For example, those who claim that God occasionally miraculously heals the sick can be asked to provide an undeniable, medically documented example where a soldier who lost an entire limb in battle re-grew the entire limb after praying to be healed. Surely, an all-powerful God who engages in healing would not limit his acts of grace to only ambiguously miraculous cures of diseases that have non-zero cure rates in the first place; growing an entire new arm or leg has NEVER been documented in the history of medical science, so God could easily provide an unambiguous miracle.

Well, they can tell the author that he is wrong, there is not ONE instance of a gap that doesn't have to do with something that FORCED evolution to adapt and thereby leaving a gap.

If you wipe out most of the population except those of like minds who migrated from the area, you will have a vastly different population in a much shorter time.

That is why Homo Sapiens Idultu are so rare (only three verified) while Homo Sapiens Sapiens are so commonplace.

 

[Blackjack200]

I'd like to see a demographic breakdown of that 39%.

I bet the vast majority are young, and the majority of the deniers are older. Unfortunately most social pathologies seem to need to literally die off. Racism, homophia, creationism, etc. will rot away as their incorrigible disciples are culled by father time. Damn, I was born about 35 years too early, I bet in another 40-50 years this will be a pretty kick-ass atheist nation.

Too bad it will be about 120 degrees in the summer.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I'd like to see a demographic breakdown of that 39%.

I bet the vast majority are young, and the majority of the deniers are older. Unfortunately most social pathologies seem to need to literally die off. Racism, homophia, creationism, etc. will rot away as their incorrigible disciples are culled by father time. Damn, I was born about 35 years too early, I bet in another 40-50 years this will be a pretty kick-ass atheist nation.

Too bad it will be about 120 degrees in the summer.

The old teaches the young. You do know Einsteins second law of Bullsheit, right?

Bullsheit in --- Bullsheit out.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I'd like to see a demographic breakdown of that 39%.

I bet the vast majority are young, and the majority of the deniers are older. Unfortunately most social pathologies seem to need to literally die off. Racism, homophia, creationism, etc. will rot away as their incorrigible disciples are culled by father time. Damn, I was born about 35 years too early, I bet in another 40-50 years this will be a pretty kick-ass atheist nation.

Too bad it will be about 120 degrees in the summer.

The old teaches the young. You do know Einsteins second law of Bullsheit, right?

Bullsheit in --- Bullsheit out.

True enough, but with every generation you get another window for progress. Example:

Both sets of my grandparents were devout Catholics. Degree of crazy: 90/100
My parents rejected Catholicism and became progressive Christians. Degree of crazy: 40/100
Both my siblings and I rejected Christianity and are atheists. Degree of crazy: 0/100

There are more Americans than ever that identify themselves as atheist. There is hope.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: shira
I just read an interesting opinion piece in - of all places - Scientific American, which dealt with skepticism and science and the central importance of the null hypothesis (going in, the assumption is that any positive proposition is false; only when sufficient objective evidence is accumulated to reduce the level of uncertainty to some small amount - 5%, 1%, whatever - can science begin to say that the proposition has merit).

As part of the piece, the author points out that merely arguing that a theory "cannot explain X" is NOT a valid counterargument to the theory, since science is always dealing with what is not known and pushing back the boundaries of ignorance.

Therefore, it's unavoidable that virtually every theory will have gaps - areas not yet fully understood. An example provided by the author was when - a decade or so ago - the estimated ages of the oldest stars were actually greater than the independently computed estimated age of the universe. But cosmologists operated on the assumption that the disconnect was a consequence of a lack of understanding, not some fundamental error which would cause them to discard all contemporary theories of the origins of stars and the universe. And, in fact, that disconnect has now been resolved, and the estimate age of the universe - 13.7 billion years - is greater than that of any star.

The most interesting part of the article for me was his discussion of the existence of God. He rightly points out that there is no possible direct, objective measurement that can address the claim, "God exists." But he DOES point out that various claims about God's acts can be addressed. For example, those who claim that God occasionally miraculously heals the sick can be asked to provide an undeniable, medically documented example where a soldier who lost an entire limb in battle re-grew the entire limb after praying to be healed. Surely, an all-powerful God who engages in healing would not limit his acts of grace to only ambiguously miraculous cures of diseases that have non-zero cure rates in the first place; growing an entire new arm or leg has NEVER been documented in the history of medical science, so God could easily provide an unambiguous miracle.

Well, they can tell the author that he is wrong, there is not ONE instance of a gap that doesn't have to do with something that FORCED evolution to adapt and thereby leaving a gap.

If you wipe out most of the population except those of like minds who migrated from the area, you will have a vastly different population in a much shorter time.

That is why Homo Sapiens Idultu are so rare (only three verified) while Homo Sapiens Sapiens are so commonplace.

I'm not sure what you're arguing against here. I didn't mention anything about evolution. I think you read the word "gap" above and assumed I was discussing evolution.

To restate: Pointing out a gap (in understanding) in a theory is not a refutation of the theory.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

True enough, but with every generation you get another window for progress. Example:

Both sets of my grandparents were devout Catholics. Degree of crazy: 90/100
My parents rejected Catholicism and became progressive Christians. Degree of crazy: 40/100
Both my siblings and I rejected Christianity and are atheists. Degree of crazy: 0/100

There are more Americans than ever that identify themselves as atheist. There is hope.

That is one of the saddest posts I have read in a long time. Sad that you can't get along with people who espouse different beliefs than you do. Sad that you have so much hatred towards those who think differently than you.

I hope you learn to get over your intolerance because your life will be happier for it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: shira
I just read an interesting opinion piece in - of all places - Scientific American, which dealt with skepticism and science and the central importance of the null hypothesis (going in, the assumption is that any positive proposition is false; only when sufficient objective evidence is accumulated to reduce the level of uncertainty to some small amount - 5%, 1%, whatever - can science begin to say that the proposition has merit).

As part of the piece, the author points out that merely arguing that a theory "cannot explain X" is NOT a valid counterargument to the theory, since science is always dealing with what is not known and pushing back the boundaries of ignorance.

Therefore, it's unavoidable that virtually every theory will have gaps - areas not yet fully understood. An example provided by the author was when - a decade or so ago - the estimated ages of the oldest stars were actually greater than the independently computed estimated age of the universe. But cosmologists operated on the assumption that the disconnect was a consequence of a lack of understanding, not some fundamental error which would cause them to discard all contemporary theories of the origins of stars and the universe. And, in fact, that disconnect has now been resolved, and the estimate age of the universe - 13.7 billion years - is greater than that of any star.

The most interesting part of the article for me was his discussion of the existence of God. He rightly points out that there is no possible direct, objective measurement that can address the claim, "God exists." But he DOES point out that various claims about God's acts can be addressed. For example, those who claim that God occasionally miraculously heals the sick can be asked to provide an undeniable, medically documented example where a soldier who lost an entire limb in battle re-grew the entire limb after praying to be healed. Surely, an all-powerful God who engages in healing would not limit his acts of grace to only ambiguously miraculous cures of diseases that have non-zero cure rates in the first place; growing an entire new arm or leg has NEVER been documented in the history of medical science, so God could easily provide an unambiguous miracle.

Well, they can tell the author that he is wrong, there is not ONE instance of a gap that doesn't have to do with something that FORCED evolution to adapt and thereby leaving a gap.

If you wipe out most of the population except those of like minds who migrated from the area, you will have a vastly different population in a much shorter time.

That is why Homo Sapiens Idultu are so rare (only three verified) while Homo Sapiens Sapiens are so commonplace.

I'm not sure what you're arguing against here. I didn't mention anything about evolution. I think you read the word "gap" above and assumed I was discussing evolution.

To restate: Pointing out a gap (in understanding) in a theory is not a refutation of the theory.

Indeed i did, i probably read more of the thread into your response than your response into the thread.

My apologies. (i used to say that it won't happen again, but it always does)

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

True enough, but with every generation you get another window for progress. Example:

Both sets of my grandparents were devout Catholics. Degree of crazy: 90/100
My parents rejected Catholicism and became progressive Christians. Degree of crazy: 40/100
Both my siblings and I rejected Christianity and are atheists. Degree of crazy: 0/100

There are more Americans than ever that identify themselves as atheist. There is hope.

That is one of the saddest posts I have read in a long time. Sad that you can't get along with people who espouse different beliefs than you do. Sad that you have so much hatred towards those who think differently than you.

I hope you learn to get over your intolerance because your life will be happier for it.

Well, wherever i go, whether it's Christians in Kosovo or Muslims in Afghanistan, they shoot at me...

How intolerant of me not to just accept their intolerance, right?

Or how most evangelicals live with the role as the man is head of the household...

That's fucking slavery... I would never let my daughter into bad company, i mean stripper is ok, involved with an evangelical is NOT!

That is what it has come to.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

True enough, but with every generation you get another window for progress. Example:

Both sets of my grandparents were devout Catholics. Degree of crazy: 90/100
My parents rejected Catholicism and became progressive Christians. Degree of crazy: 40/100
Both my siblings and I rejected Christianity and are atheists. Degree of crazy: 0/100

There are more Americans than ever that identify themselves as atheist. There is hope.

That is one of the saddest posts I have read in a long time. Sad that you can't get along with people who espouse different beliefs than you do. Sad that you have so much hatred towards those who think differently than you.

I hope you learn to get over your intolerance because your life will be happier for it.

Where did I say that I can't get along with them? And what do you mean by intolerant? I am not intolerant, I don't persecute the religious.

Calling Catholicism crazy is not hateful or intolerant, it's observant. That doesn't mean I hate Catholics or Christians. Do you think Scientology is crazy? Would it make you hateful or intolerant if you did?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I'd like to see a demographic breakdown of that 39%.

I bet the vast majority are young, and the majority of the deniers are older. Unfortunately most social pathologies seem to need to literally die off. Racism, homophia, creationism, etc. will rot away as their incorrigible disciples are culled by father time. Damn, I was born about 35 years too early, I bet in another 40-50 years this will be a pretty kick-ass atheist nation.

Too bad it will be about 120 degrees in the summer.

The old teaches the young. You do know Einsteins second law of Bullsheit, right?

Bullsheit in --- Bullsheit out.

True enough, but with every generation you get another window for progress. Example:

Both sets of my grandparents were devout Catholics. Degree of crazy: 90/100
My parents rejected Catholicism and became progressive Christians. Degree of crazy: 40/100
Both my siblings and I rejected Christianity and are atheists. Degree of crazy: 0/100

There are more Americans than ever that identify themselves as atheist. There is hope.

I like that.. hehe... but indocrination is continuous, in the US, it isn't going to end soon.

Besides, if you asked a born again, none in your family was ever Christian.

I like hope and today.. i have recieved a glimpse of it from someone who worked very very hard.

Stay safe.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield


Well, wherever i go, whether it's Christians in Kosovo or Muslims in Afghanistan, they shoot at me...

How intolerant of me not to just accept their intolerance, right?

Or how most evangelicals live with the role as the man is head of the household...

That's fucking slavery... I would never let my daughter into bad company, i mean stripper is ok, involved with an evangelical is NOT!

That is what it has come to.

I'm sorry your interactions with religious people have been so poor. So do all the religious people you meet try to shoot you? Do they all yell and scream at you about the Bible, Torah, or Qu'ran? It just seems like you live in a very different world than I do. Can't say that I ever had near the same experience you did when I was an Agnostic.

As far as "head of the household" goes I'm sure there are some extremists out there who may treat their kids/spouse like slaves but they are the very small minority and are not representative of religious people as a whole. I mean seriously, how many Christian families have you met where the man ruled with an iron fist and the wife had absolutely no say in the family decision making process? That is slavery and is NOT the way the Christian households run that I have seen.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Where did I say that I can't get along with them? And what do you mean by intolerant? I am not intolerant, I don't persecute the religious.

Calling Catholicism crazy is not hateful or intolerant, it's observant. That doesn't mean I hate Catholics or Christians. Do you think Scientology is crazy? Would it make you hateful or intolerant if you did?

You implied in an earlier post that the world would be much better off when all the religious people go the way of the Dodo.

"

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I'd like to see a demographic breakdown of that 39%.

I bet the vast majority are young, and the majority of the deniers are older. Unfortunately most social pathologies seem to need to literally die off. Racism, homophia, creationism, etc. will rot away as their incorrigible disciples are culled by father time. Damn, I was born about 35 years too early, I bet in another 40-50 years this will be a pretty kick-ass atheist nation.

Too bad it will be about 120 degrees in the summer.

By associating religion with a social pathology you are in effect saying you want religious people to "die off". Sounds rather intolerant to me.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield


Well, wherever i go, whether it's Christians in Kosovo or Muslims in Afghanistan, they shoot at me...

How intolerant of me not to just accept their intolerance, right?

Or how most evangelicals live with the role as the man is head of the household...

That's fucking slavery... I would never let my daughter into bad company, i mean stripper is ok, involved with an evangelical is NOT!

That is what it has come to.

I'm sorry your interactions with religious people have been so poor. So do all the religious people you meet try to shoot you? Do they all yell and scream at you about the Bible, Torah, or Qu'ran? It just seems like you live in a very different world than I do. Can't say that I ever had near the same experience you did when I was an Agnostic.

As far as "head of the household" goes I'm sure there are some extremists out there who may treat their kids/spouse like slaves but they are the very small minority and are not representative of religious people as a whole. I mean seriously, how many Christian families have you met where the man ruled with an iron fist and the wife had absolutely no say in the family decision making process? That is slavery and is NOT the way the Christian households run that I have seen.

Oh it is far worse than that, but i'm not going to tell the whole story again...

When it comes down to it, like "i want to work" and he doesn't want her to, he brings it up, so she's basically his slave, that is how it works. Doesn't seem like much on the outside but if they disagree, he decides, normally she'll follow whatever he wants though as the slave she is.

It is INDEED the way Christian households work. In fact, i have never seen a Christian household that works in any other way.

Women are still slaves under every major form of religion, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism.

Oh, and they don't "treat" them as slaves, they just are slaves, whatever he decides goes, no argument because of religion, her wishes, her hopes, her life... doesn't matter in the least, she's expected to do it as if she wants it even if she doesn't, just like in radical Islam.

Those two groups, evangelicals and radical Islam are so close that it's hard to separate from them while regular islam and Judaism are more alike than Christianity is to either.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: Elfear

Originally posted by: Blackjack200

Where did I say that I can't get along with them? And what do you mean by intolerant? I am not intolerant, I don't persecute the religious.

Calling Catholicism crazy is not hateful or intolerant, it's observant. That doesn't mean I hate Catholics or Christians. Do you think Scientology is crazy? Would it make you hateful or intolerant if you did?

You implied in an earlier post that the world would be much better off when all the religious people go the way of the Dodo.

"

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I'd like to see a demographic breakdown of that 39%.

I bet the vast majority are young, and the majority of the deniers are older. Unfortunately most social pathologies seem to need to literally die off. Racism, homophia, creationism, etc. will rot away as their incorrigible disciples are culled by father time. Damn, I was born about 35 years too early, I bet in another 40-50 years this will be a pretty kick-ass atheist nation.

Too bad it will be about 120 degrees in the summer.

By associating religion with a social pathology you are in effect saying you want religious people to "die off". Sounds rather intolerant to me.

So why did you quote the wrong post? Now you're just making it confusing. I believe we will be much better off when religion is gone. Believe me, I would love it if religious people could relieve themselves of their stone age beliefs, but historically speaking it just doesn't happen all that much. There's nothing hateful or intolerant about what I posted.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: eskimospy

only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

epic /facepalm

And to top it all of they still called it a theory. We have been witnessing adaptations in lab animals for how long now?

The time frame is less important but for the sake of the argument, let's say since the first batch of lab animals were ever used. (even though it wasn't interpreted as that at the time there have actually been a lot of progress made by just reading them and following the offspring of today).

I have personally witnessed physical evolution right before my own eyes, in a controlled lab and no, it's not an illusion, anyone can do it if they want to.

The most significant jump is the ones from species to new species, like Darwins finches or the E. Coli experiments. Unlike what some creationists think this can be a smooth or a very harsh process which explains why jumps only occur at a natural disaster.

Good points :thumbsup:

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Oh it is far worse than that, but i'm not going to tell the whole story again...

When it comes down to it, like "i want to work" and he doesn't want her to, he brings it up, so she's basically his slave, that is how it works. Doesn't seem like much on the outside but if they disagree, he decides, normally she'll follow whatever he wants though as the slave she is.

It is INDEED the way Christian households work. In fact, i have never seen a Christian household that works in any other way.

Women are still slaves under every major form of religion, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism.

Oh, and they don't "treat" them as slaves, they just are slaves, whatever he decides goes, no argument because of religion, her wishes, her hopes, her life... doesn't matter in the least, she's expected to do it as if she wants it even if she doesn't, just like in radical Islam.

Those two groups, evangelicals and radical Islam are so close that it's hard to separate from them while regular islam and Judaism are more alike than Christianity is to either.

Like I said, I'm sorry your interactions with religious people have been so poor but that is not the experience I have had nor do I imagine that is the norm. In the Christian homes I have been in the wife and husband had an equal say and figured things out together. If the wife said, hey I think I'd like to learn to play guitar, she and her husband talked it over to see if that would work. When the wife wasn't feeling like being intimate with her husband, guess what, the man didn't force her to do anything (i.e. as a real master/slave relationship would dictate). The woman's voice is given just as much credibility as the man's from the households I know of.

As I stated earlier, I'm sure there are exceptions to that but I would hope they are the small minority rather than the rule.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Blackjack200
I believe we will be much better off when religion is gone.

Maybe, maybe not. I personally think while individual humans are mostly good people, en mass we are mostly scummy. I don't know whether slaughtering each other because of myths or slaughtering each other because of rational differences of opinion really matters much to those who are slaughtered.