There really isn't much to say, because from what I've read if you're not an atheist you're branded a sexist.
That’s not quite correct. My point, and that of ZeaLitY and others, is that religion has consistently upheld itself through use of sexism. To get away from sexism, one must either reject that aspect of their religion, which is usually harder than rejecting the religion entirely. It’s an oversimplification to say that atheism is a prerequisite to sexual egalitarianism…but it’s an oversimplification which nevertheless usually holds true.
I personally don’t see it as useful to limit this issue of sexism to the terms of divine faith or a lack thereof, because sexism is bigger than religion; it may be true that virtually all believers are sexist, but so are most nonbelievers.
Sexism comes in degrees; everybody (or almost everybody) who ever lived has had sexist tendencies, because sexism is built into the human condition. Sexism is pervasive enough to be a person’s default position: To get away from sexism, you have to explicitly recognize it, and, once you learn how to do that, you will see that sexism is everywhere.
To borrow a Christian concept, sexism is like sin. Just because you don’t know how to recognize it doesn’t mean it’s not there, and it’s no shame to admit that you have within yourself both the ignorance and the imperfection which set you up to think and behave sexistly. Rather than defending yourself against the charge, you should plead guilty and seek redemption.
Otherwise, you will only continue to be a part of the problem.
We all have different point of views, but this thread just doesn't respect each people's beliefs... I mean...there's just so many point of views
how can you be so arrogant to believe your views on life are superior to someone else's?
I don’t think you were talking to me personally—or maybe you were after seeing my comment to Truthordeal the other day—but in any case I can answer your rhetorical question directly: When it comes to conflicting ideas, I would say that most people, in their “heart of hearts,” think that their views are equal or superior to other people’s views, by whatever their inner measure of value may be. This would make sense, because we all have an ego, and ego is essential to our ability to function. What kind of a world would you live in, if you honestly felt that your convictions were crap?
Some of us are more aggressive or passive; some of us are more tolerant or intolerant; but all of us who are not depressed or mentally imbalanced must proceed from some kind of self-assuredness on some level. Thus your question, “How can you be so arrogant…?” is irrelevant: People
are, and that’s how it is.
What you are effectively implying with your rhetoric is that we must always agree to disagree, because the real truth is inaccessible. In this contention, you are wrong. Some people’s “arrogance” (to use your word) is more justified than that of others, because some people’s convictions are simply more logical, or are better in tune with reality, or are more beneficial for humanity or life on Earth—all of which are objective measures with some obvious merit.
It isn’t a lie, or even a “matter of opinion,” that religion has promoted sexism extensively, and it is also isn’t a lie or a matter of opinion that sexism is rampant. These are facts. It doesn’t matter if a majority of people disagree; majority opinion does not create truth. ZeaLitY, and at times Lord J Esq, and many others besides, may be ungracious with the way we present these facts, but we’re only the messengers and you shouldn’t be paying such attention to our style anyway.
I understand where your concern is coming from: You don’t like other people demeaning your religious values or your religious faith. I do sympathize, but I have no patience for your ignorance, stubbornness, or virulent self-defense. Some days you lose the fight. Some days you are the one who is wrong. Some days you need to look up at the stars and admit that you don’t know it all. Some of your peers know better than you do, some of the time, on some things. This is one of those occasions. I urge you to consider it.
I apologize if my own personal weaknesses pollute the importance of the message, and I apologize for the overbearingness of people like ZeaLitY, who is simply caught up in the midst of a massive awakening and doesn’t yet fully realize the effects his displays of passion can have on others. You would do better to ignore us messengers and focus exclusively on what we have to say. If you have an open mind, the rest will take care of itself.
...but seems like here if you tell about your views on the subject
all the atheists just get flat out mad at you and start to bash at you and tell you just how wrong your antique conservative ways are.
There is a hidden question that I didn’t answer above: How does one
know that their point of view is superior, when all of us are predisposed to self-assuredness even though it is usually unwarranted?
The only way to earn that kind of knowledge is to learn this stuff that our ancestors have created and bequeathed unto us…reason, judgment, critical analysis. These tools won’t get you 100 percent of the way to certainty—for certainty has little place in a scientific mindset—but they can easily teach you to recognize flaws in other people’s thinking, and in your own thinking. “Antique conservative ways” are evidently, extensively riddled with illogic, incomprehensiveness, fallacy, inconsiderateness, prejudice, malice, and fear. I understand that there are many conservatives out there, who exist because they were brought up in a society which predisposed them to such a fate, and I admit that theirs is an unfortunate lot—as unfortunate for the rest of us as for them. However, they are what they are, and what they are is wrong—deeply and dangerously so.
Conservatives will disagree with that. But they don’t have the power to defend their ideas. The intelligent conservatives can hold their own in debate only by chipping away at their conservative premises, until they cease to be “conservatives” in the conventional sense of the word, or until they reach the limits of current human understanding—the boundary of our political, social, economic, and anthropological theories, beyond which lies only human ignorance: a realm where differing points of view are purely speculative and therefore tentatively valid.
I don't know if you forget this or are simply too pigheaded to care, but ignorance is subjective.
I don’t know how you can say that. Do you know what “ignorance” is? Either a person is aware of a thing, or not. There’s no in-between. Another way of looking at it is that the word
ignorance is a cognate of the word
ignore. Don’t you see that?
Surely the 80 some odd percentage of Americans that are Christians don't think that they're ignorant, and if you want to make the assumption that you are smarter than such a large majority and know better than them, simply because you're an atheist, well then, you're the ignorant one here.
I know you’re talking to ZeaLitY, but I’ll intercept this one. As I said before, majority opinion does not create the truth. That isn’t controversial. If you disagree anyway, you’d better be prepared to prove your claim.
I've read your "facts" about religion over and over again, and they're no more factual than anything out of the mouth of Rush Limbaugh. Most of them seem to be analysis or assumptions than facts, and most of them are far more polarizing.
ZeaLitY’s arguments, in between his diatribes and foul language, are becoming increasingly sophisticated and, in my view, effective. If he is still failing to persuade you, is that him being inadequate, or you being intractable?
I, as a Christian, am fine with criticism of my faith; hell, I accept it and encourage people to ask the tough questions regarding religion and its role in the world.
I think your problem here is that you’re only willing to accept criticism on your own terms, which are entirely too narrow for your own good.
What I cannot say I'm fine with is the constant stream of anti-theist propaganda that inevitably makes its way onto this forum.
“Propaganda”? ZeaLitY’s “springtime of youth” may, at a stretch, be construed as propaganda, but his political arguments never are. You are welcome to substantiate your allegation, but don’t bother if you’re not prepared to accept defeat, which would follow almost immediately.
