Any Atheists Here..?

[Darkmatters]

They also don't refer to themselves as radicals - they just see themselves as good feminists. In fact it's the kind of ideology where you've got good moderate people and then the radicals who actually believe they're the only true representatives - the pure ones and the real warriors for the cause.

[StephL]

What do you think about this DV: I think, she is right, that's why I dropped the denomination. There's a striking similarity to saying, "but most Christians aren't really following the book". It's about what the book actually says, and about what the people in power are saying and preaching and teaching and putting into politics and action. She is from Canada, and from what I heard - it's more of an issue there than it is in Germany, especially when it comes to the rights of fathers and divorced men in general. There's been some pro-father lobbying going on, and it's pretty egalitarian here now, after having favoured women immensely, as far as I know. But I hope I'm not misinformed now - too lazy to look it up... And she really strikes a nerve with some of her videos, the general culture among girls and women I've been growing up in was one of complete social acceptance of what I'm only now aware is actually misandry, seriously. Condescension towards the male gender as such seemed perfectly okay, somewhat in a spirit of - "it's not really unfair, "they"'ve been unfair for soo long, "they" deserve it, lets milk it as much as we can, now that we can". Even the worst of jokes, if really taken on the face of it and seen without the lens of feminism are rendered socially acceptable. Like saying men are only half people, because their Y chromosome is not a real chromosome, but more of a switch, lacking most of the information, a X chromosome has. And to round it up, take that then and call it the reason that "they" are violent and stupid and superfluous, because - you know - parthenogenesis. I've heard it all and hundreds of times and people think, it's funny, but once somebody criticises feminism - the same lens sets in motion a whole battery of fire-alarms. I totally admit that all of this was true for me as well - I didn't realize, what was actually going on. Nope - "hitting back" is not okay, letting it out on little boys is even less so - "raising the enemy" - goodness me. Naomi Wolf is one of the leading "feminist theorists" of our times, also when it comes to popularity - check this out - I have a hard time not to feel ashamed for my whole gender, when seeing something as pathetic as this. For back-ground - Mrs. Wolf has been breaking up the whole "debate" because what GWW said was emotionally too much to take for her, but what she reacted to was actually exactly the definition of rape - a crime of consent, or lack of, better to say - which feminists also endorse. It was a pain to watch - I didn't re-watch it now - but I guess, it speaks for itself - and against the need for this sort of garbage, too: As I remember - she needs a bit more practice with this sort of thing, but who would expect such a moderator? I think, Straughan might really develop into a "heavy hitter" comparable to the greats of New Atheism, maybe, with practice. I really like her scripted things - I enjoy her intellect, almost don't care that it's not so much my topic. It starts to interest me, because of her. But I hope she won't leave it with her topic of passion - I'd like to see her taking on religious people. Two pages back in here is another video of hers, where she addresses - well - the "atheism doubleplusgood" people. Enough flowers now...

[DeviantThinker]

First impressions: I like this Karen. She's intelligent, composed, hard hitting and possesses the key rationalist virtue of being specific. I do not like this Naomi though. There is something about her that repulses me. However, I am not ready to accept any of what Karen has said until I look it up. I used to call myself a humanist and rode against feminism, believing it's focus to be too myopic. Then I changed my mind my mind and started calling myself a feminist. I rarely revert a change of mind once it has been made and a lot of Karen's statements about the mainstream feminist movement sounds improbably extreme. I will need more time before I can adjust my probabilities towards Karen's views. However, Karen's point about the difference between rape and murder was a valid one though could have possibly been said with more tact. She displayed ovaries of osmium in that segment if nothing else.

[StephL]

Yeah you're right - I've been also saying that I needed to check her sources, and it's still so. Ovaries of osmium - hehehee - I'm going to cache that one as well, you're a well of interesting expressions, DV! I really, really hope, Straughan got her evidence straight - that would otherwise be a mighty shame and disappointment. Good hunting! Edit: How come you changed your mind?

[Darkmatters]

It can be hard to find good statistics on any feminist issue if you just make a cursory search and rely on popular sources - most of the statistics posted online or published in magazines etc have been published by feminist groups, and by activists at that - they're the ones interested enough to get things published and to lobby to enact laws etc. Warren Farrell, one of feminism's chief proponents in its early days, has addressed that problem by bypassing popular sources and drawing statistics from the original sources - government studies, the census, scientific studies etc, and in his books he always gives his sources so they can be checked. He came to notice this mean streak in feminism some time ago, the way it smears men and makes it ok for everyone to do so as well, and he created the first men's rights groups, which immediately got him kicked out of feminism. For some reason they see any effort to do the same thing for men that the women's rights movement did for women as a threat to feminism. For a really good level headed look at the issues facing men still, most of which are completely unaddressed by society or law and the bringing up of which gets men ridiculed savagely, take a look at some of his books like The Myth of Male Power. Some very shocking statistics, such as the huge disproportion in on-the-job deaths and serious injuries, suicides, the fact that while there are countless shelters and hotlines for women suffering from just about any kind of problem there are no such resources for men and men who have suffered domestic abuse who turn up at a shelter are often turned away and even mocked savagely as they cry in desperation with nowhere to turn, even their friends and family telling them to just be a man and suck it up. Men are by a vast margin the greater victims of violent crime and yet we have a violence against women act. Why discriminate? Why not simply a violence act? By an insanely broad margin the majority of homeless are men, because there are places that will take in women and children, and there are funds to provide them with financial support. Another excellent source of info is Erin Pizzey, the English woman who started the first women's shelters, and subsequently discovered that the women there almost invariably (and quite happily) admitted that they themselves were at least as guilty of domestic violence as their husbands or partners and in fact usually were the ones to start it, knowing he can't fight back without making himself subject to arrest or the extreme reactions of her male relatives and friends and even any random passers-by who will automatically jump to the aid of a woman if she's fighting with a man. Here's a brief and rather informative video - how do people react to a woman abusing a man in public?:

[Darkmatters]

Double-posting so I can put up another video - mods feel free to merge them if you want. And I suppose by now everybody has seen the vicious and sadistic reaction in the studio of The Talk when Sharon Osborne and the rest of the gals smirked and cheered over a man being viscously attacked and genitally mutilated by his crazy wife: The entire audience cackled with glee. Yeah, hilarious stuff. And her halfhearted and rather derisive 'apology' made it even worse. And what this reveals isn't just that Sharon Osborne is an evil misandrist, but rather a society-wide acceptance of mocking men no matter how horribly they're mutilated - especially if it's sexual in nature. It's seen as something they deserve and there should be high fives all around among the women. This is a part of the social role men have been burdened with from the beginning. Women freed themselves of their social roles a few decades ago, but when men try to do exactly the same it isn't met with sympathy and support, quite the opposite. They're expected to just man up and deal with it in silence. This is the burden of masculinity, which society is not about to release them from. And it's largely because men by nature will protect and help women, but nobody by nature will protect or help men, collectively or individually. A man seen as needing help is weak and pathetic and will be ridiculed even by his own family. Oh they'll help him, but afterward they'll consider him a pathetic loser at least subliminally. We can't help it - it's the way we're programmed. And the final point I want to bring up before I stop talking about this - A fact that normally gets completely overlooked even though everybody is fully aware of it is the immense power that women actually have in our society."Men rule the world, and women rule the men". This is the tagline of a book called Anatomy of Female Power, written by a world-renowned African scholar named Chinweizu. His books on economics and politics etc are deservedly praised. This one got banned by feminist activists because it reveals the dirty little secret we all already know but that if it became publicly acknowledged, would pull the rug right out from under feminism. It's not politically correct to ever bring any of this up publicly, but it does show up all throughout pop culture as jokes, in songs and commercials and sitcoms and romcoms etc. Women have an immense amount of power over men. Who hasn't heard a man, while smiling nervously, call his wife "She Who Must Be Obeyed"? And of course the women all laugh triumphantly and the rest of the men all smile knowingly, because while it's allowed to be said in jest, they all know it's really true. Any wife or girlfriend has the power to put her man in "the doghouse" - to make him "sleep on the couch". This is no slight thing. It's actually extremely powerful behavior modification training. As he explains further, women have several kinds of power over men - the power of a mother, a girlfriend, a wife, a mother-in-law, a daughter.. Men are taught to lust for women's bodies and women are taught to not be as sexually needy as men (or perhaps it's more of a biological advantage). This gives women all the power in the relationship. Then they also have the power of emotional manipulation because men are very straightforward and direct, they aren't complex emotionally, and they are also taught to ignore their emotions while females are encouraged to express their emotions freely and to seek solace and comfort from others. Socially we feel sympathy when a woman is distressed or crying, but we don't feel the same for men. Instead we feel revulsion. As a result females have a vast support network and can work out their problems in groups while men must hold it in in silence (often against groups of women and all their friends and family) and must show strength and restraint or be mocked savagely. As a result, women are able to manipulate men pretty easily through emotions. It's also true that since women vote more than men do, politicians all court the female vote. And women also make 80% of purchases, so marketers court them as well. This actually means women have a great deal of power politically and socially. Far more than men do actually. While most of the politicians may be men, they must cater to women or perish. Imagine for a moment the miserable fate of a male politician who voted against a proposition his wife likes, and his mother and mother-in-law. While male power is direct and highly visible, female power is indirect and behind-the-scenes. This has always been the case in our society. The men sit the thrones of public power and the women pull their strings. This also means that if public policy, created by those powerful male politicians, goes wrong, it's the powerful male politicians who must take the blame, even if he was practically forced by his female coterie to do what he did. It's a beautiful plan really, giving women immense power with no accountability. But then it sucks to sit back and watch someone else get all the glory and be seen as powerful while you must always operate in secrecy, so the temptation was strong to step forward into the spotlight publicly. Thus feminism. Well, plus since these powers of women were so secretive and not to be spoken of, everybody including the women, never really consciously admitted to the existence of them. The household is notoriously female-dominated, but again it isn't publicly acknowledged, so men are widely seen as being more powerful. People tend to forget that society was structured the way it is so that women and children could be safe at home while the men went out to do the difficult and dangerous work. I know this is seen as blasphemy today through the modern lens of feminism, but actually it was biological imperative. Society is a human construction, designed to protect women and to ensure the most risk is faced by men, the expendables (see GirlWritesWhat's video on The Disposable Male for explanation on that one). So really feminism was a push to get women the same public powers and privileges men have, while still retaining all their traditional powers and privileges and ruling supreme in the household. It's a thorny problem. I don't pretend to have a solution - I don't think there really is one. I don't think the feminist solution, to teach men to get in touch with their feminine side, is the best solution. Women, in spite of what they may say publicly, are drawn powerfully to bad boys and alpha males and generally have contempt for feminized males. I think the best thing is to educate people - let this become public knowledge so people can start to see the enormity of the problem, start to understand that even if as a society we can't afford to free men from their traditional roles, at least we should acknowledge their existence.

[DeviantThinker]

It was primarily from my recognition that as a male, I may be blinded to prejudices that don't apply to me personally. No matter how well meaning and otherwise egalitarian my views are towards females, the fact that I don't and cannot share their life experiences or particular brand of cultural programming renders me vulnerable to blindness. It was from my dialogues from a feminist friend of mine who was also a rape victim which began my road to accepting feminism. However, my views are far from the norm by mainstream feminist standards. I believe in sexual dimorphism both on a physical and psychological level. The mountain slope of evolution has caused the male and female streams to diverge both in genome and phenome. Women have greatly superior colour vision and smell for example and the brain regions responsible for empathy and socialising are expanded. Men on the other hand have far greater upper body strength and their abilities to navigate is enhanced, particularly in three dimensions. However, due to the highly plastic nature of the human brain, it is not well advised to judge a person's mental makeup by their gender and hence people should be assessed on an individual basis.

[StephL]

Edit upon having missed your post, DV: Well yeah - I understand that you are reluctant there as a man, so would I. But you might just be suffering from another sort of culturally endorsed blindness. Straughan by the way was a rape victim herself, I've not been, neither Naomi Wolf as far as I know, but I've seen the feminist mindset from the inside - without being aware of how it wasn't okay and out-right unfair at tims. Something simply doesn't seem right there. Still not sure, what to think of the men's rights movement - but something was askew with my views on gender as they were when I called myself a feminist. Besides of course being thankful for what it did to free women from their fixed social roles - including concerning my own life - I don't of course want any of that reverted. But as DM pointed out - it might be much more difficult to free men from theirs - and who knows how it'll all develop. Fantastic posts, Darkmatters. I'm unfortunately a bit sick and sit in bed and can't quite think straight enough for a writing something more useful - but what I would "prescribe" is going about trying to understand our human natures better with the help of evolutionary medicine and psychology. Not only feminism will stand in the way of this, there's painful stuff to be worked through, but feminism has a lot to lose by looking at these things rationally, even the "nice" variants. Why call oneself a feminist - I mean really? Why not humanist and be done with it, all that is "nice" and laudable and yet to be accomplished is available under that umbrella, but I don't have to cringe at what self-proclaimed humanists are doing in public - on youtube, say. "Mere" humanists also don't run out and sabotage peaceful events, like of the men's rights movement. Bit later now - feeling a tiny bit better, too - I've been just looking for the reports about the case of a conference close to Detroit, which had such problems and found a video, where two guys claim to show, how misogynistic and despicable this event would have been. I thought - oolright - brace yourself - lets see what comes now. They start out by having found an old "joke" of an attendee, which I can't endorse, it wasn't made at that conference, though, but in a satirical context. All which follows is two guys taking the piss out of all these "pathetic whiners" at this conference, which they would never attend, but got quotes from. They go on and on how ridiculous these problems would be, and how they would never have such problems. But they do list them, and sorry - nought ridiculous about that. At all - check DM's post and then some more, including the draft and circumcision, something I'm very much against being legal, religion or not. But somehow they can't decide - is it now misogynistic and hateful - or are they all pathetic losers, like these two male feminists actually portray it. And then suddenly whining about having suffered at the hands of women equals misogyny. I had to fight myself through it, not to miss out on something actually worthy of consideration in that respect. From about 10:00 min. in: "Not saying it's okay .. but the fact that this man uses that event as a catalyst that turns him into someone, who hates all (yes - he said that in bold and underlined) women to the point that he is one of about 100 attendees of this event!! It's amaaazing". That's (maybe almost) verbatim - and the whole diatribe of this guy is just like that - WTF?? Merely being there and complaining about emotional abuse by an ex-spouse means that you hate all women? There's one quote of a female speaker, claiming approximately that the meme of rape-culture being installed in colleges would give girls a go out of jail free card by claiming rape in situations with alcohol and grey zones of consent and post-coital regrets. Right - that's the only quote of the whole conference, that they were able to mine, which is an actual real trigger of suspicions. And it was made by a woman. And it was about false accusations, which can't be a forbidden topic - it simply can't. It's a problem, even if it's rather small in comparison, if it is, and it can be life-destroying, when it happens. That and this initial quote not from the event, and purposefully mutilated upon repetition - that's all you got in order to demonstrate how these attendees are evil misogynists?! Bad enough to call them pathetic losers - but that just comes across as completely unfair. Listen to this guy's quotes! After again going on about how they are soo sad and douchebags - then suddenly in the end comes - but these guys are dangerous because they stoke a fire in men who had bad experiences like some mass shooter, I'm not aware of seems to have had them and then he went about mass shooting. Because of the men's rights movement? Get a fluppin grip guys!! I bet I can quote-mine some real shockers from the feminist side - heck I know, I can - there's enough feminist hate on youtube and elsewhere. They also mention how the organizers had to search another location for this conference because of severe protests including death threats - at least these two aren't negating that, even if I haven't got another source. Otherwise - there were 200 feminists marching up and protesting against the conference - collecting 3000 signatures against it, and I believe to have read somewhere else about troubles with the actual conference with people banging pots together and turning off the lights etc. Really?! What ever happened to free speech? Wow - be proud of yourselves! Q.e.d. There: Controversial men’s rights conference canceled at DoubleTree in downtown Detroit | Motor City Muckraker Sorry for suboptimal video and link - I'm not in shape nor mood for searching for the best possible representation of the matter - just throwing this in and rambling a bit is all I manage just now.

[Darkmatters]

due to the highly plastic nature of the human brain, it is not well advised to judge a person's mental makeup by their gender and hence people should be assessed on an individual basis. Of course, individuals are not types. This criticism works just as well for feminism as it does for men's rights. But social science deals with generalities. Feminism deals in generalities about women and men and society - science in general does it in fact. It's just impossible when discussing the mating habits of brine shrimp for instance to keep saying "Of course not every brine shrimp exhibits these exact tendencies… " It's when dealing with individuals that you must see them and treat them as individuals. When you're talking about a society it does no good to say "we can't talk about generalities". In fact generalizing and making observations about group behavior is an extremely valuable tool, without it we wouldn't have science. Imagine if scientists refused to generalize and said "Well, we can't say anything about whale population because every whale is an individual and we don't want to oppress them by removing their individuality.. " And since for so many decades feminism has been doing exactly that - stereotyping men and women into neat groups labelled oppressor and victim and inciting people to rise up and demand certain rights and privileges and protections against their oppressors, and on top of that ingraining these stereotypes into the social consciousness, it seems appropriate to do what can done to try to dismantle some of the stereotypes. To show that in fact men have also always been victims of society. Steph mentioned the draft for instance. That deserves more elaboration. It's a lottery - all men must put their names in the hat and wait to see if they need to march off to kill people until being killed themselves, or - surviving that - likely come home severely damaged physically and psychologically and unable to find employment and being seen as just another crazy war vet. And yes, women are allowed to join the military now, but they they don't have to sign up for selective service when they're 18 and they aren't sent to the front lines. And when people talk about the injustice of women not being able to vote while men were - it wasn't always that way. Originally men weren't allowed to vote either - it was only wealthy land owners who were. The 1% of their day. It was in a time of war (I don't know which one) that the government decided to implement the draft - men only of course - and as a consolation prize gave men the right to vote. When the women's rights movement demanded the right to vote for women it was given to them, and with no compensatory price. Imagine if it was any other group of people who were forced to play that life and death lottery. The Hunger Games imagines if it were children for instance. What if it were only black people. or Jews, or women? There would be a massive and totally justified public outcry so overpowering that the practice would end immediately and whatever government flunkies were blamed for instituting it would be run out of ton on a rail. But of course men don't complain about it, because their role from the beginning has been to defend the women even at risk of their own lives. And I'm not saying men SHOULDN'T go to war. They're the right ones to do it because of testosterone and upper body strength etc - imagine an army of women fighting against a bunch of hyped up alpha males. This is why sports are divided into men's and women's leagues after all. I just want people to see through all the feminist rhetoric and understand the facts. And yeah - the bizarreness of feminism screaming about female genital mutilation in certain third world countries when male genital mutilation is practiced almost universally right in America, done without any anesthetic because at that tender young age anesthetic can be very dangerous to the infant… Obviously another example of men oppressing women with their patriarchy. We need to realize that everybody is oppressed in some ways by society. It's the way a society works - it provides us with certain advantages but also demands a price from us individually. While we're so busy freeing women from their social restraints maybe we can take a look at the forgotten gender too. And Steph, thank you for all the support in this!! It's highly appreciated! Especially considering you're posting while sick. When women stand up for men's rights it tends to get taken lot more seriously.

[StephL]

It's actually working to have women as soldiers, I think, but it's rather got to be all women in a combat unit - so that not the men suffer from their partner not being able to save them, say drag them to safety, while they are, if it was the other way round. In times of technical warfare - and also in general - if they are mad enough to want it - all the better for those who don't want to. But for practical reasons, I guess, it would make sense to segregate. Jeezus - what topics. But hey - no Christians to take us on in our home ground - lets talk about other interesting things! I would say - there has been a certain archaic power balance going on over most of history - and for the greater good of our genes - but is it good, how it goes, seen with our wider horizon? Rather not so much - for women in general, and for men in general, too. Is it worthy of us, what we're doing - thinking we are somewhat of a special and "better" sort of primate? Nope - lets figure out how to get along with us and with each other and make the world a more rational and a "better" place as well - whatever that actually comes to mean. I can understand it perfectly well, if people, women or men, with an issue which has long been ignored only look into their own problems - but I really hope, there's good old humanism to fall back on and somehow some time in the future we might make it "better" than it is today - for all of us in principle.

[Darkmatters]

Amen to that!! And on that note, I'l drop all this men's rights talk and let the thread go back to its original purpose. I mostly just wanted to drop a bunch of info and make a brief intro to the whole men's rights thing so anybody who's interested can look into it for themselves.

[DeviantThinker]

Yeah, I think I will like to tap out of that particular tract of conversation too for the moment. At the risk of being accused of being a "mangina", I find it a little cognitively distressing. Now back to our satanic, atheist, socialist, liberal agenda! (feel free to add 'Islamic' too if you want added xenophobic flair to your terror report)

[StephL]

Yeah I'm all with you guys - BLUELINE went about laudable attempts at debating evolution in kadie's god thread - shame there's no better place for this sort of thing... At least I'm sure, what to think about that, while I'm admittedly not so sure about our little excursion.

[LouaiB]

Ugh, actually I dislike when TF gets all worked up and starts ranting about anything. He's only a step above The Amazing Atheist once he gets himself all wound up. He ends up sounding nearly as hateful as the Westboro Baptist ladies. I mean don't get me wrong, I agree with the points he's making when he slams anything as irrational as Creationism, radical feminism, or solar roadways, it's just that he becomes a total ranting jerkwad when he does it. I love that! I actually enjoy the amazing atheist's videos more, he's fun!

[StephL]

Aah - nope. When it comes to youtube, I don't enjoy the supposedly amazing guy, while I do agree with and really appreciate Thunderf00t's reasoning and efforts and ideas, as far as I've been subjected to them, esp. the Creationism videos. I really liked the one with the golden jackal with an anti-god chariot for example, pertaining to the Nye/Ham debate and revealing the kind of quackery brought forth for trying to sell creationism off as science-compatible. His making scientific home experiments and going to Westboro Baptist Church are cool as well. He's good and funny - but somehow his personality isn't overly entertaining. Not everybody can be a Stephen Fry of course - I adore the man - but I didn't watch any more of TF's now - mainly for style reasons, whatever that means. I see your point Darkmatters, that Dawkins can get quite seriously pissed off and lacks indeed some of the charm of Hitchens while those moments - they are much rarer than they were with our so unfortunately deceased maestro of ranting, though. But I find Dawkins great at times. I like Sam Harris, even while he can be a bit too velvet-footed for my taste, and I also like Daniel Dennet, that little which I saw of him. Then there's Bill Nye, "the science guy" - entertaining and featuring a wonderful quality - real niceness. And Lawrence Krauss, he can be a bit unfair, but he's entertaining and has a lot to say on cosmology, being the one to have found out that the universe is not only expanding, but accelerating while doing so, and he debates religious people. And I like Straughan, while lacking a proper footing and also a proper interest in her topics. I also love Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal by the way - but he's "only" cosmology.

[Darkmatters]

Oh, agreed! Dawkins is excellent when he's not pissed off. I read his Climbing Mount Improbable, and it's an excellent and easily understandable account of how evolution by natural selection really works, to help dispel the ridiculous ideas concocted by Creationists. And I like The Science Guy - haven't seen the rest you mentioned, but of course at the top of the list, though sadly deceased, is the Grandmaster of them all, Carl Sagan! Though you might not appreciate how gentle he was on Creationists and their ilk. Oh, and one of my absolute favorites of course is Sagan's protege Neil DeGrasse Tyson. His videos are always entertaining and informative in equal measure. And I like the position he strikes on the issue of Creationism - he does get angry over the spreading of misinformation and non-science, but he never takes aim at people and insults them, only the stupid ideas. I love what he had to say about Islam and the Muslim world.I'll see if I can find the video. Basically he relates that when the West was immersed in our Dark Ages of religious repression when science was not yet formed and reason was beset on all sides by superstition and iron-fisted rule, science was flourishing in the Middle East, and apparently they were making discoveries the West would have to wait centuries to make. But the balance shifted almost reciprocally - as we emerged from religious repression they sank into it and ever since have utterly disappeared from the map of discovery and progress, both scientifically and socially/culturally. Religious repression stunts the growth of a society in every way (except perhaps spiritually, whatever that's worth, and even there it dictates the direction and expression of that spirituality entirely). Here it is - Naming Rights: "Revelation replaced Investigation" - sorry, that was so good I had to pop back in and post it!! It's what happens when religion takes charge.

[StephL]

Ah see - I almost mentioned how I don't really like Neil deGrasse Tyson - there's a certain self-satisfied and arrogant streak in him, and I cringed a bit in this video too at times. He is no competition to Sagan - so unfortunately, but Sagan was a very special man. I didn't watch Cosmos episodes, except one of them from each I believe, but I can't warm to Tyson, even if he has a lot of interesting things to say, which I don't know about yet, also in this video, but I don't like his style and how he argues neither.

[Xanous]

Christian atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I view Christ as I view Buddha; both great teachers beyond their time spreading teachings of love. The rest is BS. I could tell a looooong sad story of why I no longer believe but it's personal. I'm a preacher's kid. That's enough explanation. Also I have a spark of sympathy for Satanist like lucien Greaves but that's perhaps for another thread.

[StephL]

Christian atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I view Christ as I view Buddha; both great teachers beyond their time spreading teachings of love. The rest is BS. I could tell a looooong sad story of why I no longer believe but it's personal. I'm a preacher's kid. That's enough explanation. Also I have a spark of sympathy for Satanist like lucien Greaves but that's perhaps for another thread. First of all warmest of welcomes, Xanous! This is a really interesting phenomenon, Christian atheism! Congratulation on getting there despite a preacher as a father! Christian atheism is a theological position in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed. Christian atheism is related to Jesuism, the Christian theological-philosophical movement named for its understanding of Jesus as a simple teacher of morals, in direct contrast to traditional Christianity, which claims that Jesus is divine. Many people only "believe in belief", as Daniel Dennett explains it so nicely - even while claiming to believe in god. Primarily because they believe, that without Christian morals as an overreaching boundary for a society, it might well collapse into chaos. Is that somewhat where you are coming from as well? I would ask you, though - does that go for all of his teachings, which don't have a magical backdrop - like salvation from a literal hell, miracles etc.? There are so many problems with this in my eyes, but I can understand it and I cherish it, too, when somebody from so deep inside goes out at least part of the way, the main part in your case - but I wonder, if you might not hang on to an empty phantom. Do you consider stuff like giving away almost all that belongs to you and "not ploughing your field", but doing it like the birds and the flowers, trusting in god to provide for you directly, as a useful guideline for modern responsible living? In my eyes, these things only make any sense in a mindset of expecting the rapture and second coming in one's lifetime. What about the rich man and heaven? Without heaven - you still have "don't accumulate wealth" - and if people of Jesus' time would know, how you live today - you certainly would count as a very rich man. So should society have gone about it's progress, including technology, or should we rather have turned our back on constructive action and instead invested all our time and energies in spreading "the good news"? Would you tell us, what exactly in Christian morality you find so precious, that you hold on to it under an explicitly Christian label, even while knowing that the source is purely human, like with any other moral codes ever brought forth by us? I guess, it includes turning the other cheek - so what if somebody comes into your house and kills people you care about and then goes for you with a bloody knife, would you let her have her way, or would you defend yourself? I think, you should have intervened even before she's on you - but latest then you probably will anyway, because we have a strong survival instinct, all of us. So that's one down in my eyes. Well - you might be somewhat hindered by psychological programming, which tells you, that violence against women and children is taboo and you might feel compelled to be more of a second cheek turner with her than with a guy, for good old evolutionary and also practical reasons - but this one is obviously dangerous, because I say so. I don't really know why I chose a she - complicates the example... The golden rule - don't do unto others as you wouldn't want to have others do unto you. That's nice - Confucius penned it down as well - and I would go as far as saying it's a human universal. I guess, many everyday people, not aware of it being a teaching, could come up with formulating it upon deliberation. It's unconsciously installed anyway, on the neurological grounds of our mirror neurons. But then - the same constraints apply as before - what if you witness your neighbour vandalizing in the neighbourhood seemingly wantonly - wouldn't you call the police? Would you want somebody to call the police on you, if you somehow got out of psychological equilibrium and on a rampage, or would you want somebody to personally intervene and calm you down and help you deal with the fallout? But maybe she doesn't dare to intervene and mess with dangerous you - she'd rather have it dealt with by people, who's job it is? Much too complicated example - but if you exclude comparable circumstances, it's easy to see how it doesn't apply, if another person gives you reason to "do her harm" - like when she's clearly planning to kill you - but also in much more trivial situations. So if it's all relative anyway - why not make up your own mind on the spot - maybe with some guidance from books, sure - but the bible?! I'll have to search for a nice Humanist/moral philosophy manifesto, but I know there are way more specific deliberations to be found, looking into more complicated matters with a modern and enlightened mindset - producing more useful insights than I ever saw derived from the bible. Concerning the ten commandments - I've written my bit on that in some detail on the last page. The core ones are something good old human empathy and social nature would already provide us with, and does and did since the dawn of our species, without a need of anybody spelling it out as divine/genial inspiration, something special! These "laws" are cultural universals, too. If you watch suffering, esp. if you in some way identify with the victim - you will feel a bit of their pain and have an impulse to help, is it not so? You shy away from murdering, stealing, lying and cheating on your spouse also purely from nature - if we wouldn't have these inner moral compass - we would have long died out as a species completely dependant on cooperation. These are the central four that make sense - honouring your parents also makes the same sort of sense - not let them die, once they have fulfilled their "job" on you, taking care of them when they get frail. But even those are obviously relative and depend on the situation. Coveting might make you unhappy and do stupid things - but a sin? The rest is - in my unhumble opinion - just crappy divine vanity and providing means to control people down to their thinking. So there - what's left to be gained from somebody like Jesus and his "moral teachings", who demonstrably was quite clueless otherwise? And who threatened everybody not following him as the son of god with eternal torture - that's not loving, nope! What do you think about my "assessment" - did I leave some important aspects out maybe? After re-reading the above - I realize that it might come across as "chiding" or attacking you - like maybe kadie felt it when I "crapped all over the commandments" - it's absolutely not meant like that - just wanting to know what is so special and precious for you, while just not liking Christian morality myself, there where it transcends common sense and our natural predispositions. smile.gif How did it happen I wrote so much? Sorry - sort of! biggrin.gif

[Xanous]

After re-reading the above - I realize that it might come across as "chiding" or attacking you - like maybe kadie felt it when I "crapped all over the commandments" - it's absolutely not meant like that - just wanting to know what is so special and precious for you, while just not liking Christian morality myself, there where it transcends common sense and our natural predispositions. No. I didn't take any of that in the wrong way. I love hearing all points of view even when it challenges mine. It's how I learn. We often have a very narrow view of the world so this is healthy. It's why I responded. Though, I am guilty of not reading the entire thread first. So, I see your point in a lot of things you said. I mean where does one draw the line here? I guess I haven't really gone that deep into it. When I mention Christian Atheist, it's just the closest thing I have found to match my beliefs (which are always evolving). I guess when I say I'm Atheist I meant that I don't believe in the God of the Bible. In fact, I think he's a real asshole. I would NOT find spending an eternity with him in heaven as ideal. I do believe we have a soul and, I don't know why, but I find reincarnation as something that makes a lot of sense to me. I guess my idea of God is not as a magical man in the sky but more of a cosmic force or the "source" that we all come from. Actually, now that I type that I think maybe I don't believe even that. Perhaps when we die there is nothing, But like most of us I find that hard to accept, so I choose the next thing that makes sense to me. No one really knows what happens, unfortunately. Now for the teachings of Jesus. Note that I compared him to Buddha. It's the teachings of love and peace and just being kind to each other that I find value in. All the miracles and the claims of divinity I have a hard time with. Sure there are many others that teach the same and offer beauty and insight on life. I acknowledge that and accept that as well. I am looking for truth in all the places I can find it. Now, I may strive to live in a way that is peaceful and kind to others but if you wrong me I can be just as vengeful as anyone else. Is that right? It depends on the situation. Do it think I will suffer from making the wrong choice? It happens as a result of cause and effect, but I won't burn in hell or lose karma points for it. My wife is more of a traditional believer in Christianity and I attend church with her every Sunday. So I look for parts of the preaching that I can find truth and beauty in and focus on that rather than being negative and hostile toward Christianity and church. Maybe it's just my way of compromising with her. I have told her that I have issues with the Bible and certain things I totally reject and she respects that and even agrees on some level. I mostly leave it at that. For the most part we agree on the same morals and principles so we really don't clash on anything that really matters. It is what it is and I if am wrong than I will accept that and learn. So when I say I am a Christian Atheist, I meant it as a lose term. Maybe it's just the human desire to put labels on things. Maybe it's just my inability to completely shed all my childhood teachings that saying something like "Atheist" with the word "Christian" in front of me brings some form of comfort. And to clarify about the weird creepy Satanist comment.. I head the man speak on the Duncan Trussell Family Hour Podcast and he made the point that he was atheist and his idea of Satan was completely literary. It's more about being the underdog and rebelling against the oppression of certain social norms than worshiping Satan. The temple of Satan is very Libertarian in their causes. I have no intentions of being a follower of Satanism but there are some ideas I can support. For example, if this story is to be believed, why the hell would a God put the fruit of knowledge on a tree for man to see but tell them they can't have it? That's an asshole move! I think Adam and Eve would be right to eat it.

[StephL]

Beautiful post, Xanous! Yepp - I guess I understand you now - and I think, this sort of finding a common grounding with your wife is a good thing, there's no need for everybody dissecting everything down to the bone and throwing it away wholesale. If it has a positive impact on you two's lives and gives you comfort to keep the common umbrella - that's fine! I like it - and your intellectual honesty in deciding for yourself, what you deem real, too. And esp. your honesty in telling us, how you feel about it all!

[LukeSid]

I'm old and wise...sorry...wizened...(I'm dyslexic) If I was asked to advise someone contemplating whether to "adopt" a God as their good luck charm I would advise the following. 1. On no account read any "book" about your prospective deity. They are written by people who should have got out more and spent far less time penning half-truths, myths, dietary preferences and personal hangups. 2. On no account ever refer to your God as "he" or "him. (you think that's easy?) and treat anyone who does so with utter contempt...else what the hell are women doing here? 3. Start with a reasonable amount of layman's knowledge of astronomy and particle and quantum physics. This will serve to impress on you the sheer size of the Universe (or maybe infinite Universes) and will bring the realization that any God is far too busy to sit on your shoulder and cure your illness or let your favorite football team win or indeed kill all those who don't believe in.......it (thought you had me didn't you?) 4. Listen to the wise words of the prophet George Lucas and maybe accept that there could well be a force out there...a force that runs through everything without fear or favor...or indeed any personal interest in your welfare...and you won't go far wrong. May the force be with you...but don't count on it...

[StephL]

And with you oh wise and wizened one! Or not.