Are you an atheist? (3 Viewers)

[Frothingslosh]

I think they're still reeling over the fact that they've elected a Pope who has suggested that perhaps poverty and suffering might not be inherently good things, that just MAYBE there are more important things in life than the amassing of wealth and power, and that there might be some small measure of validity in differing belief systems.

Considering that his predecessor was Darth Benedict, that's quite the momentous change.

That said, I'm sure this newest heresy will be stamped out soon enough. I mean, actually pay women and treat them like actual people? BLASPHEMY!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I don't read Italian so didn't read the original article, but it has hit the English-speaking (well... writing) world now. Here is an English language reference to the article in question in the "Woman Church World" magazine. Just so you know I didn't make it up.

https://www.americamagazine.org/fai...-often-treated-servants-cardinals-and-bishops

 

[Frothingslosh]

I'm actually rather surprised, considering the conservative bent of many of the contributors to this sub-forum, that there hasn't already been someone here raging about this being yet another example of feminists trying to destroy society and enslave men.

And I wish I were exaggerating that kind of outrage, trust me.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Frothy, as to the idea of me saying I'm anti-feminist? No, not really. I DO, however, believe that when a man is accused of something, he DOES have the right to deny it and to, if necessary, INSIST on having his day in a court of law, not one of public opinion. I guess it is because I believe in "due process" as a meaningful thing.

In essence, my stance is "Can you prove the allegations? If you can, let the process begin. If you can't, then beware of a lawsuit for defamation of character." I don't want women to suffer in silence, but this is a case for practical application of the Serenity Prayer for religious people. For us atheists, it is more of a risk / reward transaction. Weigh what you gain against what you could lose. BUT if what you gain is peace of mind and you feel it is necessary, that IS a possible decision that people can understand. It's always a balancing act.

In the Larry Nasser case, enough witnesses came forward to make it clear and the S.O.B. got what he deserved. Harvey Weinstein has been accused but not yet convicted of illegal behavior; however, enough people have come forward about his smarmy behavior that I won't shed a tear for him. However, a few cases here and there appear to have been more isolated incidents that might have fallen into the realm of careless rather than intentionally or callously predatory behavior.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I never said you were anti-feminist; I said I was surprised that no one had raised holy howling hell about this being part of some grand feminist plot to destroy civilization. I've seen it happen before.

Dude, you've seen me post here for years. I rarely beat around the bush. If I were going to accuse of you of anti-feminist hysteria, I'd have said so directly!

 

[Frothingslosh]

And as to the rest of your post, this is NOT the thread to discuss due process regarding sexual harassment and assault cases, whom to believe, how people on both sides of the accusation are treated, or the like, IMO. I wasn't even THINKING along those lines, trust me! I was actually thinking about a review I saw for The Last Jedi where the reviewer just started frothing at the mouth about how the director and, through him, feminists and the entire feminist movement had deliberately and intentionally destroyed the franchise, betrayed the entire fanbase, and just generally taken another step toward their overall goal of reducing males to effective slavery.

It would be hilarious if they weren't dead serious.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If I were going to accuse of you of anti-feminist hysteria, I'd have said so directly!

Granted. I did a little self-editing on the post to which you object because I realized I was heading TOO far afield. So before I hit the POST button, I trimmed it. In doing so I may have removed a couple of ideas.

However, let me bring that post back to theme.

The activities reported in the indicated magazine article are examples of attitudes that were contributory to my atheism. Not primary, but contributory.

Too many Christian and Muslim denominations take the "Husband is the lord and master of the household" statement so seriously that an abused woman in a religious household simply is all too common. The idea that a kind and loving God would create women as a whipping toy and as chattel actually sickens me. In fact, when confronted with a "lord and master" idiot, I frequently turn into, not merely an atheist, but a vehement and snarling anti-theist.

Therefore, I was thinking - but apparent over-edited - that atheists would at least have one less reason to be anti-feminist. They don't have that abomination of mysogynism as part of their personality. Oh, men can still be beasts, but at least atheists won't be beasts because of the Bible or the Qur'an.

I know, it's hard for you to believe that I actually over-edited myself because you know that I can rattle on until we have beaten the horse to death. But it happened.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Ahhh.

I think hell just froze over, because I actually agree with you. Of course, agnostics like myself tend to be much like atheists where this topic is concerned...and your point in the most recent post seems MUCH more on-topic than the diversion to assault and harassment accusations (which would, honestly, make an interesting - but highly incendiary - topic all its own ).

But yeah, seriously, it never occurred to me that YOU would be one of those folks; I was just surprised that one hadn't turned up, considering how outspokenly right-wing some of our usual contributors here are. If nothing else, I was expecting Aziz to jump in to proclaim Islamic Superiority once again.

Anyway, on a related note, back in '95 I found myself working with someone I had attended high school with, and learned that he had joined Promise Keepers. Imagine my horror, as someone brought up to believe that women were equal to men, to hear someone who had once been a nice, caring, happy young kid talking about how women were supposed to serve men, that their assigned place was to cook, clean the house, and provide sex as needed, and how them doing anything else was an abomination before God. And this was when I still was a practicing Methodist myself!

I spent several months trying to convince him to think for himself, but he absolutely REFUSED. Everything I talked to him about was brought to his pastor, and then he'd faithfully regurgitate back to me what the pastor told him to think, be it Dungeons and Dragons (Satan's attempt to corrupt America's youth through the teaching of actual magic), the Theory of Evolution (Satan's attempt to corrupt humanity through teaching that God wasn't perfect), Islam (Mohammed was Satan in disguise, and all Muslims are fully aware), or even whether gay men had the right to exit (Nope). He literally held the position that his pastor was always right, because God would never allow such a holy man to be wrong.

This guy would absolutely be screaming about the Great Feminist Conspiracy right now if he saw that article. He's also the type of guy Voltaire warned us about in that quote I used as my signature for a few weeks.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Also, a LOT of those assholes justify their treatment of women and their forcing them into subservient roles (and IIRC, it was part of Promise Keeper's teachings) because apparently it's a penance forced upon all women due to Eve breaking God's law and eating the Fruit.

Gotta love throwing back to Original Sin in the modern world.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

which would, honestly, make an interesting - but highly incendiary - topic all its own

Don't tempt me.

 

[Mark_]

Everything I talked to him about was brought to his pastor, and then he'd faithfully regurgitate back to me what the pastor told him to think, be it Dungeons and Dragons (Satan's attempt to corrupt America's youth through the teaching of actual magic)

I bet my Paladin can beat up HIS paladin.

 

[Dick7Access]

I am the boss in my house, and I have my wife's permission to say so.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I bet my Paladin can beat up HIS paladin.

No, no, didn't you see? D&D is nothing but literal black magic grimoires published under the ruse of being a game! It does nothing but teach impressionable youth how to use Satanic forces to enact their wills upon all of humanity! Apparently, even simply glancing inside the covers is enough to imperil your immortal soul!

/sarcasm

Anyway, I used that example with my ex-high-school acquaintance with malice aforethought, as we weren't THAT far past the whole 'D&D IS SATANIC!!!!' scare of the late 80's, and I wanted to see what he and his preacher said about it. I think the best part was that he admitted that neither he nor his preacher had so much as looked inside a D&D book; that was when he spouted the line that God wouldn't allow his preacher to be wrong. It was really the first time I came face-to-face with someone who literally let other people do their thinking for them.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Frothy, I perfectly understand your position and dismay / disdain with regard to meeting one of the non-thinkers. Why do you suppose the ministry uses the metaphor of shepherds and sheep? Ain't a coincidence! What I never understood is how the flocks didn't see that they were being sheared for more than just their 10% tithing.

I have responded to many such people regarding their knowing or unknowing attempts to hit me with Pascal's Wager. But the problem with such non-thinkers is that they cannot understand ANY logical response. <sigh> Sometimes it seems hopeless. You can lead a person to ideas but you can't make them think.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I do think that most priests really do try to fulfill the PRIMARY purpose of a shepard: to PROTECT the flock. Some people (typically those with authoritarian personalities), have a distressing tendency to think that someone must 100% be correct if that person is trusted or in a position of power. There's no second-guessing, no confirmation, just the understanding that those 'above' you are always correct.

Hell, we see that constantly today, and it has been repeated over and over again on this very thread, as it's the heart and soul of Bible (and Qu'ran) literalism.

Couple that with the very human tendency to believe anything you're told by people you already agree with or like, and you get things like the Salem Witch Trials, the Inquisition (or the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to call it by its modern name), the Holocaust, and hell, even things like the murder of George Tiller, the Charleston church shooting, the Oklahoma City bombing, and 9/11.

When people believe God is on their side, they are capable of and willing to do literally ANYTHING, not matter how horrifying the action. Or as Voltaire said:

Formerly there were those who said: You believe things that are incomprehensible, inconsistent, impossible because we have commanded you to believe them; go then and do what is unjust because we command it. Such people show admirable reasoning. Truly, whoever is able to make you absurd is able to make you unjust. If the God-given understanding of your mind does not resist a demand to believe what is impossible, then you will not resist a demand to do wrong to that God-given sense of justice in your heart. As soon as one faculty of your soul has been dominated, other faculties will follow as well. And from this derives all those crimes of religion which have overrun the world.

Or, as it's usually mis-quoted:

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

That is, in the end, why I am SO down on people who merely think what they're told to think without even TRYING to get at the actual facts of the case. Agree with what you're told in the end, if you must, but do it because the facts LEAD you there, not just because you were told to think that.

My true opposition, though, is for those who abuse their positions and take advantage of this tendency for either hatred or personal gain. Whether it's mega-churches raising millions per year for their 'pastors' to live in mansions, televangelists inciting hatred and violence against people who don't live the Quaker lifestyle, or "news" organizations like Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting (who literally just forced all of its stations to read a condemnation of unspecified (and utterly unproven) Deep State agents (who are apparently all Democrats more loyal to party than nation) hidden in the federal government and working toward the destruction of the US) using propaganda to incite panic, fear, and hatred, they all are the spiritual descendants of Machiavelli, Torquemada, and the like, and they all embody the worst parts of humanity.

 

[Mark_]

televangelists inciting hatred and violence against people who don't live the Quaker lifestyle

The irony in this posts is that actual Quakers are almost all pacifists...

On point though is the "Us or THEM" mentality most fanatical believers have. This is not restricted to religion though. Both "Democrats" and "Republicans" in the United States have their fair share of fanatics unwilling to reasonably discuss opposing views. The same holds true for the militant "Environmental Activists" and other groups.

For the most part, those who learn to reason first are least likely to indulge in "Well, I'm going to regurgitate what which I was spoon fed".

 

[Frothingslosh]

Oh, I used Quakers knowing full well the irony. I was trying write that while waiting on a query to run, and drew a blank for better comparisons for what I really meant: "people who think and live precisely as they're told to by the televangelists".

 

[Mark_]

@ Frothingslosh,

If you want to do that, may as well include those who allow politics to be their religion!

 

[Frothingslosh]

I'm trying to stay at least KIND of on-topic.

Unusual for me, I know.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

If you want to do that, may as well include those who allow politics to be their religion!

Not TRYING to go off topic here, but that is why I'm more of a Libertarian than any other political denomination. I'm not a "anarchistic Libertarian" because some laws are good. I just don't align completely with Republicans OR Democrats. I know some of the laws we have now are slanted by which party was in power when they were enacted.

My political non-alignment is analogous to my position as an atheist. The Bible and Qu'ran have many good statements about love, forgiveness, and an attitude of peace. I don't agree with the claimed origins of their commandments and beliefs, but that doesn't stop forgiveness and mercy from being good things in and of themselves.