Why don't you believe in God?

[Aegle]

In regards to the bible being very sexist, sexist is something that believe it or not objective. I won't go into it in-depth but some radical feminists actually consider feminism sexist because by having women reject the traditional females roles it is effectively saying having women's roles is low and that we should all strive to have equal male oriented roles, rather than appreciate and equate the importance of a good mother to that of a good CEO. So the whole bible has rape, incest, misogyny argument at best appeases the most shallow readings of the bible. That being said the bible does contain some pretty brutal stuff in Leviticus which was the book where the hebrews had their laws. Its funny though when Christians use verse from Leviticus as a sole proof for their arguments, because Christians are not required to follow Jewish Law! It also comes from a time when Hebrews believed in an "Eye for Eye" punishment rather than "turn the other cheek" and "praying for your enemies." So really it has very little place in christianity, I'm not sure why people use it.

here's a fine line between equality and equity. I don't know which one you're referring to. There should be equity when treating gender but equality may lead to inequity.

Yes I agree with that, I needed a word to describe my views. I'm not trying to start another debate. But I feel equality is asking basically woman to do men's jobs and Men to do women's jobs. its not that they can't be done, but we're biologically different and that will impact what jobs are more attractive to us as a sex, or dare i say more appropriate to us as a sex.

I strongly disagree with the idea that because different genders are "biologically different" we should attempt to do things that are "more appropriate to [each] sex". Some women do not want to become "good mothers" (although this is a valid and valuable role in society) and the role of men as "good fathers" rather than "good CEO" is a valuable one as well. People are different, and they have different goals, and gender equality is meant to broaden opportunities. To some extent, religious views are the product of our life experiences and upbringing, and while I appreciate that there was an attempt to give a considered argument, I did notice that the "traditional" female roles that have been mentioned in the first quote appear to be based around a traditionally Christian culture. This is only vaguely related to the main question behind this topic, but it is important to note the influence of cultural perspectives in this debate.

[Luka Petrovic]

Yeah sorry if I didn't expand on that... I think now there is a stigma around doing these traditional roles.People say "Oh she doesn't do anything, she stays at home..." Its not that society makes it okay for women to choose either, they make traditional roles seem dumb and backwards. It should be a right to choose either one without discomfort because both are perfectly legitimate and both are important in their own way.

[Black Bird Lockheed]

Well 1 thing I hate about believing god is that different religion has different views of god which might prove that god after all has not exist. Also religion violence is another thing because of staunch believer of god. If people are so eager to have a religion then why don't all people follow one religion that is " Humanity" and worship one

book which contains ethics and moral values. At least there won't be any communal violence and superstition.

[Nabz]

In regards to the bible being very sexist, sexist is something that believe it or not objective. I won't go into it in-depth but some radical feminists actually consider feminism sexist because by having women reject the traditional females roles it is effectively saying having women's roles is low and that we should all strive to have equal male oriented roles, rather than appreciate and equate the importance of a good mother to that of a good CEO. So the whole bible has rape, incest, misogyny argument at best appeases the most shallow readings of the bible. That being said the bible does contain some pretty brutal stuff in Leviticus which was the book where the hebrews had their laws. Its funny though when Christians use verse from Leviticus as a sole proof for their arguments, because Christians are not required to follow Jewish Law! It also comes from a time when Hebrews believed in an "Eye for Eye" punishment rather than "turn the other cheek" and "praying for your enemies." So really it has very little place in christianity, I'm not sure why people use it.

>

here's a fine line between equality and equity. I don't know which one you're referring to. There should be equity when treating gender but equality may lead to inequity.

Yes I agree with that, I needed a word to describe my views. I'm not trying to start another debate. But I feel equality is asking basically woman to do men's jobs and Men to do women's jobs. its not that they can't be done, but we're biologically different and that will impact what jobs are more attractive to us as a sex, or dare i say more appropriate to us as a sex.

I strongly disagree with the idea that because different genders are "biologically different" we should attempt to do things that are "more appropriate to [each] sex". Some women do not want to become "good mothers" (although this is a valid and valuable role in society) and the role of men as "good fathers" rather than "good CEO" is a valuable one as well. People are different, and they have different goals, and gender equality is meant to broaden opportunities. To some extent, religious views are the product of our life experiences and upbringing, and while I appreciate that there was an attempt to give a considered argument, I did notice that the "traditional" female roles that have been mentioned in the first quote appear to be based around a traditionally Christian culture. This is only vaguely related to the main question behind this topic, but it is important to note the influence of cultural perspectives in this debate.

So basically you're saying that males should get holidays of what, 6 weeks? as well as females, the pregnancy holidays? Because if you sqaure one side then you would have to square the other side as well, to maintain equality.

Edited May 8, 2013 by shad0wboss

[Sandwich]

In regards to the bible being very sexist, sexist is something that believe it or not objective. I won't go into it in-depth but some radical feminists actually consider feminism sexist because by having women reject the traditional females roles it is effectively saying having women's roles is low and that we should all strive to have equal male oriented roles, rather than appreciate and equate the importance of a good mother to that of a good CEO. So the whole bible has rape, incest, misogyny argument at best appeases the most shallow readings of the bible. That being said the bible does contain some pretty brutal stuff in Leviticus which was the book where the hebrews had their laws. Its funny though when Christians use verse from Leviticus as a sole proof for their arguments, because Christians are not required to follow Jewish Law! It also comes from a time when Hebrews believed in an "Eye for Eye" punishment rather than "turn the other cheek" and "praying for your enemies." So really it has very little place in christianity, I'm not sure why people use it.

>>>

here's a fine line between equality and equity. I don't know which one you're referring to. There should be equity when treating gender but equality may lead to inequity.

Yes I agree with that, I needed a word to describe my views. I'm not trying to start another debate. But I feel equality is asking basically woman to do men's jobs and Men to do women's jobs. its not that they can't be done, but we're biologically different and that will impact what jobs are more attractive to us as a sex, or dare i say more appropriate to us as a sex.

I strongly disagree with the idea that because different genders are "biologically different" we should attempt to do things that are "more appropriate to [each] sex". Some women do not want to become "good mothers" (although this is a valid and valuable role in society) and the role of men as "good fathers" rather than "good CEO" is a valuable one as well. People are different, and they have different goals, and gender equality is meant to broaden opportunities. To some extent, religious views are the product of our life experiences and upbringing, and while I appreciate that there was an attempt to give a considered argument, I did notice that the "traditional" female roles that have been mentioned in the first quote appear to be based around a traditionally Christian culture. This is only vaguely related to the main question behind this topic, but it is important to note the influence of cultural perspectives in this debate.

So basically you're saying that males should get holidays of what, 6 weeks? as well as females, the pregnancy holidays? Because if you sqaure one side then you would have to square the other side as well, to maintain equality.

In many countries it is customary to give both men and women 'maternity leave' when their child is born. In the UK men are entitled to at least two weeks' leave.

[Nabz]

In regards to the bible being very sexist, sexist is something that believe it or not objective. I won't go into it in-depth but some radical feminists actually consider feminism sexist because by having women reject the traditional females roles it is effectively saying having women's roles is low and that we should all strive to have equal male oriented roles, rather than appreciate and equate the importance of a good mother to that of a good CEO. So the whole bible has rape, incest, misogyny argument at best appeases the most shallow readings of the bible. That being said the bible does contain some pretty brutal stuff in Leviticus which was the book where the hebrews had their laws. Its funny though when Christians use verse from Leviticus as a sole proof for their arguments, because Christians are not required to follow Jewish Law! It also comes from a time when Hebrews believed in an "Eye for Eye" punishment rather than "turn the other cheek" and "praying for your enemies." So really it has very little place in christianity, I'm not sure why people use it.

>>>>

here's a fine line between equality and equity. I don't know which one you're referring to. There should be equity when treating gender but equality may lead to inequity.

Yes I agree with that, I needed a word to describe my views. I'm not trying to start another debate. But I feel equality is asking basically woman to do men's jobs and Men to do women's jobs. its not that they can't be done, but we're biologically different and that will impact what jobs are more attractive to us as a sex, or dare i say more appropriate to us as a sex.

lockquote>

I strongly disagree with the idea that because different genders are "biologically different" we should attempt to do things that are "more appropriate to [each] sex". Some women do not want to become "good mothers" (although this is a valid and valuable role in society) and the role of men as "good fathers" rather than "good CEO" is a valuable one as well. People are different, and they have different goals, and gender equality is meant to broaden opportunities. To some extent, religious views are the product of our life experiences and upbringing, and while I appreciate that there was an attempt to give a considered argument, I did notice that the "traditional" female roles that have been mentioned in the first quote appear to be based around a traditionally Christian culture. This is only vaguely related to the main question behind this topic, but it is important to note the influence of cultural perspectives in this debate.

So basically you're saying that males should get holidays of what, 6 weeks? as well as females, the pregnancy holidays? Because if you sqaure one side then you would have to square the other side as well, to maintain equality.

In many countries it is customary to give both men and women 'maternity leave' when their child is born. In the UK men are entitled to at least two weeks' leave.

That is my argument. Do they really need it? Doesn't it brings in the concept of inefficiency in terms of economics, opportunity costs, bla bla bla...

Edited May 8, 2013 by shad0wboss

[Armani Thurman]

I'm unsure of my position in the whole religion debate. I've been raised in a very religious family, but I don't see what they see. All these miracles and gifts. Nothing tragic has happened in my life for me to believe miracles happen. My parents seem to try to force the thoughts on me subtly. They do things like make me go to church and pray over my food. But who am I doing these things for? They don't seem to benefit me in any way. And how does everyone know what happens after our life on earth? No human is capable of imagining a world without them being there without accidently putting themselves in the picture. If I dig up my grampa's corpse, even though he was a strong Christian, his body is still on earth.

That's all I can say for now? Too-da-loo

[Luka Petrovic]

Well 1 thing I hate about believing god is that different religion has different views of god which might prove that god after all has not exist. Also religion violence is another thing because of staunch believer of god. If people are so eager to have a religion then why don't all people follow one religion that is " Humanity" and worship one

book which contains ethics and moral values. At least there won't be any communal violence and superstition.

If I have 3 wine connoisseurs try identical glasses of wine, or have 3 aficionados smoke identical cigars, they may have some similarities in their description of what they taste/ smell, but there will be differences as well. Some might have a stronger note of fruit, others chocolate. Does that mean the wine or Cigar doesn't exist?

Well to make a unified religion we would all have to agree on what is right and well we can;t really agree on that. As well moral and ethical values are not objective, how would you deciede the right ones?

That would by no means solve the issues of violence between people, we will always fight about something, if not religion politics, if not politics ethnicity, if not ethnicity favourite flavour of ice cream...

Edited May 9, 2013 by Luka Petrovic

[Aegle]

In regards to the bible being very sexist, sexist is something that believe it or not objective. I won't go into it in-depth but some radical feminists actually consider feminism sexist because by having women reject the traditional females roles it is effectively saying having women's roles is low and that we should all strive to have equal male oriented roles, rather than appreciate and equate the importance of a good mother to that of a good CEO. So the whole bible has rape, incest, misogyny argument at best appeases the most shallow readings of the bible. That being said the bible does contain some pretty brutal stuff in Leviticus which was the book where the hebrews had their laws. Its funny though when Christians use verse from Leviticus as a sole proof for their arguments, because Christians are not required to follow Jewish Law! It also comes from a time when Hebrews believed in an "Eye for Eye" punishment rather than "turn the other cheek" and "praying for your enemies." So really it has very little place in christianity, I'm not sure why people use it.

>>

here's a fine line between equality and equity. I don't know which one you're referring to. There should be equity when treating gender but equality may lead to inequity.

Yes I agree with that, I needed a word to describe my views. I'm not trying to start another debate. But I feel equality is asking basically woman to do men's jobs and Men to do women's jobs. its not that they can't be done, but we're biologically different and that will impact what jobs are more attractive to us as a sex, or dare i say more appropriate to us as a sex.

I strongly disagree with the idea that because different genders are "biologically different" we should attempt to do things that are "more appropriate to [each] sex". Some women do not want to become "good mothers" (although this is a valid and valuable role in society) and the role of men as "good fathers" rather than "good CEO" is a valuable one as well. People are different, and they have different goals, and gender equality is meant to broaden opportunities. To some extent, religious views are the product of our life experiences and upbringing, and while I appreciate that there was an attempt to give a considered argument, I did notice that the "traditional" female roles that have been mentioned in the first quote appear to be based around a traditionally Christian culture. This is only vaguely related to the main question behind this topic, but it is important to note the influence of cultural perspectives in this debate.

So basically you're saying that males should get holidays of what, 6 weeks? as well as females, the pregnancy holidays? Because if you sqaure one side then you would have to square the other side as well, to maintain equality.

This is not what I am "basically saying"--I mentioned that some people do not wish to have children!

In regards to your post, I would argue that paternal leave should, in fact, be allowed (although for obvious reasons women give birth and thus will require some leave) and that paternal leave can be quite important as it allows fathers time with their newborn children. Maternal or paternal leave is not a holiday--it is time to recover from childbirth and to connect with and look after a newborn child.

I believe that allowing women and men more options in life is not equivalent to giving men holidays, as I do not regard the position of homemaker or primary caregiver of a child to be equivalent to a "holiday".

Furthermore, my 'basic' point was that the original poster was focusing on traditional family roles from a certain cultural and religious perspective (for example, in some cultures the parents are not the primary caregivers).

[Matsu]

Logically, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a god, almighty being, or something to that effect. I do, however, think that it is incredibly beneficial to believe in a supreme being or at least subscribe to a religion. Religion is something that allows us to comprehend and deal with things that, quite frankly, the human brain has trouble with (such as its own mortality, the scale of the universe, why the hell life exists, etc). It also allows us to explain fundamentally unexplainable things, which I think is quite beautiful. I think that religion can help contribute to an incredibly healthy mindset. Whenever you see someone bashing people who have religion as "people not in the right state of mind" or "wacko fanatic zealots", they're typically referring to tiny splinter extremist groups like the Westboro Baptist Church or Al Qaeda. Those aren't regular religious people. Those are insane people who are just giving the world excuses that happen to be religious in nature for the f*cked up crazy-ass **** they do. Those are psychos masquerading as religious people.

Personally, I believe in a divine creator, but I think if one really did exist, we shouldn't even try to claim we know so much about Him/Her/It. That's why I think all religious frameworks are fundamentally flawed, because they are based on imperfect human understanding. I won't lie though, I find the Catholic frame of reference much more palatable to my beliefs, which is why I identify as one, as I don't think I'm a true agnostic. It's just that, in my personal opinion, the Catholic frame of reference is closer to the "truth" (whatever that is, lol TOK). Do I let that bother me or influence my thoughts and actions in any way? Not really, but maybe I'm just a really bad Catholic. I guess I believe in a God, but at the same time, I'm not very religious.. Paradoxical much?

[Black Bird Lockheed]

But even if gods do exist then I think in a matter of time we will become even more powerful than god due to science and technology. Any of you agree or disagree?

[susanne]

I disagree; we should not play god, not because that I am a christian (i'm an atheist), but rather that's what I have learned from history.

If we can't live without destroying this place like what we've had done over the past centuries or more, we simply don't have the capability or wisdom to be god. Yes, technology is important, but it's more important to know how and when to use it, wisely. Look at Manhattan project.

besides, there is theoratically no limit to scientific development, however, doesn't ethic limits science in someway?

But even if gods do exist then I think in a matter of time we will become even more powerful than god due to science and technology. Any of you agree or disagree?

[Black Bird Lockheed]

I disagree; we should not play god, not because that I am a christian (i'm an atheist), but rather that's what I have learned from history.

If we can't live without destroying this place like what we've had done over the past centuries or more, we simply don't have the capability or wisdom to be god. Yes, technology is important, but it's more important to know how and when to use it, wisely. Look at Manhattan project.

besides, there is theoratically no limit to scientific development, however, doesn't ethic limits science in someway?

But even if gods do exist then I think in a matter of time we will become even more powerful than god due to science and technology. Any of you agree or disagree?

I completely agree with your part that we should use our intelligence for the benefit of every one and that in the matter of time we will become more powerful than god some day or the other. But in many books I have read that people in Atlantis was so advanced and powerful that god had flooded Atlantis due to this ( I don't know whether it is true. You can also take the example of Adam and Eve). So won't you call god a selfish being?

[Luka Petrovic]

But even if gods do exist then I think in a matter of time we will become even more powerful than god due to science and technology. Any of you agree or disagree?

I'm not sure how you can become as powerful as an eternal all knowing consciousness that transcends the smallest of things such as different human languages to the largest such as time and space, thats literally an impossible feat for technology to achieve. We are uncomfortable with this idea because we've used technology since the beginning of time to take control of this planet and become the dominant species, dare I say it in the biblical manner, we've "Gone forth and subdued" the earth. So the idea that our technology can't conquer something is rather scary. We like being top dogs as humans...

[Black Bird Lockheed]

But even if gods do exist then I think in a matter of time we will become even more powerful than god due to science and technology. Any of you agree or disagree?

I'm not sure how you can become as powerful as an eternal all knowing consciousness that transcends the smallest of things such as different human languages to the largest such as time and space, thats literally an impossible feat for technology to achieve. We are uncomfortable with this idea because we've used technology since the beginning of time to take control of this planet and become the dominant species, dare I say it in the biblical manner, we've "Gone forth and subdued" the earth. So the idea that our technology can't conquer something is rather scary. We like being top dogs as humans...

So do you believe in Nostradamus?

[Claudiosee]

I have a very distinct approach to religion.

My parents are both scientists and hence do not follow religion, however were both raised christian by their parents.

I have given this a lot of thought and decided that I like the idea of religion because it gives people something to live for.

When someone is in a bad situation and prays (if it does or does not help) the belief of having someone help them will give them hope.

That said, I chose to give the entire subject the benefit of the doubt and do believe in "god" or some similar power.

However I strictly decline having any arguments about the validity/awesomeness of different religions.

This is because most of them lead towards a similar general story (this is a very general assumption, I am aware of the differences, no need to tell me about them).

Additionally, although theories such as the big bang theory exist, I can't help but wonder from where the entire energy involved in the creation of the universe is from and what that "source's source" is. Therefore I take God as being the answer to a question, which most likely can't be answered to a full extent.

Therefore I chose to believe in parts of religion because I like the positive psychological effects that it can have on a person, as well as religions being some of the earliest social "rules" to live by, to which, even today, we partially live by.

Also I would like to ask any Religious/non religious people to stop trying to convince others of your belief and stop the feeling of superiority to others due to their belief. It is in no way a sign of stupidity to be religious nor is it a sign of intelligence to not be religious (and of course vice verca).

Just let everyone decide for themselves what they want to believe.

Best Regards

[susanne]

I disagree; we should not play god, not because that I am a christian (i'm an atheist), but rather that's what I have learned from history.

If we can't live without destroying this place like what we've had done over the past centuries or more, we simply don't have the capability or wisdom to be god. Yes, technology is important, but it's more important to know how and when to use it, wisely. Look at Manhattan project.

besides, there is theoratically no limit to scientific development, however, doesn't ethic limits science in someway?

But even if gods do exist then I think in a matter of time we will become even more powerful than god due to science and technology. Any of you agree or disagree?

I completely agree with your part that we should use our intelligence for the benefit of every one and that in the matter of time we will become more powerful than god some day or the other. But in many books I have read that people in Atlantis was so advanced and powerful that god had flooded Atlantis due to this ( I don't know whether it is true. You can also take the example of Adam and Eve). So won't you call god a selfish being?

once again, we should probably evaluate the story of Adam and Eve; who wrote it? what was it for? etc. etc. (as my history teacher would've said)

yeah, sometimes I do wonder if god is selfish or not (if there is a god), according to Bible. There are just so much continuity differences between the two testaments. In the new Testament god was merciful (to some extent), yet in the old one he is basically just like "if you don't believe/fear me I will bring disaster upon you" and that stuff. And sometimes you would think that the hell is bad, and the one who guarded hell is pretty much against god. But then, god only throws bad people there; logic? gone

[Wicquor]

Logically, it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a god, almighty being, or something to that effect. I do, however, think that it is incredibly beneficial to believe in a supreme being or at least subscribe to a religion. Religion is something that allows us to comprehend and deal with things that, quite frankly, the human brain has trouble with (such as its own mortality, the scale of the universe, why the hell life exists, etc). It also allows us to explain fundamentally unexplainable things, which I think is quite beautiful. I think that religion can help contribute to an incredibly healthy mindset. Whenever you see someone bashing people who have religion as "people not in the right state of mind" or "wacko fanatic zealots", they're typically referring to tiny splinter extremist groups like the Westboro Baptist Church or Al Qaeda. Those aren't regular religious people. Those are insane people who are just giving the world excuses that happen to be religious in nature for the f*cked up crazy-ass **** they do. Those are psychos masquerading as religious people.

I think this is the healthiest attitude I've seen to religion in a long time; I personally don't believe in God, but my parents do and being the conservative people they are, they expect me to as well >_>.

My point is that belief in god has a lot of benefits to the mind that is willing to accept the existence of the supernatural and the inexplicable, which is both helpful and beautiful. It also gives people reasons to live, gives them hope and gives them the desire to pass on the former two to others. It's when people start using religion as an excuse to do decidedly wrong things that the metaphorical line has been crossed ...

I'm not really sure what I am--somewhere in between, maybe. The existence of God doesn't particularly concern me, but should someone be able to prove God's existence then I'll believe in God. o:

[Luka Petrovic]

I think that anyone who has a bad thing about anyone's beliefs should re-assess what they are saying and whether or not its justified from a human, logical and rational point of view, or if its line with their religion if they choose. if they really looked hard, they would come to something pretty close to Matsu's general idea.

[susanne]

do you think that Religion should take a prominent part in politics? as in using Laws from the Bible to govern a country?

I think that anyone who has a bad thing about anyone's beliefs should re-assess what they are saying and whether or not its justified from a human, logical and rational point of view, or if its line with their religion if they choose. if they really looked hard, they would come to something pretty close to Matsu's general idea.