Religion and women.

Not open for further replies.
“In fact, it is you who has been making all the accusations of atheists being ignorant and incapable of understanding your holier that thou garbage without evidence or a reasonable explanation
That would be correct.
What of it?
It is ad hominem. In case you do not understand the term;

No it isnt
Clearly then it is you who is incapable of understanding the atheist perspective.
You're just another example of the Dunning-Kruger effect......Hubris!

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.
As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the bias results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[1] It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from people's inability to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their level of competence–Kruger_effect
Clearly then it is you who is incapable of understanding the atheist perspective.
You’re an atheist. A person for whom there is no God. Nothing more, nothing less.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.
All from an atheist perspective.
A perspective of zero.
Stay in your lane.
No it isnt
Calling people ignorant and incapable, and therefore claiming you are correct, is pretty much the definition of an ad hom argument. You do it several times on this page alone.

And coming from a theist who doesn't even know what's in the Bible - that's pretty funny. If you learned a little more about your religion, people might take you more seriously.
Calling people ignorant and incapable, and therefore claiming you are correct, is pretty much the definition of an ad hom argument. You do it several times on this page alone.
Even if it was, it merely cancels out the ad him argument I be received.
And coming from a theist who doesn't even know what's in the Bible - that's pretty funny. If you learned a little more about your religion, people might take you more seriously.
Oh.. put a sock in it :confused:
Okay. So I've been away from this thread for a month, but apparently I'm still one focus of discussion, both personally (with Tiassa and Jan both still carrying heavy personal baggage) and, apparently, also as a kind of model atheist (in the eyes of Jan and, more and more, it seems, Tiassa).

The specific content of Jan's and Tiassa's posts is, by now, almost irrelevant, since both of them seem at this point to be driven by petty hatreds and strong emotions rather than any particular conviction based on reason. I will probably comment on some specific parts of their posts over the past month; there are quite a few lies there that probably need correcting, for starters. But I'd like to take this moment to look at the big picture, as I see it.

Let's start with Jan. It is possible that, for the first time in his life, Jan has been forced to confront some of the misogynist, archaic, religion-inspired views that he has adopted regarding women and their relation to men. Assuming that Jan thinks of himself as a good person, it would be understandable that he would be upset to discover that he holds many views about women that are quite out of step with modern, more enlightened attitudes. Perhaps Jan is angry at himself for failing to see his own faults in this regard until they were pointed out to him. However, I must say that it is disappointing, if understandable and not unexpected, that Jan has chosen to lash out at other people, shooting the messenger as it were, rather than to engage in any honest introspection.

On other hand, maybe Jan is more self-aware than I give him credit for. Maybe he knows that his misogynistic views are rooted in ancient scriptures and just plain old-fashioned patriarchal ideas, but that's just the way he thinks the world ought to work - with him, as a man, "above" women in ability, worth and privilege. The only thing that doesn't make this as plausible an explanation for me is that, if Jan really believed in the righteousness of his own views in the way he insists he does, he wouldn't have a reason to be as angry as he is. There would not be the need to constantly double down on his misogyny and his insistence on his own brand of biblical literalism. So, I conclude that Jan is probably looking for excuses, to make himself feel better. He is looking for somebody else to blame. I'm conveniently available, and so is Bells; we can be the scape goats that absolve him for his sins.

Then there's Tiassa. We're not really sure what Tiassa's personal belief system is. He toyed with atheism at one point, but he also toyed with Wicca and other belief systems, it seems. It's unclear to me where he has landed on the whole God question. Based on what he has written, it seems to me that he retains some nostalgia for a lost belief system, or at least feels offended that atheists dare to intrude on his sense that there might be a higher power of some kind. The upshot of all that is that Tiassa is a bit irate with atheists like me, who don't treat vague religious ideas with sufficient respect. The straw man version of that is that atheists like me (atheists in general, perhaps) just don't know the important stuff about what religion really is. It's a lazy way to try to brush atheism aside - "They aren't worth talking to, because they don't know the first thing about what they're trying to discuss." Meanwhile, Tiassa himself isn't willing to stand for anything when it comes to his own religious beliefs. In fact, like Jan, he mostly hides those away.

Let's be clear, though. Religion and atheism isn't why Tiassa is in this thread; that's a distraction at best, or an excuse. No, Tiassa's main motivation is to personally attack me. He thinks that siding with Jan is a good way to get my back up, to the extent where it doesn't really matter if he ends up enabling a misogynist or condoning obnoxious behaviours towards women. Collateral damage in pursuit of a worthy cause, in Tiassa's mind, perhaps.

I would like to apologise to Bells for her being dragged into Tiassa's ongoing crusade against evil old me. Apparently, in Tiassa's mind, Bells is but a puppet who is incapable of having an independent opinion. Things were fine between Tiassa and Bells until Bells dared to suggest that maybe it was Tiassa who was being unreasonable and not me. Now, Tiassa's assumption seems to be that Bells is as irrational and dishonest as I am, because she's been converted to the dark side somehow.

The sad truth is that here we have two men - Jan and Tiassa - who both have large chips on their shoulders, for different reasons. One is scared of leaving his past behind and becoming a better man, so he's looking for somebody else to blame. The other seems unable to let past disagreements go, to the point where he's weighed himself down with so much emotional baggage that he's now willing to lash out and tell outright lies to promote his agenda. In Jan, Tiassa has found a useful excuse to carry on a pointless crusade based on a lie. In Tiassa, Jan has found a straw to cling to as he drowns in his own iniquity, because Tiassa offers him the comforting lie that it is fine to remain just as he is.

It's a real pity that all of this is so petty and self-serving.

I suggest (though I'm sure this will be ignored) to both Jan and Tiassa: take some time away from the forum. Reflect on your own actions and words here. Stop blaming other people for your problems. Try to do better.
What does it feel like to claim that you are a theist, while not being a theist?
Classic No True Scotsman fallacy.

If you don’t have love wegs, then hate is your companion.
Your false allegations, accusations, and aversion to the truth, makes you “systemically hateful”.
IOW you act like you’re all nice, and friendly, but as soon as someone calls you out, we see these negative qualities rise to the surface.
You ought to reflect on what you write. Consider how it might apply to yourself.

There is no misogyny in this thread.
There are real misogynists out there who hate.
It's an error to think that a little bit of misogyny or sexism is okay, and that full-on hateful misogyny is the only "real" problem. You're already on the slippery slope, Jan. You know that. Stop blaming other people. Look at yourself.

You hate the truth, which is why you easily throw serious insults around. Your hatred shows when you are challenged to give an account of the truth.
Again, a bit of self-reflection could do wonders.

The only people bullying are those with the power to ban, and those who brown-nose them.
Some people are slow learners. You must know by now that your actions have consequences, Jan. You're not a child. Grow up. Take responsibility.
Now please show where I am actually sexist or misogynistic.
I'm tempted to issue you with yet another warning. But it's been almost a month, so maybe you've forgotten. Don't do this again, okay?

Just because the woke people have a narrative that defines certain patterns of speech as either or ither racist, sexist, or misogynistic, doesn’t mean they are right. In fact there is a very high chance that these fools are wrong.
Interesting. Can you please give a few specific examples of where the "woke" people are wrong about sexism or racism? A very high chance will do nicely.

I know whether I’m sexist or misogynistic , because I can think for myself.
If you know it, why don't you try to better yourself? Intellectual understanding is one thing. Internalising the knowledge is another. Acting to make positive change is yet another.

They are “abusing” symbols on a page (writing), a fictitious character named “jan Ardena”.
That these folks have an aversion to the truth, is their hell. They are abusing themselves 24/7.
Each time they see black mass shootings (which occur daily), where innocent people are being shot and killed. They are forced to either turn the other way, or lie to themselves.
Imagine seeing pictures of babies who were shot in the face, neck, or torso, because some folk were having a dispute, then having to write it off as “white supremacy”. Either they end up believing it (which is hell), or they see the truth, which means they are thinking for themselves (freedom from hell).
Who are these "folks" you're referring to, Jan? All of this sounds more like an angry rant than a concrete example. What are you trying to say?

I’m okay with relentlessly questioning them (until they ban me). These folk are like the Borg. They’re everywhere, and they’re all the same. So it doesn’t matter which one of them I engage. When I leave here, I go somewhere else to carry on where I left off.
If everybody is against you, Jan, maybe it's you who is out of step or out of line. Consider.

Back in the day when first came here, there was an inkling of intelligence on these forums. But as the years have rolled by, it has become dumber and dumber. Now they’re just gate keepers for the woke community. Pitiful.
You're still here. Doesn't that make you part of the problem?

We know that this mind-set is hell-bent on destruction. That destruction affects everybody, including yourself, and your future generations.
So game-playing is not really an option.
We know that due to this mind-set, things are going to get a lot worse before it gets better. So think about the future, rather than now. Their foolishness won’t last forever.
Another general rant. What are you trying to say, Jan? Which people are you talking about? What mind set are you referring to? What's the problem that needs to be solved? Do you have the solution?

Fact-checking is simply another arm of wokeness. It’s aim is to curb ‘free-speech, to censor the truth.
You're flipping out, man! Get a grip!

Does your Truth not involve Facts? How so?

I think you might be confused.
Why do you label me an “evangelist”?
An evangelist is described as someone whose job is to convert folk to Christianity.
Not necessarily Christianity. Fact is, Jan, you're a very poor evangelist because you're not promoting anything specific. You would have us imagine that yours is a religion that has precisely one follower: Jan Ardena. Basically, your belief system is whatever you want it to be. You won't own up to being part of any kind of religious community.

You are adding to the problem. The problem being the inevitable destruction of society, like something straight out of George Orwell’s 1984.
Oh woe is me! If Jan can't defend his sexist views, then society will fall and Big Brother will prevail. It sure is a high stakes game we're playing, isn't it, Jan? Your biblical sexism and misogyny versus the Big Evil?

Right now, the only thing that matters is the truth. Everything else is just noise.
Does it matter to you whether you're a decent human being? All politics starts local.
Show me the word RAPE in this.
Show holding a woman constitutes rape
Why do you ignore the earlier verse that actually deals with rape?
While you continue to bluff and bluster impotently, it is obvious to all that you're not willing to engage with the full context of the biblical verse you're so fixated on.

For believers like yourself, the bible is useful because it's always open to interpretation. When it is convenient for you, you can always find a tortured reading of a verse that will justify it in your own mind. Or, if that doesn't work, you can insist on narrowing definitions of words, or of just flat-out redefining them so that they no longer hold the common-sense meaning they appear to have on their face. Also, it's a good tactic to always ignore the context and focus on a single verse when in argument, if not on a single word.

If it wasn't so commonly seen from people like you, it would be surprising the extent to which you are willing to go to twist your scriptures to suit your pre-existing beliefs about what they "ought" to say.

Bells helpfully pointed you towards an article that discusses the patriarchal milieu in which that biblical verse of yours was written. Overall, there is no question that women are treated as mere property of men in that section of your bible. The question of rape is dealt with purely from the perspective of the male property owner. But apparently, none of that concerns you.

Why is it that you're willing to bend over backwards to defend this Old Testament bible, which you would presumably say is not the foundational text of your own faith, Jan?

Does it make you feel better about your own attitudes to women if you're confident that they are closely aligned with Old Testament values? Is that it?

Has anything been learned in the 2000+ years since your bible was written, Jan? Have you read anything else?
Stop lying.
If I were misogynistic, you would have explained why/how during those “over fifty pages”.
Oh dear. There are none so blind as those who deliberately shut their eyes.

When will you stop telling lies, Jan? Is this what your religion teaches you?
A theist by dint of the designation believes in God...
You have the causation all backwards, as usual.

An atheist, by dint of designation cannot possibly understand God. Why? Because for them, there is no God.
Weasel words. What is required to "understand God", Jan?

You're trying to conflate the notion of understanding a concept or a definition with the notion of having some kind of personal experience, but in a sneaky, underhanded way.

If you were honest, you'd just say that you think that only believers in God can feel that God is real. Of course, that doesn't nothing to prove that God is real. That feeling could easily be self-generated, or a misinterpretation of an internal state of a person's mind.

As far as the capacity of atheists to "understand" your favorite scriptures goes, Jan, you and I both know that atheists are more than capable of having a superior understanding of those than you are. A belief in God is not necessary to understand what people say about God.

You ought to stop imagining that you have special capacities or powers because of your theistic beliefs, Jan. You don't have anything like that. You don't really "just know" that God exists. That's something you believe, not something you know. You've never been able to learn the difference. Maybe if you try...?

As a theist, it doesn’t cross my mind to kill someone because they don’t agree with me.
There are plenty of examples of theists in your bible who are on the record as thinking quite differently. I guess you cherry pick the parts of the bible you like and ignore the bits you don't like, though. That's how it tends to go.

The problem is, you cannot comprehend what theism is, because as has been mentioned, there is no God as far as you’re concerned. Every one is atheist in your false reality.
You must realise now, Jan, that making these empty assertions about "false realities" and so on are pointless posturing, surely? You should work on trying to find some evidence that your version of reality is real. You'd try to do that if you were serious about any of this. Why haven't you done it, Jan?
If there is no God, one cannot believe.
That's a silly thing to say, Jan. One can believe in all kinds of things without a good reason. You're not so naive as to think otherwise. Are you?

No. I agree with scripture
“Thou shalt not kill”
It is you and your like-minds that disagree with scripture
There's plenty of killing in your bible, despite that so-called "commandment". God kills. God's people kill. Repeatedly. It seems like God isn't too good at holding to his own laws. If the Supreme Being can't manage to follow his own commandments, what hope does he have that his chosen people will follow them (especially when he explicitly directs them to break it)?

As to your own lofty principles, Jan, is it really true that you never kill? Or do you just manage to find an interpretation of that verse that you can live with, along with all the other ones?
It doesn’t take a particularly clean backyard to work atheists out. Observing their wicked traits is not a spiritual awakening. It is a trait that clearly expresses it self at certain times.
Do you really think that theists like yourself are less "wicked" than the average atheist? What evidence will you bring in support of that dubious proposition, I wonder. I'm guessing, none at all. As usual.

What is nasty about God killing evil lineages to stop them from creating anymore?
Try to be specific Jan. What is your point? What are you talking about?

We are living in the application of “The age of reason” right now.
Murder, mayhem, cancel, abominations, etc…. sanctioned
But a marked improvement it is when compared to those biblical times you want us all to return to. Wouldn't you agree, Jan?
Maybe that is yours and some others experience, but some women do give consent to rough sex, which may well include being held down. But you already know that. So what is your actual reason to think that verse implies rape?
Observe the desperate gymnastics. This man will do anything to make excuses for his scriptures. Frankly, it's disturbing how religion makes reason fly out the window.
"What do you think religion actually is?" you ask, but it's actually a fascinating discussion for those willing to have it. It's easy enough to miss↗, around here, but one thing that stands out about such discussions is the idea that they might make any atheist so nervous as they do around here.
If you've got it, bring it. I'm quite happy to be educated by you on the question of what religion is, Tiassa. Who knows? Maybe I'll learn something.
So if we rewind to consider what you left out: However, if one intends to criticize, perhaps they ought to know something about the object of their criticism.
You have always been happy to stand on the sidelines of these religious discussions, pretending to know something about the object of criticism but never actually getting down and dirty with it. Why is that? It couldn't possibly be that you don't actually have the superior level of knowledge you pretend to, could it? Are you afraid that if you started mixing it with the plebians then people might discover that you're no better than the rest of us?
Because it's true. Simply living one's life and not thinking about God at all is what it is, and one needs know nothing about religion in order to tell the evangelists to stop knocking on their door.
In fact, I think you'll find that many atheists have spent (or do spend) quite a bit of time thinking about God. Religion is kind of in our faces, whether we like it or not. Think about other kinds of minorities. Their experiences are likely to be somewhat comparable.
However, the atheist in that particular story happens to include crackpottery in his critique against religion, requiring a redefinition of the word, "religion", that is even more reckless than your pretense to represent theists.
Who is this unnamed atheist in your story? Why is he or she a figure of mystery and intrigue?
Or, perhaps, imagine two similar misrepresentations of Scripture by which someone has come to demand that believers commit acts of harm. If I ask you the difference between the two, it doesn't actually matter on this occasion that I haven't told you how the misrepresentations work; they can actually be the same argument. In this case, the difference between the two is that one of the zealots pushing religious crackpottery is an atheist, so that means he's right even if he's misrepresenting the source.
Are you referring to something specific, or is this just a hypothetical scenario you're dreaming up? Does this have something to do with the topic of discussion in this thread?

But here's a quandary: These are allegedly smart people. They claim to know what they're talking about. That would mean they know they're misrepresenting scriptural sources. Why would they knowingly misrepresent, or what are the implications of such accidents?
Why do you so often allude when you could be direct? Who is misrepresenting a source? Which source are they misrepresenting? Until we have the answers to those questions, speculating on reasons for misrepresentation seems like a pie in the sky discussion without any solid foundation. If you're going to accuse, accuse away, but be specific.
Not open for further replies.