Women's Rights and Religion

[Fidel_Castronaut]

When I hold my new-born baby, I instinctively know she is precious beyond measure and that I have a natural unalienable right to nourish and protect and love her forever. That innate acknowledgement comes only to me from on high, not because I heard or read it somewhere. It is not externally or culturally spurred on, it is hardwired into our humanity.

Or, it's an instinctual reaction engrained into your mind from billions of years of evolution.

If you were a polar bear, and that baby was a mates rival, instinct would tell you to tear it apart limb from limb to increase the resources necessary for your own off spring to survive.

This was a trait of humanity until not too long ago. In fact, it is a trait that some still adhere to now around the world.

When I hold by newborn, should I remind myself that it is really just a bag of guts, and a needy inconvenience that needs its disgusting diaper changed way too often? We must be very careful here. When we drop the sanctity of life and trade it in for material evolution and nothing else, we walk down a very treacherous slope that other societies have gone down.

Why?

Define what exactly is meant by 'sanctity of life'? What life, in particular? Human life? If so, that's only a very localised and modern perspective on humanity per se. For millions of years otherism has been the dominant force behind choosing who lives and who dies. I disagree that it is 'self-evident' - It hasn't been self-evident for the vast majority of people. And it wasn't engendered by any particular religion either. I would say it was more likely stemming from things such as Westphalia & the renaissance where sovereignty over the self became more of a status quo, on both a personal and national/international level.

I don't know what 'material evolution' is. Please define it.

I also disagree with your user title; I've never had any religious views since I was born. I have 'views on religion', which is a decidedly different thing altogether, wouldn't you say?

[KichigaiNeko]

Before I address your other points, I would like you to please clarify this statement.

Hundreds of years before "Women are from Mars, Men are from Venous" was written, God payed the biggest compliment to Womenhood when he told men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. That is an unconditional love that transcends all time and space. When Jesus first appeared after his Resurrection, he chose to reveal himself to a woman, he called her by name "Mary". At that time in that oppressive culture a woman's testimony wasn't even valid in court. When he spoke to the woman at the well, he cut through all her struggles and life of brokenness and offered her living water in which when she would drink would never thirst again. When she caught a glimpse of who he was, she ran as fast as her feet could carry her to tell everyone about the man who told her about herself, as she felt like she was on the brink of the most monumental discovery of her life. Feminine imagery is used through out in reference to beauty, majesty, and something that needs be protected and nourished. The bible describes them as the weaker vessel, which conforms to reality as we know it, politically correct or not. It is a description of reality, not a prescription for women to be weak. There are some really tough women and some fairly fragile men out there, but as a whole we are bigger, tougher, and usually dumber : ) Womenhood should be esteemed by men above all other earthly things. It is when we deviate from the instructions of "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loves the church", that we have a 6 in 10 divorce rate. We have the capacity and admonition to love unconditionally because god first loved us unconditionally.
I don't see where Burqas need to come into play, or any other oppressive construct of douchey men. Imagine if every couple that fell in love, loved each other unconditionally for life, how would the world look then? It is men's pride that is his undoing and oppressive holier than thou groups, not biblical truths and principles.

Just more proof that this Jesus character was homosexual

[FiniteImmortal]

Or, it's an instinctual reaction engrained into your mind from billions of years of evolution.

If you were a polar bear, and that baby was a mates rival, instinct would tell you to tear it apart limb from limb to increase the resources necessary for your own off spring to survive.

This was a trait of humanity until not too long ago. In fact, it is a trait that some still adhere to now around the world.

When I hold by newborn, should I remind myself that it is really just a bag of guts, and a needy inconvenience that needs its disgusting diaper changed way too often? We must be very careful here. When we drop the sanctity of life and trade it in for material evolution and nothing else, we walk down a very treacherous slope that other societies have gone down.

Why?

Define what exactly is meant by 'sanctity of life'? What life, in particular? Human life? If so, that's only a very localised and modern perspective on humanity per se. For millions of years otherism has been the dominant force behind choosing who lives and who dies. I disagree that it is 'self-evident' - It hasn't been self-evident for the vast majority of people. And it wasn't engendered by any particular religion either. I would say it was more likely stemming from things such as Westphalia & the renaissance where sovereignty over the self became more of a status quo, on both a personal and national/international level.

I don't know what 'material evolution' is. Please define it.

I also disagree with your user title; I've never had any religious views since I was born. I have 'views on religion', which is a decidedly different thing altogether, wouldn't you say?
[/quote]

As it is 4:00 am here and there is no limit to the amount of interaction you guys are thoughtfully willing to indulge me on, I gotta make this shorter than i'd like. For now, just about the everyone has a religious viewpoint thing:

Everyone has a religious view. If i may take a stab at this... You hold a belief that things were a certain way 100,000 years ago in early human existence. You take that on faith. It is not irrational, it is based on reasoning backwards and critical thinking, and piecing together bits of evidence. That is to be commended, as compared to some who's views are inherited from their parents automatically. But nonetheless, we all hold a construct we've pieced together, a model in our minds about the way the world is. A lot of that model we cannot directly interact with, such as yours. We cannot watch footage of ape-man creatures, so we think backwards. about what things must have been like. It is at the mercy of speculation and approximation. We all by default, with our models attempt to answer the 4 components of our human narrative : Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny.
You most likely hold a belief that life evolved from a primordial pool of elements hundreds of millions of years ago. You believe that this in-organic pool of compounds was struck by lightning or some form of energy and morphed into increasingly complex compounds over ages of time to eventually, against all odds, become organic. You believe at some point a cell, with unimaginable complex protein chains formed and the rest was history.
You most likely believe meaning is only what society can provide, as there is no other meaning or ultimate narrative about us and our place in the universe other than we were here for a short time before the Red-giant sun cooked earth.
You believe morality is a convention of society and thus able to be reshaped to a more useful style to and to fit a re-engineered civilization free of archaic rules.
You likely believe your destiny is to lay down in your grave one day, never to have a conscious thought again, and never knowing you were ever here, as well as everyone else that has ever existed. It ultimately doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, not that there is a grand scheme of things.

Am I close? Is this not the beliefs of the Atheistic doctrines of faith? Isn't it a perquisite to believe these as to be considered one of the educated and enlightened fairy-tale-free believers of atheism? Do not the Dawkins and Hitches, and Harris' of the world spread the good news that there really is nothing, and humanity will be snuffed out by cataclysm or self-destruction sooner rather than later, with no hope of ever existing again?

We all have religious views, in some of our's God is God, in some of our's, we are god.

Thanks for the reply and I'll try to interact with the other points soon.

[Captain Colostomy]

Please read up on the definitions of religion and atheism, m'kay? Also, your quote tags are effed up.

[KichigaiNeko]

Quite frankly I am of the opinion that religion is only for those males that lack in certain areas.

As for the male female issue, let's face it, one cannot exist without the other.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Or, it's an instinctual reaction engrained into your mind from billions of years of evolution.

If you were a polar bear, and that baby was a mates rival, instinct would tell you to tear it apart limb from limb to increase the resources necessary for your own off spring to survive.

This was a trait of humanity until not too long ago. In fact, it is a trait that some still adhere to now around the world.

When I hold by newborn, should I remind myself that it is really just a bag of guts, and a needy inconvenience that needs its disgusting diaper changed way too often? We must be very careful here. When we drop the sanctity of life and trade it in for material evolution and nothing else, we walk down a very treacherous slope that other societies have gone down.

Why?

Define what exactly is meant by 'sanctity of life'? What life, in particular? Human life? If so, that's only a very localised and modern perspective on humanity per se. For millions of years otherism has been the dominant force behind choosing who lives and who dies. I disagree that it is 'self-evident' - It hasn't been self-evident for the vast majority of people. And it wasn't engendered by any particular religion either. I would say it was more likely stemming from things such as Westphalia & the renaissance where sovereignty over the self became more of a status quo, on both a personal and national/international level.

I don't know what 'material evolution' is. Please define it.

I also disagree with your user title; I've never had any religious views since I was born. I have 'views on religion', which is a decidedly different thing altogether, wouldn't you say?

As it is 4:00 am here and there is no limit to the amount of interaction you guys are thoughtfully willing to indulge me on, I gotta make this shorter than i'd like. For now, just about the everyone has a religious viewpoint thing:

As above, I have views on 'religion', not a religious view.

Faith does not equal religion, either. They are two completely different things. One can quite easily study religion (as I do), but it is very difficult to study or even quantify someone's faith as it's entirely internal and subjective to the believer.

Everyone has a religious view. If i may take a stab at this... You hold a belief that things were a certain way 100,000 years ago in early human existence. You take that on faith.

I disagree.

I follow the evidence. "The evidence suggests that..." homo sapien sapien are but one branch of the Homo line that includes a myriad of other species:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of..._evolution

I do not have faith in it. If the evidence holds up to scrutiny (which thus far it does) I, as a pragmatist, must believe that it is correct. Until proven otherwise. You say this below, so fair enough. However I think the use of the word 'faith' is misguided here.

It is not irrational, it is based on reasoning backwards and critical thinking, and piecing together bits of evidence. That is to be commended, as compared to some who's views are inherited from their parents automatically. But nonetheless, we all hold a construct we've pieced together, a model in our minds about the way the world is. A lot of that model we cannot directly interact with, such as yours. We cannot watch footage of ape-man creatures, so we think backwards. about what things must have been like. It is at the mercy of speculation and approximation.

And evidence based inquiry. They are not facts made up for facts sake. The evidence fits the theory, and the theory explains the facts.

We all by default, with our models attempt to answer the 4 components of our human narrative : Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny.
You most likely hold a belief that life evolved from a primordial pool of elements hundreds of millions of years ago. You believe that this in-organic pool of compounds was struck by lightning or some form of energy and morphed into increasingly complex compounds over ages of time to eventually, against all odds, become organic.

I believe that the primordial soup was our beginnings, and abiogensis that ultimately led to the formation of complex life eventuall, over billions and billions of years, led to us, yes.

I have no firm answer to when the point occurred. It's speculation until proven.

You believe at some point a cell, with unimaginable complex protein chains formed and the rest was history.

I don't believe; I know. That's exactly what happened as explained by the evidence.

You most likely believe meaning is only what society can provide, as there is no other meaning or ultimate narrative about us and our place in the universe other than we were here for a short time before the Red-giant sun cooked earth.

Subjectivity, yes.

You believe morality is a convention of society and thus able to be reshaped to a more useful style to and to fit a re-engineered civilization free of archaic rules.

Subjectivity, yes. This can be evidenced as well, negating the idea of a belief.

You likely believe your destiny is to lay down in your grave one day, never to have a conscious thought again, and never knowing you were ever here, as well as everyone else that has ever existed. It ultimately doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, not that there is a grand scheme of things.

Life is what you make of it. But there is no evidence to suggest that anything happens to 'us' after we die.

Am I close? Is this not the beliefs of the Atheistic doctrines of faith?

Quote for me, word for word, the "Atheist doctrines of faith", including when they were published, who published them, and where I can get a copy. I've never read them.

You're presumeably going to reply with what you;ve posted above, which is nothing more than an approximation of what atheists may or may not believe?

Then you'd be wrong. Those things, whilst most likely what atheists believe currently given the lack of evidence for the claims either way, are mutually exclusive to atheism.

Atheism = lack of belief in a god or gods. It's not a faith, and not a religion.

Isn't it a perquisite to believe these as to be considered one of the educated and enlightened fairy-tale-free believers of atheism?

No.

I was born an atheist. As were you. There are no beliefs inherent to atheism, only the lack of them.

Do not the Dawkins and Hitches, and Harris' of the world spread the good news that there really is nothing, and humanity will be snuffed out by cataclysm or self-destruction sooner rather than later, with no hope of ever existing again?

You insult my intelligence. I was an atheist before I'd even heard of Dawkins et al. There have been atheists from the very point that someone invent a god for someone to believe in. You yourself are still atheist towards all those gods that you presumably don't believe in, no?

We all have religious views, in some of our's God is God, in some of our's, we are god.

Now you're inventing a position I don't hold. I don't view myself as a god. You'll be hardpressed to find anyone on here, atheist or indeed theist, who views themselves as a god.

Thanks for the reply and I'll try to interact with the other points soon.

No problem.

[Sejanus]

Pay the court a fine or serve your sentence!

[Brian37]

I don't think there are any women's rights in any modern religion. From the misogyny of Buddhism to the the patriarchal culture of Christianity, women have had it pretty bad in most religions. In most religions, women are at the lowest rung in the totem pole.

Yet some religions insist that they give women proper respect and ensure her of rights such as when a Muslim insists that women have rights in Islam because women are allowed to inherit property or when Christians insist women have rights because the Bible allows her to have a job selling crafts.

Are these truly rights? If you were to loosen the chains of a slave, allowing that slave to walk 10 feet more are you really giving that slave rights?

A women or a man for that matter canonly truly be said to have rights when they have the right to determine their own destiny. I see none of that in the more patriarchal Abrahamic religions and I certainly do not see it in Buddhism or Hinduism either. In all these religions, men and women are bound to traditions and culture that saps them of the right to self-determination. Their roles as man and women have been predetermined by doctrine and enforced by clergy and layman alike.

How can anyone say that religion ensures that rights of anyone when religion predetermines your course of action, the thoughts you have and your ultimate destiny? It is impossible.

So to those of you who are religious, please show me how religion ensures rights for women or men. Because it seems to me the only thing religion ensures is the enslavement of both.

Where do you get that Buddhism and Hinduism doesn't have it's own sexism? Name me any female Dali Lama ever? You do know that India is just now getting around to treating rape as unacceptable? You do also know that pre arranged marriages have been, not in all sects, but to many in Hinduism as acceptable?

ALL religions are full of absurdities, not just the Gods of Abraham.

[FiniteImmortal]

Please read up on the definitions of religion and atheism, m'kay? Also, your quote tags are effed up.

1) reading up on definitions will not give atheists the get-out-out-religious-viewpoints-free card.
To say that two opposing view points that differ only in the god they believe in (transcendent or humanistic), that one falls under the guise of religion, and one falls under the guise of non-religion is preposterous and implies that secularism is somehow neutral and above needing to answer difficult questions. That is an illusion of religious proportions. Atheists believe in something, and most as I laid out above. That is a long, complex, faith-based series of things to maintain in one's understanding of the world.
And 2) Yes my quote tabs are miserably effed up. Still learning these new tangled computers.

[Captain Colostomy]

1) reading up on definitions will not give atheists the get-out-out-religious-viewpoints-free card.
To say that two opposing view points that differ only in the god they believe in (transcendent or humanistic), that one falls under the guise of religion, and one falls under the guise of non-religion is preposterous and implies that secularism is somehow neutral and above needing to answer difficult questions. That is an illusion of religious proportions. Atheists believe in something, and most as I laid out above. That is a long, complex, faith-based series of things to maintain in one's understanding of the world.

Not interested in honest dialogue, I see.