More atheist men than women?

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho, while I see where you're coming from and I kinda agree with you I can't help but notice people oversimplify the question of evil as it isn't as simple as "there's evil, therefore no god" - It needs a deeper philosophical debate answering questions like "what is evil?" and "is there free will?"

Free will is an irrelevant distraction.  I have shown that to be the case in another thread, so I will just quote myself:

...
4. People suffer because of sin (which came because God created man with a free will, the best possible creation)
...

First of all, much of what is wrong with the world has nothing to do with humans having free will.  Think of all of the diseases, earthquakes, etc.  So free will does not explain away evil.

Second, it is not entirely clear that we have free will, nor is it entirely clear that having free will is a good thing.  I will set this aside for the moment, but it needs to be established for it to be reasonable to believe your story.  (That would involve explaining what, exactly, "free will" is.)

Third, is there free will in heaven?  If so, does that mean that evil will exist in heaven?  If so, how is heaven different from life now?  And if there is free will in heaven, without evil, then having free will does not explain the existence of evil here and now.  And if there is no free will in heaven, then it must be better to not have free will, since heaven is better than here.  Isn't it?

Fourth, imagine that you and I are having a picnic together in a large park.  We are conversing agreeably, having some wine and good food.  In the distance, we observe a group of people attacking another person, raping and beating the person.  You say, "hey, we should do something" like call the police on your cell phone, go get help, go and directly help the person, whatever.  I say, "no, we can't do that!  We can't interfere with their free will!"  Now, if that really happened, what would you say of me?  Would you regard me as moral or immoral?  Well, I would be doing what God does.  So are you saying it is right to not help others?  Furthermore, we can see that this does not work anyway as an excuse, because us interfering would not affect whether they have free will or not.  We would only be affecting the outcome, not their ability to make choices.  Likewise, God interfering with outcomes would not affect anyone's free will at all.  They could still will to rape and beat and kill, without succeeding.  So this "free will" excuse really excuses nothing whatsoever.

You have been listening to too much bullshit from religious apologists.


As for what is evil?, that, too, is a bullshit distraction.  You know damn well that children burning alive in a fire is evil.  That sort of thing happens in the world.  Also, if one has no conception of good and evil, it is totally nonsensical to say that god is good.  So that is just another bullshit distraction that religionists put forth to try to prop up their obviously false religions.  It is part of their efforts to shift meanings of terms and twist them beyond all recognition.  Just like the disappearing of the meaning of the term "god," which is well illustrated in a story told by Antony Flew:

Let us begin with a parable. It is a parable developed from a tale told by John Wisdom in his haunting and revolutionary article "Gods." Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

...

http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

[ignoramus]

CL, keep fighting the good fight, but only after you've fed the cats!
When Rob says he's not trying to batter you into submission, believe him.
He's actually such a nice guy that he couldn't even batter my fish and chips for me!

[Catholic_Lady]

CL, keep fighting the good fight, but only after you've fed the cats!
When Rob says he's not trying to batter you into submission, believe him.
He's actually such a nice guy that he couldn't even batter my fish and chips for me!

Hahaha!

The kitties get canned food every morning and free range dry food at all times. ;-)

Rob? I love Rob!

[Catholic_Lady]

My explanation for why God made it so that women can give birth and men can't, and why men can give sacraments and women can't? I think I said a lot more than just "for some reason." God thought it would be better this way. Why? That we do not know.

The problem is that it's not what god thought. It's what theists in a men's world want you to think. The two main religions (Christianity and Islam) are sexist. In both religions women have no rights. If god loves all of his children, then why there are no women on important positions in the Vatican and there are only men? And why there are more men's monastaries than women's? As far as I can remember from what I've read about Jesus, he was married. So, where does the sexism in religion comes from? Why the head of the Vatican is always a man? Give it some thinking and you yourself will find the contradictions between what the Vatican is preaching and what reality is.

I understand what you're saying about it being man made and not coming from God. It makes sense that an atheist would think that.

Being a believer though, I do think it comes from God. As a Christian, I've never felt as though I "had no rights." It is true that women can't be priests, but I don't think that comes from a place of sexism, as I have explained.

If anything, I see it as making things more equal - Women have the ability to carry a child for nine months and give birth (physical life), men have the ability to perform sacraments (spiritual life).

We believe that the laws/etc of the Church ultimately come from God, not from man, so that rules out the whole notion of "powerful men in the Vatican telling everyone what to do."

For an outsider looking in, I can understand how this makes little sense to you, especially if you don't believe in God or in spiritual life. Just know that for us who believe, none of this is coming from a place of sexism.

[rado84]

I still fail to see the equality in all that since a woman needs a man. If there's no man to do the woman, there will be nothing to carry and give birth to.

[Catholic_Lady]

I still fail to see the equality in all that since a woman needs a man. If there's no man to do the woman, there will be nothing to carry and give birth to.

Very true. But likewise, a man needs a woman to give birth to him so that he can perform sacraments in the first place.

[Homeless Nutter]

For an outsider looking in, I can understand how this makes little sense to you, especially if you don't believe in God or in spiritual life. Just know that for us who believe, none of this is coming from a place of sexism.

Yeah - you keep telling yourself that. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Corinthians 14:34-35
"34The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church..."

That's probably because men were not allowed to speak... uhm... when and where, exactly?
No, no, let me guess - you choose to disregard inconvenient parts of New Testament, as well as all of the OT, right?

[Pyrrho]

...It is true that women can't be priests, but I don't think that comes from a place of sexism, as I have explained.

If anything, I see it as making things more equal - Women have the ability to carry a child for nine months and give birth (physical life), men have the ability to perform sacraments (spiritual life).

We believe that the laws/etc of the Church ultimately come from God, not from man, so that rules out the whole notion of "powerful men in the Vatican telling everyone what to do."

For an outsider looking in, I can understand how this makes little sense to you, especially if you don't believe in God or in spiritual life. Just know that for us who believe, none of this is coming from a place of sexism.

Arbitrarily discriminating on the basis of sex is the very definition of "sexism."  If you think I am making that up, look it up in your favorite dictionary.  I like Oxford, but you can use something else if you prefer.

[Catholic_Lady]

[quote pid='984627' dateline='1436303792']

For an outsider looking in, I can understand how this makes little sense to you, especially if you don't believe in God or in spiritual life. Just know that for us who believe, none of this is coming from a place of sexism.

Yeah - you keep telling yourself that. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Corinthians 14:34-35
"34The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church..."

That's probably because men were not allowed to speak... uhm... when and where, exactly?
No, no, let me guess - you choose to disregard inconvenient parts of New Testament, as well as all of the OT, right?

As I have previously explained, Catholicism is not sola scriptura.

We don't consider the bible to be infallible Church doctrine. If you want to know what the Church teaches about something, you don't look at the bible, you look at official Church documents such as the Catechism, the Magestarium, Humanae Vitae, etc.

Gaudium Et Spes on the Vatican website says this in regards to equality:

"Nevertheless, with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent. For in truth it must still be regretted that fundamental personal rights are still not being universally honored. Such is the case of a woman who is denied the right to choose a husband freely, to embrace a state of life or to acquire an education or cultural benefits equal to those recognized for men."

Edit to add: I've been to Catholic church and I'm allowed to speak while I'm there. ;-)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Stockholm syndrome, PT. Layers and layers of Stockholm syndrome.

Yeah, I've said as much myself, but this beggars belief. That a woman would denigrate the incredible universal connection that must come with bearing life itself as a force for spirituality -- and I'm not talking woo here, I'm talking human beings being humbled by the sheer facts of life -- well, I can't understand how any religious faith could claim to have the deepest knowledge and at the same time denigrate the connection between mother and child that even I, as a father, struggle to understand.

I know how deep my love for my son is; I cannot believe that a love that is likely deeper than that does not qualify a woman to speak about spiritual matters.