Ask a lifelong (irreligious) atheist

[Excited Penguin]

Well, Jainism preaches non-violence towards all beings, and hate towards none.

[robvalue]

I'm not sure that's true. I think there's still some dodgy stuff in that religion. I'll have to look that up and get back to you. For sure it's less hateful, anyway.

You wouldn't be a heathen if you happen to be born in Iraq.
What makes you so sure that your stance (agnostic) is the correct one?

How confident are you that science's view on reality is closer to the truth than the "spiritual" unmeasurable side is?

(After watching a ton of quantum mechanics docos, I feel our view of our reality is very limited at the moment)

If I was born in Iraq, I would assume I'd have been indoctrinated. It's impossible for me to say whether I'd have stayed as a true believer of Islam, or whether I'd come to the conclusion it was BS. I may well have had to pretend, even in the second case. But truth doesn't require indoctrination. If someone can't convince me of it now, then I'll assume the evidence is lacking. And I would hope my morality would lead me to abandon the religion eventually, even if I thought it was true. But I'd be such a different person after all this, that I can't say with any confidence.

My stance is ignostic, not just "I don't know" but "I don't know what you're talking about". I can't have a sensible opinion about something that hasn't been properly defined. In such rare cases where it is, the claims are either trivially true (universe is God), trivially false (internally contradictory) or unfalsifiable (at least for now). So I've had no challenge to my position.

All my experience throughout my while life has been evidence that the scientific method is the most accurate for modelling reality. "Spiritual" methods constantly fail to produce anything of any practical value. So going by results, it's a landslide victory for science. If someone could give me any reason why spiritual methods are better, I'd be happy to listen. They'd have to first tell me what the hell they even are. They seem to amount to drawing conclusions based in emotions; conclusions which have no use and can't be verified.

So I don't know what spiritual is. There may well be parts of reality we don't know about, and will maybe never know about. But I feel science has modelled what is available, in the best way. The rest cannot yet be investigated. Once it can be, the method is almost certainly going to be scientific. Other methods have never shown any worth whatsoever.

[robvalue]

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-...ender.html

The Jain religious discourse shares universal prejudices against women, who are viewed as temptresses and symbols of attachment, fickleness, and, above all, treacherousness. Acts of deception (māyā ) are considered a woman's main characteristic, to the extent that deceitfulness comes to be adduced as an explanation for sex-differentiation: "As a result of manifesting deception a man in this world becomes a woman. As for a woman, if her heart is pure, she becomes a man in this world" (Maheśvarasūri, Nānapancamīkahā 3.17, tenth century).

[Homeless Nutter]

Well, Jainism preaches non-violence towards all beings, and hate towards none.

Oh, yes, the Jains - the passive-aggressive nut-jobs. Sure - they preach non-violence, but seem to say nothing about the need to love anybody. Quite the opposite actually, with their emphasis on asceticism. They may be largely harmless wackos, but I don't imagine any sane person would want their loved ones to walk around naked, with a brush to sweep away bugs and refusing to eat a potato, for fear of murdering a microbe. 

Quite frankly, to live like this one surely has to hate oneself.

[robvalue]

I don't know if there are any religions that aren't tainted in some way.

I mean, there potentially could be. I could make up whatever crap I want. I just don't feel the need to.

The whole idea of dogma is just potentially dangerous in itself. That's the problem. And religion tends to have it, always.

[Gawdzilla]

Just in case anyone has any questions about this, and my perspective.

Same here. I've noticed that if I don't go looking for religion it seldom intrudes on my life. The last church services I attended was in boot camp, 1969, "you'll go to one religious service each week, no exceptions."

[robvalue]

That's true for me also. Living in England, it's extremely rarely an issue. I've brought myself to this forum partly to try and support atheists who have it much harder than I do, once I became aware of the problems they face.

I don't know if I've ever sat through a regular religious service. There's been a few times where religion has been involved such as funerals, and I've helped out at events going on in Churches. That's about it. None of my friends (few as they are) are religious. It wouldn't bother me if they were, as long as they didn't make an issue out of it.

[lisah]

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-...ender.html

The Jain religious discourse shares universal prejudices against women, who are viewed as temptresses and symbols of attachment, fickleness, and, above all, treacherousness. Acts of deception (māyā ) are considered a woman's main characteristic, to the extent that deceitfulness comes to be adduced as an explanation for sex-differentiation: "As a result of manifesting deception a man in this world becomes a woman. As for a woman, if her heart is pure, she becomes a man in this world" (Maheśvarasūri, Nānapancamīkahā 3.17, tenth century).

It seems to me that women always get the short end of the stick. (no pun intended, but seen after writing that, hehe)

Any thoughts on why that might be, or is that too off-topic?

[robvalue]

To make it easier for men to control them, I imagine.

In barbaric cultures men are obviously going to have the advantage of being stronger (on average) and so will probably hold more of the power. And it's those in power who make the rules. It's not surprising that the rules would benefit those in power, to widen the gap further.

As to how it crept into Jainism, I wouldn't be able to say. Maybe it's bled through from other religions, because it's such a common theme like you say.

[Homeless Nutter]

It seems to me that women always get the short end of the stick. (no pun intended, but seen after writing that, hehe)

Any thoughts on why that might be, or is that too off-topic?

Almost all religions were created by primitive men and all primitive men are confused by and terrified of the power female sexual organs have over them.