Accommodation vs. Confrontation

[SecularSanity]

Well, it seems to me that they took what the church considered 'unacceptable" violent behavior and re-directed it at targets the church chose.
Such 'crusaders' ( among others) were then rewarded with eternal bliss for tearing their fellow men to little pieces.

As perhaps you can tell I am unimpressed with such arguments!

Ah, that’s a “given”. And of course, they were always rewarded with money and virgins. More power = more pussy!

Perhaps, genetic diversity is good for the gene pool. Each individual would have different immune systems, which could enhance the survival rate. Monogamy benefits males, not females. In fact, polygamy is beneficial to women, Rhythm. Better to have half of a rich man than a really poor one.

So, maybe Christianity did help to level the playing field, so to speak.

[The Grand Nudger]

That may be so, but if women always did what was good for them we wouldn't have them (or believers) offering up the battered woman defense would we? As a quick aside, monogamy does benefit females in that it prevents their competition from securing the whatever advantage they felt their mates had for themselves. Men can make much better use of polygamy, in that they are not bound by gestation cycles and can sire many more children in nine months than any woman could ever hope for or dread.

The score is 270-1, advantage male. (and could easily be even more lobsided)

Speaking from functionality, monogamy has very little benefit from the male side of the equation, even if you factored in abandonment of offspring by the female due to noncompliance, no worries, he can just pump out a few hundred more. Thankfully functionality isn't the whole equation eh?

[SecularSanity]

That may be so, but if women always did what was good for them we wouldn't have them (or believers) offering up the battered woman defense would we? As a quick aside, monogamy does benefit females in that it prevents their competition from securing the whatever advantage they felt their mates had for themselves. Men can make much better use of polygamy, in that they are not bound by gestation cycles and can sire many more children in nine months than any woman could ever hope for or dread.

The score is 270-1, advantage male. (and could easily be even more lobsided)

Speaking from functionality, monogamy has very little benefit from the male side of the equation, even if you factored in abandonment of offspring by the female due to noncompliance, no worries, he can just pump out a few hundred more. Thankfully functionality isn't the whole equation eh?

But there was a time when there wasn’t a welfare system and men needed to be around to ensure the survival of such offspring. Not many would have survived.

Throughout history men have ruled. In most parts of the world polygamy is illegal. So, why did the men let this happen? You can’t really explain it away as a compromise between males and females, when it was men who were in charge. A poor man wouldn’t think that polygamy was such a good idea, if he was competing with rich, charming, and rugged men, who could have many wives. China is going through this, right now, with their shortage of brides. The men are working hard, and saving as much as they can, in order to compete for a mate. I don’t think they would vote for polygamy, do you?

Anyhow, monogamy is a topic all on its own.

I’m an unapologetic atheist. I was addressing the so called good atheists, the humanistic types, who are continually criticizing atheists. The ones who think we are condescending, but in the same breath, say “Oh no, we don’t believe in God. We are too smart for that.” You know, like Chris Mooney or Eugenie Scott.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Well, I rooly, trooly tooly don't give a rat's rectum about the personal beliefs of others, including the impertinent wankers who tell me I how I should behave towards believers.

"As an atheist" terms such as 'confronting' and 'accommodating' believers are meaningless to me. A skeptic and secularist,as well as anti humbuggery, ANYONE who gets in my face about what I should think,believe or do may well experience some unpleasant confrontation.

[Minimalist]

Let us never forget the words of the Abbott of Citeaux, Arnaul Amalric when asked by a crusader against the Albigensian heresy how to tell the Cathars from the Catholics:

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius (Kill them all. For the Lord knoweth them that are His."


They made that motherfucker an Archbishop.

Some things never change.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, whatever one chooses to do, whatever battle one picks. The choice has to be made with the knowledge that others may not choose the same. Can't expect atheists to support some all encompassing atheist agenda. I've made my own position clear, I don't need the moral high ground to feel justified in my attitudes towards religion. If you require that ground, make sure you actually hold it.

[Fred]

Meh, whatever one chooses to do, whatever battle one picks. The choice has to be made with the knowledge that others may not choose the same. Can't expect atheists to support some all encompassing atheist agenda. I've made my own position clear, I don't need the moral high ground to feel justified in my attitudes towards religion. If you require that ground, make sure you actually hold it.

Just exactly perfect, and I agree with all of it.

[The Grand Nudger]

All of a sudden I'm doubting my position on the matter.

[5thHorseman]

The only accommodation I give is to not say anything to fundies who don't force their opinions until they mention homosexuality, that really fucks me off. But those who do, get a verbal volley and multiple questions on their beliefs.

Generally I give Christians the most shit, I don't bother with Jews as I have met few. Muslims make me laugh but they get it as well.

[Fred]

All of a sudden I'm doubting my position on the matter.

Heh. There's always that danger, huh? Don't worry though, you can just chalk it up to me obviously not getting your point.