Religion
- Thread starter HeXp£Øi±
- Start date
Raven
Annoying SOB
chcr, its plausible given our current understanding of things (which far too many people take as fact).chcr said:I'm not so sure that a lot of quantum theory isn't just that, a13.Significantly more plausible, but still...
We'll probably look back on quantum theory in 200 years and laugh our asses off
paul_valaru
100% Pure Canadian Beef
steweygrrrr said:
hell they used to think "vapors" coused sickness, and bleeding with leaches could cure anything.
We laughed at that
then what happens, hospitls are using leaches again
rrfield
New Member
You guys are all educated stupid. You word-murder your children. www.timecube.com
AnomalousEntity
New Member
paul_valaru said:
Yea, and we now know the most contagious ailments are airborne pathogens.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
A13antichrist - You blame sexual inequality on religion? The idfferent sexes have had different roles for eons before religion ever played a part. Religion may have augmented the issue, but it didn't creat it. Man has been hunting woman out of purley biological reasons. The more you spread your seed, the greater the chances are that your genes will survive. For women, selecting the correct man for her to have children with is linked to his ability to provide food and shelter.
It's biological blueprinting, not religious dogma at which you should be aiming your ever sharpened wit, mein freund. I truly believe that you are barking up the wrong tree.
It's biological blueprinting, not religious dogma at which you should be aiming your ever sharpened wit, mein freund. I truly believe that you are barking up the wrong tree.
ris
New Member
i am not sure that treatment of women within a society ruled through religious dogma and the biological reasons are fully comparable.
at what point does the biological requirements of each gender stop and religious dogma begin? i think the anthropology where men procreated freely and women raised children can only have limited influence in the division of the genders before dictats to society through its religion take hold.
it should not be forgotten that the divsion of genders often occurs under religions whose matrimonial dictats espouse monogamy. monogmatic relationships would suit the womens biological tenet far more, yet these are societies where men most frequently hold the power and through the dogma or 'science' of religion ensure subjugation.
to ignore religion as a strong influence on the generation of inequality would be naiive i think. societies of the last 2000 years in particular have been bounded strongly by their relgions, to deny that they have an influence on the society they create would be risible.
at what point does the biological requirements of each gender stop and religious dogma begin? i think the anthropology where men procreated freely and women raised children can only have limited influence in the division of the genders before dictats to society through its religion take hold.
it should not be forgotten that the divsion of genders often occurs under religions whose matrimonial dictats espouse monogamy. monogmatic relationships would suit the womens biological tenet far more, yet these are societies where men most frequently hold the power and through the dogma or 'science' of religion ensure subjugation.
to ignore religion as a strong influence on the generation of inequality would be naiive i think. societies of the last 2000 years in particular have been bounded strongly by their relgions, to deny that they have an influence on the society they create would be risible.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
ris said:
I would tend to agree that religion has played a part. What I took offence to was A13's logical thread. He seemed to blame religion as the sole reason for the subjugation of women by men.
I believe that you are placing biology as a weaker influential factor than it deserves. We are, in fact, still animals below our venear of society and religion.
a13antichrist
New Member
MrBishop said:
That is very true. However, as our intelligence has grown, we have increasingly distanced ourselves from our animalistic origins and have succeeded in breaking free from certain "biological" characteristics. It's "normal" for animals to kill their prey with their teeth. It's "normal" for animals to live outdoors. These are all things that we as humans have decided do not belong as part of our society - even if they are in fact "natural". The one huge advantage that self-awareness brings is the ability to examine your onw lifestyle and decide what's worth holding onto and what deserves to be chucked in the garbage - our biological heritage is interesting but should NEVER be mistaken for a reason to do this or that. You think Homosexuality ever would have gotten off the ground otherwise?
The important point concerning Religion is that it effectively eliminated any possibility we had of developing out of sexual inequality on our own. Sure it started with biology but so did killing your own children to prevent them rising up against you. Religion cemented it into society and if it's ever to be removed, it's there that it has to be undone - because you can't even start on the biological side of it until that's out of the way.
ris
New Member
religion may have cemented some inequalities but in western societies religion is playing an increasingly reduced role in peoples lives [declining church attendances etc].
with any luck the promotion of equity through government will undo the inequalities within a few generations, certainly things in my generation are a long way from my grandparents.
with any luck the promotion of equity through government will undo the inequalities within a few generations, certainly things in my generation are a long way from my grandparents.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
a13antichrist said:
What of the supposedly non-religious countries like China? They revere their ancestors and have their own horoscope, but no established religion per se, or at least none as far as the government is concerned. In their case, isn't it something other than religion that drives gender inequality?
It is "normal" to live outdoors, but animals make nests,caves, tunnels etc...to protect themselves from the elements and their predators...out nests are just more advanced and we've effectivly eliminated our predators. We still manage to have screen-savers of outdoor scenes and the offices with windows that look outside are the prized ones. We have summer cabins to get away from the city, we have retreat weekends, go camping etc...just to get back to nature, where we feel calmer, and more at peace. That's enough off-topic for the moment....
I believe that religion is more of a reflection of the society in which we live rather than an influential factor on it. As people get wiser, thanks in part ot the sciences, then the churches adapt to fit in. There are a few instances where religious organizations are trying to influence society (The Pope's mandate to Politicians re: Homosexual marriage, comes to mind), but this is starting to become less the norm. The seperation between Church and State has seen to that.
a13antichrist
New Member
ris said:
The public signs are less visible, for sure, but from what I've seen from having lived in three different corners of the world is that as far as perspectives are concerned, the subconscious ideas behind are still as imprinted as ever. Sex is still a game where men hunt and conquer women and until that FUNDAMENTAL aspect changes, all the political correctness in the world is merely cosmetic.
MrBishop said:
China is a society in which it's more or less illegal to think for yourself. Interestingly that works as an argument FOR religion in that those societies "beset" by Christianity are often the most advanced/modernised; it's also true that those non-religious countries you mentioned (although most of them have their gods one way or another) tend to be at the bottom of the social evolution scale, and thus it's hardly surprising that sexual equality (and I'm talking more sexual than gender) hasn't occurred to them yet. However, Christianity had NO need whatsoever to pick on sexuality - it would have done perfectly well at uniting the world and advancing society without inflicting centuries of sexual repression on its people. So what gives? That was gratuitous up-fucking for absolutely no gain. Do that at work and you'd not only be fired but it'd be backdated a month.
a13antichrist
New Member
Oh yeah, the outdoors thing was more a reference to lifestyle rather than location, living directly off the land rather than through trade.