Hear hear.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
Hear hear.
U mad bro?
The key question isn't enough being done by citizens of Iran, Pakistan etc. to run a secular government without any form of Sharia law?
Turkey - Finest example of a liberal country with muslim majority (97%). Why can't more muslim countries model themselves after Turkey?
The role of religion has been a controversial debate over the years since the formation of Islamist parties,[170] especially in education. Turkey was founded upon a strict secular constitution which forbids the influence of any religion, including Islam.
Same applies to Israel. Why call themselves a 'Jewish' rather than 'Israeli'?
Turkey - Finest example of a liberal country with muslim majority (97%). Why can't more muslim countries model themselves after Turkey?
The role of religion has been a controversial debate over the years since the formation of Islamist parties,[170] especially in education. Turkey was founded upon a strict secular constitution which forbids the influence of any religion, including Islam.
Same applies to Israel. Why call themselves a 'Jewish' rather than 'Israeli'?
Same reason why secular western states are helping to topple somewhat secular syrian govt and handing it over to al-qaida.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22712756
Another example of why we can't just 'live and let live' when it comes to religion.
Another example of why we can't just 'live and let live' when it comes to religion.
I am totally against the involvement of religion in politics.
This is utterly deplorable.
This doesn't have much to do with atheism, but still.
I see a few pages back there was some bollocks about women wanting to be subservient, and 'innate' biology.
It's depressing that this is still believed, especially amongst seemingly intelligent people. The pseudo-science of most theories regarding evolutionary psychology seem to have become popularised, and it's really quite dangerous, and holds us back.
The fact is, women have always done a hell of a lot of providing, throughout history, and across many different cultures. Even today, women in Africa produce 70-90% of the food, they're the farmers, and they usually get the water for their families as well, walking many miles across blisteringly hot desert and carrying heavy loads. Before the industrial revolution of the 19th century, most men and women (we're talking the peasant majority, not the lords and ladies and knights) had very equitable roles in working and looking after the young - their (usually agricultural) work, as well as the domestic roles, would be shared. Couples were partners, and although they might have carried out different tasks around the home and regarding the young, they shared it. This makes sense. And this is seen across many different cultures, and also across the animal kingdom, where males and females have roles that intersect and change (female lions are perhaps the easiest example). You can also see this in many of the indigenous tribes that remain today in Africa and South America.
However, with the industrial revolution and invention of heavy industry, a lot of men started working in factories and many women - less capable of working in those heavy industries because of lesser strength - stayed at home. But even then a lot of poor women still had to go to work in the factories out of necessity and work as long as the men. They still got paid a lot less, of course.
As for 'innate' differences, read some Cordelia Fine, and Lise Eliot. They've debunked those theories, as well as the pop-psychology of the Men/Mars, Women/Venus. A lot of these differences that are supposedly 'wired' into the brain are actually the result of social conditioning. Our brains are very carefully attuned to the environment, and once gender stereotyping becomes salient, even subtly, it causes men and women to think differently. But this is culture, not biology (as I've described with the sharing of roles across nature). For a long time now, girls have been socialised into subservience. But when you remove gender stereotyping from the background, men and women's behaviour becomes remarkably similar in a lot of areas. With the reduction in the reliance of heavy industry across most of the developed world, most women work. They may take time out to look after young children (that's still a full-time job, btw, can we stop pretending it isn't?), but they almost always return to work, often because the family needs it. Dual-income families are the norm, especially after the recession. And this is the way it's always been, save for a few privileged women from the upper middle classes and upper classes who could afford to not work (a small minority). Women prove in education that they are equally capable as men, and the evidence is very clear that if there is good gender diversity of men and women at the top of most businesses and governments, performance improves.
And, far from all women wanting men to take the 'lead' (whatever that means) - couples that share work and domestic duties at least partially actually report greater happiness in their relationships than couples who don't; they're less stressed, and it's better for children.
Fine gives all this 'innate' nonsense a word - 'neurosexism'. When women were arguing for the vote and access to higher education at the end of the 19th century, the people that were denying it to them were not just using the Bible as a reason to deny them this, they were also using biology. There was a time when the brightest scientific minds in the world thought women were incapable of voting because they were too emotional, or that if they had access to higher education all the blood would rush from their ovaries to their brains and they'd become infertile. I'm not even joking. This is just an extension of that, as is most evolutionary psychology, which largely fails as a science because most of their assumptions are untestable, and infallible. And yet they're repeated in the media, spun out of control and used to justify basically treating women as second-class citizens, even amongst otherwise seemingly intelligent people.
I see a few pages back there was some bollocks about women wanting to be subservient, and 'innate' biology.
It's depressing that this is still believed, especially amongst seemingly intelligent people. The pseudo-science of most theories regarding evolutionary psychology seem to have become popularised, and it's really quite dangerous, and holds us back.
The fact is, women have always done a hell of a lot of providing, throughout history, and across many different cultures. Even today, women in Africa produce 70-90% of the food, they're the farmers, and they usually get the water for their families as well, walking many miles across blisteringly hot desert and carrying heavy loads. Before the industrial revolution of the 19th century, most men and women (we're talking the peasant majority, not the lords and ladies and knights) had very equitable roles in working and looking after the young - their (usually agricultural) work, as well as the domestic roles, would be shared. Couples were partners, and although they might have carried out different tasks around the home and regarding the young, they shared it. This makes sense. And this is seen across many different cultures, and also across the animal kingdom, where males and females have roles that intersect and change (female lions are perhaps the easiest example). You can also see this in many of the indigenous tribes that remain today in Africa and South America.
However, with the industrial revolution and invention of heavy industry, a lot of men started working in factories and many women - less capable of working in those heavy industries because of lesser strength - stayed at home. But even then a lot of poor women still had to go to work in the factories out of necessity and work as long as the men. They still got paid a lot less, of course.
As for 'innate' differences, read some Cordelia Fine, and Lise Eliot. They've debunked those theories, as well as the pop-psychology of the Men/Mars, Women/Venus. A lot of these differences that are supposedly 'wired' into the brain are actually the result of social conditioning. Our brains are very carefully attuned to the environment, and once gender stereotyping becomes salient, even subtly, it causes men and women to think differently. But this is culture, not biology (as I've described with the sharing of roles across nature). For a long time now, girls have been socialised into subservience. But when you remove gender stereotyping from the background, men and women's behaviour becomes remarkably similar in a lot of areas. With the reduction in the reliance of heavy industry across most of the developed world, most women work. They may take time out to look after young children (that's still a full-time job, btw, can we stop pretending it isn't?), but they almost always return to work, often because the family needs it. Dual-income families are the norm, especially after the recession. And this is the way it's always been, save for a few privileged women from the upper middle classes and upper classes who could afford to not work (a small minority). Women prove in education that they are equally capable as men, and the evidence is very clear that if there is good gender diversity of men and women at the top of most businesses and governments, performance improves.
And, far from all women wanting men to take the 'lead' (whatever that means) - couples that share work and domestic duties at least partially actually report greater happiness in their relationships than couples who don't; they're less stressed, and it's better for children.
Fine gives all this 'innate' nonsense a word - 'neurosexism'. When women were arguing for the vote and access to higher education at the end of the 19th century, the people that were denying it to them were not just using the Bible as a reason to deny them this, they were also using biology. There was a time when the brightest scientific minds in the world thought women were incapable of voting because they were too emotional, or that if they had access to higher education all the blood would rush from their ovaries to their brains and they'd become infertile. I'm not even joking. This is just an extension of that, as is most evolutionary psychology, which largely fails as a science because most of their assumptions are untestable, and infallible. And yet they're repeated in the media, spun out of control and used to justify basically treating women as second-class citizens, even amongst otherwise seemingly intelligent people.
fecking religions, how do they work?
I remember Hitch used to say that the only cure for poverty is the empowerment of women. Not sure exactly what he meant by it or what kind of data backs it up though.
MG must know this.
MG must know this.
Men earn a lot more for doing less work basically, meaning that a lot more women are in poverty. If you fix the pay gap world wide, theoretically money should be better spread out and those in poverty should be able to elevate themselves out of it. In a lot of the third world, women also have a less opportunities than men to go into education and such things, if you fix that, more people will be better equipped to elevate themselves out of poverty. Or something along those lines.
That's absolutely 100% true.
According to the World Bank, educating girls is the highest investment for the developing world to end poverty.
I'd recommend 'Half the Sky' by Sheryl WuDunn.
Well access to contraception is also vital.
And infrastructure, a lot of the third world is just really shit.
This.
Population control is number one priority. Atleast, in India, China. How much resources does this world have to support the current growth?
I for one, do not plan to have kids in my 30s and instead plan to adopt one from a poorer country. If more people did this, the world would be a much better place. I need to find a misses who would support that though.
Hang around hippy chicks, they love that stuff.
So does Angelina Jolie
Yeah that's correct. A country can't be sustainably successful if slightly over half its population are disadvantaged, nor can the world for that matter.
It's pretty basic, empower and educate women - turn them into productive economic units, they will have jobs and less babies.
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/religions-and-babies/
The single most important tool to end poverty, religious extremism and overpopulation is the education and empowerment of women.
So they can justify their occupation of Palestinian land, apparently Moses in his book told the jews those lands belong to them, hence the radical jews' insistence not to ever leave those lands: "because God told us it's ours!". So much killing of other humans is just down to identifying with a particular religion or even a sect within a religion (see the Sunni-shia killings in Syria).
It is interesting to note that countries with high rates of illiteracy/uneducated people/strictly monitored schools and media tend to have more god believers in them. It's easier to brainwash people when there isn't lots of critical thinking and open discussion, especially at the younger ages. Look at countries with higher emphasis on education/literacy/open discussion of merits of religion and they tend to have more agnostics and atheists. This brings to my mind the story of that Pakistani little girl who was gunned down by Taliban because she refused to attend their religious schools and instead chose normal schools; the religious nutjobs know that education and critical thinking will make it very hard to brainwash people from a young age.
Can we start a Caf religion? Like a serious one.
Haven't you heard of Fulham bear (pbuh)?
Hectic can be the high priest.
Good post, that.
Do you not think that religion is largely responsible for the pretty much civilisation-wide feeling of misogyny throughout history, though? It pretty much codified it for millennia in books people thought a god authored.
Of course. There would be sexism and misogyny without religion (obviously, since humans wrote the misogynistic religious texts to begin with), but it's made so much more worse, widespread and institutionalized because of religion.
One of many reasons that I find religion a hypocritical joke. Mormonism is clearly an outlandish myth, and that's an insult to mythology. I recall this Graham/Romney pact during the election and just funny that none of the networks called it out. I'm sure Faux News would have if Obama were involved. Or imagine if this had a Muslim connection - media would be all over it.
While the caption below is just humor from a website, it is true that Graham's organization did remove Mormonism from it's list of cults shortly before the election. A decision clearly intended to convince Graham's minions that Romney, a white Replublican, was electable despite his Mormon beliefs.
After over 70 years of preaching Mormons are a cult, a five minute conversation with Mitt Romney has convinced Billy Graham otherwise. There are rumors the endorsement was a cash deal, with unconfirmed reports quoting Graham’s son saying, "I told Romney, if he threw in an extra million, I could get my Dad to say Muslims were God’s chosen people." Many of Graham’s followers are now lost and confused which, in his line of work, is nothing new.
While the caption below is just humor from a website, it is true that Graham's organization did remove Mormonism from it's list of cults shortly before the election. A decision clearly intended to convince Graham's minions that Romney, a white Replublican, was electable despite his Mormon beliefs.
After over 70 years of preaching Mormons are a cult, a five minute conversation with Mitt Romney has convinced Billy Graham otherwise. There are rumors the endorsement was a cash deal, with unconfirmed reports quoting Graham’s son saying, "I told Romney, if he threw in an extra million, I could get my Dad to say Muslims were God’s chosen people." Many of Graham’s followers are now lost and confused which, in his line of work, is nothing new.
Completely agree.
Graham on how cults differ from ChristianityOne of many reasons that I find religion a hypocritical joke. Mormonism is clearly an outlandish myth, and that's an insult to mythology. I recall this Graham/Romney pact during the election and just funny that none of the networks called it out. I'm sure Faux News would have if Obama were involved. Or imagine if this had a Muslim connection - media would be all over it.
While the caption below is just humor from a website, it is true that Graham's organization did remove Mormonism from it's list of cults shortly before the election. A decision clearly intended to convince Graham's minions that Romney, a white Replublican, was electable despite his Mormon beliefs.
After over 70 years of preaching Mormons are a cult, a five minute conversation with Mitt Romney has convinced Billy Graham otherwise. There are rumors the endorsement was a cash deal, with unconfirmed reports quoting Graham’s son saying, "I told Romney, if he threw in an extra million, I could get my Dad to say Muslims were God’s chosen people." Many of Graham’s followers are now lost and confused which, in his line of work, is nothing new.
For what it's worth, Mormonism is back on there, and it's pretty hard to doubt that they were motivated by money.
http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/11/14/billy-graham-quietly-adds-mormonism-back-to-cult-list/
MDG3 states that women are half the population, but seventy percent of the worlds poor. They suffer from poor education, poor nutrition, and lower wages then men. 70 percent of the worlds work hours are actually done by women, yet they only take home 10% of the wages. As well as the countless women who die every year because of gender based violence.
Of course you can say that most of this is in the third world, in countries dominated by conservative social policies, and ran by Governments heavily monitored and controlled by theocracies that say women should be obedient to men.
Yeah, women were so empowered in history before religion came along.
A majority of women in the third world do not live in theocracies.
Men are always going to earn more money in agricultural economies because they are more productive in this type of work. But it's true that both men and women are poorer in these economies because of the way conservative and religious views subjugate women.
To put it simply, in much of the developing world, women are naturally less productive than men in the manual agricultural sector, but their potential to be equally productive in non-manual jobs is hampered by the fact they are not given fair access to education. And across all sectors, it is very difficult for them to go into work because they are forced to look after large families because of the perverse aversion of religion to contraception.
Perhaps not in the actual sense of the word, but in reality theological teachings cast a shadow over all walks of life in most of the developing world.
As they do in the first world, the main difference is that education is better.
Womens rights in theocracies are mostly awful.
You don't think that religions have stunted female empowerment quite heavily?
Most of this is just random thoughts that I've had and I haven't fact checked them lately, and I'd welcome people to try disprove them. I'm pretty sure on the Sikhism part though.
In Mosaic law, women were treated better then they were in Pre Islamic Arabia, but women did not have equal rights.
In Ancient Egypt, women had total equal rights, but lived in a more patriarchal society then say modern day Secular Egypt.
In Ancient Rome, women were 'free' and were citizens, but had no right to vote, take office etc.
In Early Christianity, some work was done to make society more egalitarian, if the women complied with the Christian church. Basically they could take up small pastoral roles.
Ironically, Islamic law actually increased Womens rights in Arabia in a lot of cases. They had rights in marriage, divorce, and property well before a lot of the West.
In Scandanavia, before Christianity came to play, Women had equal rights to men. After which they were under tutelage.
In Ireland, under Brehon law women were treat civilly but as second class citizens. They had no right to property, but weren't treated as bad as in GB which had mental laws on witchcraft and with slavery laws.
A trend that seems to follow is the fact that under no religion at all women were treated equally. Under primitive religions they were mostly treated awfully, until major religions came to play and lifted them to a certain standard, but have fell short of expected standards.
One religion I'll compliment on there treatment of women is Sikhism, under which women and men have totally equal rights.
From woman, man is born; within woman, man is conceived;
to woman he is engaged and married.
Woman becomes his friend; through woman, the future generations come.
When his woman dies, he seeks another woman; to woman he is bound.
So why call her bad? From her, kings are born.
From woman, woman is born; without woman, there would be no one at all.
— Guru Nanak
In Mosaic law, women were treated better then they were in Pre Islamic Arabia, but women did not have equal rights.
In Ancient Egypt, women had total equal rights, but lived in a more patriarchal society then say modern day Secular Egypt.
In Ancient Rome, women were 'free' and were citizens, but had no right to vote, take office etc.
In Early Christianity, some work was done to make society more egalitarian, if the women complied with the Christian church. Basically they could take up small pastoral roles.
Ironically, Islamic law actually increased Womens rights in Arabia in a lot of cases. They had rights in marriage, divorce, and property well before a lot of the West.
In Scandanavia, before Christianity came to play, Women had equal rights to men. After which they were under tutelage.
In Ireland, under Brehon law women were treat civilly but as second class citizens. They had no right to property, but weren't treated as bad as in GB which had mental laws on witchcraft and with slavery laws.
A trend that seems to follow is the fact that under no religion at all women were treated equally. Under primitive religions they were mostly treated awfully, until major religions came to play and lifted them to a certain standard, but have fell short of expected standards.
One religion I'll compliment on there treatment of women is Sikhism, under which women and men have totally equal rights.
From woman, man is born; within woman, man is conceived;
to woman he is engaged and married.
Woman becomes his friend; through woman, the future generations come.
When his woman dies, he seeks another woman; to woman he is bound.
So why call her bad? From her, kings are born.
From woman, woman is born; without woman, there would be no one at all.
— Guru Nanak
Crudely the big montheistic books OT, NT, Koran and Granth can be seen as serially more progressive as humankind advanced across the centuries.
The issue being the word of God. But yeah initially they were quite progressive. Baby girls were buried alive until the advent of Islam in Arabia, for example, and Muhammed was quite the feminist back in the day. Obviously people will compare modern day to the first millennium, but heh...