A Discussion/Debate on Religion & Other Closely Related Topics

[Falcon Horus]

Hardly. Just because many people deliberately choose to ignore reality doesn't mean I have to.

Actually, you're the one ignoring reality and opt to stay glued to your traditional believes.

@Tood

By the original authors, I mean those who wrote the bible in the first place.

[Annoyed]

Actually, you're the one ignoring reality and opt to stay glued to your traditional believes.

I didn't get that memo. When did humans change so that the two genders are identical? Any why do I still see a lot of differently shaped people around ? If you're correct, they should be all the same

[Gatefan1976]

I didn't get that memo. When did humans change so that the two genders are identical? Any why do I still see a lot of differently shaped people around ? If you're correct, they should be all the same

I've seen men with bigger boobs than women, and women with more muscle than men.
Biologically speaking, we aren't all that different.
The main difference lies in psychology, but that would lead to nature Vs nurture and some other psychological "claptrap".

[Gatefan1976]

Patriarchal society has nothing to do with the "gender" of said society's deity. Just look at Athens. An extremely misogynistic society elected to worship a female god. Or more modern examples of highly machista cultures venerating the Virgin Mary above Jesus and God if not at an equal level. You're just hung up on "ebil Christianity is ebil".

Err, you know without Zeus or Yahweh, you have no Athena or Mary, right?
Athena was more akin to a "patron saint" of Athens than it's chief deity, much like Mary is the patron saint of parts of south America.
Has nothing to do with "ebil Christianity"

linguistic evolution leading to new revisions in translations to reflect such evolution is one thing. Making a politically motivated revision is totally different. And besides, "woman" has "man"
in it so it must mean male

Why can't politics enter religion, it seems to want to put it's foot in politics often enough.

While this is grossly off topic...there is actual evidence that lends the premise of differing learning styles based on sex real credence.

True, but that is generally based in psychology, and as I just said to Annoyed, that's nature Vs nurture.

[thekillman]

The main difference lies in psychology, but that would lead to nature Vs nurture and some other psychological "claptrap".

We've been enforcing stereotypes for centuries, and then using the resulting split as evidence for the legitimacy of said split. And not just for women. Until i see research that convincingly takes such reinforcement out of the picture, i'm not so convinced of the differences.

We pretend men are all the same and women are all the same, whereas in reality there's a huge grey overlapping area. Masculinity and Femininity are extremely vague concepts, and not exactly immutable timeless concepts (seriously, look up what it actually means). Wasn't that long ago that men in tight clothes and wigs with tons of make-up was all the fashion. Wasn't that long ago that pink was a boy's color.

While this is grossly off topic...there is actual evidence that lends the premise of differing learning styles based on sex real credence.

Wasn't really my point. my real point is that Annoyed will enforce his ideas even with evidence that doesn't support it. His school bias story suggests that attention correlates with good results regardless of gender, when he claims it means the exact opposite.

[Gatefan1976]

We've been enforcing stereotypes for centuries, and then using the resulting split as evidence for the legitimacy of said split. And not just for women. Until i see research that convincingly takes such reinforcement out of the picture, i'm not so convinced of the differences.

We pretend men are all the same and women are all the same, whereas in reality there's a huge grey overlapping area. Masculinity and Femininity are extremely vague concepts, and not exactly immutable timeless concepts (seriously, look up what it actually means). Wasn't that long ago that men in tight clothes and wigs with tons of make-up was all the fashion. Wasn't that long ago that pink was a boy's color.

I agree with you killman, that response was specifically for annoyed who does not believe in psychology.

Wasn't really my point. my real point is that Annoyed will enforce his ideas even with evidence that doesn't support it. His school bias story suggests that attention correlates with good results regardless of gender, when he claims it means the exact opposite.

I'm not sure that's exactly what he is claiming, I think he is more challenging the notion that girls are being left behind because of male privilege.

[Annoyed]

I agree with you killman, that response was specifically for annoyed who does not believe in psychology.

I'm not sure that's exactly what he is claiming, I think he is more challenging the notion that girls are being left behind because of male privilege.

I'm claiming that males and females are fundamentally different, both physically and psychologically. And that because of these differences, the techniques that work best on males are not the same as those that work best on females. So different techniques should be used for each gender.

But our society likes to pretend that the sexes are identical, so they try to make one size fit all, and depending upon which way the pendulum is swinging at any particular time, the one size solution gives one gender or the other the advantage.

[aretood2]

Err, you know without Zeus or Yahweh, you have no Athena or Mary, right?
Athena was more akin to a "patron saint" of Athens than it's chief deity, much like Mary is the patron saint of parts of south America.
Has nothing to do with "ebil Christianity"

How about the more egalitarian Inca with their fanged deity which is given masculine traits? Or the Egyptians...what gender is Amen-Ra? That said, these cultures (Well...not sure on the Inca) pretty much have gods that are basically "Sufficiently advanced humans". Hebrews on the other hand came up with a whole new deal. Interestingly enough, the fanged deity is probably a monotheistic god himself. I side with archeologists who believe that the Inca were more of a monotheistic people than the Spanish realized.

Why can't politics enter religion, it seems to want to put it's foot in politics often enough.

Because ISIS.

True, but that is generally based in psychology, and as I just said to Annoyed, that's nature Vs nurture.

You mean cultural? But even then we are also talking about brain structure too.
Even psychology is heavily influenced by genetics/neurology. If anything I see a future where psychology will eventually become intertwined with neurology. It blurs the lines greatly that it is a legitimate debate to be had. Though I can not speak for Annoyed's specific beliefs on the matter.

We've been enforcing stereotypes for centuries, and then using the resulting split as evidence for the legitimacy of said split. And not just for women. Until i see research that convincingly takes such reinforcement out of the picture, i'm not so convinced of the differences.

The bolded part can be such a nasty little overlooked detail. What one calls convincing isn't necessarily a universal constant that all can agree with. It's that self assumed bias that what I consider sufficient evidence is what all should consider sufficient evidence. Only that things don't quite pan out that way in the world of people.

We pretend men are all the same and women are all the same, whereas in reality there's a huge grey overlapping area. Masculinity and Femininity are extremely vague concepts, and not exactly immutable timeless concepts (seriously, look up what it actually means). Wasn't that long ago that men in tight clothes and wigs with tons of make-up was all the fashion. Wasn't that long ago that pink was a boy's color.

Masculinity and Femininity are independent of gender. But this begs a question though. I asked it before and didn't get an answer. If Gender is a social construct...how can one "be born"
with the wrong gender? In other words, how can our Sex not match our gender if gender is something invented by society while sex is purely a genetic/anatomical feature while one is not born with a gender because it is yet to be constructed by society in a given individual?

Wasn't really my point. my real point is that Annoyed will enforce his ideas even with evidence that doesn't support it. His school bias story suggests that attention correlates with good results regardless of gender, when he claims it means the exact opposite.

I think he is trying to posit that girls can pay more attention for longer bits of time? But I haven't really ever heard of that. Our attention spans don't really work that way.

[Gatefan1976]

How about the more egalitarian Inca with their fanged deity which is given masculine traits? Or the Egyptians...what gender is Amen-Ra? That said, these cultures (Well...not sure on the Inca) pretty much have gods that are basically "Sufficiently advanced humans". Hebrews on the other hand came up with a whole new deal. Interestingly enough, the fanged deity is probably a monotheistic god himself. I side with archeologists who believe that the Inca were more of a monotheistic people than the Spanish realized.

This is not relevant to what I was answering. You asked why some very "masculine" dominated places have female gods, and basically, they don't. Female patrons, sure, but not "ruler of the pantheon", That's still a male role. Athena is interesting because of what happened to her in the 'romanization' of the greek gods when she was stripped of her warlike qualities. In fact, from what I understand, there is no hard evidence for a matriarchal religion to have ever existed. As for the Inca, they did not just have one god, they had 4 major ones, so I'm not sure how you get monotheistic.

Because ISIS.

Sure, but you and I agree that they should be kept separate. What I'm saying is that if religion can "butt in" to politics, the reverse should hold true.

You mean cultural? But even then we are also talking about brain structure too.
Even psychology is heavily influenced by genetics/neurology. If anything I see a future where psychology will eventually become intertwined with neurology. It blurs the lines greatly that it is a legitimate debate to be had. Though I can not speak for Annoyed's specific beliefs on the matter.

Won't argue with you there.
You might find this interesting:
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spr...different.html

[aretood2]

This is not relevant to what I was answering. You asked why some very "masculine" dominated places have female gods, and basically, they don't. Female patrons, sure, but not "ruler of the pantheon", That's still a male role. Athena is interesting because of what happened to her in the 'romanization' of the greek gods when she was stripped of her warlike qualities. In fact, from what I understand, there is no hard evidence for a matriarchal religion to have ever existed. As for the Inca, they did not just have one god, they had 4 major ones, so I'm not sure how you get monotheistic.

It's not a popular theory, but one I subscribe to. Until we are able to really map out the development from how the Amazonian cultures influenced those of likes of the Inca when it comes to religion, there really wouldn't be much proof. I must admit, there is very little evidence for it. Basically,
different facets of the Fanged Deity and multiple supernatural personas got inadvertently mistaken as gods by Spanish chroniclers.

Sure, but you and I agree that they should be kept separate. What I'm saying is that if religion can "butt in" to politics, the reverse should hold true.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe in separation of church and state. It's just that the devil lies in the details. Tax exemptions aren't just a money grabbing perk. They also help prevent excessive government entanglement, thus failing to separate the two. Just be better about enforcing existing laws, no need to start tossing babies and bathwater all willy nilly.

Won't argue with you there.
You might find this interesting:
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spr...different.html

I am familiar with most of what was said. But one important aspect is to remember that these are merely differences not actual "better than/worse than" type things. Women use landmarks men use distance and time. Both end up at their destination or get lost just the same. But should they collaborate...they might get lost less often. And this is also an analogy to how I feel about education and gender. We do have to make sure students have more than one option or can work with using each other's strengths constructively. However, this doesn't mean men never use landmarks and that women never take time and distance into account...still also an analogy.

As for Annoyed, the differences aren't so drastic (or drastic to begin with) that any educational system will have too big of an impact in one gender versus the other. However, I do agree that boys are being shafted, but not for the same reasons. I mean...it's hard to argue that women in the US have less educational opportunities when they outnumber men in universities...unless you are into perpetual female victimhood. It's...complicated and well...Annoyed, no offense but complicated isn't something you seem to be fund off.

One solution is getting more male teachers in grade schools (might also mysteriously help raise the wages for teachers because women...#wagegap)

[Gatefan1976]

It's not a popular theory, but one I subscribe to. Until we are able to really map out the development from how the Amazonian cultures influenced those of likes of the Inca when it comes to religion, there really wouldn't be much proof. I must admit, there is very little evidence for it. Basically, different facets of the Fanged Deity and multiple supernatural personas got inadvertently mistaken as gods by Spanish chroniclers.

Sure, you could pull a somewhat parallel argument with the various incarnations of Ra based on which "house" he happens to be in in any given time period. The Egyptian ones are easier to trace, but I will admit to not knowing enough about Meso-American culture and record keeping to make the same claim for them. Time is a hard taskmaster especially when....... well, you know where I am going to go here
Of course, you could apply the same argument to the trinity in reverse and say that it was the unification of 3 separate supernatural deities who originally co-existed........

Don't get me wrong, I do believe in separation of church and state. It's just that the devil lies in the details. Tax exemptions aren't just a money grabbing perk. They also help prevent excessive government entanglement, thus failing to separate the two. Just be better about enforcing existing laws, no need to start tossing babies and bathwater all willy nilly.

Not at all, we very much agree on the reasons why it is an important distinction and why the separation should exist. I feel our major difference lies in what............ "latitude" a state actor such as a senator/congressperson/govorner/etc, should be allowed to let their personal beliefs affect state decisions.

As an aside, this is what really surprised me about the US not asking religion on your census forms. without objective, state-wide or county-wide data, how do you say that X state/county is "predominantly X faith?" and it's moral guidance is appropriate or even wanted by the people of the state/county?
Why are people willing to state their faith or lack of, to data collectors, but find telling the state that same information "wrong"?

I am familiar with most of what was said. But one important aspect is to remember that these are merely differences not actual "better than/worse than" type things. Women use landmarks men use distance and time. Both end up at their destination or get lost just the same. But should they collaborate...they might get lost less often. And this is also an analogy to how I feel about education and gender. We do have to make sure students have more than one option or can work with using each other's strengths constructively. However, this doesn't mean men never use landmarks and that women never take time and distance into account...still also an analogy.

I agree with your point entirely.

As for Annoyed, the differences aren't so drastic (or drastic to begin with) that any educational system will have too big of an impact in one gender versus the other. However, I do agree that boys are being shafted, but not for the same reasons. I mean...it's hard to argue that women in the US have less educational opportunities when they outnumber men in universities...unless you are into perpetual female victimhood. It's...complicated and well...Annoyed, no offense but complicated isn't something you seem to be fund off.

I think many of the issues surrounding education and gender are not really about gender, or even ability per se, but what each gender is "pushed" towards over their school careers. Boys are pushed out of the social sciences, and girls are pushed out of the hard sciences. Look around your fellow staffers sometime and see which gender is represented predominantly in each field.

One solution is getting more male teachers in grade schools (might also mysteriously help raise the wages for teachers because women...#wagegap)

That's not really fixing the problem, more like statistically "flattening" it
I do know that at the top end (ages 16-18 students), male teachers shrink considerably, especially in schools social events due to perceived (and sometimes real) issues of sexual misconduct.

[Annoyed]

I am familiar with most of what was said. But one important aspect is to remember that these are merely differences not actual "better than/worse than" type things. Women use landmarks men use distance and time. Both end up at their destination or get lost just the same. But should they collaborate...they might get lost less often. And this is also an analogy to how I feel about education and gender. We do have to make sure students have more than one option or can work with using each other's strengths constructively. However, this doesn't mean men never use landmarks and that women never take time and distance into account...still also an analogy.

The other major difference with this is that women are more social & cooperative, while men prefer to stand independently. This is behind the age old debate about whether to stop and ask for directions or not. Women will give up and look for help far earlier than males will. How many times have you had this discussion with your S.O.? That's the best thing about smart phones... They all have GPS, which renders that whole discussion moot.

As for Annoyed, the differences aren't so drastic (or drastic to begin with) that any educational system will have too big of an impact in one gender versus the other. However, I do agree that boys are being shafted, but not for the same reasons. I mean...it's hard to argue that women in the US have less educational opportunities when they outnumber men in universities...unless you are into perpetual female victimhood. It's...complicated and well...Annoyed, no offense but complicated isn't something you seem to be fund off.

That's because when you boil it down, most things are not complicated. They are very simple. The complications arise when people try to twist the facts to fit the agenda they want to push.

[Gatefan1976]

Didn't read the article, did you?

[aretood2]

The other major difference with this is that women are more social & cooperative, while men prefer to stand independently. This is behind the age old debate about whether to stop and ask for directions or not. Women will give up and look for help far earlier than males will. How many times have you had this discussion with your S.O.? That's the best thing about smart phones... They all have GPS, which renders that whole discussion moot.

That's not a stated difference between any research that I know of. The research focuses on brain structure and propensity for certain forms of thought. That little aspect you mentioned is not "hard wired" the way that using time/distance vs landmarks is.

That's because when you boil it down, most things are not complicated. They are very simple. The complications arise when people try to twist the facts to fit the agenda they want to push.

There's that "agenda" thing again. Tin foil anyone?

[thekillman]

That's because when you boil it down, most things are not complicated. They are very simple. The complications arise when people try to twist the facts to fit the agenda they want to push.

Yea no. If you dumb things down enough every thing is simple, but also mostly wrong.