...instead they print, 'spare the rod' bullshit.

I remember the many articles about the appalling strain of misogyny among the "New Atheists".

Do you?

From the Enlightenment to the Dark Ages: How "new atheism" slid into the alt-right

https://www.salon.com/2017/07/29/from-the-enlightenment-to-the-dark-ages-how-new-atheism-slid-into-the-alt-right/



Will Misogyny Bring Down The Atheist Movement?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markoppenheimer/will-misogyny-bring-down-the-atheist-movement

It is used as a diversionary tactic to shift the focus off of an issue and avoid having to directly address it.

This technique works by twisting criticism back onto the critic and in doing so revealing the original critic's hypocrisy.

The usual syntax is "What about...?" followed by an issue on the opponents side which is vaguely, if at all, related to the original issue.


Simply put, whataboutism refers to the bringing up of one issue in order to distract from the discussion of another.

Finally, and most importantly:

It does not apply to the comparison and analysis of two similar issues in terms such as why some are given more social prominence than others.


This definition implicitly requires an intent to divert. But if the 2 issues are related, as in the universal nature of intolerance, or the universal occurrence of child molestation, it is not whataboutism.

That is your unproven claim - an effort to specifically exclude what YOU are doing from the definition.

We are directly witnessing you attempting to formally create a double standard for yourself.

Pathetic.

Craft an alternative.

Interesting that only a handful miss the meaning.

This might help you, and a few others:

You are trying to create an exception for yourself so that you can ALWAYS claim you didn't "intend" to change the subject - that YOUR use of whataboutism is OK and totally legit.

Pathetic.

You altered the definition to carve out an exception for yourself.

It's not going to work, but do please continue to humiliate yourself by trying.

The argument may be that, if there really is divine and benevolent inspiration, we would expect it to encourage proper treatment of individuals regardless of the century in which they exist.

Wouldn't the point of inspiration be to help us be better people? Sure, humans may not have known better then (and some still don't - even some atheists), but presumably an inspirational deity would have known better and provided inspiration accordingly.

And such interference diminishes human will.

Are we to be only puppets?

that encodes a secret message about the Big Bang and chromosomes and an explicit message to control your wife and blame her for your mistakes?

Is God interfering at all, or is he not? If he is not interfering, then how did they learn 20th century science?

If our "human will" could lead us into a disastrously wrong consequence that we couldn't fully comprehend, then we are CLEARLY not equipped to handle unfettered "human will." Being a puppet would be far prefereable in this case.

Free will shouldn't be some kind of Holy Gag Gift that increases our odds of eternal torture. If our limited perspective precludes our making the right choice, then human will is exactly what we don't need.

Like telling people how the universe formed, or how sex chromosomes work?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=310505

That kind of interference doesn't diminish human will and our own discovery?

Interesting double standards you have.

When someone actually believes religion gets the credit for everything good that any religionist on earth does, yet simultaneously believes religion can't possibly be to blame for anything bad any religionist does, it's not hard to understand how the fuckups happen.

But you are welcome to your opinion.

Just ask Gil, he'll tell you.

Same species as now, right?

My view.

Women only won the right to vote 100 years ago in the US.

as now.

As for the women's right to vote, that was restricted due to the patriarchy that started in the Bronze age. Think!

Again, you can insist that Bronze Age humans act like 21st century humans, but they did not.

https://www.infoplease.com/us/gender-sexuality/womens-suffrage

show a higher level of morality than that expected from Bronze Age nomads. Because if it doesn't, I might conclude that it is not actually inspired by God but just a book written by Bronze Age nomads. Now I understand that God apparently doesn't want to interfere and all, but wouldn't that purpose be better accomplished by actually not interfering, instead of dropping hints he was interfering that could only be understood in the 20th century? Because that would mean he actually was interfering, which is the very thing that negates the free will we only get from him not interfering.

Can you help me out of this conundrum?

humans have a habit of behaving as they wish to do.

As to your conundrum, we also know that people interpret text in many different ways. One example, the Second Amendment.

What a twisted view you have.

Bronze Age biblical authors figuring out DNA structure is divine insight and inspiration. But when they fucked up basic civil rights and decency that’s just human nature.

And nah, a BuzzFeed article really isn't something worth more than a chuckle when trying to make a point.

You know, the thing you've tried to argue.

Nice to see you think you're wrong. Thanks!

Will Misogyny Bring Down The Atheist Movement?

So, yes. It is entirely fucking reasonable to expect such people would be possesed of knowledge well ahead of their time.

LOL did you really think that was going to help you?

Jesus’ Female Disciples: The New Evidence – a timely new take on the ultimate boys’ club

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/apr/08/jesus-female-disciples-the-new-evidence-a-timely-new-take-on-the-ultimate-boys-club

If you accept the patriarchal view that Jesus only had male disciples, you really need to update your reading.

LMAO

12 disciples in the bible. All men. It's your bible with the patriarchal view, g. Sorry that hurts. Glad it does though, maybe there's hope for you after all.

identity of the women it features. The disciples were described in the New Testament. Extra-biblical sources are ignored by most religionists. Except, of course when there is a question begging to be answered.

We are told ancient biblical authors could figure out the Big Bang, but not where the sun went at the end of the day. They knew all about human chromosomes, but not how to respect differences when the people didn’t match the plumbing.

But none of this really matters because some atheists in Boston were mean to a Trump supporter.

The REAL intolerance!

And others he found undesirable and undeserving, which is pretty much everyone not like him. They even co-opted the birth process & crafted Eve from Adam's rib. When you've placed yourself at the top of the hierarchy, your myths must support that positioning.

Fruit of Knowledge thing in the garden. Eve got on his bad list for that, and she was a woman, innit? Still holding a grudge, too, I guess.

and give kings divine authority decided not to include *those* books in the religious texts

has much to do with it.

Not straight.

By asking “he who has not sinned” to throw the first stone, he in effect equalized the sins of men with those of women. In much of the world today, that is still pretty radical.

But to your point ... it’s hard to advocate for women if your own God says they came from Adam’s rib.

by so much as a jot or a tittle. That would include the parts of the Law that require the subjugation of women and the execution of homosexuals, disobedient children, and people who work on the Sabbath.

😊

featured women as Apostles and leaders in the nascent Christian community.

On Edit: In the Book of Revelation, the author is really miffed about a "prophetess" at Thyatira. She seems to have been tolerated by the community and enough Christians followed her to draw the author's attention. Perhaps she was in a leadership position and Ol' John of Patmos couldn't stand it?

The Gnostic books are interesting, but were considered heretic.

he would have found a way to stop them, or not have those he chose to spread his word advocate for them.

Or we can argue they were just the ideas of Bronze Age men, not inspired by any god.