The Religious Paradox: Interpretation

I’ve seen this said, probably more times than I realize or could ever count, the following statement:
“We get what (God/Jesus/Muhammad/Yahweh/Allah) is saying from interpreting this (points to any passage in a text) passage as a specific message from (God/Jesus/Muhammad/Allah/Yahweh), which says..” And then the person inserts what they think the text says after that.
But there’s two problems with this, both creating a serious religious paradox.

The first problem is this, the person who wrote the text is a human being, and thus this person wrote down what they “interpreted” to be a message from “God”. But what if their wrong? what if what they think is a message from God is not a message at all, but just ideas and concepts from their own mind. This holds to be far more true than a “message from God” due to the fact these messages are always limited to the current knowledge of the time of the “message”. Had any messenger from God 2k+ years ago included maybe the space shuttle, E=MC², or any secret to modern medicine, like the cure to cancer, I could see as possible evidence that the message was from a “high being”. But again we know this is not the case. So in order to interpret the “word of God”, one would have to take the chance that they are interpreting what somebody else was interpreting as being accurate and non-bias. How dangerous is that? making the claim that any person can interpret heresy in a manner that the original message is recovered is in itself a paradox. How does one know any message is accurate based on it passing through two human beings, who as we know have biases, prejudices and opinions based positions that are based on one’s origins. That is depending on where a person grew up and what type of religion their family holds, then their bias and prejudices would have a serious impact on interpretation of heresy.

But what does all that mean right? well in science, we have the peer review process to sort through the junk science and those ideas, hypothesis and theories that are grounded in evidence and can be tested, observed and survive through repeated trials ends up as scientific knowledge. These then are used as predictive models that produce technology and medicines. The scientific method works, because it removes the bias, prejudices and opinions leaving only facts, data and pure observations that can be tested by anyone.

Now back to interpretation, how does one test a bias, opinion, or prejudice interpretation? you can’t, but that’s the original point. This system of “I can interpret the text better than you!” allows human beings to manipulate any religious text to basically say what ever they want. They don’t even have to defend the original interpretation of the person who received the “message” from God or how accurate it may be. So, they knowing this, that people can interpret religious text differently, ignore that the original person may have misinterpreted God’s message and created a religion that is self-serving to just the original person. Which means, they could have made the whole thing up. So how do religious theists deal with the possibility religion is just a made up idea to benefit a few people early in human history IF “interpretation” is allowed? oh oh, let the spinning begin.

Now the second problem with interpretation of texts. How does anyone know the information contained was edited, added, deleted or changed to fit a bias or prejudice?
In the bible people are slaughtered for being different not believing that same thing as the ones who claim God’s word is infallible, which is a result of prejudice. We know in modern society that prejudice and racism is bad, yet most religious text contain bias and prejudice AND explain why in their case it’s ok to practice. But again interpretation get’s ignored, that the original person may have edited the message to serve their bias or prejudice. Can the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindu’s or any other religion safely say that their religious text does not contain bias, prejudice or racism? I know from reading the bible it definitely contains all three, and I’d wager the others are too.

So what doe all this mean? well theists have a serious issue, that is with all the interpretation floating around, all the denominations of different religions, which are based on different interpretations of the same text, one has to concede that the possibility of the original message not being interpreted correctly is huge. But I’ve sort of heard a slight counter argument, that God made sure the message to that one person is correct. But why not give every human that same message? the reply goes something like this, “because we’re being tested on our faith..”, what? why did the person who got the original message not get tested on their faith? but hey, the mental gymnastics after that will ensue and they’ll end up leaving the debate rather than face the paradox they’ve created where interpretation is ok, but not ok.

Religious people by nature are bias, their religion insures that they maintain the same system of interpretation, that is, it serves the leaders of the church rather than the masses. This also shows when church leaders use quote mining tricks during church services to teach a biased, prejudice message that serves the church rather than taking care of the poor and needy. The bias language used by those who manipulate the message of their religious text shows through in how vague statements are, allowing a quick change to its content if challenged. But if this is the case with interpretation of religious texts, what is the point of having religious text?
Next time you hear anyone speaking for the church or religion making any claim, ask how do you know that you are not being bias, prejudice or how much of your message is your opinion rather than a religious message via divinity? and how can you prove its solely a religious message or not? or better yet, ask them to show you where it is written that it is ok to interpret their religious text how ever they feel.

Posted in Religion | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Religious Paradox: Source confusion

A particularly difficult argument for a theist is the psychological effect known as source confusion. What is it and why is it relevant to theists? well it goes something like this, when somebody claims they “know something” to either be true because they saw something first hand or was told by someone who said it was true, that it might now be because the belief was inadvertently implanted in one’s memory. But let me first explain what this psychological effect is and why theists can’t explain for it in their beliefs.

According to Daniel Reisberg’s book “Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind” he explains Source Confusion  by explaining a study conducted by E.Bown, Deffenbacher and Sturgill (1977). “Research participants witnessed a staged crime. Two or three days later, they were shown mug shots of individuals who supposedly had participated in the crime; but as it turns out, the people in those photos were different from the actual criminals – no mug shot was shown for the truly guilty individuals. Finally, after four or five days, the participants were shown a lineup of four persons and asked to select from this lineup the individuals seen in step 1. -namely, the original crime. The participants correctly realized that one of the people in the lineup looked familiar, but they were confused about the source of the familiarity. They falsely believed they had seen the person’s face in the original crime when, in truth, they’d seen that face only in a subsequent photograph. In fact, the likelihood of this error was quite high, with 29% of the participants (falsely) selecting from the lineup an individual they had seen only in the mugshots.”

Or wiki has it as:
Source Confusion: misattributing the source of a memory, e.g. misremembering that one saw an event personally when actually it was seen on television.”
(citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases) 

So what does this say for theists? oh boy are they in trouble with this one. I want to know how do they know what they believe to be true is not coming from source confusion or at least a percentage of it? They’re not allowed to “test God”, and those pesky science guys aren’t any help either (*shakes fist at evil scientists*). They’re left to live in a reality where testing their own thoughts and beliefs is also a big no-no. Now as I see it, it would be easy to believe certain stories from the bible to be true if they were told these stories as children, or seen pictures, etc as they grew up. Surely those stories had to be true, their parents wouldn’t lie to them, and their parents wouldn’t lie to them either, and so on back through the ages. So how do they separate what’s actually true from source confusion? how do they separate what they internally want and desire with their dogma? Without some system of logically testing ideas, beliefs and theories against an external non-bias system, one would be unable to separate source confusion with the actual truth, especially if those around them are repeating the same false ideas, premises and beliefs through their life.

So why am I bring up this? well source confusion can be tested by anyone, to see if it’s really a psychological effect that exists in humans. So this isn’t something that “science” can fake because again, anyone can test it. It also brings into play one of the ten commandments:
“9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
So when making claims against another person, and they fall prey to source confusion, they’re violating this guy. We know through other experiments that eye witnesses is by far the worse source of evidence one could provide, yet in religion it’s ranked up near the top. And how does source confusion affect this proven method of being a “witness” to god’s powers if source confusion can’t be ruled out? That’s a dangerous game the theists play knowing such things exist in human nature. A minister, priest or pastor could easily think inappropriately touching kids, embezzling money and taking advantage of people as if what they think is being put there by god, but in reality it’s source confusion from earlier thoughts of “hey that’s what I want”. I can imagine a pastor of a church thinking they’d like to have (insert thing/action here) and later remembering it as “god told me to (insert action here)!!”, bam! sounds like source confusion to me. But can they test it? oh sure they can, but why would they, the benefits of playing god in their mind is far to enjoyable, simply by saying their thoughts are connected to god, even though other people on the planet say the same thing, except what they hear from god is the opposite. Source confusion or god playing a dirty joke on humans? well, I’d put my money on source confusion, but hey what do I know god has talked to me in decades, or at least that’s how I remember it.

It really all boils down to this, how does any religious person know, what they hear, see, feel, smell, taste and know is their own senses, their own thoughts, god’s communication or source confusion? it could be any of those. I can test models of what I think, believe and feel against the real world. I know perception and perspective are not the same thing and willfully accept that what I know and believe isn’t the absolute truth. And most importantly I don’t hear any voices or thoughts in my head other than my own. Maybe one day a theist can capture divine communication while being observed in a fMRI and be able to show the world what part of the brain (soul) that god directs its communication to. But I won’t hold my breath.

Posted in Academic, Religion, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ah, the old outdated “privilege” argument.

I’ve been quite busy of the past several weeks with school, work and family, so I haven’t had much available time to post much. I have been working on a few things from time to time. One of these was a list of “male privilege” that is supposed to show how men have it so easy compared to women. I know its not related to religion, although I’d argue its directly related to religion, mainly because religion advocates for gender inequality. But those who want equality can’t go after religion, because some actually support religion and those religious leaders who would, if they had their way keep the playing field stacked against women as it has been for the past 2000+ years.

Now I think each gender has advantages over the other in different ways, but that’s natural human biology and psychology, so it really balances out. But the problem I see is each gender wants certain advantages the other gender has which turns things in huge messes. Now I say advantages, because they are natural in born abilities or sets of skills that give a gender something extra that unless physically modified or drug altered is incapable of doing.  So let me tackle this list, which comes from this website, the origins of the list I’m unsure of, but it was Compiled by Barry Deutsch, aka “Ampersand.”
(citation: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/

The Male Privilege Checklist

1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the job, the larger the odds are skewed.

Unless its Nursing, School Teachers, or a job where affirmative action plays a key role where employers are to ignore qualifications and go with minorities or better yet a sexist women is doing the hiring, where she believes hiring more women than men based on gender alone is doing society a good deed. So this really isn’t a “privilege” for men to have to deal with or not deal with. You know “case-by-case” basis. And where is the evidence this exists? Is it because one can step back and look at society and point to it? and that no other factor than gender plays a role in hiring? I’m a white male, why bother with education, training or experience if I can get a job over any women any day of the week.

2. I can be confident that my co-workers won’t think I got my job because of my sex – even though that might be true. (More).

If I got hired at Hooters and the manager was a women, and I was dating her, oh yeah I’d wager the servers would think I got hired for what I was doing for her, not because I’m a sexy woman. So again I fail to see where ”privilege” plays a role in other people’s biases or beliefs or how the fact of “just being a man” gives me an advantage. In our society I cannot create anything that’s “men only”, because minority rights groups would pretty quickly want admission/membership. Create a “women only” club, and try to join as a man and I wouldn’t get in or I’d be blasted for not giving women “privacy to be women”.

3. If I am never promoted, it’s not because of my sex.

And how does one prove this is a privilege? does the census ask men who were promoted if they think they got promoted based on gender and then ask their co-workers to confirm if it’s true? seriously? thinking about somebody else’s opinion is ”privilege”?

Let me stop right here and let’s properly define “privilege”.

priv·i·lege
noun \ˈpriv-lij, ˈpri-və-\
Definition of PRIVILEGE: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogativeespecially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office.
(citation: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privilege)

Ok, so now that we have the definition, it’ll be easier to sort through these, so far I haven’t seen a single “privilege” yet, just opinions based on bias observations and generalizing/stereotyping both genders.

4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won’t be seen as a black mark against my entire sex’s capabilities. 

Oh I can bet you that  any failure of mine will be placed at the feet of my gender, not only that if I fail, I lose my family. Women like to choose men who are capable of supporting them and are financially stable over those who can’t hold a job and are near worthless. If they fail at either of those, more often than not the women will leave for a man who can support her. Where as I rarely ever see a women fail and her husband leaves her. So I don’t this see this as a fail, but more of a bias observation.

5. I am far less likely to face sexual harassment at work than my female co-workers are. (More).

So how is the data for this one collected? how is the information where men are sexually harassed but doesn’t report it in fear of his peers making jokes or ridiculing comments counted? or sexual harassment comments that were taken out of context by the person feeling their harassed removed from the count? again so far this list is so subjective it’s not funny, I can see why people believe this propaganda, it feels right till one dissects it.

6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.

Subjective? seriously? comparing genders subjectively is proof for “privilege”? How the hell is subjective judgement from others, both men AND women become a “privilege”? And has the fact attractiveness both male and female has more to do with “who does a good job” than gender, a pretty women will do a better job over an ugly man any day of the week when it comes to subjective criticism, and conversely a handsome man will do better than an ugly women. When its subjective, subjective measures are used.

7. If I’m a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are relatively low. (More).

More men goto prison than women how is THAT ”privilege”? and if I can stay out, like most women do, it’s supposed to be ”privilege” that I don’t get raped? nobody should every get raped, but not getting raped is somehow a “privilege”? what about all the women who go their entire life without getting raped? or men who do get raped? where is the privilege for those guys?

8. On average, I am taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces much less than my female counterparts are.

This one is more subjective opinion based nonsense, men get attacked far more often at night in dark places than women, and that is “privilege”? the reason men give the advice to women to not walk in dark public places is because although men can take more abuse on average than women they still get attacked in dark public places. I wouldn’t want any women I know to be attacked in the same places I would be attacked, so how is caring and trying to prevent an attack on a women male “privilege”?

9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called into question.

Oh yes it will be, men more often than women bare the problems of not having children in relation to their peers. When I hear a woman claim she’s not going to have kids her friends pat her on the back and exclaim “women’s right’s and empowerment”, if a man chooses to not have kids, the women more often than not, will leave him for a man who will have children. So again how is this bias observation a “privilege”?

10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.

As I said before, when a women chooses a man, it’s usually based on his ability to provide for her and their children, if he fails, she’s outta there for a man who will. What does that say for her opinion of him if she chooses to leave over staying? that he is disposable if he cannot provide, this making this one nonsense, biased propaganda. 

11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I’ll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I’m even marginally competent. (More).

Yeah when it’s only 10% of the time when men actually get that kind of custody. And in the other 90% to say all 100% of the women do a great job is again a biased observation. Men and women equally are successful in raising children, or would one like to claim one gender is better parenting, making gay child adoption a bad idea? ah, no ”privilege” here.

12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I’m selfish for not staying at home.

I find it odd that if a man takes the position, that if his wife either stays home or go back to work, that it is her choice alone. I wonder when a women chooses to stay home and place the financial burden on her husband to provide that it somehow becomes a ”privilege” to provide for his family? oh no it’s not, no ”privilege” here.

13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by the press.

That’s odd, what the media does is now a ”privilege” to some? So if a women scrutinizes another women, it’s “privilege” to men? what? I’m seriously thinking most of these so-called ”privileges” are really biased observations that are being given an excuse to justify why its a ”privilege” to some but not others? Did this person actually look up the definition of the word ”privilege”?

14. My elected representatives are mostly people of my own sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more this is true.

Because women don’t enter into politics as much as men, that’s a “privilege” for men. So if I don’t get to date Katy Perry because some successful guy got to date her first, that guy is “privileged” and I’m not? how about he’s closer to her circle of friends than I am. So this isn’t a ”privilege” at all.

15. When I ask to see “the person in charge,” odds are I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the organization the person is, the surer I can be.

The “person in charge” is statistically more likely to be a man? please cite where you get the person in charge is more likely to be a man? If the argument is women get paid less, then it would safe to say it’s cheaper for companies to hire more women, thus reducing payroll costs, thus making more women “in charge”. But we both know this isn’t the case, so what makes anyone expect one gender to be in charge more than another in customer service is “high off their ass”. This isn’t ”privilege” either.

16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and outgoing than my sisters. (More).

Sorry, this is a biased observation, how does one go about collecting data for this claim? I sure as hell got less encouragement than my sister did in the majority of activities. I got more hand-me-downs than she did, because she didn’t get any, she was the oldest and I’d wager this goes for either the oldest, more loved child, or the child whose parents had a personal favorite. so this too isn’t ”privilege”.

17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of children’s media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of my own sex. I never had to look for it; male protagonists were (and are) the default.

This is utter non-sense, most villains in childhood stories are MEN, so how doe one get to the idea that writing stories where the hero is a man beating a villain who is a women, people would cry “abuse!” in these cases. So childhood stories would be in three categories:
Male Hero – Male Villain
Female Hero – Male Villain
Female Hero – Female Villain
So in childhood stories, women are represented in a more skewed way in order to avoid any man beating a women. So this too is a biased observation.

18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hands just as often. (More).

So I’d love to see the data on this one, and how to adjust for all the “all boys” and “all girls” schools? There’s also the psychological component of how each child is raised within their own household. That is passive children don’t raise their hands as often, because they’re taught not to question authority figures, where as children who are taught to question will. As with most things within society the “squeaky wheel gets the greasing”, so if there is a gender difference, it’s more than likely a result of how each child is raised over which gender they are. So again, bias observation, no male privilege here.

19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones. 

If you have to ask yourself such question, please feel free. But to advocate that only women think they live in a sexist world where the other gender is “out to get them” is obviously cherry picking anecdotal stories for this one. To make the claim that only one gender see sexist overtones is really fooling themselves. No male privilege here either.

20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented.

This one is by far the most BS of all so far, when I turn on the TV men are represented in three ways: 1. As rich, successful, power, handsome and stylish. 2. As abusive, criminal, losers who are out for themselves. 3. Geeky computer nerds who have no social skills in order to deal with society. So two out of three are done with negativity in my opinion, but see this is my opinion, I could never make the claim women are portrayed in a better light as “female privilege” because it too is very subjective. So no male privilege here either.

21. If I’m careless with my financial affairs it won’t be attributed to my sex. 

This one is very untrue, a women who is careless with her finances will be contributed to some man who “abandoned her” or “strattled her with debt”, if a man fails at finances, well he’s just a loser who needs to get a clue. If a spouse is involved and a women fails, the man will usually not leave, if a man fails, most likely her friends will beg her to find “a better man”..  again this is biased observations.

22. If I’m careless with my driving it won’t be attributed to my sex.

In psychology there are studies that show more men have better hand eye coordination than women. But this is an example of something that women do not have an advantage in generally. However this isn’t a privilege due to society wide substance abuse, irresponsibility and other factors that lead to careless driving. It’s the science of knowing women have other attributes over men that give people the “biased observation” that careless driving is a result of gender over all possible factors. That is men are equally bad at driving as women are good at it. So again, no privilege here.  

23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.

Oh, this one is half-true, men don’t attack other men based on gender like women do. My wife will comment on other women far more than I will about other men. So what does this indicate? again its subjective observations. Also if a man speaks in public and does a poor job, he gets no pass, the audience will think he just sucks at public speaking. Where as if a women speaks in public and does a poor job, people will think something else is likely to be the problem over her skill in public speaking. This too is biased observations.

24. Even if I sleep with a lot of women, there is no chance that I will be seriously labeled a “slut,” nor is there any male counterpart to “slut-bashing.” (More).

Obviously the term “male pig” or “dirty dog” is being ignored to achieve some type of biased position to make it appear only women get attacked for their actions. Oddly enough one would have to separate “amount of partners” from “quality of partners”. I’ve seen both male friends and female friends both be “sluts” due to the high number of quality partners, but I’ve also seen a low number of crappy partners, so is the “slut” label being used to describe the “number of” or “quality” of partners? If it’s “number of”, then men are by far more slutty than women, if it’s “quality of” then I think women by far are, so this effect cancels each other out because men don’t care about the numbers, and women don’t seem to care about quality. So both are sluts equally, no male privilege here.

25. I do not have to worry about the message my wardrobe sends about my sexual availability. (More).

This effect of how women dressed is warped, why? dress is used by women to attract a suitable male, the more wealthy, the more attractive the male is, the more likely he’ll want an attractive female. So knowing this, women worry about appearance far more than men do, because as I said before, a successful male has more choice than an unsuccessful male as women prefer a successful male. So observations reflect this, women who don’t generally care about the success of their partner also don’t really care about their own appearance. But how does on account for homosexuality in this? Nope, no male privilege here.

26. My clothing is typically less expensive and better-constructed than women’s clothing for the same social status. While I have fewer options, my clothes will probably fit better than a woman’s without tailoring. (More).

My clothing is less expensive? seriously? when the claim men get paid more, men have better jobs, men have more money, I wonder why that could be? ah yes to pay for women’s clothing for their spouses. To say that only women buy women’s clothing and men only buy men’s clothing is high off their ass. Seriously no male privilege here. Oh a side note, women by far have MORE selections in clothing than men, women have far more clothing stores than men. Seriously clothing is cheaper is an argument for male privilege?

27. The grooming regimen expected of me is relatively cheap and consumes little time. (More).

This to goes back to partners selection. A women knows the better her appearance, the more likely she’ll acquire a successful partner, on the other hand she focuses on his success and his wealth more than how he dresses, even though his dress does give insight to his success, but this isn’t always the case. More often women who dress better have a better state of mind than men who dress better have a better state of mind. A “rough-looking man does get a pass more than a “rough-looking women. But there is a catch, the rough man will be expected to BE rough and ready, where as the women who looks “rough” will be treated special and given special comforts and more often than not, be asked “if everything is ok?”. Yeah empathy is a good thing, sad men don’t get that kind of treatment. So no male privilege here.

28. If I buy a new car, chances are I’ll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car. (More).

This one is utter BS, my wife is far better at negotiating that I am, but the reason you are using “buying a car” rather than “buying” is to selective pick out something that is dominated by men, that is “cars”. There are more male car mechanics than women, so men are more often more knowledgeable about cars. But what about other things where it’s obvious throughout history a women’s ability to negotiate was critical to her survival. Where as all a man had to do was go hunt and defend himself. So negotiating skills will always be a female skill, so again no male privilege here.

29. If I’m not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.

When men aren’t attractive, and they don’t have success of wealth, they’re going to be lonely. A women who is not attractive can still overcome this, where men, not so lucky. Studies have been shown that the taller a man is, the more likely he’ll be successful. This height effect doesn’t apply to women. Why? A short unattractive man is at such a disadvantage it’s ridiculous. I’m not an attractive guy and I notice the difference between myself and my attractive male friends. Especially at work, when somebody walks up to us, they assume he’s the boss and not me, why? because attractiveness in both genders is equated with success. So this is is not male privilege, this is better called “attractive privilege” because both genders benefit from it equally.

30. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.

This to is utter non-sense, loud men who oppose true equality are called misogynist, dicks, assholes, etc. So I don’t see how this being loud is negative to only women. Not to mention, if a man screams over a women, it’s oppression of women’s rights, a women screaming over a man is expressing her rights. No male privilege here.

31. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called “crime” and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called “domestic violence” or “acquaintance rape,” and is seen as a special interest issue.)

This is cherry picking observations to make a point that is worthless. This isn’t male privilege by any stretch of the imagination. A women hits a man, people ask “what did he do?” and then proceed to ignoring any responsibility on if the women should be locked up. If a man hits a women, people say “What an abusive dick!! he should be locked up and tossed into prison for life… evil douchbag!!” and people will even jump a guy for hitting a women in public. A women hitting a man in public? nothing.  No male privilege here.

32. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. “All men are created equal,” mailman, chairman, freshman, he.

The english language was created for the use of “man” being both men and women. Its has been the desire to erase any gender from gendered words. Oddly enough this only takes place within the english speaking culture. What is also funny is the fact female and male are being ignored. To really advocate for words to be genderless, then go all the way. Don’t argue for only male gendered words to be “degendered” but female words to be left alone. Also how does one describe a women or a man without gendered words? Sorry no male privilege here either.

33. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.

I would totally agree is the “time of the month” didn’t involve hormones which do affect not only behavior but rational judgement. And this isn’t a bad thing, in evolutionary psychology this hormone stew women go through each month. This isn’t a male construct to put women down. I’ve seen and heard more women comment about PMS than men do. But there is a male equivalent to PMS, it’s called “sports”. No male privilege here either.

34. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don’t change my name.

Ah more BS, most women take their husbands last name so as to benefit themselves through their husbands success. A women with her husband’s name in the past could walk into a band and get a loan, all based on who she’s married to IF her husband has wealth. So marrying a man and changing her name to that of her successful husband benefited women far more than men. Also when women would marry and change her name, the husband then became responsible for HER DEBT. So this is a biased observation, no male privilege here. I’d also like to note there has never been a law requiring women to change their name and in the cases of very successful women, they don’t.

35. The decision to hire me will not be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.

With the laws as they are women are entitled to leave when they choose to have a family. Men are not given this right. So if there is any slight involvement of this factor, which I seriously doubt, but if it did, it would only be used with women 18-30, as I’d wager most women by the age of 30 who don’t have kids probably won’t. But this to is a subjective observation of “what other people are thinking”, so how is this measured? not male privilege when it’s skewed in women’s favor.

36. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is pictured as male.

The argument that religion, is male dominated is an argument for male privilege? wow, what about atheists? has anyone gotten the idea that religion itself is the top reason why women feel like their second class citizens, but can’t figure out why? it’s not the men who run these churches, because huge numbers of women support these religions/churches.  I’ve advocated for a while religion has to go, it’s doing nothing but harm. But don’t blame men for religion when women continue to participate in it. No male privilege here.

37. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.

Again the same argument as above, religious beliefs give this non-sense a foot hold, not men. Religious women support this doctrine because they believe it benefits them. This isn’t male privilege, this is “religious privilege” because it only applies to religious men AND women.

38. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we’ll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks. (More).

For the past 2 decades and when I was a kid, I did far more laborious jobs such as cutting the grass, taking out the trash, repairing the house and cars. Jobs that require far more physical strength than other simple tasks. But I always felt that sitting down and making sure tasks are divided up equally was far more important than “men do this” and “women do that”, I was raised to do both, as so was my sister. No male privilege here.

39. If I have children with my girlfriend or wife, I can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.

So how is this measured, if my wife decides to stay home and I say “no I want to stay home”, what happens? if my wife goes back to work I’m looked at that I “sent my wife to work while I stay home” but if she says no, and I go work, then I “made my wife stay home because it’s women’s work.”. So how does one go about determining whether the women wants to stay home and enjoys childcare or the women doesn’t enjoy childcare? because this has to be determined prior to accusing men in avoiding such responsibilities. It also goes without saying that if a women chooses to stay home that requires more income from the man to compensate for the loss of income from the women. If he is incapable of doing this he’s viewed by family and friends as being a slacker. If women are in the same position she’s “Doing all she can and needs help..”, sorry no male privilege here. 

40. If I have children with my wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we’ll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.

This is based on what? men forcing women to stay home or women being empowered to be able to choose to stay home? This biased observation BS is getting old, I’ve yet to see a case of male privilege in the list where it’s isolated from any other possible variable where it could only be male privilege and nothing else.

41. Assuming I am heterosexual, magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are rarer.

Yet if you dig into psychology most men prefer women with curves over the “boyish” figures of supermodels/rockstars/actresses. There’s also the fact you’re having to ignore gay men and women in this. Not to mention religion rallies against such sexual expression. I’ve also seen where is a women choose to be sexual, it’s her choice and she should be empowered to do so, but if she does its male privilege? wow, no male privilege here.

42. In general, I am under much less pressure to be thin than my female counterparts are. (More). If I am fat, I probably suffer fewer social and economic consequences for being fat than fat women do. (More).

This is based on women vs women. If a man tells his wife to lose weight, he’s declared a dick, asshole, control freak, careless douchbag. If a women tells her friend she needs to lose weight, it’s thoughtful. Here’s also another issue, if a women tells her husband to lose weight, “she cares about him”, which is a double standard. No male privilege here.

43. If I am heterosexual, it’s incredibly unlikely that I’ll ever be beaten up by a spouse or lover. (More). 

This is total BS. Men do get beaten up, it’s just not reported. If you’re going for statistical likelihood of “something happening” I’d go after automobile related deaths and injuries than worrying about men or women being abused. When it happens to either gender, I’d wager they could careless what the statistical average is. No male privilege here.

44. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street and tell me to “smile.” (More: 1 2).

Ah this is true, in part, that more women are approached my men than men are approached by women, but why is that? maybe because the women who are taught to be submissive believe men are a threat, just like this list teaches, that is women are not capable of being dominant, women have things done to them over acting on their own behalf. But what this also ignores that fact men approach other men just as much as they approach women, and that they are mugged, robbed and murdered far MORE than women are. So this to is a biased observation to promote propaganda, no male privilege here.

45. Sexual harassment on the street virtually never happens to me. I do not need to plot my movements through public space in order to avoid being sexually harassed, or to mitigate sexual harassment. (More.)

This implies that 100% of all women get harassed and 100% of the men do the harassing. This also infers that 100% never get harassed. If a women assumes she’s going to be harassed, it’s assumed, assuming something might happen doesn’t make it fact. And basing a biased opinion on a biased assumption based fact does not equal male privilege.

45. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are interrupted by men.

I’ve mentioned this before, if a man interrupts a women speaking, he’s labeled as an asshole, dick, misogynist douchbag because she’s voicing her rights and exercising her free speech. If a women interrupts a man, well it’s probably because he’s saying something offensive to her and she has the right to stop it. No male privilege here.

46. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.

When no male privilege exists, there is nothing to be aware of. I have zero abilities, benefits or experiences that I’ve been able to enjoy or have that only men get. As well I’ve not had any of them that women don’t deal with. Society is playin a huge trick on those who think one gender has advantages over the other to any degree. For every advantage a man has, a woman has one over a man, for every handicap a man has, a woman has an equal. For each instance of the above list, I can counter it with problems for men that women get to avoid. Society has done this not out of design but necessity. Evolution started all this gender issues, it would have disappeared, but religion found a better use for it.

Male privilege is a myth generated as propaganda against men speaking out. But I’m only addressing this because people are choosing to attack “men” rather than religion. I find it funny that I live in a society so biased in both directions that depending on who you talk to will give way to who’s got “privilege”. I certainly not seeing any privilege when I have to work to support an entire family while I go back to college to change careers. There are no special programs to help a white male over 35 to go back to college. So I ask, where is this male privilege I hear about, and why can’t it pay for my education? oh yeah, it doesn’t exist.

The above list came from this website, the origins of the list I’m unsure of.
(citation: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/
Compiled by Barry Deutsch, aka “Ampersand.” Permission is granted to reproduce this list in any way, for any purpose, so long as the acknowledgment of Peggy McIntosh’s work is not removed. If possible, I’d appreciate it if folks who use it would tell me how they used it; my email is barry-at-amptoons-dot-com.)
  

Posted in Politics, Public Debate | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Religious Paradox: Causation

I’ve heard the argument from Christians how Joseph Stalin (Russia) and Mao Tse-tung (China) were examples of how atheists have no morals and thus the reason why they killed millions of people. While I’m not an atheist, I find this argument to be quite bizarre in the fact certain things have to be ignored in order to arrive at such a conclusion. In fact such a belief is a religious paradox.

In order to get to the conclusion of mass killings by atheist dictators are a result of being an atheist there would have to be a clear line where as any religious dictator in history carries a zero body count and any dictator who is an atheist carries a very high body count. But we know this isn’t the case. We also know in history that many events carried a very high body count in the name of God, not to mention the Spanish Inquisition, The Holy Wars and almost every war in Europe prior to 1900 was carried out by Kings who were very religious. I guess it’s easy to send people to their death if you “belief” that is what God wants.  So correlation  does not equal causation? Well most religious folk would have you believe it one does equal the other.

Now I know the argument for how atheist’s lack of moral code from being an atheist is at the heart of this argument, but that at best is a stretch of reality. As if the millions, if not billions of people killed throughout history at the hands of religious leaders, dictators, and followers is somehow ok and shouldn’t be counted, but one single death at the hands of an atheist is outrageous and in some arguments a flat-out crime against humanity.
More people throughout history have been killed in God’s name than any other cause. Christian’s, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and other religions have no issues with killing a person even IF their religion forbids murdering or killing others. In most religions who kills people, always have some “clause” that allows it under certain circumstances  whoa how convenient is that, murder = bad, but murder for God = good!

Although Stalin and Tse-tung carry the top in death totals, they were one two atheists on the top lists of dictators with extremely high death tolls. But who else was on the list?
3. Adolf Hitler was born into a Catholic family, although he left the Catholic church he remained a Christian. He is estimated to have killed about 17+ million people.
4. Leopold II of Belgium racked up between 2-15 million deaths and was a Roman Catholic.
5. Hideki Tojo of Japan racked up about 5 million deaths and practiced Shintoism.
6. Ismail Enver Pasha of Turkey racked up around 2.5 million deaths and was Muslim.
7. Pol Pot of Cambodia comes in with almost 2 million deaths and partially practiced Cambodian Buddhism.
8. Chiang Kai-shek of China racks up a death total of 2 million in China, and he was a Methodist.
9. Nicholas II of Russia had over 2 million deaths under his reign, he was Russian Orthodox.
10. Kaiser Wilhelm II, German Emperor comes in with over 2 million deaths and was member of the Evangelical Christian Church.
11. Yahya Khan of Pakistan pulls in around 2 million and was a Muslim.
12. Kim Il Sung of North Korea prior to his death was responsible for about 1.8 million deaths and was a follower of Confucianism, not a full on religion, but close enough.
13. Yakubu Gowon of Nigeria puts up a near 1.1 million deaths under him, he was a Christian.
14. Hirohito of Japan, Pulls in over 1 million deaths and practiced Shintoism.
15. Saddam Hussein of Iraq pulls in just over 1 million deaths and was Muslim.
16. Idi Amin Dada of Uganda, racks up a death toll of around 500,000 and was a Muslim.
17. Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran has about 30,000+ under his belt and was Muslim.
18. Benito Mussolini of Italy has over 50,000 deaths under his belt and was Catholic.
19. Slobodan Milošević of Yugoslavia totals over 30,000 deaths under his belt and is a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
20. Francisco Franco of Spain pulls in just over 10,000 and is Roman Catholic.

And we can’t forget The Spanish Inquisition which was “a tribunal established in 1480 by Catholic Monarchs, Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile. It was intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms, and to replace the Medieval Inquisition which was under Papal control. It became the most substantive of the three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Roman Inquisition and Portuguese Inquisition.”
(citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition)
Under this religious “tribunal” it’s estimated around five thousand were executed for simply not converting to Christianity. Yes upwards of 5000 people were burned to death, beheaded, and other cruel tortured endings. There were 150, 000 others who were tortured and were imprisoned for a variety of “religious crimes”.

I could go on totaling up the number of people killed by religious people and I wonder how does anyone who is religious, justify killings in the millions, if you believe in God’s moral code? I mean really, how can anyone claim Stalin and Mao killed so many yet ignore all the other dictators who were religious and their totals combined. And one also cannot forget such events in history that mirrored the Salem Witch Trials. So far the real killers and murders throughout history are far more religious than not, these people I guess were seeking to bring their brand of “moral code” to the masses, if they rejected it? nah they were killed, because God loves you!

Posted in Politics, Public Debate, Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Religious Paradox: Circumcisions

Sorry I’ve been incredibly busy with work, school and such, I started this next blog a few weeks ago when it was on NPR, I imagine it’s still floating around, but I wanted to comment just the same.

So the article I heard on NPR about circumcision by Rob Stein is link below.
Pediatricians Decide Boys Are Better Off Circumcised Than Not
And the first thing I can think of is the “War on Women”, and how women’s rights groups must be all up in arms over this topic. But then I get to the comments section and find stuff like this.

“Growing up in New York this was a no brainer because most of the hospitals did circumcision the day after a baby boy was born and until I moved away from New York I learned that this is not done. It never hurt anyone that I knew of and we were taught in Hygiene class that this was better because it was cleaner and did not spread disease and it’s biblical. God did instruct Moses to become circumcised and to have all the males circumcised. So what’s the problem???????” – Brynda Hiller

Modern day religious folk will cite such passages from the Bible, but to be clear the first time it is mentioned is around Moses, and the passage is from the old testament, more specifically the book of Genesis, Chapter 17 (Verse 9-14):

“Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.
(citation: New International Version Christian Bible

So because God who created man in his image (including foreskin) wants to “make a deal” basically, with man, and part of this deal is man has to cut a part of his body off in order to make this deal “official” becomes quite an issue for me. If God created man in God’s image, does that mean God has a foreskin? And if so did God remove it as per the covenant? Another point to this is a newborn is 100% incapable of making such a deal, but why do only boys have to make this deal? where is the cutting off of a female body part so girls can make this deal? oh no no, that would be barbaric and vile, but hey it’s ok on boys. But shouldn’t women be offended by religion by not being able to join in on this deal making with God? I mean women in religion are being left out here. If one is for equal rights, shouldn’t religious women want to make this covenant with God by cutting something off too? Or is there some spin to this, where women suffer in “other ways”.

Now my question is, why would God care about cutting off flesh from a man penis? and if God is beyond time, wouldn’t such an act be irrelevant because God could see the person prior to birth, after birth, during the persons entire life and then in death and after death? Such a covenant with God is silly when identifying that God would already knows the outcome, all one could do is follow God’s plan, but if it all goes according to God’s plan, then what’s the need for a covenant? So which is it, God knows everything and is timeless, which makes any covenant useless and irrelevant or God has a plan which also makes the covenant irrelevant because if it’s God’s plan nobody has a say in what their outcome is, so one cannot make a deal for something that’s beyond their control.

So let me get this right, after all this roaring about the “war on women” is based on people (Christians to be more specific) trying to regulate what a woman can and can’t do with her body and what a woman’s rights are… Yet women get behind circumcision? seriously? See I figured women would be the first ones against forcing medical procedures on others as I said. If women don’t want to be forced into carrying a pregnancy to full term, why are men forced to undergo circumcision? because it’s “better” based on cherry picked data? seriously? If one wants to solely look at medical data, there are more problems as a result of owning a vagina than owning an “uncut”penis. So shouldn’t we be cutting out vagina’s in order to avoid disease and medical issues as is done with removing foreskin? That is if it’s about avoiding medical issues, not to mention cutting out and off other body parts to avoid problems.

Forcing things on people is wrong, no matter what it is, no matter how you present it, no matter how you “cut it”. I’m in total awe of the hypocrisy and double standard from any women on this issue, wow, just f-in wow.  Now I’m behind the idea of absolute control over one’s own body 100% for women and MEN, no exceptions, no excuses, from birth to death. So how is allowing circumcision NOT trying to regulate what a man does with his body by doing it to him when he is a baby and isn’t able to decide for himself?

So if circumcision is religious, it’s really a waste depending on how you view God, if it’s medical then why not do the same to young girls? This creates a serious religious paradox in that both pose a serious problem with beliefs and religion that lay outside of any rational thought. When I hear people say people should be able to believe what they want, it poses a problem in that circumcision doesn’t let the newborn believe what “they” want, it’s forced upon them.

Posted in Public Debate, Religion, Science, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Religious Paradox: The Presuppositional Argument

In the video of the Magic Sandwich Show by DPRJones, Sye Bruggencate put forth the presuppositional argument for Christianity. This argument has bugged me for some time. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it, till now. So I’ll start with the argument put forth by Sye. The Presuppositional argument supposes two things to be true:
1. God exists
2. And God’s word is true.

Then he goes on to explain how all logic is circular and that without those two presuppositions we would be lost. Now there is a huge problem in this, and I’ll have to include the Hulist view-point in this. The idea that whether one can prove or disprove God’s existence is irrelevant, because God only exists as a construct by man, so God’s limitations are set by man. Why? because God always talks through “somebody”, never the whole world at one time. I can safely and without “God exists” and “God’s word is true” reason just fine and come to the exact same conclusions as somebody who started with Sye’s presuppositions. I do know God exists in text and in concept, but does not exist in the real world, because everything ever said, written and created about any God is bound by human logic, reason and knowledge of the time period it was created. People didn’t write about the internet, Youtube, or Lady Gaga specifically 2k years ago. Again any human being creating any act, phrase or idea in the name of God is always limited by that person or time period. But surely God wouldn’t be bound by that and we should have plenty of things in religious texts that accurately, without vagueness or ambiguity give precise information that to date no human could have understood until now that gives any scientific information that would benefit mankind.

Now in logic the biggest of biggest rules, the mac daddy of all philosophical rules is:
“Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time..” That is if something exists, it cannot also “not exist” as it does exist. This philosophical construct within logic and reason has been around, well as long as man has. Anyone can try this at home with any object or person. If they exist, they can’t also at the same time not exist. As well as the pink unicorn sitting on your computer right now, doesn’t exist. If it did it would have crushed your computer and you wouldn’t be able to read this.

So since the onus is provide proof of God’s existence is on the person making the claim, then it is up to theists to prove that God exists. And I know, I said proving God is irrelevant, and I did mean that, but for the theists I’d enjoy a good laugh watching them twist away how to deal with the biggest hole in their presuppositional argument. So in order to prove their argument this would require any person to prove that God exists and does not exist at the same time, Why? well logic and reason are constructs by mankind, based on those presuppositions and all the rules, language and philosophy is bound by man’s knowledge based on those. God isn’t bound by that, so God should be able to violate any philosophical rule at any time. So with this in mind it would take solid proof of something outside of man’s construct to prove the existence of God in the real world. Thus it would require one to prove that God exists and does not exist in the real world at the same time. This is something theists have to prove, not something God has to prove.

Let me side track for second, scientists do not really know what goes on inside of a black hole, they can reason into different hypothesis and theories as to what happens, but we really don’t know for sure. At some point in time we’ll find out, some brilliant scientist will figure out the math that explains every little detail within the fabric of space and time. And it’ll be amazing, but till then we’ll just have to imagine and hypothesize.

Now getting back to the presuppositional argument, where it would require a person to prove that God exists and doesn’t exist at the same time, again something outside the construct of man’s logic and reason. This would also apply IF any religious text contained advanced knowledge of ANY science in detail, like let’s say, what goes on inside a black hole and the math that goes along with it for example. God knows how it works, should be written somewhere or somebody was told how it works, right? By the way I’m not talking about vague passages that could mean anything or be taken to mean anything simply by not reading previous passages or passages after. It would seriously take a very detailed and direct quote of the inner workings of a black hole to prove this quite nicely. Find a single mathematical formula in the bible or any religious text that in detail explains the inner workings of anything in science that has not been discovered by mankind when it was written and I’ll concede to the existence of God in the real world.

But until  then, the argument to me is irrelevant due to God just being a construct of early mankind to explain things that nobody could explain due to ignorance. Now that we know and have come out of the darkness of ignorance, we no longer need religion. We can get along quite nicely without it.

Posted in Public Debate, Religion, Science, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Feminism and Men’s Rights

I caught this interesting blog post by Nerdydyke on Feminism and Men’s Rights, I tried to follow it to its source, but I’m not 100% sure who originated it, but here’s the argument.

Other than circumcision which falls under bodily autonomy and a right to be able to choose, there’s:

  1. Getting a male birth control pill.
  2. Being able to opt out of parenthood. — Women are able to opt out by terminating the pregnancy or by putting the child up for adoption. As is though, men can be forced to pay child support to a child they did not consent to, even if they were raped
  3. Having less people be thrown in jail for crimes that they did not commit. The Innocence Project coincidentally works on this a lot. You can read up on them if you’re confused as to how these things happen. Either way, it happens and there have been men— even a few women— who have been thrown in jail for a rape that they never committed. Men are just far more likely to be thrown in jail for a crime they did not commit. Men are also more likely to receive the death penalty as well as more likely to receive a harsher and longer punishment than a woman who committed the same crime did.
  4. Get rid of the death penalty.
  5. Have women and men serve the same punishment for the same crime.
  6. Have female rapists caught and acknowledged.
  7. Have male victims of rape, as well as rape within the lesbian community acknowledged (as something that happens not just as “corrective rape” or a “hate crime” but as women on women rape… which does happen and is often swept under the rug).
  8. For violence against men to no longer be normalized.
  9. For the courts to not be biased toward women in terms of child custody.
  10. For male victims of abuse to be acknowledged and for people to realize that women also can be the abusers.
  11. To break down harmful gender roles. — That means no more chivalry, no more telling men to “toughen up”, “take it like a man”, or “boys will be boys”. No more shaming boys for showing emotion, addressing concerns or expecting men to take on back breaking labor.
  12. Get rid of negative portrayal of men in media— you know… the stereotype that Homer Simpson, Raymond, and Peter Griffin pretty much are.
  13. To break down stereotypes.
  14. For men to not have to sign up for selective service when they are 18.
  15. For people to recognize thatmales are also sex trafficked as well
  16. To have parental leave.
  17. Solve the issues revolving around paternity fraud.
  18. Health— Men on average live shorter lives than women.
  19. Education— Women are far more likely to graduate and go to college than men.
  20. Making government programs gender-neutral or have a male equivalent. We have government programs for single mothers and women who are domestic abuse victims… but very few— if any for single fathers or men who are domestic abuse victims.
  21. Removing the notion that all men are potential rapists/pedophiles. Especially since a person of any gender is capable of doing those horrific acts, but not everyone will.
  22. Get rid of double standards.

I could add more, but that’s the gist of it.
(citation: http://nerdydyke.tumblr.com/post/30404364852/other-than-circumcision-which-falls-under-bodily)

I found this list to be interesting, somethings on it I never thought about, or somethings I never gave credit to in a way that is disheartening to men. I give her much props for creating this example of what men would like from society. The problem I still see is, the simple act of wanting these things is by feminist definition misogynist even thought most misuse the word. Which actually makes them the same thing, except its called misandrist.
misogynynoun \mə-ˈsä-jə-nē\
Definition of MISOGYNY : a hatred of women
— miso·gy·nic - adjective
— mi·sog·y·nist - noun or adjective
— mi·sog·y·nis·tic - adjective
(citation: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogynist

Men don’t need more rights, they need less according to them. It’s not good enough that men are disposable to society. Then I found a bit more from her here, where she is debating Totalobnoxioustwat

Also… as for double standards and stereotypes that mainstream feminists hasn’t helped that I’m referring to:

  • It’s wrong to objectify women, but it’s ok to like a man simply because he’s tall, smart, handsome and strong.
  • Women are allowed to opt out of becoming a parent, but if a man wants to then he’s a dead beat father— even if he didn’t consent to the child and even if the child isn’t even his.
  • Men are jerks, women are victims.
  • A woman working in the mines is a “victim” and was “forced” but when a man does it, it’s a sign of power. (Thank you, Ms Magazine for that one.)
  • Only women are victims of pornography. (Thank you, Naomi Wolf for that one.)
  • Feminists fight for a Violence Against Women Act, but there’s no Violence Against Men Act even though men make up the majority of victims of violent crimes… oops.
  • Violence against women is horrible, violence against men is funny or “he deserved it”.
  • A man is a wimp if he allows his wife to beat him, but a criminal if he defends himself.
  • It’s sexist to have men’s only clubs, but empowering to have women’s only clubs.
  • It’s sexist for men to go to Europe and have sex with a sex worker, but it’s empowering if a woman goes to Europe and does the same thing.
  • It’s empowering for a woman to say no to sex, but if a man says no to sex then he’s being oppressive.
  • If a woman talks about her problems it’s complaining or addressing important issues, if a man does it, he’s whining.
  • Men are seen as only wanting sex.
  • Men are seen as bad parents. 
  • If a woman dates a younger man she’s a cougar, if a man dates a younger woman he’s a creep and a pedophile.
  • Older women are allowed to fangirl over Edward and Jacob, but heaven forbid a guy did the same thing to a woman that was 17 or 18.

Just because some feminists try to deal with those issues as well, doesn’t make MRA’s problems that they try to fix invalid or “laughable”.

This is an example where somebody is pointing out how ignoring the entire picture creates problems for those who choose to ignore it. They do this for the sake of creating a political or social equality organization for the sake of starting one.
I find any group who advocates for only men or women, bad. Why? equality requires all of us to ignore the differences that we have no control over and embrace equality without having to force others to do or not do things against their will. I don’t think anyone would disagree coercion is bad, and in some cases plain evil. There are things women want from society, and as long as they don’t infringe on others rights, I’m total cool with it. I’m also cool with men getting from society what they want as long as they don’t infringe on others rights as well. We must marginalize our differences to be successful in creating a better society and we cannot do that keeping gender, race and sexual orientation in other people’s faces.

So what is it to me stopping this process or at least slowing it down? I think exclusive social groups create polarizing effects. In 1970, Myers and Bishop’s paper “Discussion Effects on Racial Attitudes” suggests members of any group will become more polarized depending on the intensity of the member’s beliefs. Full Length Paper Here
“In 1970, Myers and Bishop selected groups of highly racially prejudiced students and groups of less racially prejudiced students to discuss a number of racial issues. Results demonstrated that racial prejudice decreased for already low-prejudice individuals and increased for already high-prejudice individuals after individuals engaged in their respective group discussion. Thus, their study supported the claim that discussion among like-minded individuals tends to increase and intensify pre-existing attitudes, thereby demonstrating group polarization.”
(citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization)

In the situation of physical abuse of women from men, that belief is absolute. Place these polarized women into an organization, and the whole group becomes far more polarized together. If a woman who doesn’t hold such a strong belief due to not being physically abused and maybe is restricted to only psychological abuse, where the degree of belief is less. Joins a group of highly polarized women, they would likely become more polarized based on the same group effect.  The same can be said about men’s groups as well. This is why the “men vs women” or “women vs men” groups fail at reaching equality, they don’t marginalize the differences to reach any kind of equality.

If a person wants equality, they first have to acknowledge why do they want it. This should serve as a guide in accomplishing equality. If the idea of equality is based on a self-serving goal, then it’s not really equality that is desired, but self benefit. If one ignores the entire picture the results will definitely be skewed and may not be the desired results one is after.

If men and women want true equality, they need to really look at what it might really look like prior to pursuing it. Although it may appear to be better, the side effects of somethings may cause more problems. In an equal system, men don’t pay for dates, nor do they open doors for women, or pick them up for the date to begin with. Nor will men be so quick to die in defense of a women and in turn expect women to die for men equally. These are all things that if all things were equal, women would cry that men are all selfish misogynists, but this is a small portion of true equality looks like. On the flip side of the coin, men would get the same amount of time off of work for paternity leave and men would get an equal shot at child custody in courts, men could terminate parental responsibility, etc.

So hows the equality thing looking now? I’d love for everything to be as equal between the genders as it could possible get. Minus anatomy, socially there would be no difference. But would that benefit society? I don’t think it would for either gender.

Posted in Politics, Public Debate, Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Planned Parenthood Debate

In the public debate of birth control for women, at first I felt like I had, as they say “no dog in this fight”.  But as I gave it some more thought and saw the religious component of this debate I felt compelled to give my position. My position is quite simple, but I have to explain there are two arguments within this debate. Since there are actually two arguments twisted into one I must address each part separately.
1. the right to choice, which includes right to access birth control.
and
2. who pays for it.

Mixing the two creates serious issues, when I say people should be responsible for their own birth control, the counter argument I’ve seen is to rant about rights to birth control, but that is the wrong argument. Everyone should have a right to the access of birth control. This is a fundamental right in my opinion and should never come up for debate. However nobody should ever have the right to other people’s property, regardless of what it is.

Maybe if I explain it from something I’d love to have endless access to it might make more sense. I’d love to have endless access to coke cola, because it helps me stay focused, really love the caffeine. This drug which allows me to drive safer, I could argue that it is in the best interest of our society to pay for my coke cola. It costs too much for me to afford monthly and so I think society should pay for it and provide it for me, for free. Now how odd does that sound? I know the response will be “But it’s not the same!!”, really? how so?

If you choose to use birth control, then it is a “choice”, a choice which you carry the burden of responsibility of. People survived hundreds, if not thousands of years without it. If it is further up on your list of priorities like a roof over your head or food, or even clothes on your back the burden is on you, the consumer not me the tax payer. The counter argument I know is “It’s too expensive..” ah, again that’s a different argument. Cost doesn’t equal “a right to..”, again crossing arguments to serve an agenda is wrong, no matter how one dresses it. I don’t have any issues defending with my life the right to a person’s choice, I will not defend the entitlement mentality to free birth control or any other product I don’t get to use.

The other issue is about who is responsible for birth control, and I have to agree with Girl Writes What, even though I took the position prior, that it was an equal responsibility. Since women would carry the majority burden, it should be made to help them not drag them down economically. I do not have any issues helping financially any partner I have sex with in the area of birth control, but that’s my choice, not a right of the women I’m with. Just as I have no right to have sex with her even if I did pay for it. If I have to pay taxes, I should be able to use services that I’m paying for, such as highways, government office buildings etc. Now I’m not saying women are office buildings or highways or should be used like such, oh no no no. but if I have to pay for others to have safe sex, what is in it for me? what incentive to I have as a tax payer? population control? All because some women don’t feel they should be financially responsible for their own form of birth control? I’m not being insensitive to women, I just don’t want to pay for things that don’t play a role in my life such as birth control for other women.

Girl Writes What asks: “Do men have an equal responsibility to prevent a physical state that only affects women? How can they be held to this responsibility when they only have reliable access to half the information?”

(citation:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRdq2zqGxgY&feature=g-user-u) 

The counter argument I hear on this one is “how come Viagra is funded for men? why can’t birth control for women be included?”, well some policies do include both, some don’t.
But I also think Viagra is the responsibility of the man, not the tax payer. And just like birth control should be inexpensive, but not free. Nothing is really free, somebody has to pay for it. I just don’t want to pay for it as a tax payer, either of them.

What I think women and everyone else in this debate should be arguing is “inexpensive birth control”, not the right it to, because you currently have that right. The argument isn’t women’s choice, because women currently have that too, again they can choose not to use birth control or not. Now it may require some to abstain from sex, but how is that a bad thing as opposed to having another child one cannot afford? or one could buy birth control if having sex is that important but that is about prioritizing not a right. I’ve also heard the argument where a women medically needs birth control medication to maintain certain medical conditions, and that should be covered under medical insurance as a medication. In that case it would again fall under “inexpensive birth control” not a right to it. If you cannot afford to have children, then you really have no business playing the dangerous game of possibly getting pregnant. Choices require responsibility, if one is not capable of being responsible, then I’d offer this advice, don’t have sex, as it can produce undesirable effects.

So this thing called “The War on Women” is not really a war, but a manipulation of genders groups in order to break up voting blocks. Do people seriously think Roe vs Wade can be overturned? As if there are enough women who vote that would go along with it? So why is it a political maneuver rather than a war? Well it’s easier to get women to vote for something they may lose or vote for something they believe in than it is when it comes to actual gender equality. Either way it’s manipulating the masses in order for a few people to gain power. Are women more concerned with birth control than they are in job equality, elected representative equality or even pay equality? or hell even economic equality. Why pass up those issues? almost any of those would result in an increase of income which would solve the birth control issue. That’s why it’s not a war on women, it’s more about manipulating the issues. We have the 14th Amendment with provides equal protection under the law, so inequality in unconstitutional.

Now my personal position is, birth control should be cheap enough where it is a non-issue for women and men, yes some men pay for it because it’s a respectful thing to do. Any women should be able to access it without having to worry about its cost. No entitlement, no right to have somebody else pay for it. Just simple and easy cheap birth control. As for the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion, my position will never change: Anything that happens to, in or from a person’s body is the right of that person to choose its disposition. I do not want any other human being telling me what I can and cannot do with my body, therefore I have no right to tell another person what they can and cannot do to their body. Yup sounds fair to me, absolutely fair.

Posted in Politics, Public Debate, Religion, Science, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Proof that God does not exist

Side-note: Well I’m back in class with a 16c/hr semester, research is starting up again, work is still calling, so I won’t be able to plug a blog a day like I have been since I started, so my goal is at least once a week if not twice until summer rolls back around.

Now on to proof that God doesn’t exist. I’ve seen the arguments that neither atheists nor theists can provide proof that God exists or doesn’t exist. Well I’ve waded though these arguments till it jumped out at me. For a brief few moments, my mind was spinning, and I realized, “I can prove it!!”. So this one time I will dive into the “atheist/theist” argument and quickly prove that God doesn’t exist, well sort of.

In its simplistic form, what is God? Well god is a manifestation or creation by man to try to explain the natural world, and there is no evidence that goes beyond that. To say there is an entity that either goes by that name or falls under that description requires a throughout search of the universe, but even if you found it, it wouldn’t be the God written about in any religious text here on earth. So it’s safe to say the “God” of any religious text doesn’t exist outside of human creation here on earth. The most telling of all these is how every person defines God differently, giving God different likes and dislikes, God likes different groups of people over other, always defined by people. God is always referred to as “he”, “him” or “his”, always having a masculine or male gender. Not because God is male, such an entity would be sexless as having a gender would prove to be pointless because according to the Christian religion there is only one God. This genderfication of God shows God was created by humans, as who else would give God a gender directed in favor of misogynist men in the beginning of human history. There are religions who claim God is a woman, but they usually don’t last long or they get subjugated by male dominated religions.

The next point of this is proof where religion has changed over the centuries, conforming with social development. Do Christians still practice their faith like 1600′s, 1700′s, 1800′s or 1900′s or even 50 years ago? Do they still kill witches or has science proven humans can do extraordinary things. Even the Amish, has slowly developed from their origins over the past hundred years. Religion seems to change with the times, change with human developments and social rules and laws. One would think if God is all-powerful, God would keep tight control on what social and other laws come into existence in order to allow God’s followers to worship God. But we don’t see this in practice.

And my final point is if one thinks if God did exist, and God is “timeless” God’s “plan” as uttered by many Christians would require people to worship, but not pray. What? Religion is by definition selfish. Here’s why if God is timeless, God knows what is going to happen at any given moment in the history of the universe. Thus if anyone asks for something that isn’t going to happen, then its pointless and very selfish to ask God for something and God would know this the moment the prayer begins if not before. If God has a plan, that allows certain things to happen and a person requests that God changes God’s plan, it basic infers that any such person knows beyond what their deity knows what is best for them, even though they don’t know any of the future’s outcome. This paradox of prayer is ignored in great detail as people pray for a new car, they end up getting a new car and claiming “God answered my prayers!!”  yet if a few days later they have a family member killed in a car accident in that same car, they’ll ignore God’s answered prayer as being beneficial as God wanted their family member killed as Christians like to say “Go home to God!!”. This manipulation of reality is solid proof that any religious deity doesn’t exist. Seriously to postulate a God who answers it’s followers prayers seems odd, why would God care if you God what you wanted? Why is there this warped, twisted idea God has to bargain to be worshiped? oh yeah, because the concept of God is created by humans.

We know humans created unicorns, fairies, and all kinds of other fictitious characters for literature throughout the ages. Yet we know those beings or entities do not exist outside of literature and with great confidence. If we apply the same rigorous measures on any religious text, we will come to the same conclusion. God does not exist outside of human created writings and stories. This is the primary reason I call myself a Hulist, because the argument of “does God exist” is between Yes and No. God does exist within human stories and literature, but does not exist in reality. The argument beyond is simply a waste, a distraction from those who push religious agendas. Religion is designed to control groups of people. It’s sold, pushed and argued as such, without any attempt to legitimize it to any of the sciences. It relies on the cracks of philosophy to squeak through to its present form.

It has now oozed out onto the web, looking to regain it’s control over it’s masses. And thus why I’m on the web pushing back along with others. I wish I had more time to produce videos, I’m currently working on one, but can’t say when I’ll finish it as I have worldly responsibilities that require my attention. But for now I’ll leave you with this favorite of mine.

As Thunderf00t once pointed out “The Internet: Where religions come to die.”

Posted in Public Debate, Religion, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Naturalism and Materialism

I’ve seen Christian theists argue that those of us who “believe” in nature or as I like to think, observe nature are also materialists who basically lack compassion because there is no reason to because were a big pile of cells. In the video promo for The Magic Sandwich Show (linked here) for Aug the 18th, an interviewer asked the question to Professor Alvin Plantinga from the University of Notre Dame:
“naturalism cannot be rationally believed, a novel argument I guess for some, but why can’t it?”

Pantinga’s obviously prepared response was:
“well that’s um, ca sort of a complicated argument. but the basic idea is, if you are a naturalist, um you’ll also be a materialist about human beings. You’ll think human beings are material objects that there isn’t any immaterial soul or self, or person or ego. And ah you’ll think that a belief is something like um a structure of neurons in your nervous system or in the brain and the like, which will have two kids of properties, the belief will have neuro-physological properties and in virtue of having those it can cause behavior of various kinds, and ah but the belief will have content property, it’ll be the belief that p for some proposition p. If you accept ah naturalism and materialism that combination, then it seems to me you’re gonna have to con, ah you’ll have to take it that for any particular belief the probability that it is true is about a half, its, is likely to be true as false. All you really know is that um the creatures in question have, have evolved so that they ah act adaptively, they act behave adaptively. But doesn’t matter what the, what the beliefs, what beliefs they got are, and if that’s the case then the probability that one’s beliefs are reliable will be low, given naturalism and evolution that probability is low.”

Interviewer:
“So the sense of not being able to trust your own cognitive ah..”

Plantinga:
“yeah, your own cognitive faculties, right..”

Interviewer:
“but, but why, ma, some might say well n why should I trust my cognitive faculties that point me towards belief as well?”

Plantinga:
Well all, what I say is if you don’t belief in god or if you are a naturalist then you’ll also accept evolution then you’ve got to reason not think your faculties are reliable. Ah if, if you’re not like that, if you’re just like everybody that just take it for granted that your faculties are reliable, that seems to me to be perfectly sensible, but if you combine that with thinking, accepting naturalism and evolution, then that combination isn’t sensible.”

 The promo for The Magic Sandwich Show can be seen here:


(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbgb95mq9pI&feature=g-u-u)

So like most people the arguments jump out at me, slapping me in the face. And the biggest one of them all is how does he get from “you’ll have to take it that for any particular belief the probability that it is true is about a half, its, is likely to be true as false.” which is basically saying one has a 50-50 chance of being correct in what they think they belief and whether  or not it is actually true, yet he ends with saying “But doesn’t matter what the, what the beliefs, what beliefs they got are, and if that’s the case then the probability that one’s beliefs are reliable will be low, given naturalism and evolution that probability is low.”? How does one get from 50% probability to “low” probability? seriously, does he even understand how probability works?

Then to add an even more ignorant claim, the difference in probability is in “the belief” itself, yeah, the belief itself. That is if you believe one thing (god), it has a higher probability than another belief (naturalism) based on the same cognitive faculties that we all equally rely on. Whoa, but naturalists know our faculties cannot be trusted, that is why we use scientific methodology to find answers and not “just believing”.. It’s not that we don’t trust our faculties, we need evidence to back them up, otherwise why do mind altering substances exist? Christians get high on drugs, get drunk on alcohol and use medication for all kinds of purposes just as much as everyone else. Yet it is the naturalists who ignore their faculties can’t be trusted? project much?

But wait there’s more!! He claims that “ignorance is bliss” is more sensible than actually pursuing research to understand how humans and other things in nature works. Yeah, he actually said it “if you’re just like everybody that just take it for granted that your faculties are reliable, that seems to me to be perfectly sensible, but if you combine that with thinking, accepting naturalism and evolution, then that combination isn’t sensible.” . WOW, somebody that teaches at a University would actually make a claim that based on which belief is believed, one is more sensible than another, irregardless of evidence, logic and reason. If you have any degree from Notre Dame, I’d ask for a refund because I think you’ve been cheated out of a good education. I’m glad they don’t have a medical school.

The next issue I have is how he attempts to make naturalism and materialism to be something that if believed it doesn’t allow a person to live a good life. As if they have to walk around questioning everything they know, because they have to, because they can’t trust their faculties, because they believe in naturalism and materialism. Sounds like circular logic, oh wait it is. Naturalism and materialism relies on what we see, what we can test and predictive models. I can trust my faculties if I have a predictive model that carries a higher probability than a predictive model that has a low probability. I know 1 + 1 = 2, that predictive model I can trust my faculties because every time I do it, it comes out as two. See I get to test my faculties and not just “accept somebody’s word” on it. If somebody tells me “1 + 1 = 5″ and I test that model, it won’t pan out as much as 1 + 1 = 2.

So where does this leave us? in a much better spot than “I have the right to believe what I want and you have the right to believe what you want”, as a defense to “ignorance is bliss..”.

   

Posted in Academic, Pseudoscience, Public Debate, Religion | Tagged , , | Leave a comment