Are you saying that this is a reasonable disagreement with me? — TimeLine

I think it's reasonable for me to be bothered by your refusal to explain your claims with more depth.

Defend my assertions? That domination/submission is psychological and that gender is irrelevant. — TimeLine

Yes, please present your argument for why domination/submission has nothing to do with gender. You've yet to do so, merely suggesting that it's true without qualification.

It is not that I am antagonistic or unwilling towards love, rather I am waiting until I trust in the love from someone enough to consequently submit to a relationship. The reason it makes a person feel vulnerable is because of this submission to a relationship and the latter is the dominating force because it may feel like your independence is taken away. I was merely trying to point this out using an example of how - as a woman - I cannot be dominated. — TimeLine

You can be dominated in other capacities, though.

Life and statements about it extend beyond whether anyone defends them. Indeed, whether someone choses to defend a statement or not has nothing to do with its truth. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not quite. It doesn't necessarily mean the undefended position is false.

The idea we can measure truth by someone's willingness to defend a statement or engage in conflict is only rehtorical posturing. Even is someone drives by and drops the statement "X is true", it cannot be dismissed. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And if my statement is, "you're an idiot, which is true", you can do nothing about it?

So called "burden of proof" is is a fallacy . — TheWillowOfDarkness

You've not shown why the burden of proof is a fallacy. Cry wolf, there best be a wolf. No wolf, no truth.

If we are interested in what is true, an absence of an argument or further argumentation is not enough to dismiss any claim. Who knows what reasoning or evidence might be unsaid? To reject a claim, we must actually know it's wrong . It's never enough to just say: "They didn't argue enough." — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm not saying that TimeLine is wrong, but that her claims are unsubstantiated.

The sexist positions displayed in this thread are still harmful. If someone rejects engaging a position they disagree with in argument, it doesn't mean they cannot object to it. Nor does it mean their objection is wrong or unjustified. Fighting is not a measure or truth. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I've no clue what you're trying to say here.

I thought it was fun? I said that this thread is gender-bias and I got the following: — TimeLine

That is one unsubstantiated point among many, none of which you responded to because I don't think you know how. As I mentioned to T Clark, if you're not willing to defend your assertions in a social environment like this, then why are you here? If this forum is merely a sounding board, then why are you so bothered by others who dare disagree with you?

In my brief experience, there's a lot more cranky than there is reason from many posters here. Cranky is a polite term for it. — T Clark

I think proper debate and discussion always entails a good measure of crankiness, otherwise there's no passion or fervor.

I thought of a fourth reason - it's fun. — T Clark

I think you will find that people like TimeLine do not find it at all fun having others disagree with them. For some it's easier to always think inside the box and not out. Then again, I wonder why these sorts of people are on an internet forum, the function of which is to provide an arena for strangers to debate reasonably, but crankily. Maybe it's just the, "I like to hear myself talk" sort of thing.

Ehmmm... Number one, I think you should read the darn question again lol... — Agustino

One moment, let me get my pen and paper and tally up how many moral people each religion has produced...is that what you're asking? Cause I can't do that. And neither can you.

Number two, I've never suggested in this thread that people of other religions cannot live good lives, so I don't see why you're bringing that one up. — Agustino

Well I believe that's how I was defining a "better life." One that is more moral. My position is merely that a person can live a more moral life by being either a Buddhist or a Christian.

Number three, you yourself said previously that "certain strains" of Buddhism lead to a better life - so I'm asking you, what strains of Buddhism are you talking about? What Buddhists have you read about or know (excluding Buddha for now, because we're talking about the followers of a religion not its founders) that are so living? — Agustino

This is essentially a thread in itself. I'd be happy to respond if you flesh out the question here. It's like asking the same about Christianity. Saying "Catholic>Methodist" doesn't really tell anyone anything.

Sure enough, but what the hell does this have to do with the question I've asked? :s >:O Do you just mean to suggest that Buddhism is losing adherents because not many people want to accept that "life is suffering"? — Agustino

Simplistically speaking, yes. I think many religious people like to skip steps, Buddhists included. "Is life suffering? Meh, I'll just pull out my yoga mat." "Is salvation contingent upon faith and good works? Meh, I'll just believe and do whatever the fuck I want!"

As an authority on the subject of women, I can assure you that we are different from one another and any attempt to rationalise gender-bias particularly through evolutionary or biological differences uncovers more about you as a person. — TimeLine

Why?

The act of submission and domination is psychological and gender is irrelevant. — TimeLine

Gender is completely irrelevant? What's your justification for this?

A 'relationship' is the dominating force; a dialectic or struggle whether individuals or socially since what we psychological experience moves outside of the human mind and projects objectively to external objects and interactions we have with others. — TimeLine

?????????

If you are submissive or dominating, you choose to be — TimeLine

So, the dominating psychopathic manipulator consciously chose to be mentally ill? You're gonna have to defend this wild suggestion.

The acceptance of our separateness or individuality (self-consciousness) in a Hegelian sense prevents unhealthy relationships both individually and socially, which is why I have never submitted neither can anyone dominate me because I have never trusted neither loved anyone enough. — TimeLine

It actually seems like you're dominated by your own unwillingness to trust or love anyone.

Ironic.

All this talking about women this and women think that and woman behave such and such. All coming from men. — TimeLine

You haven't read through this thread then. There have been a couple of females who seem to concur with Thinker's opinion.

Right, I was just talking — Agustino

You do a lot of that. I'm not the only poster who could tell you that.

• Do you say that these strains of Buddhism produce more of what you've identified as "the better life" than Christianity? — Agustino

More moral people? Perhaps. A lot of Buddhist asceticism enables the good, just as Christian asceticism can and does.

• Which are these strains of Buddhism, and can you offer some examples of people who exemplify this better life? — Agustino

Again, a "better life" means one that is more moral than what came before. Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on morally upright people. I shouldn't have to name you Buddhists, including Buddha himself, for you to see how others can live good lives.

• What's your take on the coming disappearance of Buddhism as per the statistics I've presented? — Agustino

How many "Buddhists" really want to come to terms with the basic tenant, "life is suffering"? Few.

I remember you just talking in that post. What exactly do you want me to respond to?

But you couldn't know this unless you actually became a Christian. — Thorongil

Must I become a Christian in order for me to judge self-professed Christians' actions? Surely a "Christian" who fails to act morally is living a worse life, no? Additionally, must I be a Christian in order to understand what justifies a person being a Christian or not? Do I need to be an Islamist Jihadi in order to fully realize what it means to be a Islamist Jihadi? Perhaps I'm missing out on some truth by not being an Islamist. And if I'm not missing out, wouldn't your denying such a possibility be adequate judgement enough for whether being an Islamist is prohibitive of living a better life? If so, why can you judge Islamism and I can't judge Christianity?

Also, I'm not denying that I may live a better, more moral life by being a Christian, but that, as I said, religion isn't a foolproof system that ensures you, me, or anyone else from living poorer lives.

It could be that concern for the afterlife (salvation) is the best way to do good on earth. — Thorongil

Only if you equate salvation to a life-after.

But to justify it on the basis of the welfare of the unborn child, if that's what you're really doing, is bizarre. — T Clark

Why?

Which faith are you talking about? — Agustino

This one:

I believe life is worth living, but I don't claim to know that. It's a matter of faith. — Agustino

~

Because I believe that God wouldn't place man without a reason here. — Agustino

So, faith upon faith upon faith. If none of these faiths are worth having, or if to ask such a question is peculiar, then indeed why have faith? Merely to have it in itself? Surely not, you have faith based upon what believing gets you. And you need to believe that the non-existing, unborn child is worth procreating and is worth being given a life, otherwise your decision to have a child is at best arbitrary and amoral, like picking your nose.

But you do claim to know that your faith is worth having. Why? Why else would that be the case were you not also assured in the knowledge that life is worth living?

No, I don't currently have a child because I'm not married, nor would I have a child right away (that would be something to be discussed and decided together with my wife) but I don't see why that's funny. Most children do in fact seem to think that life is worth living. — Agustino

LOL. Ah, so you're banking on your child thinking like you, agreeing with you that life is worth living. Thanks for rubbishing your faux neutrality in the other thread >:O

~
(Y)

But you definitely don't have a child thinking that life is worth living, >:O

If Herr Heister Eggcart can't know that all human life isn't worth the suffering, then by extension I would assume that Monsieur Agustino can't know that human life IS worth the suffering. — Bitter Crank

:o

There was a popular pre-WWII eastern European group of female performers whose nightclub act featured their appearing totally nude, except for paper mache zebra heads and black hooves. Sometimes stripes of black and white paint were cleverly applied to their luscious bodies. They would run around the nightclub, whinnying, tastefully titillating the men, emphasis on tits, undoing bits of men's clothing, and such frivolities.

You might have been discussing whether their lives were worth living. — Bitter Crank

That's what happens when you give serfs a better class.

I would include all life, but I think he's specifically referring to human life, seeing as this discussion is between humans and not hippos, and we're talking about human females and not zebra females.

Clark's question is different from, "is life worth living or continuing?".

How would a mortal human being of limited intelligence, a speck of dust, know whether life is worth the suffering on earth or not? — Agustino

Because I'm a life suffering on earth.

Is life on earth worth the suffering? — T Clark

Fuck no.

Is the other partner in a relationship automatically dominated if the other is more intelligent?

It is important to not stereotype people based on gender. I might as well confess that I am girl, not a guy. I consider myself to be independent, and not very submissive to anyone who has not been proven trustworthy and capable. I am not afraid to challenge someone's theory. I do not think all men are stupid or inferior, but there are certainly some. — Lone Wolf

Apologies if you've already answered this, but how do you define male capability and what makes a guy capable in your eyes?

In my own opinion I think that being honest, loving, not a manipulative, abusive psychopath, etc. refer back to a man's, and woman's, trustworthiness. As in, you trust them to be honest, loving, and so on. I'm just curious, because being, let's say virtuous, sounds like a pretty damn good prerequisite for a capable [male] friend or partner.

Out of nowhere? What does that mean?

What's wrong with this thread and the questions asked?

What does a "better" life mean to you? — Agustino

A better life is one that has facilitated a person more toward actualizing virtue from a position of humility. Christianity accomplishes this more than any other religion, apart from some strains of Buddhism (which really just end up being philosophies more than strict theologies.)

And why are you unconvinced that a religion (take your pick) doesn't enable people to live better lives? — Agustino

Because most religious folks are more concerned with issues of an afterlife instead of, "spending [their] heaven doing good on earth."

I remain unconvinced that any religion, including Christianity, enables people to live significantly better lives. Until that's the case, I suppose I'm lukewarm about the suggestion that there's a war between irreligion and religion. As it has always been, the only war I see is between morality and immorality, and no religion has a monopoly on either of those.

It's hard to take your arguments seriously when you write things like this. — T Clark

It's hard for me to even find your argument. Why won't you substantively reply to my last post to you? What's wrong?

Ad hominem. Care to take it back? — 0 thru 9

You don't find it wrong that an older man has sex with a 12 year old, or a 15 year old, or a 16 year old. This makes you a creep. So, no, I'm not going to take it back because it is the truth.

They don't articulate their position frequently on the media. For example, they don't speak against promiscuity loudly and openly. Instead those in favor of promiscuity get all the screen time. What's the Church doing, are they embarrassed of their position?! — Agustino

Okay, I see what you mean, now.

No that is indeed impossible. But that's not really the point. The point is that Christianity's influence on culture has sharply decreased, to the point that, especially in the West, as evidenced by some responses in this thread, it is viewed with ridicule, as a museum artefact (to quote Mongrel). That's something that has to change. — Agustino

Won't change for the better if the Christian standard is evangelical Protestantism.

Why not? — Agustino

The Catholic Church has already made a lot of concessions. I just don't see them making a bunch more.

would you mind terribly stopping the uncalled-for insults, dear chap? Thanks. — 0 thru 9

You're a creep. Why would I not call a spade a spade?

Did I say anything about watering down? The problem at the moment is that they're not forcefully representing their REAL position. — Agustino

Explain. I don't see what you're getting at here.

No, it's not watering itself down, but the dumb people call themselves Orthodox, even though in reality they're following local traditions more than the teachings of the Church. Is it also dying? Not in Eastern Europe and Russia it isn't, but neither is it growing very fast - although there are some young people who show keen interest in religion. — Agustino

I mean, what's this thread about, then? Are we wanting to save true believers in Christianity, or just the facade of people going to church? If it's the former, I don't think we can get every Christian to be true believers. Do you?

Well part of the problem is that the Church isn't emphasising its position in a coherent way. It is afraid not to upset the gay community, or not to upset other religions, etc. etc. It's so politically correct, that it is in reality in a straight jacket, even though it has all the power that it needs, if it wanted to do something.

Also, a lot of the Church's arguments for religion, while valid, are antiquated, and don't speak well to people today. These arguments need to be reframed and recast in a way that speaks to modern people. — Agustino

I don't think the Church is going to budge much, to be honest...

What may or may not be lawful does not make it right or wrong. If you have sex with a child, you are a pedophile, a rapist, and a creep. And if you're someone who defends such actions, you can fuck right off, okay?

Why is an examination of Islam's founding and most important prophet, Muhammad, not relevant to a discussion that critiques Islam on the grounds of its moral integrity? If Jesus was a child molesting, violent cretin, I would be condemning him equally as harshly. And if Christianity's ethics was based upon a child molesting, violent cretin, as Islam's is, then I would subsequently doubt the rightness of such a religion's claims. But, seeing as Christianity's most central figure is not any of those things, in fact being the complete opposite, I think there's ground to stand on for Christians and others who are critical of a religion like Islam that doesn't seem to have a consistent moral message.

She may have been 15 or 16. — 0 thru 9

Fucking wow. This is still child molestation, you creep.

I'm not asking you to defend Islam. I'm just saying your argument about Mohammad is a weak argument, a non sequitur, and a bit self-serving. — T Clark

How so? You already said you have no opinion of Muhammad, but you're willing to refute the opinions of others who do critique him? :^/

Fact - the highest levels of the Catholic Church hid and enabled pedophile priests for decades until the Boston Globe blew the lid off. They got the Pulitzer Prize for that. They deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Many (most?) of the priests never were held accountable either because they died before they were found out, they are still being protected, or no one ever came forward to report them. — T Clark

To play devil's advocate here, I thought you said that the past doesn't matter? So who cares if some kids were raped 14 centuries ago, eh?

Why would I participate? This is not even a proper subject for a philosophical forum, maybe for a religious one. it's just people debating which denomination they should gamble their faith on.
I'm also not interested in your edginess, it's in bad taste. — Noblosh

Yes, I'm sure you're one of those, "delete philosophy of religion" sorts of people. If this thread irks you so much, leave.

That's not true, I'm full on aggressive! But yes, I'm bored, bored of worthless and off the point critques like yours, not designed with any productive purpose in mind but the satisfaction of a disgruntled and pretentious jerk. Apathetic because of so much uncodemned foolishness in the world that goes on to reproduce ad infinitum. — Noblosh

Contrary to this projection of yours, I'm actually contributing to this thread by having reasonable conversation with Agustino, BC, and T Clark. If you'd like to join, by all means, come on in. My tongue has edge enough for you still!

Sigh? That's a cogent argument? Furthermore, I disagree. The behavior of priests is much more a measure of the health and value of a religion than what happened more than a thousand years ago. — T Clark

Priests did not establish Christianity, however, Jesus Christ did, just as Muhammad founded Islam. As I said, critiquing priests in light of critiquing Muhammad is moving the goal posts, and is in fact a straw man.

Beyond that, you are being disingenuous. Muhammad is your straw man. If you thought Islam was a religion that shared values and dogma with yours, you wouldn't have brought up Mohammad's behavior. You only bring it up for rhetorical purposes - to try to convince people when your other arguments can't. — T Clark

Huh? I do not think Islam shares the same values as Christianity, which is why Muhammad was brought up, seeing as his reprehensible nature is entirely inferior to that of Jesus Christ's.

It doesn't matter what Mohammad did 14 centuries ago. It matters what Islam does now. — T Clark

I think it does matter that Islam now glorifies a child molesting warmonger as their religion's most moral man and enlightened prophet. I, among others, find this reverence toward Muhammad to be appalling and sickening.

Additionally, you're trying to paint me as a hypocrite for defending Christianity and not Islam, solely on the grounds of there being pedophilic priests. I contest this because the Church, and indeed 99.9% of all Christians, vehemently condemn the actions taken by those improper priests, which has resulted in their defrocking, being thrown out of the Church, and in many cases being charged criminally by secular law. So, on one hand we have a religion in Christianity that has been immensely embarrassed by the sex abuse scandal and which has taken drastic steps to eradicate the occurrence of such instances within its institution, while on the other hand, we've Islam that looks at child molesting sex abuse as a virtue in Muhammad, the ideal man. If you fail to see this dichotomy, then I don't know what else I can do to assuage you of your irrationality.

No, something moral and realistic please. I expected you to have an opinion if you're so into criticising what you see. — Agustino

I don't necessarily think there's a clear cut solution to the problem. At the very least I don't think it's prudent for the Catholic church to water down its liturgy so it's more agreeable with vacuous, stupid people, which is the targeted demographic of many Protestant denominations. ~ Is Orthodoxy watering itself down, though? And if it isn't, is it also dying?

Also, I'd say there needs to be more of a shift in society in general toward the arts, philosophy, etc., which would create an environment where thinking is appreciated and religion isn't just some afterlife bet or community dispenser. The "fixes", say, that the Catholic Church need in order to preserve Western Civ can't only come from itself. A whole more needs to fall into line in order for there to be generations of thoughtful Christians.