"Opposition is really good in society.Something women seem to be better at than men

[the truth]

"Opposition is really good in society... Something women seem to be better at than men, is opposing without hatred - mark rylance at the oscars

is this statement in your opinion, true, too generalized or sexist against men?

[user104658]

Going to be totally honest here and say that, in my experience, it's the opposite. The male and female brain works differently; females (in general, not comprehensively!) involve emotion more in day-to-day reasoning than males do. The result of that is that females are more passionate about subjects they get involved in and believe in, but hand in hand with that, take it more personally when the things they believe in are criticised or opposed.

:worry:

[Withano]

is this statement in your opinion, true, too generalized or sexist against men?

A generalisation which I'd imagine is true for him, from his perspective

What do you think?

[Kizzy]

It is an odd thing to say, anyone can oppose something without hating it. Hate is a very overused word generally.

[thesheriff443]

A woman can kill just as well as a man.

[arista]

A woman can kill just as well as a man.

Bang On Right

[jennyjuniper]

I think the opposite is true. Women tend to hold onto grudges longer than men and can be more vindictive. In today's society the ideal of the peaceful, nurtering Madonna like woman does not compute.

[VanessaFeltz.]

The male and female brain works differently;

I disagree with this part. We just talked in social psychology lesson that women and men have very little difference when it comes down to brain. I really think these small differences get overrated.

I definitely believe the reason of difference between men and women behaving comes down to society's teachings.

[user104658]

I disagree with this part. We just talked in social psychology lesson that women and men have very little difference when it comes down to brain. I really think these small differences get overrated.

I definitely believe the reason of difference between men and women behaving comes down to society's teachings.

There is very little difference in the physical structure of the brain; that's not the same as saying that the adult brains of males and females work in the same way. Whether it's down to biology or conditioning isn't relevant when discussing "what is", only when discussing "what can change".

[Northern Monkey]

Going to be totally honest here and say that, in my experience, it's the opposite. The male and female brain works differently; females (in general, not comprehensively!) involve emotion more in day-to-day reasoning than males do. The result of that is that females are more passionate about subjects they get involved in and believe in, but hand in hand with that, take it more personally when the things they believe in are criticised or opposed.

:worry:Yep.Once they get a bee in their bonnet.That's it.The world stops until they get what they want:laugh:
In my experience anyway.


Note:There is nothing wrong with being a woman

[Northern Monkey]

I disagree with this part. We just talked in social psychology lesson that women and men have very little difference when it comes down to brain. I really think these small differences get overrated.

I definitely believe the reason of difference between men and women behaving comes down to society's teachings.

Could possibly be the different hormones.

[Crimson Dynamo]

"Opposition is really good in society... Something women seem to be better at than men, is opposing without hatred - mark rylance at the oscars

is this statement in your opinion, true, too generalized or sexist against men?

I think its more a reflection on the fact that more men are in positions of power?

[Vicky.]

I disagree with this part. We just talked in social psychology lesson that women and men have very little difference when it comes down to brain. I really think these small differences get overrated.

I definitely believe the reason of difference between men and women behaving comes down to society's teachings.

This is true, however have you studied how the brain actually changes with experiences yet? Basically, HOW you are brought up makes a difference, and females are socialized way differently to males. We are taught to put others first, be more empathetic and so on. From birth babies are treat differently based on if they are male or female. As such, the female and male brains can be different, but it is based on our lifestyles. There is no such thing as a 'male brain' or 'female brain' though, that much is true. And scientists cannot tell a male brain from a female one just by studying it.

I do think hormones may play a part too.

I would agree with jenny on this. Obviously as an overall average rather than individual people though..

[the truth]

so is what rylance said sexist? if a man had gone on the oscars and said men are better at being empathic than women, all hell would have broken loose with such a generalization

[Crimson Dynamo]

so is what rylance said sexist? if a man had gone on the oscars and said men are better at being empathic than women, all hell would have broken loose with such a generalization

its the oscars, virtue signalling is part of winning

[user104658]

This is true, however have you studied how the brain actually changes with experiences yet? Basically, HOW you are brought up makes a difference, and females are socialized way differently to males. We are taught to put others first, be more empathetic and so on. From birth babies are treat differently based on if they are male or female. As such, the female and male brains can be different, but it is based on our lifestyles. There is no such thing as a 'male brain' or 'female brain' though, that much is true. And scientists cannot tell a male brain from a female one just by studying it.

Well that's true and not true depending on what you mean. They can't tell whether it's a male or female brain on autopsy based on the brain structure itself (a "dead brain") but viewing active scans of a live brain with the person performing specific tasks, the gender of the participant can be predicted with some degree of accuracy. Not 100%, obviously, as it's genuinely is much more of a "sliding scale" than being a "one or the other" thing.

[user104658]

so is what rylance said sexist? if a man had gone on the oscars and said men are better at being empathic than women, all hell would have broken loose with such a generalization
I think he's a bit old to be considered the sexiest for me personally but that's really a choice you have to make for yourself :shrug:.

[Livia]

Well, men have had a good run at being in opposition, look at all the wars men have faught in the past - and are fighting currently. Since time began the men have gone off to war and the women have kept the homefires burning and nursed the wounded. It'd be interesting to see how the world would be if women held the reigns instead of men.

[the truth]

Well, men have had a good run at being in opposition, look at all the wars men have faught in the past - and are fighting currently. Since time began the men have gone off to war and the women have kept the homefires burning and nursed the wounded. It'd be interesting to see how the world would be if women held the reigns instead of men.

95% of blairs female mps voted in favour of the illegal invasion of Iraq, including harriet harman and yvette cooper

harman demanded all women short lists in as many seats as possible because women had superior quaities to men She was clearly of the view that I was making my way slowly up a learning curve. She patiently explained that women possessed many qualities that were invaluable in politics, particularly modern politics, qualities lacking or deficient in most men.

The journalist asked for a list of these qualities. This was a question for which she was prepared and she was able to provide a rehearsed list of qualities without pause: 'Independence, clarity of thought, rationality, emotional commitment, communication and the courage to take actions irrespective of personal sacrifice.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1391862/Blairs-babe-just-warlike-men-says-MP-Bob-Marshall-Andrews.html#ixzz4ZycbTJuf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Livia]

I don't agree with all-female short lists even though men have been in charge for so long women are underrepresented in most fields. I believe in equality and that the best person for the job is the most qualified, regardless of sex. I also don't agree with wild generalisations that all women are one thing, and all men are another. I do think it would be interesting to see whether women would handle international conflict in a different way from men, who've been in the driving seat since time began where war is concerned.

[Vicky.]

I don't agree with all-female short lists even though men have been in charge for so long women are underrepresented in most fields. I believe in equality and that the best person for the job is the most qualified, regardless of sex. I also don't agree with wild generalisations that all women are one thing, and all men are another. I do think it would be interesting to see whether women would handle international conflict in a different way from men, who've been in the driving seat since time began where war is concerned.

Completely agree with this...I don't really get how 'woman only shortlists' are considered to be fighting inequality fairly at all. Yes, women are underrepresented in many areas BUT if we just start employing the best person for the job regardless of if they have a penis or not, then this would settle itself out over time. And if it doesn't? Then men are better for the job on average than women. Thats not a tragedy, there are obvious differences between the sexes and it should not be 'controversial' to state this. On average, men will be better at physical jobs that require strength than women are, and so on :shrug:

[Niamh.]

I would say it's an individual thing really, I don't think you can generalise something like that based on gender, it's more a personality trait imo

[the truth]

I would say it's an individual thing really, I don't think you can generalise something like that based on gender, it's more a personality trait imo

yep so this is sexism against men

[Crimson Dynamo]

yep so this is sexism against men

:clap1:

[Marsh.]

My god, get a new record.

[Vicky.]

Yes, the comment is 'sexist' against men, and also stereotyping women unnecessarily.

[thesheriff443]

Its very easy to judge but a lot harder to be judged.
If you stare long enough at an object it starts to move.
Only I and n, separate a sane person from an insane one.

[Withano]

yep so this is sexism against men

In your opinion, is anyone saying that any gender is better than another gender in any subject sexism? You only seem to care when it happens one way :think:

[Northern Monkey]

Completely agree with this...I don't really get how 'woman only shortlists' are considered to be fighting inequality fairly at all. Yes, women are underrepresented in many areas BUT if we just start employing the best person for the job regardless of if they have a penis or not, then this would settle itself out over time. And if it doesn't? Then men are better for the job on average than women. Thats not a tragedy, there are obvious differences between the sexes and it should not be 'controversial' to state this. On average, men will be better at physical jobs that require strength than women are, and so on :shrug:This totally

[Niamh.]

yep so this is sexism against men
Yeah

[the truth]

My god, get a new record.

1) Theres a G in God
2) Get a new record yourself , other than blasphemy and trolling:wavey:

[the truth]

In your opinion, is anyone saying that any gender is better than another gender in any subject sexism? You only seem to care when it happens one way :think:

No thats you that is. The comment made here is a general one about all men and women on a show watched by billions. If a man said such a generalized criticism about all women hed get booted off....why is it allowed to heneralized about all men as inferior to women? This comment is sexist and the majority here agree. Clearly you think the double standards are ok?

[Withano]

No thats you that is. The comment made here is a general one about all men and women on a show watched by billions. If a man said such a generalized criticism about all women hed get booted off....why is it allowed to heneralized about all men as inferior to women? This comment is sexist and the majority here agree. Clearly you think the double standards are ok?

Sexism (any ism) generally includes a malicious intention, which this lacks. This man isnt being sexist towards men lol. I'm a man, I think women, in general, are better than men at lots of things. Thats not sexist either.

[Withano]

1) Theres a G in God
2) Get a new record yourself , other than blasphemy and trolling:wavey:

Imagine correcting grammar in a grammatically incorrect sentence though.

[user104658]

Imagine correcting grammar in a grammatically incorrect sentence though.
Oh no, he's not correcting grammar, he genuinely feels like the big guy in the sky is being disrespected here. Some religious people get really weird about their fella not getting a capital G. Truth is much like me. A soldier. Except he is a soldier of our lord and saviour Jesus Christ where as I am a soldier moulded out of polyethylene.

[the truth]

Oh no, he's not correcting grammar, he genuinely feels like the big guy in the sky is being disrespected here. Some religious people get really weird about their fella not getting a capital G. Truth is much like me. A soldier. Except he is a soldier of our lord and saviour Jesus Christ where as I am a soldier moulded out of polyethylene.

Just a soldier of truth pal.

[thesheriff443]

The way I see it gods are about as much use as a plastic soldier in a war.
No gods where hurt in this post.
And before I get members of all religions replying to this post.
I will be judged by god or gods.
And yes I'm being funny.

[the truth]

The way I see it gods are about as much use as a plastic soldier in a war.
No gods where hurt in this post.
And before I get members of all religions replying to this post.
I will be judged by god or gods.
And yes I'm being funny.

Yes play to the atheist audience and ignore the actual thread about sexism against men

[thesheriff443]

Yes play to the atheist audience and ignore the actual thread about sexism against men

If a dog is born in a stable it does not make it a horse.

As a man I don't feel threatened by women, in fact I got a lot more time for strong women then weak men.

[user104658]

The way I see it gods are about as much use as a plastic soldier in a war.

How dare you :hmph:.

To be fair I disagree anyway. God / gods are not real but a true belief in one can embolden people to do some seriously crazy ****. ISIS leaders are non-religious but without "God", they wouldn't have an army at all. The knights of the crusades were some of the most determined warriors in history, driven by belief. "God" pushed poor young lads over the trenches to certain death. "God" is still evoked to bolster courage in Western militaries today (especially the US). The illusion of a God and an afterlife is very useful in war... it doesn't seem to matter that he isn't literally "real".

[Marsh.]

1) Theres a G in God
2) Get a new record yourself , other than blasphemy and trolling:wavey:

Pity your fondness for capital letters doesn't stretch to your posts, they might be a little more literate then.

[Marsh.]

"Yes, this is sexism against men"

Can we have a TiBB bot that just automatically posts this to every "the truth" thread made? Probably make things a lot easier.

[user104658]

Pity your fondness for capital letters doesn't stretch to your posts, they might be a little more literate then.

but if you refuse point blank to use any other capital letters or punctuation whatsoever marsh then God! becomes all the more important.

[Livia]

I feel compelled to say that people have religious freedom in this country and can worship God in any way they choose - or not - without having the piss ripped out of them for it, no matter how you feel about any other statements thetruth has made. Respecting someone's right to their own beliefs is much like respecting someone's right to be openly gay, to be transgender or any of the other rights people seem ready to fight for on here, while disrespecting people's right to religious freedom.

[user104658]

I feel compelled to say that people have religious freedom in this country and can worship God in any way they choose - or not - without having the piss ripped out of them for it, no matter how you feel about any other statements thetruth has made. Respecting someone's right to their own beliefs is much like respecting someone's right to be openly gay, to be transgender or any of the other rights people seem ready to fight for on here, while disrespecting people's right to religious freedom.

Repsecting the right to religious freedom includes respecting the right to non-religion, and to the opinion that religious belief is illogical to the point of being ludicrous. You are free to disagree with that statement, argue against it, as vocally as you please, but no, you don't have the right to tell me what I can and can't say about religion, any more than I have the right to tell a religious person what they can and can't say.

No one is trying to stifle religious freedom. Truth and anyone else here is free to believe whatever they want to believe?

[Niamh.]

I feel compelled to say that people have religious freedom in this country and can worship God in any way they choose - or not - without having the piss ripped out of them for it, no matter how you feel about any other statements thetruth has made. Respecting someone's right to their own beliefs is much like respecting someone's right to be openly gay, to be transgender or any of the other rights people seem ready to fight for on here, while disrespecting people's right to religious freedom.

fair enough but if the truth is going to reprimand people for not using a capital "G" and disrespecting God and calling them blasphemous then he's drawing it on himself really and in effect trying to force his religious notions on others :shrug:

[Brillopad]

Pity your fondness for capital letters doesn't stretch to your posts, they might be a little more literate then.

Blatantly insulting post which is supposed to be against the rules. Completely unnecessary.

[Livia]

Repsecting the right to religious freedom includes respecting the right to non-religion, and to the opinion that religious belief is illogical to the point of being ludicrous. You are free to disagree with that statement, argue against it, as vocally as you please, but no, you don't have the right to tell me what I can and can't say about religion, any more than I have the right to tell a religious person what they can and can't say.

No one is trying to stifle religious freedom. Truth and anyone else here is free to believe whatever they want to believe?

I know I am free to disagree. I said in my original post that people should be afforded the right to their beliefs - or none.

Freedom of speech doesn't afford you the right to ridicule. And it isn't just this thread... Every time there is a mention of religion all the non-believers, atheists, agnostics etc... all band together to say how ridiculous it is, do we believe in unicorns too? All that crap. I don't think there's anyone here who has the slightest doubt where you stand because you exhaust your opinion every time religion is brought up.

[Livia]

fair enough but if the truth is going to reprimand people for not using a capital "G" and disrespecting God and calling them blasphemous then he's drawing it on himself really and in effect trying to force his religious notions on others :shrug:

To be honest I have never seen anyone on here try to force their religious beliefs on others. Quite the reverse.

[Niamh.]

To be honest I have never seen anyone on here try to force their religious beliefs on others. Quite the reverse.

Well reprimanding a non religious person for not using a capital G when typeing the word god and also calling them blasphemous is pushing their beliefs (or rules I suppose) on them. You can't be blasphemous if you don't believe in god :shrug:

[Livia]

Well reprimanding a non religious person for not using a capital G when typeing the word god and also calling them blasphemous is pushing their beliefs (or rules I suppose) on them. You can't be blasphemous if you don't believe in god :shrug:

Well, thetruth did repremand Marshy, yes. And then TS, Withano and thesheriff all piled in to have a little pop... even though the post wasn't directed at them at all. And that's the way it seems to go. Calling someone blasphemous is small fry to the ridicule people with faith put up with on here. I mean, how can intelligent people believe in God? They must be stupid or something...

Anyhoo, sorry for guiding this off-topic.

[Niamh.]

Well, thetruth did repremand Marshy, yes. And then TS, Withano and thesheriff all piled in to have a little pop... even though the post wasn't directed at them at all. And that's the way it seems to go. Calling someone blasphemous is small fry to the ridicule people with faith put up with on here. I mean, how can intelligent people believe in God? They must be stupid or something...

Anyhoo, sorry for guiding this off-topic.

It wasn't directed at them no but like I said if you're going to go round reprimanding people who don't even believe in god then you're open to be reprimanded back imo

[user104658]

Freedom of speech doesn't afford you the right to ridicule. And it isn't just this thread... Every time there is a mention of religion all the non-believers, atheists, agnostics etc... all band together to say how ridiculous it is, do we believe in unicorns too? All that crap.

But if it's directed at people who openly voice full support of (for example) Trump and Farage, and their non-PC nature, and the fact that they speak their mind, raw and truthful, without dressing up their opinions for fear of "offending snowflakes", but it's all good because "at least it's honest!"... ... where is the problem? Or is there, somewhere, a set of guidelines on which subjects are A-OK to be discussed in this manner and those which are off-limits? I'm very confused.

[user104658]

I mean, how can intelligent people believe in God? They must be stupid or something...

You do love to reword things and stuff them back in the mouthes of others to make them seem worse, Livia. It's almost like you're TRYING to take more offense than is on offer.

I have never suggested that anyone is stupid just because they are religious. I think that there is a fair basis for believing in an unknown, generalised higher power beyond human comprehension (that might be called a "god") if one is so inclined.

Now what I think you're referring to...

Is the fact that I have stated repeatedly, and maintain 100% as my opinion, that belief in and following of an organised human religion is illogical, and is usually based in either parental indoctrination or trauma (or both) rather than objective reasoning.

If you feel the need to continue to dumb that statement down to fit your agenda, then feel free to continue to do so, and I'll continue to post the correction.

[Marsh.]

but if you refuse point blank to use any other capital letters or punctuation whatsoever marsh then God! becomes all the more important.

YOU KEEP OUT OF THIS!!! :fist:

[Marsh.]

I feel compelled to say that people have religious freedom in this country and can worship God in any way they choose - or not - without having the piss ripped out of them for it, no matter how you feel about any other statements thetruth has made. Respecting someone's right to their own beliefs is much like respecting someone's right to be openly gay, to be transgender or any of the other rights people seem ready to fight for on here, while disrespecting people's right to religious freedom.

If this is aimed at my response, I want you to know I respect anyone and everyone's personal beliefs/religions.

However, in a thread not actually about any of that he's dragging "blasphemy" into the equation. Not that I expect anything more from a poster like him who finds any excuse to put down women and bleat about the unfortunate male sex.

On another note, it staggers me that he's remained on this site for as long as he has.

[Marsh.]

Well, thetruth did repremand Marshy, yes. And then TS, Withano and thesheriff all piled in to have a little pop... even though the post wasn't directed at them at all. And that's the way it seems to go. Calling someone blasphemous is small fry to the ridicule people with faith put up with on here. I mean, how can intelligent people believe in God? They must be stupid or something...

Anyhoo, sorry for guiding this off-topic.

Oh so it wasn't aimed at my response. As you were.... :fan:

[the truth]

If a dog is born in a stable it does not make it a horse.

As a man I don't feel threatened by women, in fact I got a lot more time for strong women then weak men.

what an irelevant answer. There are clear double standards at work. If a man generalizes that all women are inferior to men at certain things he is labelled a sexist. But if its said about a man, its not sexist. I am simply pointing out these glaring double standards.

[Niamh.]

what an irelevant answer. There are clear double standards at work. If a man generalizes that all women are inferior to men at certain things he is labelled a sexist. But if its said about a man, its not sexist. I am simply pointing out these glaring double standards.

That isn't true, women are always being told that we are terrible drivers and inferior to men in that regard and that seems to be perfectly acceptable(it isn't though imo) so you are wrong there

[the truth]

That isn't true, women are always being told that we are terrible drivers and inferior to men in that regard and that seems to be perfectly acceptable(it isn't though imo) so you are wrong there
not on national tv in front of billions, if it was said there, thered be a mosntrous backlash

[Niamh.]

not on national tv in front of billions, if it was said there, thered be a mosntrous backlash

What you never heard men on TV making a women being bad drivers comment? Ever watched Top Gear the jeremy Clarkeson era?

[the truth]

What you never heard men on TV making a women being bad drivers comment? Ever watched Top Gear the jeremy Clarkeson era?
When was that said, years ago no doubt...Ive heard infinitely worse said about men and said all the time every day/...we get male hate 24/7 in this country on the tv especially , loose women is a daily dose of misandry and no one dare say a word in protest. andry gray makes a meaningless joke about a lineswoman off air and loses his job and his home
double standards

this comment by rylance is prodoundly sexist totally anti male misandrist, generalizing that all men are inferior to all women in the field of opposing anything? that is generalized stereotyped sexism and if said by a man about a woman he would be kicked off the show.

[Marsh.]

It's absolutely disgusting.

White, young, middle class, straight males are absolutely the victims of society.

Everyone else has it easy.

[the truth]

It's absolutely disgusting.

White, young, middle class, straight males are absolutely the victims of society.

Everyone else has it easy.

Sarcasm is still the lowest for of wit.

[Niamh.]

When was that said, years ago no doubt...Ive heard infinitely worse said about men and said all the time every day/...we get male hate 24/7 in this country on the tv especially , loose women is a daily dose of misandry and no one dare say a word in protest. andry gray makes a meaningless joke about a lineswoman off air and loses his job and his home
double standards

this comment by rylance is prodoundly sexist totally anti male misandrist, generalizing that all men are inferior to all women in the field of opposing anything? that is generalized stereotyped sexism and if said by a man about a woman he would be kicked off the show.

yes poor discriminated against men, especially the straight white ones, so much hardship and struggle they've had to endure

[Niamh.]

lol snap Marsh

[the truth]

yes poor discriminated against men, especially the straight white ones, so much hardship and struggle they've had to endure

Heartless as always. yes I'm sure the fact male suicides are at an all time high, at nearly 5 times the rate of women in western society is a source of great amusement to you. that's before we factor in the billions more spent on womens health and support networks, the 80%+ divorce settlements which take the children and family home and half his lifes income from the estranged broken hearted father. Yes hilarious? Where is your compassion?

[Niamh.]

Heartless as always. yes I'm sure the fact male suicides are at an all time high, at nearly 5 times the rate of women in western society is a source of great amusement to you. that's before we factor in the billions more spent on womens health and support networks, the 80%+ divorce settlements which take the children and family home and half his lifes income from the estranged broken hearted father. Yes hilarious? Where is your compassion?

I've saved up my compassion for when I speak to someone who's genuinely interested in a discussion and not just pushing their anti woman agenda

[the truth]

I've saved up my compassion for when I speak to someone who's genuinely interested in a discussion and not just pushing their anti woman agenda

What a heartless reply. This is Pro men , not anti women, thats the key difference you refuse to acknowledge because you dont care. Ive yet to witness any compassion for men on any thread, even ones Im not involved in. You have shown zero empathy , sympathy or interest in male issues and simply try to derail all threads. Even the threads detailing the 80 million working class men killed in world wars, didnt hear a pip out of you

[Jack_]

:joker:

Is this real life?

[Niamh.]

What a heartless reply. This is Pro men , not anti women, thats the key difference you refuse to acknowledge because you dont care. Ive yet to witness any compassion for men on any thread, even ones Im not involved in. You have shown zero empathy , sympathy or interest in male issues and simply try to derail all threads. Even the threads detailing the 80 million working class men killed in world wars, didnt hear a pip out of you

Calm down truth you sound hysterical.

Now you and I both know that isn't true, i have actually spoken to you about certain mens issues, ones that i have personal experience in especially like fathers Rights. I have no problem accepting if something is sexist against men, infact my first and second posts on this thread actually state that. What I have an issue with is every single time you turn it into a competition and make it us against them which is very unhelpful to- I was going to say your cause but we both know that's not actually what your real cause is, don't we?

Now I've given you enough play time, you're welcome though

[thesheriff443]

On this forum we are all equal, once you realise that then you will have a far better time on here.
For the record I don't knock people for what they believe in.

[the truth]

Calm down truth you sound hysterical.

Now you and I both know that isn't true, i have actually spoken to you about certain mens issues, ones that i have personal experience in especially like fathers Rights. I have no problem accepting if something is sexist against men, infact my first and second posts on this thread actually state that. What I have an issue with is every single time you turn it into a competition and make it us against them which is very unhelpful to- I was going to say your cause but we both know that's not actually what you real cause is, don't we?

Now I've given you enough play time, you're welcome though

Glad youve offered a more sincere reply after your previous frivolous ones.

[Livia]

You do love to reword things and stuff them back in the mouthes of others to make them seem worse, Livia. It's almost like you're TRYING to take more offense than is on offer.

I have never suggested that anyone is stupid just because they are religious. I think that there is a fair basis for believing in an unknown, generalised higher power beyond human comprehension (that might be called a "god") if one is so inclined.

Now what I think you're referring to...

Is the fact that I have stated repeatedly, and maintain 100% as my opinion, that belief in and following of an organised human religion is illogical, and is usually based in either parental indoctrination or trauma (or both) rather than objective reasoning.

If you feel the need to continue to dumb that statement down to fit your agenda, then feel free to continue to do so, and I'll continue to post the correction.

One man's "dumbing down" is another man's paraphrasing. Or indeed... womans.

Saying that organised religion is illogical and based on parental indoctrination... that's me you're referring to. And while you have never said outright that I am stupid, I just summed it up for you. I can't be illogical and intoctrinated... and intelligent. Non believers don't understand faith. Faith is indescribable, like love. You know it when you feel it but you can't explain it.

Aaaanyhoo... back to the topic...

[user104658]

Saying that organised religion is illogical and based on parental indoctrination... that's me you're referring to. And while you have never said outright that I am stupid, I just summed it up for you. I can't be illogical and intoctrinated... and intelligent.

On the contrary I would say that you are very intelligent, and therefore a prime example that when it comes to something as psychologically and culturally ingrained as religion, a person CAN be illogical, indoctrinated... and intelligent.

You know it when you feel it but you can't explain it.

Or to paraphrase... "It is illogical".

[the truth]

most great scientists were religious

[Marsh.]

most great scientists were religious

"Most"?

How do you know that? Are there statistics?

[Withano]

Well, thetruth did repremand Marshy, yes. And then TS, Withano and thesheriff all piled in to have a little pop... even though the post wasn't directed at them at all. And that's the way it seems to go. Calling someone blasphemous is small fry to the ridicule people with faith put up with on here. I mean, how can intelligent people believe in God? They must be stupid or something...

Anyhoo, sorry for guiding this off-topic.

Since when were we only supposed to reply to posts that was directed towards only us. Its an open discussion on a public forum.

[Withano]

The most popular thread on TiBB right now is by a bloke who wants compassion for all men because some other bloke said that women were better than blokes at opposing. Because this is sexist apparently, and all men have suffered greatly at the hands of this man-hating Mark man.

Its time to delete TiBB

[Withano]

Its time to delete TiBB

Then again, the search function works very well.

BUT uber have a google spin doctor nw promoting them, she was god parent to david camerons late child ivan. you couldn't make this stuff up..

Cant believe this sort of blasphemy is allowed.

[Kizzy]

On the contrary I would say that you are very intelligent, and therefore a prime example that when it comes to something as psychologically and culturally ingrained as religion, a person CAN be illogical, ;indoctrinated... and intelligent.



Or to paraphrase... "It is illogical".

:clap1: :clap1: :clap1:

[Marsh.]

she was god parent to david camerons late child ivan.

she was god parent to david camerons late child ivan.

she was god parent to david camerons late child ivan.

she was god parent to david camerons late child ivan.

god

:eek:





There's a capital "G" in God, btw. :idc:

[Vicky.]

yes poor discriminated against men, especially the straight white ones, so much hardship and struggle they've had to endure

You made me snort tea ffs. This is becoming a habit :laugh:

The comment about scientists being religious though...erm...don't science and religion kinda clash in many vital areas? I cannot imagine a scientist being overly religious tbh

This thread is actually quite hilarious. And all because of a throwaway comment some guy made.

[Kizzy]

For clarification on my view of the subject, not having a religion does not equal not having faith. I'm not atheist nor am I agnostic.

Opposing things is equal between the sexes, as we are first socialised and then conditioned as to what we oppose to as a basis for our views. Whether they be cultural, social, moral or spiritual.

[the truth]

You made me snort tea ffs. This is becoming a habit :laugh:

The comment about scientists being religious though...erm...don't science and religion kinda clash in many vital areas? I cannot imagine a scientist being overly religious tbh

This thread is actually quite hilarious. And all because of a throwaway comment some guy made.

most scientists over history are religious and they see no conflict. it's called faith. do your homework

[Kizzy]

most scientists over history are religious and they see no conflict. it's called faith. do your homework

Do yours, you're confusing faith and belief in the possibility of a god with religious observance.

[user104658]

most scientists over history are religious and they see no conflict. it's called faith. do your homework

Fake news.

Historical scientists generally were publicly religious because society was pretty harsh on "Heretics", and also, because academic institutions were often intertwined with religious bodies and they essentially wouldn't have been able to fund their careers if they were openly non-religious or agnostic.

If you're talking about more modern scientists you are also misinformed. Many have expressed a general belief in a creator / spirituality surrounding "the universe" but, again, endlessly, AGAIN, this is not the same thing as following an organised religion. Belief in an "unknown" god is not necessarily illogical. Following a human religious doctrine is.

You might be referring to the very common misconception that Einstein was a Christian. He was not. This generally comes from his "God does not play dice" type comments. Einstein was an agnostic and having just looked it up, he eloquently states my exact thinking on the issue:

The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.

Ultimate :clap1:. Human religions seek to explain a concept that is so far beyond human comprehension that we can't even begin to contemplate it, let alone explain it. Human religion is borne of fear of the unknown, and arrogance.

[Kizzy]

And control...you forgot control.

[the truth]

Do yours, you're confusing faith and belief in the possibility of a god with religious observance.

no you are and you haven't done your homework

[the truth]

Fake news.

Historical scientists generally were publicly religious because society was pretty harsh on "Heretics", and also, because academic institutions were often intertwined with religious bodies and they essentially wouldn't have been able to fund their careers if they were openly non-religious or agnostic.

If you're talking about more modern scientists you are also misinformed. Many have expressed a general belief in a creator / spirituality surrounding "the universe" but, again, endlessly, AGAIN, this is not the same thing as following an organised religion. Belief in an "unknown" god is not necessarily illogical. Following a human religious doctrine is.

You might be referring to the very common misconception that Einstein was a Christian. He was not. This generally comes from his "God does not play dice" type comments. Einstein was an agnostic and having just looked it up, he eloquently states my exact thinking on the issue:



Ultimate :clap1:. Human religions seek to explain a concept that is so far beyond human comprehension that we can't even begin to contemplate it, let alone explain it. Human religion is borne of fear of the unknown, and arrogance.

no that's you're form of atheism you're describing

[Livia]

It's a pointless discussion. If you don't have faith then you don't understand what it is. If you don't understand what it is, people who have it must be indoctrinated. There's no point in a discussion where one side isn't listening to the other.

[user104658]

no that's you're form of atheism you're describing

It is a direct quote from Albert Einstein :idc:.

[user104658]

It's a pointless discussion. If you don't have faith then you don't understand what it is

How convenient.

[Livia]

How convenient.

No, actually it's tediously inconvenient.

I've mentioned my cousin before... devoutly religious and a physicist at Cambridge Uni. People have actually told me on this forum that he probably isn't really religious, how could he be? Knowing all that he knows. He can't be a scientist and believe in God! He must be stupid... with his silly PhD.

[user104658]

No, actually it's tediously inconvenient.

I've mentioned my cousin before... devoutly religious and a physicist at Cambridge Uni. People have actually told me on this forum that he probably isn't really religious, how could he be? Knowing all that he knows. He can't be a scientist and believe in God! He must be stupid... with his silly PhD.

You're oversimplifying to put words in people's mouthes again Livia. Belief in god (which is what I would call faith?) and observing and following an organised human religion are not the same thing. The former is not inherently irrational but the latter is.

As I said before, I'll continue to correct you every time you (deliberately...) misrepresent this stance.

[user104658]

Also, to clarify further, no one is disputing that SOME scientists follow a religion. Who has said that? What is being disputed is "Truth"'s claim that;

most great scientists were religious

Because it is fake news. It is false. It is a lie or a misunderstanding of the facts. Full stop.

[Livia]

You're oversimplifying to put words in people's mouthes again Livia. Belief in god (which is what I would call faith?) and observing and following an organised human religion are not the same thing. The former is not inherently irrational but the latter is.

As I said before, I'll continue to correct you every time you (deliberately...) misrepresent this stance.

I always look forward to you poppin on to tell me where I'm going wrong, TS. Thing is, I'm not much interested in your stance. You're FAR more interested in mine.

[user104658]

I always look forward to you poppin on to tell me where I'm going wrong, TS. Thing is, I'm not much interested in your stance. You're FAR more interested in mine.

I'm well aware that you're not interested in my stance Livia, that's evident from the fact that you insist on repeatedly rewriting it in your own words to fit your own worldview and to fit the point that you're trying to make. What is really tedious is having to constantly point out your misquotes :nono:. But I will continue to do so, nonetheless.

[the truth]

Also, to clarify further, no one is disputing that SOME scientists follow a religion. Who has said that? What is being disputed is "Truth"'s claim that;



Because it is fake news. It is false. It is a lie or a misunderstanding of the facts. Full stop.
the majority over history have been religious. do your homework

[Livia]

I'm well aware that you're not interested in my stance Livia, that's evident from the fact that you insist on repeatedly rewriting it in your own words to fit your own worldview and to fit the point that you're trying to make. What is really tedious is having to constantly point out your misquotes :nono:. But I will continue to do so, nonetheless.

If you interpret someone's words, it's your interpretation. If someone else interprets your words, they're putting words in your mouth.

You don't believe in God and need constantly to question those who do, to talk about indoctrination and and how illogical it all is. I say, if you don't have faith you don't understand... you call that "convenient".

I believe in God and believe that relationship is strictly between Him and me. I don't care whether someone else does or doesn't believe. I don't want to recruit you, I don't want to persuade you that you're wrong and I'm right. I would just like you to try to understand that my religious belief is mine and if you don't buy it... fine.

[Kizzy]

You're oversimplifying to put words in people's mouthes again Livia. Belief in god (which is what I would call faith?) and observing and following an organised human religion are not the same thing. The former is not inherently irrational but the latter is.

As I said before, I'll continue to correct you every time you (deliberately...) misrepresent this stance.

100% agree here, personally I would say that those who identify as having a belief system without subscribing to a religion are at a serious disadvantage, as they can't piously attend whichever branch of whatever religion on prescribed days, whilst the rest of the time turn a blind eye to issues that could at best be described as inhumanity.

For me that is illogical.

[Kizzy]

If you interpret someone's words, it's your interpretation. If someone else interprets your words, they're putting words in your mouth.

You don't believe in God and need constantly to question those who do, to talk about indoctrination and and how illogical it all is. I say, if you don't have faith you don't understand... you call that "convenient".

I believe in God and believe that relationship is strictly between Him and me. I don't care whether someone else does or doesn't believe. I don't want to recruit you, I don't want to persuade you that you're wrong and I'm right. I would just like you to try to understand that my religious belief is mine and if you don't buy it... fine.

'Saying that organised religion is illogical and based on parental indoctrination... that's me you're referring to. And while you have never said outright that I am stupid, I just summed it up for you.'

Or... You actually did put words in his mouth?

[the truth]

'Saying that organised religion is illogical and based on parental indoctrination... that's me you're referring to. And while you have never said outright that I am stupid, I just summed it up for you.'

Or... You actually did put words in his mouth?

no. he did

[Kizzy]

no. he did

Did he suggest he was called stupid?... I must have missed that.

[the truth]

Did he suggest he was called stupid?... I must have missed that.

he?

[Vicky.]

no. he did

I believe that is He with a capital H :hmph:

[Livia]

'Saying that organised religion is illogical and based on parental indoctrination... that's me you're referring to. And while you have never said outright that I am stupid, I just summed it up for you.'

Or... You actually did put words in his mouth?

Why are you chiming in at this late stage? TS definitely doesn't need a spokesperson.

[Kizzy]

Late stage? I was the 4th person to comment in the thread. You had your input into truths grievance and the whole religion/faith issue... now I'm having mine.
I'm not attempting to be anyones spokesperson.

[Livia]

100% agree here, personally I would say that those who identify as having a belief system without subscribing to a religion are at a serious disadvantage, as they can't piously attend whichever branch of whatever religion on prescribed days, whilst the rest of the time turn a blind eye to issues that could at best be described as inhumanity.

For me that is illogical.

For fear of being accused of putting words in your mouth, perhaps you'd like to explain what you mean exactly? Are ALL followers of organised religions "pious" and turning a blind eye to inhamanity? Because your post looks like it's referring to them all. But I acknowledge it was probably just said to provoke a reaction as usual. Whilst at the same time, you're singling out people like yourself, who claim to have a belief system - Wicca, wasn't it? - as being "at a serious disadvantage". What kind of disadvantage do you believe you are at, exactly?

[Livia]

Late stage? I was the 4th person to comment in the thread. You had your input into truths grievance and the whole religion/faith issue... now I'm having mine.
I'm not attempting to be anyones spokesperson.

No, of course not. It took you quite a long time to reply though... you started to reply, logged out, returned and posted. Thanks for taking the trouble.

[Kizzy]

For fear of being accused of putting words in your mouth, perhaps you'd like to explain what you mean exactly? Are ALL followers of organised religions "pious" and turning a blind eye to inhamanity? Because your post looks like it's referring to them all. But I acknowledge it was probably just said to provoke a reaction as usual. Whilst at the same time, you're singling out people like yourself, who claim to have a belief system - Wicca, wasn't it? - as being "at a serious disadvantage". What kind of disadvantage do you believe you are at, exactly?

:laugh: I had to fact check you then and in 2013 I actually did say that well done... only because it wasn't on the list tbh :joker:

The disadvantage of not being able to act/think/ in a hateful manner and believe that because they subscribe to a religion they are morally absolved.

By no means was it said to provoke a reaction, this is how I feel on the subject, that some by no means all simply pay lip service to a religion.

[Kizzy]

No, of course not. It took you quite a long time to reply though... you started to reply, logged out, returned and posted. Thanks for taking the trouble.

Are you stalking me? :/

[Livia]

Are you stalking me? :/

God, no...

[Kizzy]

Blasphemy :nono:

[Livia]

I find God has quite a good sense of humour. I don't think it'd worry him, considering the rest of the sh1t that's going on in the world.

[user104658]

If you interpret someone's words, it's your interpretation. If someone else interprets your words, they're putting words in your mouth.

You don't believe in God and need constantly to question those who do, to talk about indoctrination and and how illogical it all is. I say, if you don't have faith you don't understand... you call that "convenient".

I believe in God and believe that relationship is strictly between Him and me. I don't care whether someone else does or doesn't believe. I don't want to recruit you, I don't want to persuade you that you're wrong and I'm right. I would just like you to try to understand that my religious belief is mine and if you don't buy it... fine.
I don't "need" to constantly question people but I do find it interesting. No one is forcing you to talk about it, Livia... :shrug:. You could just not.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Marsh.]

I believe that is He with a capital H :hmph:

:joker: :joker: :joker:

[Withano]

I believe that is He with a capital H :hmph:

:joker: