The Atheist's Problem With Females

[godlessgrrl]

Well, if ever I wondered whether or not Ray Comfort was a sexist jerk, my wondering has been answered.

 

All animals, all fish and reptiles have the ability to reproduce of their own kind because they have females within the species. No male can reproduce and keep its kind alive without a female of the same species. Dogs, cats, horses, cattle, elephants, humans, giraffes, lions, tigers, birds, fish, and reptiles all came into being having both male and female. If any species came into existence without a mature female present (with complimentary female components), that one male would have remained alone and in time died. The species could not have survived without a female. Why did hundreds of thousands of animals, fish, reptiles and birds (over millions of years) evolve a female partner (that coincidentally matured at just the right time) with each species?

 

Not only is he totally clueless about the evolutionary biology, but his tone here suggests that he considers a species to consist of its male members, with females being secondary or "complimentary" (as he puts it) - in other words, us chicks are an evolutionary afterthought that developed just so that males could reproduce.

 

I guess this isn't really surprising, considering that he's a proponent of a religion that places males at the center of the universe. God is male, the savior is male, all the main movers & shakers are male, the priesthood is exclusively male, males were made first, females were made from males...

 

What an androcentric asshole.

[Legion]

I am an atheist and I think

females are trouble.

They can say yes or no,

but if “no” it busts my bubble.

You really should collect these things instead of throwing them away. You have a lot in common with H.L. Menken.

I thank you for the thought

Shyone; I certainly do.

But I have something

I need to share with you.

 

I write my poems

and I do my best.

But I have no need

to store them in chests.

[John09]

Well, if ever I wondered whether or not Ray Comfort was a sexist jerk, my wondering has been answered.

 

All animals, all fish and reptiles have the ability to reproduce of their own kind because they have females within the species. No male can reproduce and keep its kind alive without a female of the same species. Dogs, cats, horses, cattle, elephants, humans, giraffes, lions, tigers, birds, fish, and reptiles all came into being having both male and female. If any species came into existence without a mature female present (with complimentary female components), that one male would have remained alone and in time died. The species could not have survived without a female. Why did hundreds of thousands of animals, fish, reptiles and birds (over millions of years) evolve a female partner (that coincidentally matured at just the right time) with each species?

 

Not only is he totally clueless about the evolutionary biology, but his tone here suggests that he considers a species to consist of its male members, with females being secondary or "complimentary" (as he puts it) - in other words, us chicks are an evolutionary afterthought that developed just so that males could reproduce.

 

I guess this isn't really surprising, considering that he's a proponent of a religion that places males at the center of the universe. God is male, the savior is male, all the main movers & shakers are male, the priesthood is exclusively male, males were made first, females were made from males...

 

What an androcentric asshole.

This is an excellent point. It only goes to show how much christian thinking is still ingrained in my mind that I did not already see this. When I read it again from the perspective you suggested, I could clearly see that his whole mode of thinking was male dominated. He assumes that the male sex is first and foremost, and that females are only second and complimentary.

 

Thank you for pointing this out.

[godlessgrrl]

Thank you for pointing this out.

 

You're welcome.

 

One of my biggest objections to Christianity is its androcentrism and inherent misogyny. I guess I notice it in part because, being female, I am on the receiving end of it, both in specific circumstances, and as a result of larger cultural attitudes (which are reinforced by religion).

 

Nothing to do with Ray Comfort, but an interesting little tangent: I write a blog about atheism, and just recently got the "you sound angry and unforgiving" line from a commenting Christbot. He also noted that I am apparently "not at all happy or peaceful". Oddly enough, out of all the posts I've written, he chose to leave his comments on an article in which I pointed out how misogynist Biblical roles are for women and rejected them for my misogyny.

 

I suspect that my commenter believes that my refusal to submit to religious denigration of my sex makes me angry, unforgiving, unhappy, and lacking in inner peace.

 

Go figure.

 

/digression

[Taphophilia]

When I read this I too thought it was horribly misogynistic. Female is the default and males are a specialized modification of female.

 

I would also like to point out that, historically, the study of human evolution has been misogynistic. The focus has been primarily on human males, their tools and hunting which does not fully explain reproductive success and natural selection.

[Shyone]

When I read this I too thought it was horribly misogynistic. Female is the default and males are a specialized modification of female.

 

I would also like to point out that, historically, the study of human evolution has been misogynistic. The focus has been primarily on human males, their tools and hunting which does not fully explain reproductive success and natural selection.

Good point. Quite frankly, it is obvious that females are generally in charge of reproduction, and therefore the success of the species. Men are but slaves, drones, useful attendants, and only rarely partners (since men are excessively controlled by their "members").

 

It is my pleasure to serve.

[OpheliaGinger]

Since women are the ones that control evolution, Comfort and his ilk should no longer get pussy.

[Guest I Love Dog]

Without giving away my age, I'm going to comment that Nature must have decided to have some fun, which is more than god-followers have ever allowed when it comes to procreation! Nature makes the opposite sex appealing and desirable, whatever creature you are.

 

The drive/desire for life forms on planet Earth to procreate is an intense and all-encompassing force and I can see why Christians sought to have control over this driving force. Without control, there would be unwanted and illegitimate babies everywhere! Such is the force of Mother Nature.

 

Even at my advanced age (without sounding "coarse" or perverted, and I'm not!) young women of child-bearing age are just so appealing! I have analized this, and researched this, and it's something that men(also perhaps women) don't have control over, except that they don't necessarily go along with the driving force!

 

Young women flaunt their child-bearing capacity without even realizing it. Beautifully-shaped breasts(perfect for feeding), gorgeous hips(perfect for child-bearing), their gorgeous smiles and "come to me" eyes, it's not something that they(or me) can help!

 

It's nature and we have learned to control our natural instincts(apart from a few degenerates). even into advanced age, males, at least, still want to find a female who will produce progeny for him. Just ask me!

 

Girls, I love you all!

[qec]

^^ To echo the above sentiment, Women rock.

 

 

But uhhhh, Comfort is a mysogonist fool and I get tired of of these kinds of people. I mean I know they "mean well" and all that shit but so does everyone, big deal. These guys need to get laid, probably by each other, jesus christ.

[ContraBardus]

This thread needs the crocoduck song! V >_< V

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90_sYazHoas

 

 

It pleases the Metal Gods.

[Vomit Comet]

If the Bible is just some big metaphor, then it ain't worth a shit as far I'm concerned. And the primitive shepherds that wrote that thing certianly took that shit deadly serious. How does something that was written and received (or at least received) in all seriousness back in the Old Testament days suddenly become "metaphoric" in our times?

 

Either take the thing as true whole-hog or use it as toilet paper.

[ContraBardus]

If the Bible is just some big metaphor, then it ain't worth a shit as far I'm concerned. And the primitive shepherds that wrote that thing certianly took that shit deadly serious. How does something that was written and received (or at least received) in all seriousness back in the Old Testament days suddenly become "metaphoric" in our times?

 

Either take the thing as true whole-hog or use it as toilet paper.

 

Through the magic of irrational obstinate over rationalization of course.

 

You can't be proved wrong. That just can't be, after all, -everyone- believes it! It must be right, it just needs a little tweaking so that reality fits the belief.

 

 

There, now it works. See?

[Guest ephymeris]

I find it odd that the writer of this article assumes that males are the original and females are the mutation when science proves just the opposite. The all powerful Y chromosome is thought to be a mutated (and is often referred to as withered) version of the X chromosome. The whole benefit of this mutation is genetic variance that provides us with the ability to adapt to our environment so we don't all die from the common cold and other banal perils. There is even concern in scientific circles that Y chromosomes are degenerating and becoming more scarce. Sounds like women aren't necessarily the weaker sex afterall!

 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090716201127.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050323124659.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090416125209.htm

[Neon Genesis]

If the Bible is just some big metaphor, then it ain't worth a shit as far I'm concerned. And the primitive shepherds that wrote that thing certianly took that shit deadly serious. How does something that was written and received (or at least received) in all seriousness back in the Old Testament days suddenly become "metaphoric" in our times?

 

Either take the thing as true whole-hog or use it as toilet paper.

But according to Karen Armstrong's book, The Case For God, fundamentalism is a modern invention that was created in reaction to the Enlightenment movement and this is pretty much the consensus view on biblical scholars that the biblical authors did not see themselves as writing divinely inspired scripture. Before the Enlightenment, the NT word for faith meant trust and was about actions and commitment to the church as an institution and it only came to be known as believing a correct set of beliefs in modern times. Even the early fundamentalist Christians originally had no problems with reconciling evolution with their faith. Fundamentalists apparently started to react more negatively to science after it started to become negatively associated with the Nazis.

 

Before then, fundamentalists were more concerned about secular scholarship and liberal Christianity which they saw as greater threats. The concept of interpreting religion through symbolism and metaphors is not a new postmodern liberal belief but it dates all the way back to Philo the Platonist and the ancient Jewish Greeks who thought reading the Hebrew bible literally was barbaric and applied Platonic philosophy to their interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures. But even among the ancient Isrealites, there was never a single universally accepted interpretation of scripture and were constantly revising their texts and updating their meaning to address their current times and issues.

 

Fundamentalism is only a recent development and the issue of religion's conflicts with science is more complex than what fundamentalists would like us to believe. If you haven't read them, I recommend checking out Armstrong's books and also her book The Bible-A Biography which are very informative and help put a lot of things about religious history into perspective.

[NotBlinded]

If the Bible is just some big metaphor, then it ain't worth a shit as far I'm concerned. And the primitive shepherds that wrote that thing certianly took that shit deadly serious. How does something that was written and received (or at least received) in all seriousness back in the Old Testament days suddenly become "metaphoric" in our times?

 

Either take the thing as true whole-hog or use it as toilet paper.

But according to Karen Armstrong's book, The Case For God, fundamentalism is a modern invention that was created in reaction to the Enlightenment movement and this is pretty much the consensus view on biblical scholars that the biblical authors did not see themselves as writing divinely inspired scripture. Before the Enlightenment, the NT word for faith meant trust and was about actions and commitment to the church as an institution and it only came to be known as believing a correct set of beliefs in modern times. Even the early fundamentalist Christians originally had no problems with reconciling evolution with their faith. Fundamentalists apparently started to react more negatively to science after it started to become negatively associated with the Nazis.

 

Before then, fundamentalists were more concerned about secular scholarship and liberal Christianity which they saw as greater threats. The concept of interpreting religion through symbolism and metaphors is not a new postmodern liberal belief but it dates all the way back to Philo the Platonist and the ancient Jewish Greeks who thought reading the Hebrew bible literally was barbaric and applied Platonic philosophy to their interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures. But even among the ancient Isrealites, there was never a single universally accepted interpretation of scripture and were constantly revising their texts and updating their meaning to address their current times and issues.

 

Fundamentalism is only a recent development and the issue of religion's conflicts with science is more complex than what fundamentalists would like us to believe. If you haven't read them, I recommend checking out Armstrong's books and also her book The Bible-A Biography which are very informative and help put a lot of things about religious history into perspective.

I believe that to be true myself. I haven't read any of Armstrong's books (I need to), but reading Campbell one is led to believe that any myth was never meant to be taken literally because in doing so, it kills the meaning. If it did actually happen, then so what? (I love his attitude!)

 

Mythological symbols come from the psyche of people and those symbols are trying to say something other than "a fish swallowed a man". I find that a book that was written with the intent of being taken literally is nothing but insane rantings. There would be no psychological overtones to it. If one were to take the bible literally, then indeed it is shit.

[Jedah]

Come to think of it, I have never once in my life seen a creation vs evolution debate that could be counted as such. Its always something close to the following format:

 

1. ) Creationist makes stupid claim\(s) based on an uneducated stance and\or misconception of what evolution actually is.

2. ) Creationist says evolution is false based on ridiculous claims from step 1. Therefore creationism is somehow automatically true.

3. ) Evolutionists steps in and points out that their data is false and attempts to educate the creationist.

4. ) Creationist makes more stupid claims.

5. ) Evolutionist educates.

6. ) Repeat Steps 5 and 6 until Creationist runs out of stuff to copy from apologetic sites and/or either party gets bored.

7. ) Creationist claims victory because the lard gawd is on there side.

8. ) Evolutionist facepalms in disbelief at how stupid someone can get.

 

 

Seriously. This is why I don't debate IDiots. Trying to explain evolution to a creationist is like trying to explain quantum physics to a kindergartner who's imaginary friend told him/her that you are a "meanie poo head."