Why are atheists so threatened by Intelligent Design?

Radical Muslims do, yes

My theory is that God's omnipotence is bound to natural law as well as the social mores of the day and age (so god can reveal himself to people through a lot of venues, but it'd have to be in a language that the people of the era can understand)- nevertheless, to a human he's still omnipotent, since all things that a human can do, he can.

Okay...

 

OH PLEASE...you can't mean ONLY radical Muslims....sorry, but that is really putting on blinders ....read some of the posts discussing women's rights, abortion, relationships, etc....plenty of Bronze age ideas among present day people of all religions....there's still some who are so ignorant and backwards they believe that a husband is the head of the household...

 

Give me some real examples that aren't just hysteria as far as the legal system goes - legally women have the same rights as men, so "some guy on the internet" saying something mean doesn't hold a lot of water. In America women can't be stoned for being rape victims, or forced to marry their rapist, or prohibited from education, driving a car, holding a job, or denied medical care unless her husband gives approval

And if you think that not wanting it to be legal to abort a baby 1 second before delivery is "bronze age" well then that just shows where you're coming from.

What do you mean by "head of the household"? In the majority of families the male is the primary (or sole) source of income, so it's just going to follow that he's going to have "more say" when push comes to shove - not because he has a penis, but because he's the one putting food on the table

 

So you're saying that if a man earns money for his family he owns them.... you're saying the only person of value is the man...if his wife doesn't work but stays home and raises the kids and cleans the house , and takes them to soccer practice and the doctor and organizes the families social life, does the gift buyying, contacts the plumber, keeps the clothes clean, and do the cooking and shopping and have the pregnancies and babies that she can't possibly have enough value to be treated as an equal partner....

LOL, gee, YOU'RE not sexist....

 

He has more say due to his status as the sole source of income - he doesn't "own" anyone since no one's forced to stay in a relationship with him or have his kids if they think he's an intolerable bastard

No...

Did some little voice inside your head say this? Because I sure didn't

Realism isn't sexism. Blame it on evolution. More money = more power when it comes to decisions like what home or car to buy - men in general prefer careers to staying home, which is why even without sexist laws barring women from seeking education or holding jobs, more men than women choose to do it as a personal passion

That doesn't make one sex "superior" to the other, because that would be like saying Tiger Woods is a "better athlete" than Michael Jordan, or that an apple is a "better" fruit than an orange. It's just acknowledging the differences and natural talents in each sex which arise from evolution. Sorry if reality has a "sexist" bias.

 

That's what racists might say, "Sorry, if reality has a racist bias."

I guess you won't understand that unlike christians we don't value our loved ones on their monetary value....


How about those men who lost their jobs? Guess they are less than men now, huh?

How about those women who earn more than their husbands , are they the head of the household now?


How about those single women who do just fine without a "head of the household " to guide their poor little female selves...???

 

Well I'm a sexist!! Women have succeeded (at least in America for sure) in gaining most of the REAL power. Yes, it's about sex and how good of a living you can make without using it to your advantage to get exactly what you want. The smart, sexy women of the world have the REAL power.

 

There are immensely more biological differences between the sexes than races, pretty much the only noteworthy differences between races is pigment and bone structure - comparing sex to race is so stupid it's almost not worth replying to.

You seem to be confused - if the man's the primary source of income - that's got nothing to do with "valuing a person" (if he's willing to buy her a home, a car, etc - then he obviously values her - but he still has a lot more freedom to exercise his own decisions because of the relationship dynamics - if the woman doesn't want that type of relationship, then she's free to remain single, or start her own career - but most women seem to be fine without that).

Nope, but if a man has no income then he's going to have a lot less freedom when it comes to family financial matters - ex. if he's the sole source of income, then if he wants to buy himself an Xbox One for Christmas, or buy himself a new Camaro - then he can just go out and do it if he has the money - if he has no job though then ultimately he's going to need his wife's approval on that since she's the one holding the pocket book.

Men in general receive more life fulfillment than women in having this type of freedom due to biological differences

"How about those young earth creationist who do higher on IQ tests than some atheists"

Exceptions don't make the rule. Men in general are genetically programmed in such a way that they receive more personal fulfillment from going out and accomplishing stuff - women are able to receive personal satisfaction in a different way, which is why most women aren't as career oriented as men, and would prefer to be provided for. And no there's nothing wrong with that - the differences in the sexes are what make them interesting, instead of the big boring grey unisexual blob you wish it was

 

That last statement is so Bronze age....did you know this is the 21st century and those aren't exceptions....but you keep deluding yourself , and using god, to make yourself feel superior to 51% of the population...

Oh, and about 75% of married women work so those men sure aren't doing a very good job....and THEY only have to have a job, women with jobs do their job and all the househld work and have the babies....

 

I don't care about cultural excuses. My point is that the Bible is misogynistic, and any Christian sect that holds to any of these same ideas is also misogynistic. "It was different back then" doesn't change any of that.

 

Sorry if facts are bronze age - look at the statistics, they back me up, not you. According to your nonsense 50% of all engineers, computer programmers, corporate executives, Marine sergeants, etc would be women. And 50% of all registered nurses, teachers, social workers, etc would be men. The stats don't back that up

Yes they are. Vastly more men than women have careers (ex. jobs they are passionate about as a hobby, not just for a paycheck) - a lot more women are working due to the bad economy, but it's just a job to get by and provide for their child - not a career they're passionate about. Women get more satisfaction out of being provided for by their husband/boyfriend, and of providing for their offspring with their own hands - men get more satisfaction out of accomplishing goals. (This is a left brain/right brain difference, men are much more left-brained in general than women, so they get more fulfillment out of concrete things - women get more fulfillment out of abstract and emotional things).

I'm talking facts - you're so uneducated and warped I'm about to just put you on ignore - I'm losing brain cells just reading your emotional tirade. "God" has nothing to do with it, evolution is what determined the biological differences with the sexes - so you might as well become a creationists, because it's evolution you have a problem with

You also can't tell the difference between "superiority" and differences. Again that would be like saying Tiger Woods is a "superior" athlete than Michael Jordan - one sex can't be "superior" to the other since each is better at it's own thing (ex. Tiger Woods is obviously superior to Michael Jordan... at golf - but Michael Jordan is obviously superior at basketball).

The hard economic times has necessitated that more women get a jobs to supplement their husband's income - men in general get jobs because they have a huge drive and passion about it - women in general get jobs because they have to, not because they prefer it.

Right, that's the type of thing that brings women fulfillment - women tend to be more social and would prefer to spend time raising children with their own hands, men would prefer to go out, get a career, and support their child with income than with their own hands.

BTW, I hope your wife enjoyed the strap-on you bought her for Valentine's day.

 

Homer's Illiad is misogynistic, Shakespeare's works are misogynistic - I guess you think all copies of Homer and Shakespeare's work should be burned

 

Good points, but it goes even deeper than that because actually none of them are misogynistic. Men, women, and children had culturally assigned or approved roles that were gender specific. Misogyny means " a cultural attitude of hatred for females because they are female" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny That is not what any of those plays, books, or religious texts were about.

 

I think I already pointed out that actual hatred is not the only meaning of misogyny though.

 

Belief that women are 'inferior', or enacting laws which grant women less rights than men would be misogyny - pointing out actual facts (such as that women are physically weaker on average than men) isn't misogyny

 

When applied to things written hundreds or thousands of years ago the culture of the day wins out over modern interpretations. These sources were correct for their day and time regarding their portrayal of women. Bear in mind that I am not saying that these were treatments greatly to be desired.

 

And the last piece of ugly vulgarity, so common in christians and male heads of the house, shows you are getting desperate .....scared of having that pedestal you put yourself on shaken...

 

To op:

You do realize that there are atheists out there that are not concerned with things such as creationism, many of them just don't care because they are too busy with the running of their own lives just like your average everyday human being.

Atheists that are directly opposed to a 6000 year old earth are this way because they don't want their kids to be taught such things in school.

 

To op:

You do realize that there are atheists out there that are not concerned with things such as creationism, many of them just don't care because they are too busy with the running of their own lives just like your average everyday human being.

Atheists that are directly opposed to a 6000 year old earth are this way because they don't want their kids to be taught such things in school.

I got it.

Atheists go right, you go left.
Atheists go left, you go right.

 

I'm not going to deal nitwits who rebuff factual arguments, just to rant about "Christians/racists/blahblahblah" on a subject that they're ignorant of (you keep bringing up "Christianity" when we're discussing biology - your mind must be on Mars or somewhere) - so now I'm talking to you on a level you can understand

And yeah, I hope she enjoyed it - hope you did too

 

But you have other christians in here saying that these sources are the word of god and should apply today especially the dominance of men over women.

 

Because it's back wards if you think about it.

Why would a species evolve backward? To a weak furless pink creature

Monkey's are strong as Hell.

Evolution don'make sense

 

LOL! Thank you for presenting something I haven't read before...it's NEW, it's refreshing! It's DIFFERENT!...and every bit as funny as the whole ridiculous argument....

 

What word's writing a hundreds of thousand of year's ago?

 

Nope. I don't think that about the Bible, either. I see you and Paul have similar levels of aptitude for reading comprehension and conversation. And similar inability to be honest with your posts.

Anyway, if there were religions based off of the Illiad or any of Shakespeare's works, I'd call them misogynistic, too.