Reasons why women are atheists....

[Mighty AC]

What I find astounding is that there are no women weighing on this thread and this thread is directed towards women! Perhaps I could be wrong because I am not familiar enough with the names but it clearly looks like a male majority. I just found this thread so I need to collect my thoughts on what this thread is all about. I need to figure out if it is important enough for us women to respond to. As an athiest, I don't believe religion helps women in today's society, but I also have many friends and relatives who are deeply religious. Where are the women who can weigh in on this thread? This is a big problem with this site, there are not enough women.

It's big problem with politics, leadership and the world in general. I think we would advance much faster if we had more women at the helm.

[WestCoastRunner]

The only possible stereotype that I can detect was that women are less likely to seek confrontation than men.

I would beg to differ on this. Check your local community church. Women are increasingly leaving the church behind and bringing their children along.

[carepov]

Strawman. No one made such a claim. No one said that a lack of or a lower than average level of religion is a necessary and sufficient condition for an ideal society. That is obviously a preposterous claim. Many factors are required or helpful to achieve what we could consider an "ideal" society, and a lower level of religiosity is only one among many.

You are making the claim that I am arguing against: I do not think that a reduction in the level of religiosity in most Western countries would necessarily improve society. I feel strongly about this issue because I think that vocal anti-theists (I am not suggesting that you are one) make society worse as they increase intollerance and also feed the religious extremist views that "secular society is out to get them".

[carepov]

They are irrational and unreasonable. That's not a stereotype. I've explained several times that I view people that strongly hold on to any belief without evidence as irrational and unreasonable. That behaviour is generally harmful to society and in that I don't make a special case for the religious or "spiritual". In that regard I view the religious no different than those that believe in homeopathy, astrology or feng shui. I have a friend/teammate who is an atheist that totally believes in the healing powers of reiki. I call him irrational and unreasonable all the time but I usually phrase it more like "You're an effn' wing nut!"

"I'm like not religious, but l'm like totally spiritual."

"Oh yeah? I'm not honest but you're interesting."

OK fine, every single human being is sometimes irrational and unreasonable, religious or not. "Falling in love" is not rational. Road rage is not rational. Excessive gambling, drinking, etc... is not rational.

I would say religious people are about as irrational as non-religious people.

[WestCoastRunner]

I feel strongly about this issue because I think that vocal anti-theists (I am not suggesting that you are one) make society worse as they increase intollerance and also feed the religious extremist views that "secular society is out to get them".

I am confused. Does anti-theists mean athiests? I need to know more so I can argue intelligently.

[Bonam]

You are making the claim that I am arguing against: I do not think that a reduction in the level of religiosity in most Western countries would necessarily improve society. I feel strongly about this issue because I think that vocal anti-theists (I am not suggesting that you are one) make society worse as they increase intollerance and also feed the religious extremist views that "secular society is out to get them".

Ok, but your examples were not a strong argument against that claim, since the nations you mentioned have significant problems that have nothing to do with the presence of or lack of religion. I tend to agree that vocal anti-theists are not helpful to making society better, and are not even helpful in reducing the influence of religion, for much the same reasons you do. When people hold a religious belief, having that belief aggressively attacked from the outside is only likely to make them hold to it all the more, adopting a bunker mentality. The way to combat religion is to slowly let it wither away and die as it loses relevance in our lives.

[Michael Hardner]

OK fine, every single human being is sometimes irrational and unreasonable, religious or not. "Falling in love" is not rational. Road rage is not rational. Excessive gambling, drinking, etc... is not rational.

I would say religious people are about as irrational as non-religious people.

I would agree, but I also think it's impossible to separate religiosity with other factors. And... I think it's impossible to assess the question, generally, over different cultures so I just let it be. I acknowledge the positive force that religion had in shaping the moral foundations of our society, and I value the special rights and special place that is has, owing to that tradition.

[Michael Hardner]

I am confused. Does anti-theists mean athiests? I need to know more so I can argue intelligently.

The term 'atheist' is itself problematic and a source of constant debate.

Many atheists seem to use the term almost interchangeably with agnostics. I have a friend who calls herself atheist who believes that gods and spirits live among us, but not "one god".

I think a better line is drawn between those who are convinced without any real evidence, and those who need evidence to believe. I don't know what banner these groups should carry, though.

[Mighty AC]

I would say religious people are about as irrational as non-religious people.

Except that the religious believe in one or more supernatural beings without evidence. Many then go on to carry out rituals to honour or please these magical entities. I'd say that religious people are about as irrational as non-religious people who also hold a strong belief in beings or concepts that cannot be demonstrated. Like people who believe in faeries or astrology.

[Mighty AC]

However, if we were really to compare levels of unreasonable behaviour, we would probably also have to consider the time spent indulging these irrationalities. Starting with the religious, on one hand we have roughly 30% of Canadians that identify themselves as belonging to a religion but also do not hold a belief in gods. I'd say these people are not irrational, but just confused about the terminology.

On the other end of the religious spectrum there are extremists, fundamentalists, literalists, creationists, etc. These people are about as irrational as it gets. These are the people pushing for religion in science class, denying evolution, protesting funerals, claiming the earth is less than 10,000 years old and making Pat Robertson an uber wealthy man.

Then in the middle there are people that don't try to deny scientific evidence but still turn out semi-regularly at buildings specially designed for communicating with gods. While there they spend an hour or two engaging in rituals designed to please their chosen magic being, like speaking words of praise in unison, singing songs, eating crackers, making wishes and listening to a man tell them how the supernatural entity wants them to behave.

Even that average, "normal" religious behaviour is likely still more irrational than the people who spend 5 minutes reading about how today's alignment of the planets will influence their personal lives, based on their birth month. Both practices are irrational, just not equally so.

[carepov]

I am confused. Does anti-theists mean athiests? I need to know more so I can argue intelligently.

No, on an earlier thread we discussed anti-theists. My understanding was that anti-theists are oposed to other people's religious beleifs, usually vocally. The above post by AC is a good example. Christopher Hitchens is probably the most famous example

[carepov]

Ok, but your examples were not a strong argument against that claim, since the nations you mentioned have significant problems that have nothing to do with the presence of or lack of religion. I tend to agree that vocal anti-theists are not helpful to making society better, and are not even helpful in reducing the influence of religion, for much the same reasons you do. When people hold a religious belief, having that belief aggressively attacked from the outside is only likely to make them hold to it all the more, adopting a bunker mentality. The way to combat religion is to slowly let it wither away and die as it loses relevance in our lives.

We agree more than we disagree. I think that most significant problems have nothing to do with presence of or lack of religion. And therefore (except in extremist circumstances) there is no need to "combat religion".

[Mighty AC]

How would you define extreme? Do you find the level of religiosity in Canadian and especially US politics to be extreme? Is it a problem when lawmakers believe that their god is angered by homosexuals and hence creates natural disasters as punishment? Or, more specific to this thread, how about when a top Republican tells the American people that women should be submissive to their husbands as her god instructs?

In my opinion, it is dangerous when people in positions of power harbour such delusional beliefs. Bad ideas can do real harm to people if not countered. Hence we need to combat the religious, along with conspiracy theorists, truthers, birthers, vaccine nuts and all other groups that spread delusional ideas not backed by evidence.

[carepov]

How would you define extreme? Do you find the level of religiosity in Canadian and especially US politics to be extreme? Is it a problem when lawmakers believe that their god is angered by homosexuals and hence creates natural disasters as punishment? Or, more specific to this thread, how about when a top Republican tells the American people that women should be submissive to their husbands as her god instructs?

In my opinion, it is dangerous when people in positions of power harbour such delusional beliefs. Bad ideas can do real harm to people if not countered. Hence we need to combat the religious, along with conspiracy theorists, truthers, birthers, vaccine nuts and all other groups that spread delusional ideas not backed by evidence.

Religious beleifs/actions should be challenged when they are harmful, like if they violate other peoples rights. I also opose proselytizing as much as I opose telemarketing.

IMO religion has virtualy no influence in Canadian politcs. There are some extremists in US politics but most are adequately marginalized.

If secular society was more welcoming to moderate religious beleivers I think that religious extremists would have less influence.

Edited March 28, 2014 by carepov

[WestCoastRunner]

IMO religion has virtualy no influence in Cnadian politcs.

From Bible Bill to Stephen Harper:

A recent study of grants awarded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), by a political scientist at the University of Quebec, found that money allocated to religious non-profit groups increased 42 per cent between 2005-10, compared to a rise of five per cent for secular NGOs.

As well, for the first time, millions of federal dollars have been funnelled into private Christian colleges and universities through the government's Knowledge Infrastructure Program.

What did you say? religion has no influence on canadian politics?????

[WestCoastRunner]

Here's a very interesting article in the Huffington Post. The points are below but it can be read here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/jimmy-carter-religion-women_n_5028595.html

Jimmy Carter's new book "A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power' addresses the issue of religions that use scripture to trample on women's rights. Former President Jimmy Carter is issuing a call to action for religions to stop using scripture to trample on women's rights.

Jimmy Carter did leave the Southern Baptist Church be longed to when they voted that women must be subservient to their husbands in 2012, a ruling that went against his commitment to gender equality. He maintains a strong Baptist faith and attends a Baptist church where a woman served as pastor and his wife is a deacon. "Everybody is equal in the eyes of God," he said.

[carepov]

From Bible Bill to Stephen Harper:

A recent study of grants awarded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), by a political scientist at the University of Quebec, found that money allocated to religious non-profit groups increased 42 per cent between 2005-10, compared to a rise of five per cent for secular NGOs.

As well, for the first time, millions of federal dollars have been funnelled into private Christian colleges and universities through the government's Knowledge Infrastructure Program.

What did you say? religion has no influence on canadian politics?????

How much actual money are we talking about?

[WestCoastRunner]

I'm not sure how much but that really isn't the point. Here is the article. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/from-bible-bill-to-stephen-harper-the-evolution-of-faith-based-politics-1.1369490

[On Guard for Thee]

Anybody checked out the CAMA (Christian and Missionary Alliance) That's what Harper belongs to. Now then, recall that old adage about "if one person believes somthing they know isn't true it's mental retardation, if many believe it's a cult, and if many more believe it's called religion" Was it religion that stopped wars, or that started them?

[-1=e^ipi]

Clearly the answer to this question is the patriarchy. The patriarchy prevents women from becoming atheists and atheists are clearly sexist against women. Because as you know, any difference between the outcomes of the sexes must be due to sexism and the patriarchy.

/end feminist response

*( I believe that is an actual scientific fact. I know Waldo will demand a cite on that and I apologize in advance for not having it.).

Citation request.

Yeah, this isn't a serious post.

[-1=e^ipi]

My position is that we should not divide people along religious and non-religious lines. Religious people deserve as much respect as non-religious people. Religion has been, and continues to be used both positively and negatively.

I'm not sure I understand why 'we' should not occasionally divide people along religious and non-religious lines. People divide people into various groups based on age, sex, sexual-orientation, ethnicity, education level, languages spoken, etc.

On the respect issue, just be careful about distinguishing between respecting an individual, acting respectfully and respecting a belief.

Because I want to refute any notions along the lines of: if we just got rid of religion then we would reduce x

Where x is: "human rights violations", "sexism", "domestic violence", "stupidity", etc...

Religion in general or any religion? Obviously some religions are very sexist, etc. and if those specific religions were abolished, society would have less sexism, homophobia, etc.

I don't think I am stereotyping the religious. Many very large religious sects are blatantly misogynistic. I simply said that those bullied by their religion, like women and homosexuals are by many sects, should leave religion behind at a greater rate than those who are favoured by those same sects. The only possible stereotype that I can detect was that women are less likely to seek confrontation than men.

I'm unsure how accurate this premise is. Perhaps individuals from these groups (women & homosexuals) feel marginalized enough that they would rather not have even greater marginalization by rejecting their society's religion compared to less marginalized groups (heterosexual men)? I do not think that larger marginalization necessarily implies a greater willingness to want even more marginalization.

If atheism is superior, then as per social Darwinism, it should have been adopted by the most successful societies, no?

No... where have you read this claim? Who is making such a claim and why?

I feel strongly about this issue because I think that vocal anti-theists (I am not suggesting that you are one) make society worse as they increase intollerance and also feed the religious extremist views that "secular society is out to get them".

It's not intolerance, it is unacceptance. There is a difference.

OK fine, every single human being is sometimes irrational and unreasonable, religious or not. "Falling in love" is not rational. Road rage is not rational. Excessive gambling, drinking, etc... is not rational.

There is a difference between an irrational believe and irrational behaviour.

[-1=e^ipi]

We agree more than we disagree. I think that most significant problems have nothing to do with presence of or lack of religion. And therefore (except in extremist circumstances) there is no need to "combat religion".

There is always a need to combat delusions and claims without sufficient evidence. Lack of skepticism is unhealthy for society.

I also opose proselytizing as much as I opose telemarketing.

As an atheist (I would even label myself a 'New Atheist'), I do not understand this position. If a religious person believes that they have truth about reality and that they can use this truth to save people from eternal torture, then why wouldn't they try to convert people? Should they not care about the infidels?

IMO religion has virtualy no influence in Canadian politcs. There are some extremists in US politics but most are adequately marginalized.

"Canada is founded on principles that recognize the supremacy of God", "God keep our land", "in God we trust", "one nation under God". Tell me, how many presidents or prime ministers have been non-religious (let alone atheist)? 0? Maybe Thomas Jefferson? Oh but Christian revisionist history has long convinced people that Canada and US were founded as Christian nations.

If secular society was more welcoming to moderate religious beleivers I think that religious extremists would have less influence.

What deluded version of reality do you live under? Moderate religious people are the majority and hold the power in Canada. For the US, the moderates and the extremists are about equal in number.

[iolo]

Mighty - Good point about the phlogiston. I was brought up by a parson and an atheist (two persons) however, and find it difficult, now, to believe that anyone really believes in theism, as opposed to finding it either comforting or profitable to pretend to. I need greater faith, evidently!

[carepov]

From Bible Bill to Stephen Harper:

A recent study of grants awarded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), by a political scientist at the University of Quebec, found that money allocated to religious non-profit groups increased 42 per cent between 2005-10, compared to a rise of five per cent for secular NGOs.

As well, for the first time, millions of federal dollars have been funnelled into private Christian colleges and universities through the government's Knowledge Infrastructure Program.

What did you say? religion has no influence on canadian politics?????

I'm not sure how much but that really isn't the point. Here is the article. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/from-bible-bill-to-stephen-harper-the-evolution-of-faith-based-politics-1.1369490

Of course the amount of money matters. First of all if religious NGO funding went from $1 million to $1.42 million (42% increase) and secular funding went from $10 million to $10.5 million (5% increase) there would still be more money added for secular NGOs. Secondly, to discuss if religion has a significant influence we need to know how much money we are talking about, what percentage of CIDA's budget are we talking about?

But forgetting the money, this issue points directly to one on my main points - who cares weather or not an NGO (or individual) is religious or secular? The work of NGOs should be evaluated based on objective criteria and those groups that best meet the criteria (or have the best potential/plan) should get the most funding. All the same criteria and rules should be applied equally. Most NGOs do great work and the last think I want to see is an increased division or bickering between religious and secular NGOs.

[carepov]

I'm not sure I understand why 'we' should not occasionally divide people along religious and non-religious lines. People divide people into various groups based on age, sex, sexual-orientation, ethnicity, education level, languages spoken, etc.

On the respect issue, just be careful about distinguishing between respecting an individual, acting respectfully and respecting a belief.

...

There is a difference between an irrational believe and irrational behaviour.

Agreed.

Religion in general or any religion? Obviously some religions are very sexist, etc. and if those specific religions were abolished, society would have less sexism, homophobia, etc.

Banning a religion? are you serious?

No... where have you read this claim? Who is making such a claim and why?

Many posts argue along the lines of: "once people come to their senses and start thinking critically then they will reject their religion and become secular" or "religion is holding back progress". These are the types of claims I am arguing against.