Reasons why women are atheists....

carepov · March 28, 2014

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

There are so many delusions and claims without sufficient evidence out there where do you start. I say start with the harmful ones and leave the benign alone.

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?

That is not what most religious people beleive. IMO most religious people mhave a mixture of faith and doubt and keep their religion to themselves.

"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.

How does this point related to significant political influence?

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.

Again, I fail to see how your reply relates to mine. I am saying that the more that secular societ accepts moderates, the less influence extemists will have. Even Bonam agreed with me on this one.

carepov · March 28, 2014

Was it religion that stopped wars, or that started them?

IMO, religion has been an insignificant factor in warfare for at least the last 200 years.

GostHacked · March 28, 2014

2. If atheism is so great, then

a.) why are there so few atheists and atheist societies?

I am just over 40, and I recall in my youth that I became agnostic, and when I said I did not believe in a god, I got some nice words and ridiculed. Maybe it's because the religious thought that this line of thinking was blasphemous and took them out. They do it because you don't believe in the same god, even if you don't believe in any of them.

GostHacked · March 28, 2014

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".

Think kind of like the natives. The tree spirit, the wolf spirit, the eagle spirit. There is no one god, but mother nature itself IS 'god'. It is the collective of all things and all spirits. With Christianity and Islam and Judaism it is approached as a single deity.

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.

Therefore the correct stance is agnostic. We had one large thread about this, and that actually changed my view on atheism as a whole and how the word is applied. But a Christian has one god, and takes the atheist approach to any other proposed god or multiple gods. A good example of multiple gods are the ancient Greek ones. And since there is no real evidence to support one god over another, most religions are in fact atheist to other religions and gods. So the true atheist is really just rejecting all proposed gods. So it's only one god less that I do not believe in.

Edited March 28, 2014 by GostHacked

-1=e^ipi · March 28, 2014

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?

People that care about separation of religion and state.

Banning a religion? are you serious?

I did not say ban. I said abolish. As in if they suddenly stopped existing.

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.

Those claims are very different from "If atheism is superior, then as per social Darwinism, it should have been adopted by the most successful societies, no?".

There are so many delusions and claims without sufficient evidence out there where do you start. I say start with the harmful ones and leave the benign alone.

Start with all of them.

That is not what most religious people beleive. IMO most religious people mhave a mixture of faith and doubt and keep their religion to themselves.

Indeed, most religious people are hypocrites that primarily cling to their religions for emotional and social reasons. If they were true believers & good people then they would try to tell others about jesus/allah/whatever in order to save them.

Again, I fail to see how your reply relates to mine. I am saying that the more that secular societ accepts moderates, the less influence extemists will have. Even Bonam agreed with me on this one.

My issue is with your claim that secular society isn't welcoming to moderate religious people.

carepov · March 28, 2014

People that care about separation of religion and state.

As they should.

I did not say ban. I said abolish. As in if they suddenly stopped existing.

OK I misunderstood.

Those claims are very different from "If atheism is superior, then as per social Darwinism, it should have been adopted by the most successful societies, no?".

Of course they are different, my argument is countering the claims.

Start with all of them.

Problem-solving resources are limited. We should not waste time on relatively minor/insignificant problems.

Indeed, most religious people are hypocrites that primarily cling to their religions for emotional and social reasons. If they were true believers & good people then they would try to tell others about jesus/allah/whatever in order to save them.

My issue is with your claim that secular society isn't welcoming to moderate religious people.

Compare your first paragraph with the second. Do you see the irony?

overthere · March 28, 2014

Therefore the correct stance is agnostic.

To me, it's the worst stance possible.

All of us have had a lifetime of opportunity to form an opinion on the existence of God or gods.

We've examined and accepted or rejected the evidence, or have abandoned the need for evidence via an act of faith.

And then we have formed an opinion or drawn a conclusion based on that examination.

Were you washing your hair that day?

-1=e^ipi · March 28, 2014

Of course they are different, my argument is countering the claims.

But it doesn't.

Compare your first paragraph with the second. Do you see the irony?

No. I am not society. I am 1 person.

WestCoastRunner · March 29, 2014

I believe we lost the idea of the thread here: "why are women athiests". I believe this sums it up: "Increasingly, women want more roles, greater leadership and increased participation. At the same time, such vertical movement is harder for women to attain as pockets of religious conservatism tighten control, leaving women with a crisis. It turns out, what is true for women in religion is true for women without religion as well."

The reality is that women have a great struggle to be taken seriously whether it is in the education, technology, science or other industries. There is no doubt that religion plays a big part of this. Is there any doubt as to why women would disregard religion.

kimmy · March 29, 2014

I think the original point of the thread was not so much to start a discussion about women and religion, and more to point out that Pat Robertson is a fricking idiot.

As for the extent to women are atheists, the only statistics I can find are American numbers that indicate that a higher percentage of women than men are religious. Why this might be, I don't really know.

-k

kimmy · March 29, 2014

Well I'll be damned. Who knew ?

Kind of wonder about them tho...."Everyone is welcome, regardless of their beliefs – this is a place of love that is open and accepting."

A sense of community is one of the few tangible benefits of church that I can see. Some atheists attend Universalist Unitarian congregations for that reason.

-k

kimmy · March 29, 2014

This sort of topic often seems to devolve into widespread generalizations... "atheists are like this, and religious people are like that". "atheist societies are like this and religious societies are like that". I personally don't want to get wrapped up in that sort of thing. I'd like to address a few themes though...

"There's no bad religions, just bad people. When people use religious doctrines to justify harmful things, it's not religion's fault." I wouldn't go so far as to label a whole religion as bad, but there are certainly bad doctrines. The treatment of women in Islamic countries. Mass executions of people in Islamic countries for various and sundry religious reasons. African Christians killing "witches" and homosexuals. The anti-vaccine church that has caused a measles outbreak here in BC. Religious kooks who would let their children die rather than seek medical treatment.

And the reply is "yeah b-b-but Islam doesn't *require* that women be treated like cattle" or "b-b-but Christianity as a whole doesn't forbid medical treatment, that's just a fringe group." Well yes and no. There might be parts of the world where Islam has more modern interpretations, but in large swaths of the Muslim world, that's exactly how that religion is understood. Yes, obviously the people who die of easily treatable illnesses are a fringe-group, but that is their religion. That their belief is not shared by other Christians does not negate the fact that for these kooks, that is exactly what their religion tells them.

So yes, there is such thing as bad religious doctrine. It is not difficult to find examples where bad beliefs-- not bad people but bad beliefs-- cause harm.

-k

GostHacked · March 29, 2014

To me, it's the worst stance possible.

All of us have had a lifetime of opportunity to form an opinion on the existence of God or gods.

We've examined and accepted or rejected the evidence, or have abandoned the need for evidence via an act of faith.

And then we have formed an opinion or drawn a conclusion based on that examination.

Were you washing your hair that day?

Faith does not require reason or logic or evidence or facts. It is a simple believe that cannot be substantially proven without some form of evidence. So even if you develop those beliefs over your lifetime, they are simply still just your individual believes and not something that is not genuinely common among everyone. You can claim to absolutely know the answer. But can you absolutely convey that knowledge to someone else in a way that there would be no question about the claim? That would seem to be the hard part.

Believing you have the answer is not the same as knowing you have the answer. Since I cannot know that answer in this lifetime (perhaps the next if there is one) then I cannot make the claim.

I think the original point of the thread was not so much to start a discussion about women and religion, and more to point out that Pat Robertson is a fricking idiot.

As for the extent to women are atheists, the only statistics I can find are American numbers that indicate that a higher percentage of women than men are religious. Why this might be, I don't really know.

-k

You are right on the Robertson bit.

Michael Hardner · March 29, 2014

Faith does not require reason or logic or evidence or facts. It is a simple believe that cannot be substantially proven without some form of evidence. So even if you develop those beliefs over your lifetime, they are simply still just your individual believes and not something that is not genuinely common among everyone. You can claim to absolutely know the answer. But can you absolutely convey that knowledge to someone else in a way that there would be no question about the claim? That would seem to be the hard part.

Yes, well put. I think all of us have faith, to a degree, but some of us wouldn't like to admit it. I was able to get a science professor to admit that his conviction that there is nothing beyond what we perceive (ie. only the 'material' world, things observable or provable through science and knowledge) - that that conviction was based in 'belief' that is conjecture based on what is already known...

I'm more interested in the discussion, myself.

-1=e^ipi · March 29, 2014

Yes, well put. I think all of us have faith, to a degree, but some of us wouldn't like to admit it. I was able to get a science professor to admit that his conviction that there is nothing beyond what we perceive (ie. only the 'material' world, things observable or provable through science and knowledge) - that that conviction was based in 'belief' that is conjecture based on what is already known...

There is a difference between holding a belief out of necessity and holding a belief out of faith. At some point you need to have beliefs in order to make decisions. Belief in our perceived reality is necessary since it is the only information we have to make decisions.

cybercoma · March 29, 2014

I think the original point of the thread was not so much to start a discussion about women and religion, and more to point out that Pat Robertson is a fricking idiot.

As for the extent to women are atheists, the only statistics I can find are American numbers that indicate that a higher percentage of women than men are religious. Why this might be, I don't really know.

-k

A lot of times people who are otherwise atheist get more involved in religion when they have children. Since women are often more likely to be child caregivers, regardless of whether they're atheists or not, they might be more likely to get more involved with religion when they have children. If you control for parenthood, you might see the relationship between gender and religiosity disappear.

Mighty AC · March 30, 2014

People tend to be born into religion and IMO, women tend to remain tighter with their families. Because of that, I suspect more women than men would continue to classify themselves by a family religion, even if they no longer feel it.

iolo · March 31, 2014

Why are more women religious? It is a hangover from the old 'Kurche, Kinder, Kutchen' programming (sorry if the spelling's wrong - don't know German, though my Wife can speak it in the 'gegin' as we call the kitchen, in between putting me right on higher maths). In male-bossed religion there are, however, quite powerful forces making for women's leaving the guff behind.

The_Squid · March 31, 2014

Yes, well put. I think all of us have faith, to a degree, but some of us wouldn't like to admit it. I was able to get a science professor to admit that his conviction that there is nothing beyond what we perceive (ie. only the 'material' world, things observable or provable through science and knowledge) - that that conviction was based in 'belief' that is conjecture based on what is already known...

I'm more interested in the discussion, myself.

Why wouldn't your professor simply say "I don't know"? Why does someone have to hold a belief, or have faith, about something if there is no evidence and no way to get evidence? It makes no sense.

You say we all have "faith" in something, but I disagree. Some of us don't hold a belief unless there is some evidence (and I am talking abbout evidence that can be shown and confirmed by others) for that belief.

WestCoastRunner · March 31, 2014

Yes, well put. I think all of us have faith, to a degree, but some of us wouldn't like to admit it.

I have faith in myself and believing that I will do the best I can for myself and my family. But as far as faith in a higher power, not so much.

kimmy · April 1, 2014

Why wouldn't your professor simply say "I don't know"? Why does someone have to hold a belief, or have faith, about something if there is no evidence and no way to get evidence? It makes no sense.

You say we all have "faith" in something, but I disagree. Some of us don't hold a belief unless there is some evidence (and I am talking abbout evidence that can be shown and confirmed by others) for that belief.

I think there might be an argument to be made that even a purely empirical world view involves some assumptions that could be called "faith".

There's a whole branch of philosophy, "epistemology", devoted to the study of knowledge and how we can be sure we know what we know. I don't know anything about the subject, but I think the short version is that it's not nearly as cut-and-dried as one might imagine.

-k

Michael Hardner · April 1, 2014

Why wouldn't your professor simply say "I don't know"? Why does someone have to hold a belief, or have faith, about something if there is no evidence and no way to get evidence? It makes no sense.

I don't know why.

You say we all have "faith" in something, but I disagree. Some of us don't hold a belief unless there is some evidence (and I am talking abbout evidence that can be shown and confirmed by others) for that belief.

Do you don't know what happens after death ? That's how I feel too.

bleeding heart · April 1, 2014

But that's not an argument for common beliefs in things like "heaven." Rather, it's an argument that anything anyone invents out of whole cloth is just as possible as heaven...or nothingness (whatever either of those mean).

cybercoma · April 1, 2014

These discussions often take a turn into heavily philosophy assumptions, when the fact of the matter is they should be grounded in the common beliefs, as bleeding heart says, that are held by religious devotees. Why are women atheists? Well, let's look at how the Judeo-Christian religions treat women for starters then go from there.

kimmy · April 1, 2014

Why are women atheists? Well, let's look at how the Judeo-Christian religions treat women for starters then go from there.

But more men than women appear to be atheists, based on the statistics I've seen. If the religions' treatment of women was the reason for women to be atheist, we would expect the opposite to be true.

I'd suggest that women leave religion (or don't join religion) for, in most cases, the same reasons as men.

-k