Reasons why women are atheists....

[dre]

They need classifications that distinguish between belief in a diety and belief in the various human diety-based mythologies.

I know for certain that human religions are bunk... We know where they came from, and why they spread, etc. So Im an atheist as far as Zeus, or Apollo, or Jesus, or Ala goes. But I least have an open mind to the possibility that entities might exist that could be desribed by humans as dieties.

[Mighty AC]

You would be classified as a gnostic atheist then. You do not believe in deities, hence the atheism, but you claim knowledge (gnostic) of their non-existence. Being open to possibilies of something should evidence be presented has no impact on either term.

[cybercoma]

From what I understand atheism is really just another religion with followers who have clearly invited demons to enter through their immoral behaviour. Agnostics are confused about the almighty, but tend to believe in ghosts and horoscopes. I'm fairly sure that both groups are supported by the homosexual agenda.

Too perfect.

[overthere]

It sounds a lot like those people at the grocery store trying to convince me to get their credit card so I can accumulate more bonus points.

The indoor playgrounds, cheap daycare, breakfast programs, etc... seem like a great service to me. Why aren't these services funded by the city/province?

Very interesting comment... in the sense of how very much our societal norms have shifted in such a short time.

"Social services" like welfare, education, shcild care were- for thousands of years- provided by families/tribe members. Then we invented deities, which begat followers, which begat churches- another form of tribalism. These social constructs: families, tribes, churches- were responsible for supporting those who could not support themselves. The weak, the sick, the elderly. The price paid for that support was the usual- you had to contribute what you could, and you had to follow the rules of the church or tribe, or you were out on your ass in the cold.

That hasn't changed much, but what has changed is the newish notion that our government is responsible for the types of support you used to get from your family, your tribe, your church. There is no price paid, an accident of birthplace qualifies you to get the gravy now.

[The_Squid]

Very interesting comment... in the sense of how very much our societal norms have shifted in such a short time.

"Social services" like welfare, education, shcild care were- for thousands of years- provided by families/tribe members. Then we invented deities, which begat followers, which begat churches- another form of tribalism. These social constructs: families, tribes, churches- were responsible for supporting those who could not support themselves. The weak, the sick, the elderly. The price paid for that support was the usual- you had to contribute what you could, and you had to follow the rules of the church or tribe, or you were out on your ass in the cold.

That hasn't changed much, but what has changed is the newish notion that our government is responsible for the types of support you used to get from your family, your tribe, your church. There is no price paid, an accident of birthplace qualifies you to get the gravy now.

You speak as if it was a utopia "back in the day". When are you talking about? 50 years ago, or 500 years ago?

[overthere]

Utopia?

Never.

I'm not really valuing the decline of one set of tribal practices over another, just noting what is a pretty profound shift in both the provider of and the nature of our social contract. Widespread access to welfare, public education, public medicine and others as provided by government are all relatively recent innovations. They were all provided in some way-often very limited ways- by others in the past. Support for the poor and disadvantaged used to come from other than govt, if it came at all.

What caught my attention and prompted my post was the "The indoor playgrounds, cheap daycare, breakfast programs, etc... seem like a great service to me. Why aren't these services funded by the city/province?" post above.

In just a generation or two our expectations have dramiatcially increased and shifted. Charity once provided by the church is now expected to come from government. It's a major shift. Timeline: in the last 50 to 75 years mostly.

[Michael Hardner]

In just a generation or two our expectations have dramiatcially increased and shifted. Charity once provided by the church is now expected to come from government. It's a major shift. Timeline: in the last 50 to 75 years mostly.

Yes, indeed it's true. Things will likely need to change even more going forward, as the force of economic changes uproots many people and we have a greater need to take care of those left behind.

[eyeball]

In just a generation or two our expectations have dramiatcially increased and shifted. Charity once provided by the church is now expected to come from government. It's a major shift. Timeline: in the last 50 to 75 years mostly.

Is it any wonder given how much our expectations have been stoked? It used to be that churches once provided the delusions that misled us but now the government has taken on that task. They're pretty good at it too.

[carepov]

Very interesting comment... in the sense of how very much our societal norms have shifted in such a short time.

"Social services" like welfare, education, shcild care were- for thousands of years- provided by families/tribe members. Then we invented deities, which begat followers, which begat churches- another form of tribalism. These social constructs: families, tribes, churches- were responsible for supporting those who could not support themselves. The weak, the sick, the elderly. The price paid for that support was the usual- you had to contribute what you could, and you had to follow the rules of the church or tribe, or you were out on your ass in the cold.

That hasn't changed much, but what has changed is the newish notion that our government is responsible for the types of support you used to get from your family, your tribe, your church. There is no price paid, an accident of birthplace qualifies you to get the gravy now.

Much more than societal norms have changed in the last 75 years - mostly for the better.

You still have a price to pay: taxes.

IMO, welfare and most government benefits are not "gravy".

[WestCoastRunner]

"Social services" like welfare, education, shcild care were- for thousands of years- provided by families/tribe members. Then we invented deities, which begat followers, which begat churches- another form of tribalism. These social constructs: families, tribes, churches- were responsible for supporting those who could not support themselves. The weak, the sick, the elderly. The price paid for that support was the usual- you had to contribute what you could, and you had to follow the rules of the church or tribe, or you were out on your ass in the cold.

That hasn't changed much, but what has changed is the newish notion that our government is responsible for the types of support you used to get from your family, your tribe, your church. There is no price paid, an accident of birthplace qualifies you to get the gravy now.

Not sure where to begin with this statement. What you are saying has no relevance to society today. Thank goodness we no longer have to follow the rules of the church or the 'tribe'. Our government is there to support those in need and to provide a hand until they are in a better circumstance to support themselves and hopefully contribute to society and help others along the way.

[iolo]

I think that, traditionally, women have been more tied down, and therefore more likely to continue in the beliefs handed to them, and that the incredibly slow process of female liberation accounts for the glacier-like nature of change in this pattern , In one particular denomination, I'd guess that the buggering of children by 'celibate' priests has turned not a few women off what they preach, incidentally.

Edited April 18, 2014 by iolo