Changes
I ask all this because I know a number of atheists, and while certainly there are some who are argumentative and challenging to deal with (ones I think of as proselytizing atheists), there are also those who do not feel the need to discuss their beliefs with acquaintances. The conclusions in this article may be accurate for a vocal subset of the total population of atheists, or the conclusions may not be accurate at all, and may merely be the product of wishful thinking or "selection bias" (the tendency to give credence to evidence that supports one's beliefs and to discount evidence that contradicts them) on the part of the author. I certainly wouldn't cite the article in its present form as evidence of anything other than the uneven quality of an encyclopedia produced entirely by its users. [[User:SueDunham|--Sue Dunham]] 01:29, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
'''Reply to User: SueDunham:'''
User: SueDunham, you wrote: "Have there been any actual peer-reviewed studies looking at whether women find atheism an unappealing characteristic in a man?"
Please read these articles:
*[http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test], ''Nature'', August 27, 2015
*[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204456604574205760527855726.html Five Best Books: Scientific Fraud - WSJ.com]
*[http://pnis.co/cracked.html 7 Crazy Realities of Scientific Publishing]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-intrinsic-unreliability-of-science.html The present scientific community and character issues]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-business-of-progressive-science.html The business of progressive science]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/03/if-you-hand-us-hammer.html Scientific fraud problem in science community]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/10/peer-review-is-joke.html Peer review problems in science]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2013/10/science-has-lost-its-way.html Scientific replication problems and current published science articles]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/11/psychology-is-not-science.html Psychology is not science] - Discusses lack of transparency of Dutch psychologists in terms of their data for their experiments
User: SueDunham, think about half of psychology studies failing reproducibility tests!
While this article does cite social science data, it does not solely rely on this data. As as a result, I believe it makes the article stronger.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:Religious men are easier to control via a carefully laid out ideological system which atheism intrinsically lacks and therefore women are less likely to be interested in an atheist just as you'd prefer a well disciplined and trained dog to a feral one. Being atheist tells you absolutely nothing about the person's moral or ethical code. Yes, there have been several studies indicating that atheists are less attractive to women than religious men. Women are naturally attracted to social status in mates and atheists rarely have much in the way of social status except in communist countries. For example, the religious group that raised me says that man is the authority in the house (Assemblies of God) but teaches women that males are actually beneath her and she dictates and manipulates their rights (this is from a Bill Gothad manual for women): http://imageshack.com/a/img20/2118/sn850249j.jpg
::::Of course, there is no necessity to assert that atheists are more likely to have Asperger's Syndrome. The historical militancy of the atheist/[[evolution|evolutionist]] community and the ideas their ideologies have often engendered provides more than enough explanatory power to explain the origin of the quarrelsomeness and other social deficiencies of many in the atheists/evolutionist population (see: [[militant atheism]] and [[Social effects of the theory of evolution|social effects of the theory of evolution]] ). In fact, it is arguably the best explanation for the quarrelsomeness and other social deficiencies of many in the atheist/evolutionist community. In addition, ultimately the decision to reject or be reconciled with [[God]] is a matter relating to the [[grace]] of God and [[free will]] and nobody is forced into [[atheism]] due to a physical condition. Please make an equally solid or better counter argument via proof and evidence. Also, please answer [[Shockofgod|"the question"]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:08, 24 August 2010 (EDT)
:I suppose GOD gave you the skill of ''whining'' about others poor typo, spelling, grammar, construction and fluidity problems? GOD didn't give you the skill of ''making corrections'' without whining? Just who is ''really'' offending GOD here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:14, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
::And to top it off, Pdorme, you have been here since July 6, with barely a dozen edits on your part, none of them making so much as an effort to make the corrections you whine about. I suspect that your attitude has more to do with a defense of atheism than anything even remotely-related to mere spelling corrections; after all, you made your whining complaint on this particular page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:18, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
