Talk:Atheism and women

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I think this entire article is analytically questionable. At a minimum, more and better research is necessary to support its thesis with a straight face.

Have there been any actual peer-reviewed studies looking at whether women find atheism an unappealing characteristic in a man? Certainly many devout women would have a problem with it - I am not questioning that - but there are also female atheists in the world, as well as agnostics who likely wouldn't be too troubled by a partner's atheism. All this article seems to cite is a study showing that fewer women are active in atheist organizations. While this might mean there are fewer female atheists, it might also be that female atheists are merely less likely to participate in such organizations, or to traffic such websites. In other words, there is no way to know if there are more male atheists than female atheists based on the evidence presented here, and/or whether male atheists experience significant romantic difficulties arising out of or relating to their atheism. When one considers that many religious people experience difficulty relating to finding a mate who shares their specific religious beliefs (consider the Jew living in a predominantly Catholic city, for instance, or an evangelical Christian living in the heavily Mormon Utah...or anyone living in one of the very diverse major cities), it may be that atheists experience no added level of difficulty at all. I do not think that the conclusion this section of the article attempts to draw is truly supported by the evidence cited therein.

Similarly, have there been any studies showing a correlation between atheism and Asperger's? If so, which way does the correlation run? E.g., are atheists significantly more likely to have Asperger's than the general population, or is it that people with Asperger's are more likely to be atheists? Correlation, after all, does not imply causation. Or is the author (and/or the quoted Vox Day) assuming a link exists because he (she?) personally finds atheists (at least the ones inclined to discuss their atheism in public fora) unpleasant and difficult to deal with? There are different types of socially awkward behavior associated with a variety of psychological profiles. Without further evidence than the author's personal viewpoint (experimental data perhaps), the Vox Day quote is basically just an opinion, with little information about the data from which the opinion was formed. Fine for an editorial page, but is it really appropriate in something purporting to be an encyclopedia, i.e., a repository of factual knowledge? Seems like someone needs to do some actual research.

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. --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:

  • 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.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):
Of course, there is no necessity to assert that atheists are more likely to have Asperger's Syndrome. The historical militancy of the atheist/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 ). 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 "the question". conservative 19:08, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

Copy editing request

Atheism and rape

Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape.
change to Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis for a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape.

Honestly, the amount of errors on this wiki; typos, spelling, grammar, construction and fluidity and many more are a disgrace. What a truly pathetic effort; and yet when I try to correct it I can't. Dear me. GOD gave your skills, and to not use them is an offence to HIM. Pdorme 17:07, 10 July 2012 (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? 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. Karajou 17:18, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

Wired saying "atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men..."

The reference supporting that quote goes to a blg post which does not itself support the quote with evidence. It needs a citation to the appearance of the phrase in Wired magazine. JeffreyB 18:46, 12 July 2012 (EDT)

Please elaborate. Conservative 19:55, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
Got this information from a certain website: Need to read more of article than I read so far. If exact quote cannot be used, will need to make judgment call if entirely of article supports Vox Day's use. From what I read so far, the person at the party (or social gathering) appears to be making the unsupported claim of atheism (there is no God) and relishing proclaiming this unsupported claim to intentionally and boastfully potentially aggravate some people. Plus, the type of person described does seem to like to gratuitously aggravate people in general. That is quarrelsome and socially challenged behavior, isn't it? Conservative 08:05, 13 July 2012 (EDT)
Here is a quote from the article you listed: "Typical atheists are hardly the rabble-rousing evangelists that Dawkins or Harris might like. They are an older, peaceable, quietly frustrated lot, who meet partly out of idealism and partly out of loneliness." This doesn't jive with your representation of all atheists as belligerents. SharonW 09:15, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

Either the article uses the terms that you ascribe to it, or it does not. It would be intellectually dishonest to say that Vox Day's, whoever the heck that is, interpretation of the article represents what the article actually says, especially given the extract that Sharon provides, which really runs counter to that interpretation. JeffreyB 09:19, 13 July 2012 (EDT)

I have not finished reading the article yet, but I did replace some of the material. Within 7-14 days (maybe sooner), I plan on reading the article in its entirety. In addition, I don't recall using the phrase "all atheists" or using similar terminology. Conservative 16:10, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
The phrase "atheists are (or tend to be) ______" is a blanket statement that leaves the reader with the impression that all atheists are _____. Terms such as "many", "some", "a few", etc., quantify the statement, and give the writer more leeway to believably protest his/her intent when readers disagree with him/her. This has been a MAJOR point in my arguments with you over your "fat people are atheists" statements. You are a master at blanket statements, and then refuse to rectify them. SharonW 19:37, 14 July 2012 (EDT)
Gary Wolf is an agnostic who does not have a lot of antipathy towards atheists. He does think that many atheists are impolite men through the illustration he gave about social gatherings and atheists and the question he posed at social gatherings. He is also not rooting for New Atheists. Wolf writes: "Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd". After all is said and done, the piece is critical of New Atheism and the significant number of atheists he considers impolite and going beyond the evidence since atheism has no proof and evidence that it is true. Since that is the scope of the article, I decided to pull the quote. As an aside, I did find Gary North's and Kevin Kelly's "Quantified Self" movement interesting in terms of using current technology as it can be used to break bad habits and establish new habits for people and the technique has some empirical support. [1][2] Conservative 20:07, 16 July 2012 (EDT)

Question about Conservapedia editors

Cons. Can't really talk at the moment but.... how many current Conservapedians are women? AlanE (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2017 (EDT)

I repeat my question. AlanE (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2017 (EDT)
Talk pages are for discussions about improving articles and not irrelevant discussions.
Next wiki editors generally skew male and many wiki editors use gender neutral names. For example, as far as the editors who use the User: Conservative account, we haven't disclosed what percentage of us are males/females. But again, please keep the talk pages of articles focused on improving the particular articles in question.Conservative (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2020 (EST)