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 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. [[User:Conservative|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. [[User:SharonW|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. [http://www.ted.com/talks/gary_wolf_the_quantified_self.html][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9618126] [[User:Conservative|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? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 02:51, 22 June 2017 (EDT):I repeat my question. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:40, 6 March 2020 (EST)