Atheism

@hingehead,

"As cold as Christian charity" is an expression i never had any problem understanding.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Nothing 'wrong' in that indeed, but the answer to the question of why this is so may help reach out to more women and thus expand the current social boundaries of the 'movement'. At least if one is sympathetic to the idea of an atheist movement, which is my case. I'm aware that some A2K atheists disagree with that.

Not me. For one thing, I'm reluctant to join movements in general. And what's more, I am especially uninterested in movements organized around something I don't believe in. There are countless things I don't believe in; if I had to engage in a separate movement for disbelieving in each, my to-do list would be utterly swamped. To be sure, if there was a critical-rationalist movement or a utilitarian movement, that might be different. These are ideologies I actually believe in. But marketing atheism is the least of my concerns. If more women than men find it hard to let go of their imaginary friends, by all means let more women keep them!

1 Reply

I doubt that there are any fewer female atheists than male--if anything, i would think there would be more, since there are more women than men. I would doubt that there were very many militant, female atheists, though. My experience is that women don't relish argument the way men do. I'd suspect that women atheists just think to themselves "Idiot," and move on.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

The way you worded it at first is totally wrong.

Okay...tell me what wording you are talking about and we can discuss it if you want.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Leadership to curb the influence of religion is a pipe dream. The first amendment to the United States constitution begins with the clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . "--yet the Supreme Court, ruling in the Greece, New York case, allowed public prayer before town counselors convened their meetings. (The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrary, authoritarian institution in the country--there is no appeal from their decisions other than to amendment the constitution. How is that supposed to play out when the Court ignores constitutional amendments?)

Even in a society which is legally constituted to avoid the influence of religion, it's influence creeps in. I can't know of course, but i expect that mankind will never be free of the influence of religion. "Atheism" is not actually a movement--there are just some authoritarian, explicit atheists (even Dawkins often sounds like an implicit atheist) who constantly attack organized religion, but that's like a flea attacking an elephant.

Where is public leadership to curb religion supposed to come from? The agnostics? Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

Actually, from a broad spectrum group of people who identify themselves other than as theists...in a coalition with people who identify as theists but who see the inherent danger of theistic imposition in law and society. A group...some atheists are unable to see exists.

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-with-laughter.gif

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeU4vlJdHgVsK1ABeeBg0AtZiOrKvN16aUYdYa6DSZV9zpJBggxQ

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTLwVShm_aM6H47xddcuJysb6NKEPLo7dT-1_lwHuA8EcCOMTd1

0 Replies

The reason there are more women who favor a progressive agenda than a conservative agenda...

...the reason there are more women who favor Democrats over Republicans...

...is the perception that a progressive agenda is more understanding of the problems women face in this world than a conservative agenda, which women often seem to think marginalizes them...

...and that the Democrats are more willing to champion a progressive agenda, while the Republicans are more inclined to marginalize women.

The reason there are not more women who publicly identify themselves as atheists...is because despite all the clauses in all the holy books to the contrary, they are more likely to be treated respectfully by theistic organizations than they are by atheists.

The perception MAY be wrong...but that seems to be the perception.

I agree that there probably are as many skeptics among women as among men...but the "I am an atheist and therefore I am intellectual...and since I pronounce that I am an atheists in a hostile environment, I also am brave" nonsense makes them laugh rather than strut.

Or at least, that is my opinion.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Leadership to curb the influence of religion is a pipe dream.

Like many other things that are still worth trying.

I agree with you here, Olivier.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Still, the same consideration should apply equally to all sorts of groups and 'movements', including among surfers or in dog shows... I think there is something with Christianism (or perhaps specifically Catholicism) that draws women in. Is it that Virgin Mary, Maria Magdalena, St Cecilia etc. make a powerful cast of female characters? Is it that the fairer sex has more reasons to seek solace from this valley of tears, where they are being oppressed by men? Or is the female mind somehow more mystical and the male mind more rational?The latter idea is sexist though.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

When people speak of curbing the influence of religion, they usually mean its influence on politics. It's not about some atheist proselytism program to fight religion in people's minds for the sole sake of educating them.

0 Replies

Frank - Not only does “atheism” treat women disrespectfully ...

By blaming every atheist for what some have done is as bad as blaming every Christian for what the Westboro Baptist Church does. You shouldn't need to be told and it is not a point you should want to press.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Frank - Not only does “atheism” treat women disrespectfully ...

By blaming every atheist for what some have done is as bad as blaming every Christian for what the Westboro Baptist Church does. You shouldn't need to be told and it is not a point you should want to press.

I am not "blaming" anyone, Edgar. If someone or some group of people want to treat women "disrespectfully"...they can do it with no blame involved. My idea of "disrespecting" women, for instance, is drastically different from an Islamic idea of that same thing. They think we in the west are treating women "disrespectfully" by "allowing" them the freedoms enjoyed by males.

But I get what you are saying...and recognized it before you said it. I have tempered somewhat the thrust of my comments in that regard.

Atheism does not seem to appeal to women...or at least, the acknowledgement of atheism does not. Perhaps it is, as Setanta suggested, something in the feminine psyche that makes them avoid, if they can, confrontation. But perhaps it is something more akin to what I was saying about women and a progressive agenda up above.

http://able2know.org/topic/141106-552#post-5770401

All that aside, atheists in general do treat others who are non-theists with a great deal of contempt...and tend to patronize them. Go to any atheist dominated site and you will see post after post about “fence sitting” as a descriptor for agnosticism, for instance.

The notion that a significant segment of atheism has solidified in a position that definitionally requires that newborns and toddlers be called atheists because they lack a “belief” in gods…is another.

You ought not to be advising me not to press the matter, Edgar...you ought be heeding that advise yourself.

0 Replies

Not all atheists, frank. I give up.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Not all atheists, frank. I give up.

I MADE THE CHANGE, EDGAR...and acknowledged your concern.

Let me go further: I WAS ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY AND UNCONSCIONABLY WRONG TO SUGGEST THAT ALL ATHEISTS DO THIS.

I sincerely hope I will not be subjected to some sort of atheistic inquisition for that horrendous transgression.

You ought to give up, because you are simply disagreeing with me to disagree with me.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

I'm reluctant to join movements in general. And what's more, I am especially uninterested in movements organized around something I don't believe in.

I can relate to that, being a kind of loner allergic to parties and bands in general too. So I'm not going to adhere to any atheist movement anytime soon myself. But I also understand the value of such things for others... Organization is the key to social and political influence. One of the reasons, say, the Christian Right, the Catholic Church or AQ are powerful is that they are organized in movements.

I see atheism as a positive belief in the absence of gods and other forms of the 'irrational' or 'supernatural' in this world. To me it's not an absence of belief. But even if it is only an absence of beliefs for you and many others, that does not preclude collective action on a very close or related social agenda, such as rationalism or anti-religion. There are many 'anti-this or that' movements out there. All it would take is enough people fed up at the influence of religion in social and political life to federate an anti-religious movement. The free masons were on that line of thoughts at some point.

1 Reply

Atheistic inquisition-?
I think you have a personal grudge against atheists. Possibly because they staunchly refuse to accept your interpretation of what makes for good atheism and bad atheism as countered by good agnosticism versus bad agnosticism, versus good deism versus bad deism. Art any rate, it appears it's a lost cause to discuss it with you when you just dig in deeper like that.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Atheistic inquisition-?
I think you have a personal grudge against atheists. Possibly because they staunchly refuse to accept your interpretation of what makes for good atheism and bad atheism as countered by good agnosticism versus bad agnosticism, versus good deism versus bad deism. Art any rate, it appears it's a lost cause to discuss it with you when you just dig in deeper like that.

Then stop doing so, Edgar...instead of just talking about it.

I have no personal grudge against atheists. I know many. Nancy, my love of life, is an atheist. My brother-in-law is an atheist.

I think Internet atheists are not indicative of what most non-cyber atheists are like...especially in their interpretation of what constitutes an atheist. I have argued my disagreements with the atheists here often...and I think I have done so reasonably.

Perhaps my arguments raise problems for you because they are quality.

But arguing with you on these matters, while probably fruitless, is enjoyable for me...so I will continue, and do it respectfully, for as long as you want.

0 Replies

You scatter your buckshot at atheists and when backed into a corner begin to qualify it in weasly ways to make it seem you are not saying what you are saying. Your grudge may just be against the atheists on a2k, but one is plainly there.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

I think there is something with Christianism (or perhaps specifically Catholicism) that draws women in. Is it that Virgin Mary, Maria Magdalena, St Cecilia etc. make a powerful cast of female characters? Is it that the fairer sex has more reasons to seek solace from this valley of tears, where they are being oppressed by men? Or is the female mind somehow more mystical and the male mind more rational?

I suspect it's none of the above. I think that women who act in their traditional roles as caretakers draw more frequently upon the social networks that churches provide. Hence, they are more reluctant to renounce the religious basis of the church, at least in public. The reason I think so is that I vaguely remember reading a study that explored why poor people are more likely to say they're religious than rich people. As best I can remember, this was the dominant factor.

Olivier5 wrote:

The latter idea is sexist though.

So what? If the idea is false, we should discard it for this reason alone. If it's true, we should uphold it for this reason alone. Either way, what difference does it make that the idea offends peple?

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

You scatter your buckshot at atheists and when backed into a corner begin to qualify it in weasly ways to make it seem you are not saying what you are saying. Your grudge may just be against the atheists on a2k, but one is plainly there.

You keep saying you are going to stop discussing this with me, Edgar...but you continue endlessly.

I do not have any grudges against atheists. I do not scatter buckshot at atheists...nor am I trying to weasel out of anything. I will discuss this with you until A2K goes out of business if needed.

I have no grudge against you...and have used YOU as an example of what I consider a non-cyber atheist to be...a true atheist...not a person who relies on the "I do not believe which automatically makes me an atheist."

Pick out anything I have said that you deem offensive...and I will discuss it with you. I cannot argue against these generalizations....because they simply do not represent what I actually feel on the subject.

I am trying to be respectful toward you...but you are intent on simply taking shots at me.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

I suspect it's none of the above. I think that women who act in their traditional roles as caretakers draw more frequently upon the social networks that churches provide. Hence, they are more reluctant to renounce the religious basis of the church, at least in public. The reason I think so is that I vaguely remember reading a study that explored why poor people are more likely to say they're religious than rich people. As best I can remember, this was the dominant factor.

I suspect it's all of the above. In any case, it seems more prevalent in Christianity than in Islam, so the tenets and particulars of the religion matter.

Quote:

Quote:
Olivier5 wrote:
The latter idea is sexist though.

So what? If the idea is false, we should discard it for this reason alone. If it's true, we should uphold it for this reason alone. Either way, the offense people take to it should be irrelevant.

I don't mind the offense that much. It's obvious to me that women and men are wired somewhat differently, at least by life if not by genes. Formal logic is often a bigger thing with men than women, in my experience, and the opposite is true for emotional intelligence.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know