Men, Women And Their Beliefs

[Open_Minded]

garrisonjj asked a great question, that is worthy of a poll.

 

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=227360

 

I do not find as many female agnostics and atheists as males. Can females address this?

 

 

I look forward to the results to the poll and all of your responses.

 

(I rarely set up a poll - so please forgive me if this poll is awkward. Hope it works better this time around. )

[Rachelness]

OK, this one works.

[Open_Minded]

OK, this one works.

 

Yes...

 

You might find this hard to believe (seeing as I can't even set up a poll properly) but I actually build databases for a living.

 

Anyway - if a mod could delete the first poll - which doesn't work - I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

[Stratovarius]

There are neurological studies that prove women are more emotional than men.

 

I'm sure women have a harder time converting away from religion. This also means they are more susceptible to it.

[Cracked]

There are neurological studies that prove women are more emotional than men.

Someone had to do a study to figure this out

[Thurisaz]

Count one male (heathen - for any morontheists reading this ) believer for me

[Antlerman]

Looks like male athiests are leading the pack. BTW, where's the choices for non-human's beliefs? I guess maybe the lack of churchs anywhere in the animal kingdom outside our species may be an indication of something we need to be considering?

[Mongo]

Looks like male athiests are leading the pack. BTW, where's the choices for non-human's beliefs? I guess maybe the lack of churchs anywhere in the animal kingdom outside our species may be an indication of something we need to be considering?

 

Antlerman,

 

If memory serves me, years ago, Heraldo Rivera did a show about Bucks caught up in the cult of Christianity and the Does that love them.

 

Maybe that was a bad dream.

 

Mongo

[Lycorth]

Count one male (heathen - for any morontheists reading this ) believer for me

 

I second that

[Kalidasa]

Female atheist here.

[smellincoffee]

Male and a nontheist. I suppose that's closer to atheism than it is agnosticism.

[Unknowing1]

I'm a female agnostic with leanings toward atheism.

[white_raven23]

Ugh.

 

I'm not sure what I am anymore. I used to consider myself a deist......but there seems to be a sort of belief system surrounding that when I thought there wasn't.

 

I don't believe in any organized doctrine whatsoever.

 

I don't believe a supreme being has ever come out and said "Look! Here I am, and this is what I want!"

 

I like the idea of a supreme being existing, but I'm very much aware that what I would "like" and what is "real" are in no way required to coincide or complement one another.

 

I figure a supreme being in infinitely capable of deciding it's own level of involvement in our development, and based on lack of evidence, it either stays relatively uninvolved, or moves so subtley that it does not openly intend it's existence to be clear, or it does not exist at all.

 

I picked 'female agnostic' as a result.

[Jubilant]

Female....I am an atheist in the sense that I believe in no gods represented by any religion. However, I can neither prove nor disprove any type of supreme being and so in that I am agnostic. I suppose Agnostic Atheist suits me the best although I am "spiritual". I do wholeheartedly believe that the universe is the connection for everybody and everything...afterall, no one can argue that all life didn't start from there. :-)

[Open_Minded]

Some thoughts/questions....

 

garrisonjj's original statement....

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=227360

I do not find as many female agnostics and atheists as males. Can females address this?

 

Observation.... at this point in the poll

• Male atheists - 47.50 %
  
• Male Agnostics - 0%
  
• Male believers in some type of God - 10%
  
• Female Atheists - 20%
  
• Female Agnostic - 20%
  
• Female believers in some type of God - 2.5%
  

Females seem to be more evenly split between agnostic and atheist, but there are 0 male agnostics.

 

Could it be possible that (generally speaking) women are more willing to live with ambiguous answers than men?

 

I'm asking this in a big-picture way - I fully realize that many men live with amiguous answers and many women prefer concrete answers.

 

But, if women are more "right brained" and men more "left brained" (generally speaking) - then does this impact a persons preference in choosing the answers of life?

 

Just thinking out loud here ... and not intending at all to start a gender war.

[Antlerman]

But, if women are more "right brained" and men more "left brained" (generally speaking) - then does this impact a persons preference in choosing the answers of life?

 

Just thinking out loud here ... and not intending at all to start a gender war.

Big I, big F.

 

Many a myth has grown up around the brain's asymmetry. The left cerebral hemisphere is supposed to be the coldly logical, verbal and dominant half of the brain, while the right developed a reputation as the imaginative side, emotional, spatially aware but suppressed. Two personalities in one head, Yin and Yang, hero and villain.

 

To most neuroscientists, of course, these notions are seen as simplistic at best and nonsense at worst. So there was general satisfaction when, a couple of years ago, a simple brain scanner test appeared to reveal the true story about one of neurology's greatest puzzles: exactly what is the difference between the two sides of the human brain? Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you like your theories, the big picture revealed by that work is proving far less romantic than the logical-creative split, intriguingly complex and tough to prove.

 

The people behind the scanner test, clinical neurologists Gereon Fink of the University of Düsseldorf in Germany and John Marshall from the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, had been pursuing the idea that the difference between the two hemispheres lay in their style of working. The left brain, they reckoned, focused on detail. This would make it the natural home for all those mental skills that need us to act in a series of discrete steps or fix on a particular fragment of what we perceive--skills such as recognising a friend's face in a crowd or "lining up" words to make a sentence.

 

By contrast, the right brain concentrated on the broad, background picture. The researchers believed it had a panoramic focus that made it good at seeing general connections; this hemisphere was best able to represent the relative position of objects in space and to handle the emotional and metaphorical aspects of speech. So, in a neat and complementary division of labour, one side of the brain thought and saw in wide-angle while the other zoomed in on the detail.

 

<snip>

 

Such brain-aching complexities mean that this new line in hemispheric research is still in its early days. But at least there seems no prospect of a return to the old left-right caricatures that inspired so many self-help books exhorting people to liberate their right brains and avoid too much sterile left-brain thinking. As Fink says, whatever the story about lateralisation, simple dichotomies are out. It is how the two sides of the brain complement and combine that counts.

http://www.rense.com/general2/rb.htm

 

It's an interesting idea to see if there is a trend in genders in calling themselves atheist or not, versus men, but I tend to think it's probably an even split. Same as those men who believe in God, versus women who do.

 

I think a lot of the problem may lay for people in what the term "atheist" means. Some people see atheism like a religion also, which for some it can be, and so they don't want to call themselves atheist and prefer a more gentle word, etc. A friend of mine who is male, calls himself agnostic, when in reality he doesn't believe in God, or even much of a possiblity of one. Is that agnostic, or just unwilling to take on a label? You see what I mean?

 

"Do you believe in God?" has a simple answer. "Are you an atheist?", doesn't.

[Asimov]

I think a lot of the problem may lay for people in what the term "atheist" means. Some people see atheism like a religion also, which for some it can be, and so they don't want to call themselves atheist and prefer a more gentle word, etc. A friend of mine who is male, calls himself agnostic, when in reality he doesn't believe in God, or even much of a possiblity of one. Is that agnostic, or just unwilling to take on a label? You see what I mean?

 

You know my position on agnosticism, Antlerman, so I'm not going to reiterate it. I don't believe there's a dichotomy between atheism and agnosticism or theism and agnosticism as the idea of knowledge in God belief has no real bearing on whether or not we are atheists or theists.

 

He's an atheist, and like everybody else, he does not know if a God exists.

 

"Do you believe in God?" has a simple answer. "Are you an atheist?", doesn't.

 

I think it's a simple answer. Some people make it complicated by adding in redundancies like agnosticism.

[Unknowing1]

Personally I call myself an agnostic with leanings toward atheism because you don't have a true category in which to label me. I am still working through my beliefs. While I do not believe in Jesus, nor do I believe in the Bible, and hate organized religion I still haven't settled on whether or not God existed. And I really don't know if God was who everyone says he was. I lean toward atheism because I believe more in evolution; however, again I still don't have all the facts that I need to make a determination. But I am researching, a lot, it's just taking me awhile.

 

I can't say I am an atheist, can't say I am a believer in some type of God so I picked the one that best describes where I am at right now and that is agnostic, I just don't know.

 

My hat is off to those who have settled on a belief and those who can do so quickly. I just haven't been able to yet. It took me a year to undo years of brainwashing just to get to the point I am right now. And to have to say I am atheist (which my understanding is no belief in a supreme being(s)) or to say I am a believer would be a lie and I don't lie.

 

Sorry if I skewed the results.

 

And by the way, I am a female.

[Vigile]

 

"Do you believe in God?" has a simple answer. "Are you an atheist?", doesn't.

 

I think it's a simple answer. Some people make it complicated by adding in redundancies like agnosticism.

 

Perhaps it would be easier for some to ask themselves if they have a good or valid reason to believe in a diety(ies). If the answer to that question is no then the "I don't know" position might make about as much sense as saying "I don't know if I believe in Santa."

 

Dunno

 

I don't have a problem with the atheist label and I don't care about debating the nuances of it. It just seems to be a silly waste of time to do so and the process often reeks of dogma. If others wish to call themselves agnostic, I don't care either. Even theists are fine as long as they are willing to live and let live.

 

It does seem though that some theists try to put the atheists in the same camp by arguing that both positions are claims. This I reject. I don't have a valid reason for believing in a deity, therefore I don't believe in one. I'm perfectly willing to examine any reasonable claims that comprise potentially valid reasons for believing in a deity. So far I have not met such an animal. Will I ever? Perhaps, but probabilities seem to indicate probably not. I will not apologize for this rational position, nor will I accept the claims from some theists that my views are equally as irrational as theirs.

[Open_Minded]

"Do you believe in God?" has a simple answer.

 

Well....

 

On the surface it may seem to have a simple answer but note the earlier responses in this thread....

 

Count one male (heathen - for any morontheists reading this) believer for me

I second that

 

And please note that - when one says one believes in "God" - in this country anyway - it is assumed that one believes in an supernatural - anthropomorphistic - physical - superhuman - male in the sky.

 

Saying one believes in God in a literealistic culture is not all that simple either. Hence the many varieties of religion.

 

--------------------------

 

And that takes me back to my question about willing to live with ambiguous answers. Even though I believe in God, my understanding of "God" is quite "open" for lack of a better term. For most literalists, my understanding of God is ambiguous. For me it's honest to accept that there are areas of life that we have no concrete knowledge of but that we "know" in different ways - more subtle and intuitive ways. It is anything BUT concrete - I can still believe and accept the ambiguity of it all.

[Antlerman]

I think a lot of the problem may lay for people in what the term "atheist" means. Some people see atheism like a religion also, which for some it can be, and so they don't want to call themselves atheist and prefer a more gentle word, etc. A friend of mine who is male, calls himself agnostic, when in reality he doesn't believe in God, or even much of a possiblity of one. Is that agnostic, or just unwilling to take on a label? You see what I mean?

 

You know my position on agnosticism, Antlerman, so I'm not going to reiterate it. I don't believe there's a dichotomy between atheism and agnosticism or theism and agnosticism as the idea of knowledge in God belief has no real bearing on whether or not we are atheists or theists.

 

He's an atheist, and like everybody else, he does not know if a God exists.

I agree my friend is an atheist (if he see me talking about him he might jump in ). For others though, who are "undecided" on the question, I think there needs to be some way to say, "I'm not sure". Granted, there is no way I can say with 100% absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, just as I can't for unicorns either, but for all intents and purposes it so remote a possiblity God does not exist. I don't really recall how you deal with that category.

 

I think it's a simple answer. Some people make it complicated by adding in redundancies like agnosticism.

The problem I see is that its a charged word, and even though some use it as a general "no-god" category (as I do), some people may not like the term and avoid it for a more socially "moderate" word. I use it in its broadest sense, and therefore anyone who does not go though life with belief in a god of some sort, is without a god of some sort and therefore a-theist, absent a god.

[Antlerman]

Well....

 

On the surface it may seem to have a simple answer but note the earlier responses in this thread....

 

Count one male (heathen - for any morontheists reading this) believer for me

I second that

 

And please note that - when one says one believes in "God" - in this country anyway - it is assumed that one believes in an supernatural - anthropomorphistic - physical - superhuman - male in the sky.

 

Saying one believes in God in a literealistic culture is not all that simple either. Hence the many varieties of religion.

Then the question should be asked in a pluralistic society, "Do you believe in any sort of god or gods".

 

And that takes me back to my question about willing to live with ambiguous answers. Even though I believe in God, my understanding of "God" is quite "open" for lack of a better term. For most literalists, my understanding of God is ambiguous. For me it's honest to accept that there are areas of life that we have no concrete knowledge of but that we "know" in different ways - more subtle and intuitive ways. It is anything BUT concrete - I can still believe and accept the ambiguity of it all.

I don't like the term "concrete answers". It's all about a sliding scale of probabilites, from less likely, to most likely; less certain to more certain. We all live with ambiquity, whether we like it our not. No one can no anything with absolute certainty. So I suppose it could be argued that there are those who need higher degrees of probability in order to act on something in their lives than others.

 

The "God" question is such a huge commitment of ones energies and resources, that I for one consider it prudent to good and sufficient reasons to invest that much of myself into that idea. On the other hand, someone else may approach belief in God with a different personal investment, and therefore "likelihood" is not really so important. So the real question isn't about conrete versus ambiquity, but about the level of investment and the importance of it being something justifiable. I can put up Santa Clause posters to get that "Christmas Spirit" feeling around the holidays, but my personal investment in Santa is pretty low.

[Open_Minded]

Then the question should be asked in a pluralistic society, "Do you believe in any sort of god or gods".

Hence the poll questions stated as .... male/female .... "who believes in some type of God."

 

For me it's honest to accept that there are areas of life that we have no concrete knowledge of but that we "know" in different ways - more subtle and intuitive ways. It is anything BUT concrete - I can still believe and accept the ambiguity of it all.

I don't like the term "concrete answers". It's all about a sliding scale of probabilites, from less likely, to most likely; less certain to more certain. We all live with ambiquity, whether we like it our not. No one can no anything with absolute certainty. So I suppose it could be argued that there are those who need higher degrees of probability in order to act on something in their lives than others.

Yes... I can accept this.... but the question still remains (and it's a valid question) why the difference between males and females in regards to claiming the titles Agnostic and Atheist.

 

The pole shows:

• An even spread among females between the choices of Agnostic and Atheist. (17.78% Agnostic and 17.78% Atheist)
  
• At this point in the pole - no males have claimed the title Agnostic.
  
• The overwhelming majority of males claimed the title Atheist (53.33% of respondents are male Atheists - numbers break out as 24 male Atheists, 0 male Agnostics, and 4 male believers)
  
• Only a very small number claim belief in some type of "God".
  

So why such a big difference in the way men and women prefer to title themselves on the question of Agnostic vs. Atheist?

 

 

The "God" question is such a huge commitment of ones energies and resources, that I for one consider it prudent to good and sufficient reasons to invest that much of myself into that idea. On the other hand, someone else may approach belief in God with a different personal investment, and therefore "likelihood" is not really so important. So the real question isn't about conrete versus ambiquity, but about the level of investment and the importance of it being something justifiable. I can put up Santa Clause posters to get that "Christmas Spirit" feeling around the holidays, but my personal investment in Santa is pretty low.

 

Antlerman - I admire you tremendously, you know that.

 

But ... you've lost me on this one. I've never been involved in a rigid or literalist set of beliefs, so what you are saying is completely foriegn.

 

I've never looked at my belief in God as requiring a "commitment of ones energies".

 

To me, "God is"

 

.... making a commitment of my energy to that is like making a commitment to breath air. I don't mean to sound fundy here... so please don't take it that way. I'm just not sure what you're saying.

 

I suppose it all depends on the way "God" is defined?????? No????????

[Asimov]

I agree my friend is an atheist (if he see me talking about him he might jump in ). For others though, who are "undecided" on the question, I think there needs to be some way to say, "I'm not sure". Granted, there is no way I can say with 100% absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, just as I can't for unicorns either, but for all intents and purposes it so remote a possiblity God does not exist. I don't really recall how you deal with that category.

 

Well, most people who use the "I'm not sure" category are generally saying "I'm open to the possibility", so therefore they are an atheist. If they don't actually subscribe to any belief in God then they are an atheist. If they don't actually say "I believe in x type of God" then they are an atheist, even if they don't specifically say "I believe that God doesn't exist" or "I don't believe in any God or gods" they are an atheist...it's a semantic issue that really needs to be put down like a rabid dog.

 

The problem I see is that its a charged word, and even though some use it as a general "no-god" category (as I do), some people may not like the term and avoid it for a more socially "moderate" word. I use it in its broadest sense, and therefore anyone who does not go though life with belief in a god of some sort, is without a god of some sort and therefore a-theist, absent a god.

 

I think creating new words for the same damn thing is redundant.

 

Are we getting off-topic?

[Antlerman]

Well, most people who use the "I'm not sure" category are generally saying "I'm open to the possibility", so therefore they are an atheist. If they don't actually subscribe to any belief in God then they are an atheist. If they don't actually say "I believe in x type of God" then they are an atheist, even if they don't specifically say "I believe that God doesn't exist" or "I don't believe in any God or gods" they are an atheist...it's a semantic issue that really needs to be put down like a rabid dog.

Yes I agree with this. I don't see that being atheist means a commitment to some "belief", but rather is just not believing in god or gods. Undecided is still not believing. Yet, at the same token, due to the many faceted uses of words in language..... Big A - Atheist vs. Little a - atheist. Just like Big "B" Belief, and little "b" belief; Big "F" Faith, little "f" faith, (you get the idea). Big Belief is a religious belief, little b is just simpling accepting something as true. It's how words get used.

 

So I guess the thing I'm getting at that addresses OM's question is that if there is a trend (outside this limited poll of course), that women tend to avoid using the word atheist, it could be because of a cultural sensitivity to not adopt a word that has the potential of sounding like the "big A", Atheist which can be seen as an almost religious belief in itself (I'm not saying it is, but it does get seen that way in culture, along with being immoral, along with being lawless, along with......) Guys maybe are more oblivious/don't care about the implications? Don't know, just processing one possiblity.

 

I think creating new words for the same damn thing is redundant.

 

Are we getting off-topic?

Well, yeah in a way it is, but language is a force of culture, not just raw definitions. Connotations that are built up in language can and do interfer with communication, or are used deliberately to communicate a whole other meaning. This is why sometimes it becomes necessary to come up with new words to say the same thing, as it strips off "other meanings" that get stuck to the words.

 

Just think what connotations the word "atheist" have attached to it that the church glued on to it! In the strictest sense its construction is an accurate word to use in the way we're using it, but what do people "hear" with that word? Does my friend avoid using that word because of how he knows others might hear that? That's my feeling about it.

 

I remember my father's quick word of caution to me to be careful in saying you're an atheist to some people. He's fine with that, but he just knows how others might take it to mean more than I mean by it.