Men, Women And Their Beliefs

[Open_Minded]

Are we getting off-topic?[/b]

 

Nope

 

I don't think you're getting off topic at all. I'm staying out of the why people choose to call themselves either Agnostic or Atheist because I've never been in the situation.

 

I do think the results of the poll show a big difference between men and women and their choices of labels. It would be interesting to get a femine perspective on this.

 

There was a time in my life (many, many years ago - back in the 1970s) that I thought differences between men and women were all because of nurture and not nature.

 

Then I had children of my own and now I feel the differences between men and women are a grand mixture of both. My son and daughters were individuals from birth. In addition my daughters were girls from birth and my son was all boy. As determined as I was that he would never play with guns, he found ways to make anything he could get his hand on a gun.

 

He loved speed and movement and was a bundle of energy within my womb. As a little boy - he fell in love with trucks and tools and all the "guy" things.

 

My little girls loved what most (not all - but most) little girls loved. They loved to wear frilly dresses and play with dolls and mother their brother. Even his younger sister mothered him.

 

Why do the women of this poll have a more even spread across the titles of Agnostic and Atheist?

 

Why do the men of this poll prefer only the Atheist title?

 

My guess is it's a mixture of nature and nurture, and I look forward to the conclusions drawn by those who actually consider themselves Agnostic or Atheist.

[Asimov]

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.

 

I think it's fine to have those types of distinctions - although I use strong atheism and weak atheism to refer to level of conviction and belief and religion to refer to a regular belief vs. a religious belief and then faith is just 'belief in something without logical reasoning or evidence' - but again, someone could use the word "man" in an offensive way or "woman" in an offensive way. It's the way it's said and the context.

 

So really, it's not the word that's the problem, it's the people using it.

 

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.

 

Yea, but do you see gays changing the words that they use to refer to themselves? Some people embrace those words instead of using different ones and try to send the message that the word that is used doesn't automatically set a specific stereotype on people.

 

It's educating people and speaking out that will cause others to realise that atheist doesn't mean "lawless" or "immoral".

 

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.

 

Or we can "strip off" the meanings that the word doesn't imply and say "this is what Atheist means". It's almost like we're giving in to those negative connotations and allowing them to define what atheist means for us.

 

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.

 

Well if you live in a place where people kill you for being an atheist then I think that it's productive to avoid the label...even though it's just a negative label and doesn't positively identify who you are.

 

I'm an atheist, but my positive label is Objectivist. Most people don't even know what that is.

[Antlerman]

Yea, but do you see gays changing the words that they use to refer to themselves? Some people embrace those words instead of using different ones and try to send the message that the word that is used doesn't automatically set a specific stereotype on people.

 

It's educating people and speaking out that will cause others to realise that atheist doesn't mean "lawless" or "immoral".

Yes. I was actually going to mention this in my previous post. I myself will use the word atheist for myself for those reasons that it affirms that being atheist defies the stereotypes, and since I don't have fear for my life (yet, at least), I will continue to use it to others. But I still feel that the word is charged with negative connotation, and this is likely why we are seeing a discrepancy in males using it versus females, and that is 100% cultural influence with no genetics or biology involved.

 

Young males, culturally, tend to see things in more black and white terms, and outside that, they also tend to be more willing to be defiant culturally, in that though society may not like it, there isn't the huge morality crap that gets laid on men like it does on women. So I could see women being less likely to take on a word like "atheist" to stand head on against society. This is strictly cultural programming aimed at ones approval of their gender, rather than ideals. It's one think to be called "messed up", it's another thing to be branded as immoral. "Good women are not supposed to rock the boat and support their men". This is very much a part of the culture of our parents generation and comes passing on down through our own.

 

For the record, I see no difference between men and women on intellectual or emotional capacities. Any "tendencies" we see are 100% culturally programming, both for male and female roles, and then you have individuals defining themselves against these artificial models.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Women have more cytocin in their system - a "bonding" hormone, and men have more testosterone - a hormone that helps propel aggression. Both sexes have some of each. I read a brain article saying that when women are stressed, they tend to get together with other women and do something; when men are stressed, they tend to pull away.

 

So if labeling oneself an atheist makes a person feel he/she is opposing society more than it does when the person self-identifies as agnostic, do biological differences operate parallel to cultural differences in leading more males to say they're atheist and more females to say they're agnostic? Even when both might hold largely the same (un)belief set?

[Asimov]

So if labeling oneself an atheist makes a person feel he/she is opposing society more than it does when the person self-identifies as agnostic, do biological differences operate parallel to cultural differences in leading more males to say they're atheist and more females to say they're agnostic? Even when both might hold largely the same (un)belief set?

 

I think it's ignorance of the meaning of the word Agnostic. Misunderstanding.

[Open_Minded]

OK....

 

I'm going to jump out on a limb here.

 

Although I've no personal experience with being Agnostic or Atheist - I've friends who are. One friend in particular I've known for over 6 years now.

 

She considers herself Agnostic. The way she explains it to me is that sometimes - mostly when she is out in nature and particularly when she is at the ocean - she does feel that there is a God.

 

But.... when she considers and sees all the pain in the world she cannot conceive of a God allowing this to happen.

 

So.... she is of the attitude that the question should just be left alone. That it is not necessary for her to have an answer. That is why she calls herself Agnostic.

 

This is what I was getting at before, when I wrote about the willingness to live with ambiguous answers.

 

My friend would never call herself an Atheist, not because of the social stigma, but simply because she's "not sure". Sometimes she feels there could be a God, sometimes not.

 

She's willing to let it be at that and live with reality that some questions don't have answers. It's all about that, "sliding scale of probabilites" that Antlerman discussed. My friend is willing to live at a different place on that scale than those who reach the conclusion that there is no God. She's not willing to draw the conclusion or even attempt to answer the question. She's told me, (that for her) the question can't be answered. Sometimes she feels there is a God, sometimes not and she has no way of knowing so she is willing to "let it be at that". (Quotations used because those are her words and not mine.)

[Asimov]

OK....

 

I'm going to jump out on a limb here.

 

Although I've no personal experience with being Agnostic or Atheist - I've friends who are. One friend in particular I've known for over 6 years now.

 

She considers herself Agnostic. The way she explains it to me is that sometimes - mostly when she is out in nature and particularly when she is at the ocean - she does feel that there is a God.

 

But.... when she considers and sees all the pain in the world she cannot conceive of a God allowing this to happen.

 

So.... she is of the attitude that the question should just be left alone. That it is not necessary for her to have an answer. That is why she calls herself Agnostic.

 

<snip>

 

Well, that completely has nothing to do with what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is a specific standpoint regarding whether or not we can know if God exists.

 

Her reasoning, though, is based off of emotions and is therefore invalid. Feelings do not indicate anything, they are just reactions and coming to conclusions - even tentative ones - based off of emotional reactions to world events have absolutely no merit to the discussion at hand.

 

Until she actually uses logics, her statements are, for lack of a better word, irrelevant. This isn't to bash your friend, I'm just pointing out that her conclusions aren't coherent because they are logically fallacious.

[♦ ficino ♦]

So if labeling oneself an atheist makes a person feel he/she is opposing society more than it does when the person self-identifies as agnostic, do biological differences operate parallel to cultural differences in leading more males to say they're atheist and more females to say they're agnostic? Even when both might hold largely the same (un)belief set?

 

I think it's ignorance of the meaning of the word Agnostic. Misunderstanding.

 

Hi, Asimov, I don't see how you're refuting my speculation. Ignorance of what atheism and agnosticism entail is certainly a possible factor in an individual's decision to label him/herself as one or the other. I am speculating, however, that propensity to want to fit into a group is another factor, one that is psychological, and that women have more propensity to want to bond than men. This is an empirical claim which may be false. I think it's unlikely that cognitive considerations are sufficient to explain every individual's identity choices. My guess is that there are people who know that agnosticism holds that God's existence cannot be known, and that they want to avoid the stigma that they believe attaches to identification as an atheist. I am not prepared to say that people's deep identification choices are adequately explained on cognitive grounds alone.

 

Open Minded, i agree with Asimov that your friend as you describe her does not espouse a genuine agnostic position. It doesn't sound as though she maintains that God's existence cannot be known by us. It sounds rather as though she just doesn't claim to know. Socratic Ignorance about a topic does not equal agnosticism as I understand the latter term.

[Asimov]

Hi, Asimov, I don't see how you're refuting my speculation. Ignorance of what atheism and agnosticism entail is certainly a possible factor in an individual's decision to label him/herself as one or the other. I am speculating, however, that propensity to want to fit into a group is another factor, one that is psychological, and that women have more propensity to want to bond than men. This is an empirical claim which may be false. I think it's unlikely that cognitive considerations are sufficient to explain every individual's identity choices. My guess is that there are people who know that agnosticism holds that God's existence cannot be known, and that they want to avoid the stigma that they believe attaches to identification as an atheist. I am not prepared to say that people's deep identification choices are adequately explained on cognitive grounds alone.

 

I'm not attempting to refute your speculation, this isn't a debate and I'm not looking to bash your ideas. I'm analyzing with you, buddy.

 

The fact is, atheism does not state that God's existence can be known. It is a negative belief...or rather, a disbelief. It may be that their associations to agnosticism arise out of the stigma associated with atheism, but that is a result of ignorance of atheism and of agnosticism. They are creating a false dichotomy - it's either atheism or agnosticism - and then committing a semantic fallacy by calling them agnostics.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Open Minded, maybe I should have just said that there's a weak agnosticism ("I don't know") and a strong agnosticism ("it can't be known"), and that your friend falls into the former category. Perhaps the weak group further subdivides into theistic agnostic ("I believe but I can't provide a justification for my beliefs, so I don't say I have knowledge") and non-theistic ("I don't know enough to affirm that I believe").

 

A way down on the thread, Asimov, you distinguished between strong and weak atheism. I'm not sure whether you're collapsing agnosticism into atheism, but it sounds as though you are. Or are you saying that the two words don't mean the same thing but that they do refer to the same people, i.e. that agnostics would call themselves atheists if they were analyzing language clearly? A while ago you called agnosticism a "redundancy."

[Open_Minded]

Well, that completely has nothing to do with what agnosticism is. Agnosticism is a specific standpoint regarding whether or not we can know if God exists.

 

Her reasoning, though, is based off of emotions and is therefore invalid. .....

 

Asimov.... her understanding of agnosticism may have nothing to do with Agnosticism narrowly defined. Even if her reasoning is based off of emotions - it is still applicable to this conversation. The question is why are women and men self-identifying as Agnostic or Atheist.

 

For the purposes of this discussion - our individual views of another person's choice of labels are moot. The question is WHY are they choosing a particular label. My friend's choice of the Agnostic label has nothing to do with social implications. She simply does not feel the question can be answered, even though there are times in her life (when she is in nature) that she does experience something that causes her to feel that there may be a God.

 

To her - the question does not have an answer and therefore she calls herself agnostic. She is willing to live with unanswered questions.

 

Open Minded, maybe I should have just said that there's a weak agnosticism ("I don't know") and a strong agnosticism ("it can't be known"), and that your friend falls into the former category. Perhaps the weak group further subdivides into theistic agnostic ("I believe but I can't provide a justification for my beliefs, so I don't say I have knowledge") and non-theistic ("I don't know enough to affirm that I believe").

 

I'm not sure if I'm communicating her situation very well. Following is what I wrote in my first post...

 

She's not willing to draw the conclusion or even attempt to answer the question. She's told me, (that for her) the question can't be answered. Sometimes she feels there is a God, sometimes not and she has no way of knowing so she is willing to "let it be at that". (Quotations used because those are her words and not mine.)

 

Personally - I don't care what she calls herself. I don't think she'd identify herself either way - it's quite simple for her. I've never heard her refer to strong or weak agnosticism - she just calls herself agnostic. (I will ask her next time we get together though)

 

My original point - and something I still stand by - is that her reasons for calling herself Agnostic have never been stated to me in terms of social stigma. She's raised her children as Agnostic/Atheist. Her husband is Atheist. Her youngest child is the same age as my eldest. His status as Atheist was well known amongst his class mates. Granted we live in a pretty liberal area - so social stigma may not have the same impact here that it does in other areas of the country.

 

But, it's hard for me to believe that the biggest reason that women choose Agnostic over Atheist is because of the social implications.

 

(Looking through my post before hitting the "Add Reply" button - it just occurred to me that...

 

* She calls herself Agnostic

* Her husband calls himself Atheist

* Her son calls himself Atheist

* I'm not sure what her eldest child (a daughter) calls herself.

 

But, the results of this poll are holding true even within her family, and we live in a pretty liberal area where social stigma is not the issue it may be in other areas.)

[Curtdude]

Well, you finally have a male agnostic. Moi.

 

Interesting discussion. Bruce addresses the atheism/agnostic discussion on another thread in Rants:

 

I would like to state this again, to clear up the common confusion between agnosticism and atheism.

 

First, let's get some basic definitions:

 

1. Gnosis - literally "knowledge". This is the Greek base word for gnostic and agnostic.

2. Gnostic - one who has knowledge of X.

3. Agnostic - one who has no knowledge of X.

4. Theist - one who has belief in a deity(s).

4. Atheist - one who has no belief in a deity(s).

 

Gnostic and agnostic refers to the domain of knowledge. In terms of god(s) a person may claim to have gnosis (knowledge) of the existence of this/these beings. A person may also claim to not have knowledge of god or gods, and hence are agnostic to their existence. Notice the terms gnostic and agnostic only refer to knowledge, not to belief.

 

A person may claim to be agnostic to the existence of a god or gods and yet have belief in their existence and hence be a theist or deist. A person may claim to be agnostic and not have belief in god and are hence an atheist. Theism and atheism relate to belief, not knowledge.

 

In terms of some undefined god, say like the deist version, I am agnostic in terms of my knowledge of its existence and am an atheist. In term of a specific god, say the Abrahamic one, I am gnostic and I do not believe in it. I have knowledge which leads me to the belief that this specific god cannot and hence does not exist, simply because it violates axiomatic levels of logic.

 

Bruce

 

He seems to address the reasons why I identify as an agnostic rather than an atheist. An atheist has a negation of belief in a deity rather than simply an acknowledged ignorance if such a deity(ies) exist.

 

Oh well. Again, I'm not getting picked for kickball. hehehehehe

[Asimov]

Asimov.... her understanding of agnosticism may have nothing to do with Agnosticism narrowly defined. Even if her reasoning is based off of emotions - it is still applicable to this conversation. The question is why are women and men self-identifying as Agnostic or Atheist.

 

Right you are.

 

The question is WHY are they choosing a particular label. My friend's choice of the Agnostic label has nothing to do with social implications. She simply does not feel the question can be answered, even though there are times in her life (when she is in nature) that she does experience something that causes her to feel that there may be a God.

 

Perhaps the statistic then has no identifiable reason as to why women seem to identify more with the label agnostic.

 

 

 

 

He seems to address the reasons why I identify as an agnostic rather than an atheist. An atheist has a negation of belief in a deity rather than simply an acknowledged ignorance if such a deity(ies) exist.

 

How are the two mutually exclusive?

[Amethyst]

So what if people don't want to use the word atheist because it has negative social connotations and they could possibly lose their jobs and be disowned from their families because they say they are atheists?

 

This just seems to me no different from Christians saying everyone must be Christian. Here you, Asimov, are saying that everyone must say they are atheist because you don't recognize anything in-between. It is black or white to you.

 

Last time I checked, America was a free country, and we could self-identify as whatever we wanted. Why do we even have to use labels in the first place? Why can't we simply say, "I'm not religious?" That pretty much covers it.

[Curtdude]

 

He seems to address the reasons why I identify as an agnostic rather than an atheist. An atheist has a negation of belief in a deity rather than simply an acknowledged ignorance if such a deity(ies) exist.

 

How are the two mutually exclusive?

 

Good point...they are really close in meaning to me, but the agnostic position seems closer to my thoughts, so I use it to self identify. I guess it's the "I don't know everything" about whether or not there is or is not a deity, so I fall into agnosticism rather than an active disbelief in a deity.

 

Also, after being a bible thumper for so long, the active disbelief seems too stringent for me.

[Amethyst]

 

Good point...they are really close in meaning to me, but the agnostic position seems closer to my thoughts, so I use it to self identify. I guess it's the "I don't know everything" about whether or not there is or is not a deity, so I fall into agnosticism rather than an active disbelief in a deity.

 

Also, after being a bible thumper for so long, the active disbelief seems too stringent for me.

 

My thought process is along the same lines. I don't think anyone can say for sure whether or not there isn't something out there. You can disprove a specific deity, but the entire concept?

 

Let me put it this way. Do I believe in an imaginary skydaddy/skymommy or the plural versions thereof looking down on us and judging our every moves? No.

 

Do I believe in the fluffy bunny version of skydaddy/skymommy or the plural versions thereof? No.

 

Do I believe that there is a Star Wars-like energy field out there? Maybe reincarnation or something like that? I don't know.

[Asimov]

So what if people don't want to use the word atheist because it has negative social connotations and they could possibly lose their jobs and be disowned from their families because they say they are atheists?

 

This just seems to me no different from Christians saying everyone must be Christian. Here you, Asimov, are saying that everyone must say they are atheist because you don't recognize anything in-between. It is black or white to you.

 

Last time I checked, America was a free country, and we could self-identify as whatever we wanted. Why do we even have to use labels in the first place? Why can't we simply say, "I'm not religious?" That pretty much covers it.

 

Where did I say that anyone had to use the word atheist?

 

I'm stating that based on the information I've been given, Open Minded friend is an atheist. She fits the definition of an atheist. A duck doesn't call himself a duck, that doesn't mean he isn't a duck.

 

I'm not religious does not mean that you disbelieve in the God concept, it just means that you don't adhere to any religious principles, it's too vague.

 

 

Good point...they are really close in meaning to me, but the agnostic position seems closer to my thoughts, so I use it to self identify. I guess it's the "I don't know everything" about whether or not there is or is not a deity, so I fall into agnosticism rather than an active disbelief in a deity.

 

Everyone falls into the agnostic category, because nobody knows if God exists. That's my problem with the term agnostic.

 

I don't understand about active disbelief...what do you mean by that?

[Amethyst]

Where did I say that anyone had to use the word atheist?

 

By your constant insistence that agnostics are atheist, you imply that we should all use the atheist label, even if we don't want to.

 

I'm not religious does not mean that you disbelieve in the God concept, it just means that you don't adhere to any religious principles, it's too vague.

 

I don't think it's too vague. Most people understand what it means. It answers the question just fine and avoids getting into stupid arguments with Christians, especially in the workplace.

[Curtdude]

 

.... I don't understand about active disbelief...what do you mean by that?[/b]

 

I mean that in a conversation with a deist, one would assert that there is no deity.

 

As far as I know, that is my conclusion, but since I cannot say categorically that I know all of the possiblities, I do not make that active assertion. Rather, I assert that I do not know.

 

You are much better than I at pinpointing an exact definition, so sorry if my thoughts are not crystal clear.

[Asimov]

By your constant insistence that agnostics are atheist, you imply that we should all use the atheist label, even if we don't want to.

 

Why would I do that when agnostics can be theists as well?

 

I don't think it's too vague. Most people understand what it means. It answers the question just fine and avoids getting into stupid arguments with Christians, especially in the workplace.

 

Nothing avoids getting into stupid arguments with Christians, even if you're a Christian.

 

 

 

 

As far as I know, that is my conclusion, but since I cannot say categorically that I know all of the possiblities, I do not make that active assertion. Rather, I assert that I do not know.

 

I don't know either...how does that affect belief?

[Curtdude]

By your constant insistence that agnostics are atheist, you imply that we should all use the atheist label, even if we don't want to.

 

Why would I do that when agnostics can be theists as well?

 

 

 

As far as I know, that is my conclusion, but since I cannot say categorically that I know all of the possiblities, I do not make that active assertion. Rather, I assert that I do not know.

 

I don't know either...how does that affect belief?

 

Uh, help me out here, Asimov. I think it means we agree on something! We don't believe in god. The only diff is that I'm not ruling out the possibility of a deity, and you reject that possibility, right?

[Amethyst]

By your constant insistence that agnostics are atheist, you imply that we should all use the atheist label, even if we don't want to.

 

Why would I do that when agnostics can be theists as well?

 

 

Funny, that's the first time I've ever seen you admit that agnostics don't have to be atheists, and I've been a member here for quite some time now.

 

So, if you do not think that agnostics have to use the atheist label, why harp on it so much? Why not just live and let live?

[Asimov]

Uh, help me out here, Asimov. I think it means we agree on something! We don't believe in god. The only diff is that I'm not ruling out the possibility of a deity, and you reject that possibility, right?

 

I don't rule out the possibility of a deity, just like I don't rule out the possibility of an afterlife. There is no merit to the concept of God so I don't believe.

 

I think the only difference between you and me is that I consider the only people to inactively disbelieve in something are those who have had no concept of God given to them to reject consciously.

 

 

Funny, that's the first time I've ever seen you admit that agnostics don't have to be atheists, and I've been a member here for quite some time now.

 

So, if you do not think that agnostics have to use the atheist label, why harp on it so much? Why not just live and let live?

 

I've held the stance that agnosticism as a label is as redundant as labelling oneself a human. It doesn't differentiate you from anyone else, because everyone is an agnostic.

 

I don't think I've ever stated that all agnostics are atheists, because I don't remember ever believing that to be true.

 

The point is that atheists should use the atheist label, because that is what they are.

 

Are you a theist? No? Then you're an atheist, don't wanna call yourself an atheist? Ok, there are a hundred different things you can label yourself as. That doesn't make you not an atheist.

[Clergicide]

Interesting survey. I'm surprised agnostics are overwhelmingly female.

 

And I'm yet again shocked to see this bizarre debate over what agnosticism is.

Amethyst has it right though.

[Asimov]

Amethyst has it right though.

 

In what aspect of her point? That I should stop bitching about agnosticism? Hehe...