Brought None Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Zod? KNEEL BEFORE ZOD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Defiant Pixel Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 lol I'm not sure if this poll will unveil and information regarding the comparison between male and female statistics between the same beliefs, seeing that 50 more males have voted in total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 lol I'm not sure if this poll will unveil and information regarding the comparison between male and female statistics between the same beliefs, seeing that 50 more males have voted in total. Well, I'm reading it as: Theists: Fairly balanced Agnostics: Fairly balanced Atheists: Roughly 2:1 Male/Female which is interesting in itself. (BTW, I like your username! Welcome.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 What fascinates me is that this poll is still going after two years. I started it in October of 2006. I'm not on the board as often as I used to be, but I do enjoy lurking now and again. And it's fun to watch this poll keep popping to the surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naiya Posted January 26, 2009 Share Posted January 26, 2009 I would like to refute the idea that women are "more emotional" than men, and thus "more prone to religion/cults/whatever." It's as much as a jump as the old "there are no girls on the internet." In fact the latter almost seems like a better explanation. My theory (which I'm not presenting as fact) would be that our society views atheists are antagonistic in nature. Oddly, being "out" as an atheist means that you will usually need to be prepared for a lot of people confronting you about your beliefs. If women are taught to avoid confrontation, I would guess that they avoid calling themselves atheists for that reason. In our society, many people assume that atheist means "I don't believe in God and I'm going to argue with anyone who brings up the subject." In any case, please do not say "studies show" unless you can actually point to those studies, especially when it's an assertion that's based on a largely negative stereotype. I just ran a few searches through my college database of peer-reviewed journals and found a total of ZERO studies proving that women are more emotional. The studies I did find showed that both sexes feel the same amount of emotion, but are culturally trained to show certain emotions. Men are completely allowed to show anger, but women are not. Women are allowed to show sadness, men not so much. But, since you guys don't have access to said database, I found a couple of things I can actually show. Here's an article on a website with a synopsis that won't make your eyeballs fall out: Men As emotional As Women Here's a study that may hurt your head if you aren't into academics: Women More Emotional Than Men. But to quote the second one: These findings have several major implications. First, sex differences in emotional experience are not as pervasive as the stereotype suggests. Men and women do not differ dramatically in their immediate reports of emotional experience, even in contexts that are differentially relevant for men and women (control vs. intimacy). This finding raises the possibility that women’s ``greater emotionality’ ’ is a culturally constructed idea, based on observed differences in emotional expression differences which are socialised from a very early age. Second, investigators should be wary of including only global, retrospective self-descriptions of emotional experience when conducting research on affective experience. Self-report ratings of this type, although informative, may provide a skewed picture of the emotional life of a person a picture skewed in the direction of supporting gender-based stereotypes about emotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted January 30, 2009 Author Share Posted January 30, 2009 <snipped for space>...But to quote the second one: These findings have several major implications. First, sex differences in emotional experience are not as pervasive as the stereotype suggests. Men and women do not differ dramatically in their immediate reports of emotional experience, even in contexts that are differentially relevant for men and women (control vs. intimacy). This finding raises the possibility that women’s ``greater emotionality’ ’ is a culturally constructed idea, based on observed differences in emotional expression differences which are socialised from a very early age. Second, investigators should be wary of including only global, retrospective self-descriptions of emotional experience when conducting research on affective experience. Self-report ratings of this type, although informative, may provide a skewed picture of the emotional life of a person a picture skewed in the direction of supporting gender-based stereotypes about emotion. Great post Naiya.. I'm female - and I've never viewed the results of this poll as being legitimately attributed to women as "more emotional".... My own personal take on it (and I've no statistics to back it up) ... but... personally I wonder if women are more willing to live with ambiguity of claiming Agnosticism? I mean - is it a right-brain/left-brain issue? Could it be... and I've no way of knowing - I'm open to hearing what other people have to say. Could it be that there isn't a whole lot of difference between the Agnostic position and the Atheist position? Could it be that the subtle differences between the two positions show up more in self-identification rather than actual/concrete differences in world view? My son self identifies as Atheist. His fiance self identifies as Agnostic - as far as I can tell the only real difference in their respective positions is that his fiance refuses to say one way or the other. She has feelings about things - but she refuses to nail it down to either there is a God or there isn't a God, so she calls herself Agnostic. She's willing to live with the ambiguity. My son uses the word Atheist - again there are no major differences with his fiance - but he just simply "calls it the way he sees it". He's doesn't feel the need to "leave things hanging or up in the air".... Does this make any sense at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted January 30, 2009 Author Share Posted January 30, 2009 lol I'm not sure if this poll will unveil and information regarding the comparison between male and female statistics between the same beliefs, seeing that 50 more males have voted in total. You make a good point Defiant - so I did a bit of mathematical analysis on my excel spreadsheet Following are the numbers broken down by gender: Males - 128 total votes 96 Atheist 32 Agnostic 75% of Males voted Atheist 25% of Males voted Agnostic Females - 88 total votes 49 Atheist 39 Agnostic 55.68% of females voted Atheist 44.32% of females voted Agnostic Believers broke out as dead even between males and females Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Christi Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 Another atheist/humanist female here. I've tried my best to read through this entire argument, but it got slightly redundant after the first four pages. Some of the viewpoints that were brought up were thought-provoking but the majority felt wishy-washy. A lot of the 'agnostics' seem to be taking this standpoint because they either feel unsure or don't feel comfortable with making a decision about their religious views. Basically, I don't see much of a difference between the two terms: thank you Wikipedia Agnosticism: (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual-beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself, and the terms are not mutually exclusive, since agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief.[2] and dictionary.reference.com Atheism: a⋅the⋅ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Origin: 1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism So agnostics feel that that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god(s). Or, they feel that they cannot say with 100% certainty that a god(s) does not exist. First off, I think both statements are true for EVERYONE! If anyone can prove or disprove the existence of all gods, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Also, nobody can say they are 100% sure about the existence, or lack thereof, of all/any gods. It is something that one can only be sure about after they die. Even those people that say God has spoken to them, we aren't 100% sure they are being honest or delusional. I think that any rational person, theists and atheists alike, can be accurately labeled as agnostic. Secondly, these two statements seem to say the same thing to me, "Because I can't prove it one way or another I can't say with certainty what I believe." Well duh! Basically, agnostics are unwilling to take a stand and make a decision. They are literally indecisive. They aren't comfortable with saying there is a god(s) and they are just as uncomfortable as saying there isn't a god(s). They understand the two statements made previously but refuse to take the next step and apply enough critical thinking to make a decision. So it's not that they're 'agnostic', they would be more accurately labeled as rationally indecisive: rational because they understand the first two statements as true, indecisive because they refuse to have an opinion. Meanwhile, atheists believe there is no god(s). The vast majority of atheists will agree that they cannot disprove the existence of all gods and because of that they are not 100% sure they don't exist. If they don't admit these two things, back away slowly. They admit these facts, just as agnostics do, but they've taken the time to analyze the religious situation, do some research (hopefully quite a bit of it) and they've made a decision about how they feel. They still don't know any thing more than the agnostic; that's why it's a belief that gods don't exist, or a lack of belief in gods, rather than a knowledge. So it's not that atheists have more certainty about religious ideas, they just feel/think that with the current information provided by religions and science that they cannot go along with the myths of religion. So, it's not that there is this completely separate belief system called agnosticism, it's just a very large group of indecisive people. Granted, there are probably people calling themselves agnostic to avoid the stigma of another label (i.e. atheist, fundy, etc.). I know I was one of those people in high school because being an atheist in west Texas wasn't exactly popular. But I have grown up since then. I have taken the time to look at the facts and make up my mind and I no longer care about the stigma attached to my chosen label. So, basically, the scale should go: fundamentalist------theists------deists------undecided/scared-----atheist-----anti-theist/fundamentalist deism being: 1. belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ). 2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it. and I describe anti-theist as someone like Christopher Hitchens (who I think is hilarious) that is very outspoken against religion, not just someone that speaks positively about their own belief. Basically, someone that is anti-religion. -The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Open_Minded Posted June 12, 2009 Author Share Posted June 12, 2009 Another atheist/humanist female here. I've tried my best to read through this entire argument, but it got slightly redundant after the first four pages. Some of the viewpoints that were brought up were thought-provoking but the majority felt wishy-washy. A lot of the 'agnostics' seem to be taking this standpoint because they either feel unsure or don't feel comfortable with making a decision about their religious views. Basically, I don't see much of a difference between the two terms:...... Hello Christi: I don't see a whole lot of difference between the terms "Atheist" and "Agnostic", either... What I'm wondering about is why women are more likely to self-identify as Agnostic and men are more likely to self-identify as Atheist. The thread is six pages long now, so I'll quote the OP question... I do not find as many female agnostics and atheists as males. Can females address this? The thread is pretty old, it dates to October of 2006. And - still - I wonder. Why are women more likely to self-identify as Agnostic and men are more likely to self-identify as Atheist? If ever there was an example of differences between the way men and women think &/or view reality - this self-identification tops the list. Self-identification in the areas of Atheist/Agnostic gets right to the core of the way someone perceives and thinks about reality. Personally, I do think women are more willing to live with the ambiguity (as I mentioned in my earlier post). But, I could be wrong. I self-identify as Christian, so I'm not really qualified to assess the differences from a personal perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Christi Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 Another atheist/humanist female here. I've tried my best to read through this entire argument, but it got slightly redundant after the first four pages. Some of the viewpoints that were brought up were thought-provoking but the majority felt wishy-washy. A lot of the 'agnostics' seem to be taking this standpoint because they either feel unsure or don't feel comfortable with making a decision about their religious views. Basically, I don't see much of a difference between the two terms:...... Hello Christi: I don't see a whole lot of difference between the terms "Atheist" and "Agnostic", either... What I'm wondering about is why women are more likely to self-identify as Agnostic and men are more likely to self-identify as Atheist. The thread is six pages long now, so I'll quote the OP question... I do not find as many female agnostics and atheists as males. Can females address this? The thread is pretty old, it dates to October of 2006. And - still - I wonder. Why are women more likely to self-identify as Agnostic and men are more likely to self-identify as Atheist? If ever there was an example of differences between the way men and women think &/or view reality - this self-identification tops the list. Self-identification in the areas of Atheist/Agnostic gets right to the core of the way someone perceives and thinks about reality. Personally, I do think women are more willing to live with the ambiguity (as I mentioned in my earlier post). But, I could be wrong. I self-identify as Christian, so I'm not really qualified to assess the differences from a personal perspective. It's probably some sort of misunderstanding. That women think agnosticism is the 'softer side' of atheism and they aren't ready to commit to the picture of atheism they have their heads. Unfortunately, in this day and age, too many people think atheists are evil/immoral/amoral heathens. Most women I know are unwilling to identify themselves with that kind of 'hardcore' group. I already fall into so many other hated categories (bisexual, outspoken, tattooed, pierced, nonconformist) that adding atheist to list didn't make much of a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 Rather than quoting Christi's post about atheism/agnosticism and why people lay claim to one or the other, I'll throw out my reasons for using the label agnostic. But before I do, let me say that for many agnostics (and atheists), you are correct in your assessments. I, myself use the label "agnostic " because nearly 100% of the time, my conversations with christians are about gnosis, or "knowing" god exists and that the christian god is easily knowable. Also, in our culture, christianity is touted as obvious KNOWLEDGE available to everyone-not belief. They may say "we believe in god", but they really mean they KNOW god exists 100% and know god personally! Rarely do I get anyone -except very liberal theists-to admit their religion is a belief. Technically, I'm an agnostic atheist. I believe god doesn't exist, but I don't know. Agnosticism is only concerned with knowledge, while atheism is only concerned with belief. If our culture would admit their theism is not gnosticism, I would label myself agnostic atheist exclusively because using both terms is more descriptive. I stick with agnostic so that I can point out the disguised gnosticism christians tout without realizing it. I tell them I am agnostic in that I don't know god exists or not, and an atheist in that I don't believe god exists. This distinction is important to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRDWarrior Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I'm new, but voted female agnostic. I've worked my way through some of this thread, but not all 6 pages since it did seem to be a bit redundant after awhile. At this point, I'm going with agnostic because I still am open to the idea of some sort of being that exists out there - I do not believe it is a god of the religions we see here, or one that requires human belief and worship. I will also admit that I am also open to the idea that there may very well be no supernatural beings. My reasons for this are two fold - my own scientific learning points to some sort of order in the universe - the words of one physics instructor (who was atheist) still stick in my head when even he said the chances of the universe ending up the way it did was nearly impossible without some sort of outside influence. That, along with my own observations about life and nature lead me to think there may be something out there, however, I do not think it cares about me, my life, or my decisions. I do not think it takes much if any notice of this entire world. Due to a lack of any concrete evidence one way or the other, I'm happy to sit on this fence. Either way, it doesn't really affect my life anymore. I'm also aware that my views may lean more towards atheism in the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Christi Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I'm new, but voted female agnostic. I've worked my way through some of this thread, but not all 6 pages since it did seem to be a bit redundant after awhile. At this point, I'm going with agnostic because I still am open to the idea of some sort of being that exists out there - I do not believe it is a god of the religions we see here, or one that requires human belief and worship. I will also admit that I am also open to the idea that there may very well be no supernatural beings. My reasons for this are two fold - my own scientific learning points to some sort of order in the universe - the words of one physics instructor (who was atheist) still stick in my head when even he said the chances of the universe ending up the way it did was nearly impossible without some sort of outside influence. That, along with my own observations about life and nature lead me to think there may be something out there, however, I do not think it cares about me, my life, or my decisions. I do not think it takes much if any notice of this entire world. Due to a lack of any concrete evidence one way or the other, I'm happy to sit on this fence. Either way, it doesn't really affect my life anymore. I'm also aware that my views may lean more towards atheism in the future... I might be misinterpreting what you mean, but doesn't this make you a deist rather than an agnostic? Gnosticism refers to knowledge regarding religion, not any specific knowledge, just whether true knowledge is possible on this particular subject. Deism, on the other hand, is a belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ) or a belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRDWarrior Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I'm new, but voted female agnostic. I've worked my way through some of this thread, but not all 6 pages since it did seem to be a bit redundant after awhile. At this point, I'm going with agnostic because I still am open to the idea of some sort of being that exists out there - I do not believe it is a god of the religions we see here, or one that requires human belief and worship. I will also admit that I am also open to the idea that there may very well be no supernatural beings. My reasons for this are two fold - my own scientific learning points to some sort of order in the universe - the words of one physics instructor (who was atheist) still stick in my head when even he said the chances of the universe ending up the way it did was nearly impossible without some sort of outside influence. That, along with my own observations about life and nature lead me to think there may be something out there, however, I do not think it cares about me, my life, or my decisions. I do not think it takes much if any notice of this entire world. Due to a lack of any concrete evidence one way or the other, I'm happy to sit on this fence. Either way, it doesn't really affect my life anymore. I'm also aware that my views may lean more towards atheism in the future... I might be misinterpreting what you mean, but doesn't this make you a deist rather than an agnostic? Gnosticism refers to knowledge regarding religion, not any specific knowledge, just whether true knowledge is possible on this particular subject. Deism, on the other hand, is a belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ) or a belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it. Rereading my post I can see how I come across that way, spending too much time on one side of the arguement. Basically, what I was trying to say (and did so poorly) is that I see evidence that could point to either theism or atheism, and since I see no concrete evidence to suggest one or the other, right now I sit in the middle. There were a lot of posts regarding atheism and it's support, I guess maybe that's why I focused too much on the other side - that or I just wasn't fully awake yet Right now I fit the agnostic definition - I cannot determine the existence or lack thereof of a god, and I see evidence that supports both views - so for me, the interpretation naturally lands in the agnostic definition. Perhaps there are more agnostics who are closer to atheism than deism, but unless someone settles on one side or the other, from my understanding of the definitions, then you fall into that middle catagory - which is where I'm at. I don't see clear evidence one way or the other, and in all reality, probably don't care too much, either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriana Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Late to the thread as usual. I chose agnostic. I do not believe in any god of religion, for they are all human concepts, but I don't know if there is no god with certainty. If one exists, it is within us all, but it is nothing humans can conceptualize and I suspect that IF it exists, science may one day find it, but it will not be a god as we know it. That is a lot of if's. Basically I don't know if there is a god, but if there is one, it is not anything humans have in their various religions. On one level I am an atheist, but on another I am very much the agnostic, but can sound very much like an atheist. BTW, if this helps any, if pantheist (Dawkin's sexed up atheism) was listed, I would have chosen that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddlingAround Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Another late arrival agnostic... I don't know if there's a god of some sort, I don't expect to ever know if there's a god of some sort, and I'd rather just get on with my secular life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VacuumFlux Posted November 26, 2009 Share Posted November 26, 2009 Female atheist. Never went through an agnostic phase; after realizing why I rejected the idea of the Christian god, I did not see the point in pursuing some other concept of a god. I'm an atheist because I think the idea of a god gets the universe backwards. Anyone ever read Wolfram's book? Ok, I didn't read the whole thing either (it's huge!), but the whole book is about how simple algorithms, repeated over and over (like fractals) can produce complexity. My view on the non-existence of god(s): We are sentient, but that sentience is a biochemical process. We're not even a single being; we are made up of cells and symbiots (like the stomach bacteria that helps us eat our food). I do not believe in souls; we are physical beings. The wonder and joy of the universe, all the mystical feelings we have, are real and grounded in physical reality. But it all starts with atoms organized into cells, organized into animals. "I" am the set of the cells in my body and my experiences in the past. "I" do not exist except as an abstraction. Actually, xkcd explains this better than I can. If I was agnostic, I'd call god(s) the next level up of abstraction. Except humans exist, god(s) don't. There is no Ultimate Truth to tap into, no higher level of existence. But we love labels, we love patterns, and we make sense of the unknown by comparing it to what we do know. And what we know best is our own experience of self. Our sentience is what makes us exist as individuals. It's hard to comprehend the universe existing without some overarching sentience because that's not how we work. God is, in that sense, a logical explanation for the universe. It's just that the logic that leads to god(s) conclusion is based on faulty assumptions. I was going to comment on the whole women vs men, emotion vs logic thing, but I'm too tired. I leave it up to you to figure out whether the preceding paragraph was logically reasoned out or emotionally based ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belladonna Posted December 5, 2009 Share Posted December 5, 2009 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. I'm not emotional!!! I'm not! I'm not! I'M NOT!!!!! (Actually, I'm not.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moving on Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 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. i see this is a very old post...however, I wanted to comment on it. It is not true that women are more "emotional" than men, and there are not neurological studies on this. First, scientists don't even use the word "emotional" to describe such things. They refer to positive affect, negative affect, etc. Not just how "emotional" a person is. Anyway, the studies, taken as a whole don't show that women feel emotions more than men, but that men and women tend to feel different types of emotions more strongly. Both genders feel emotions, but the ones that they feel more intensely differs as a whole between men and women. Of course, this is just referring to a general pattern, it doesn't mean that ALL women feel such and scuh emotions more strongly and ALL men feel this and that more strongly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted February 20, 2010 Share Posted February 20, 2010 OK, I've come to this thread late in the game. I normally refer to myself as an agnostic (my user name is even "agnostic" spelled backwards), but since I don't have any specific god belief (and consider all religions' gods to be make-believe) I went ahead and went with "Male Atheist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted April 28, 2010 Share Posted April 28, 2010 I'm only posting in this thread so it might stop saying that the post made by Citsonga is new. It's driving me crazy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheild Maiden Posted May 2, 2010 Share Posted May 2, 2010 Female atheist here. Same here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted May 21, 2010 Share Posted May 21, 2010 male agnostic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted May 28, 2010 Share Posted May 28, 2010 Having just found this - I'm a female believer-type. But I am quite the heathen type - more specifically an eclectic Vodou Thelemic Witch who likes mostly Mediterranean pagan beliefs (also includes Kemetic (Egyptian) and Phoenician). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easy_Pickings Posted September 1, 2010 Share Posted September 1, 2010 Female agnostic here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts