Atheism and gender

[wellwisher]

I'd like to get some theories why Atheism attracts more men than women.

Faith in numbers: Behind the gender difference of nonreligious Americans
Scholars have long noted that atheism skews male. Meanwhile, critics have pointed toward the apparent dominance of male authors in the “new atheism” movement as evidence of a “boys club.” Indeed, a quick scan of the best-selling books on atheism on Amazon indicates that almost all of them are written by male authors.

Male and female brains differ in terms of their wiring. Males are more wired front to back of the brain while females are more wired side-to-side. This observed wiring difference translates to men being more visually orientated and females more verbally orientated. Front to back is the frontal lobe and visual cortex, while side-to side is the audio cortex.

To explain this further I would like to use an example. Say we were in a lecture hall with 6500 members of the audience with each person speaking one of the 6500 known human languages on earth. I am at center stage and place objects on a table and ask each person to tell me what the objects are. With 6500 different languages we will get a wide variety of sounds and noises. There is no cause and affect between the sounds of languages and the objects they represent. It is subjective and arbitrary.

In the second experiment I will ask the sake audience to draw what they see. Now I am telling the audience to ignore verbal language and using the visual cortex to draw what they see. This will be much more consistent across the board if we factor out drawing skills. The visual has a universal and objective language. One will not get 6500 different drawings, as we did with spoken language and words.

The male is more connected to the visual language common to all. However, once you begin to write and speak, subjectivity is added by using language. This appeals to the ladies since it speaks to their natural wiring.

Language is needed to think and reason. However, each language catalogs reality in different ways, using different sounds that mean differ things. If I sweated at you in a language you did not know, but I was smiling, you may interpret by sounds and noises as friendly. Now there is no meeting of the minds due to the added subjectivity. This is not the case with the universal visual language, You cannot paint to a dog and tell me it is a cat o draw a cat and expect me to fall for it.

One problem with atheist males and their assessment of religion is they use mostly the visual cortex. In science, seeing is believing. However, there is no the frontal lobe operating in total parallel. Faith is the belief in things not seen. Faith uses the frontal lobe, but not the visual cortex in total parallel. pr There is different data processing going on males with purely science or religious affiliations; difference in visual cortex processing and frontal lobe processing.

The frontal lobe is newer in terms of evolution. The caveman would have use mostly his visual cortex with minimal frontal lobe support. Religion began when the frontal lobe became more active and full front to back wiring became possible.

I like science and religion since each exercise part of my male brain, front or back. I prefer two strong arms instead of one large arm and one small arm.

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheism is not more rational...

Tis a claim oft made, but it seems defensive.
It's rational to see fantastic claims made
without evidence, & to not leap to belief.

 

[crossfire]

Can I be honest?
A lot of the bro “boys club” types might cause some women atheists to not bother with the label at all.
I know I found certain groups toxic and even hostile towards women.
Just a hypothesis.

Yep. Remember Elevatorgate?

 

[Orbit]

Male and female brains differ in terms of their wiring. Males are more wired front to back of the brain while females are more wired side-to-side. This observed wiring difference translates to men being more visually orientated and females more verbally orientated. Front to back is the frontal lobe and visual cortex, while side-to side is the audio cortex.

To explain this further I would like to use an example. Say we were in a lecture hall with 6500 members of the audience with each person speaking one of the 6500 known human languages on earth. I am at center stage and place objects on a table and ask each person to tell me what the objects are. With 6500 different languages we will get a wide variety of sounds and noises. There is no cause and affect between the sounds of languages and the objects they represent. It is subjective and arbitrary.

In the second experiment I will ask the sake audience to draw what they see. Now I am telling the audience to ignore verbal language and using the visual cortex to draw what they see. This will be much more consistent across the board if we factor out drawing skills. The visual has a universal and objective language. One will not get 6500 different drawings, as we did with spoken language and words.

The male is more connected to the visual language common to all. However, once you begin to write and speak, subjectivity is added by using language. This appeals to the ladies since it speaks to their natural wiring.

Language is needed to think and reason. However, each language catalogs reality in different ways, using different sounds that mean differ things. If I sweated at you in a language you did not know, but I was smiling, you may interpret by sounds and noises as friendly. Now there is no meeting of the minds due to the added subjectivity. This is not the case with the universal visual language, You cannot paint to a dog and tell me it is a cat o draw a cat and expect me to fall for it.

One problem with atheist males and their assessment of religion is they use mostly the visual cortex. In science, seeing is believing. However, there is no the frontal lobe operating in total parallel. Faith is the belief in things not seen. Faith uses the frontal lobe, but not the visual cortex in total parallel. pr There is different data processing going on males with purely science or religious affiliations; difference in visual cortex processing and frontal lobe processing.

The frontal lobe is newer in terms of evolution. The caveman would have use mostly his visual cortex with minimal frontal lobe support. Religion began when the frontal lobe became more active and full front to back wiring became possible.

I like science and religion since each exercise part of my male brain, front or back. I prefer two strong arms instead of one large arm and one small arm.

Do you have any sources or reliable references for this idea that brains are "wired differently"? The brain is plastic, and "wires" itself in response to socialization and environment.

Here's what I found on WebMD: "It turned out that maybe 6 in every 100 of the brains they studied were consistently a single sex. Many others had a patchwork quilt of masculine and feminine features that varied widely from person to person."

 

[pearl]

Lets not forget to give Madalyn Murray O'Hair her due.

 

[Orbit]

Lets not forget to give Madalyn Murray O'Hair her due.

Did you see the Netflix (or was it AmazonPrime) documentary about her? What a strange, unpleasant grifter they made her out to be.

 

[pearl]

Did you see the Netflix (or was it AmazonPrime) documentary about her? What a strange, unpleasant grifter they made her out to be.

I'll have to check it out, looks interesting. But that kind of treatment was to be expected considering the source.

 

[firedragon]

I'd like to get some theories why Atheism attracts more men than women.

Faith in numbers: Behind the gender difference of nonreligious Americans
Scholars have long noted that atheism skews male. Meanwhile, critics have pointed toward the apparent dominance of male authors in the “new atheism” movement as evidence of a “boys club.” Indeed, a quick scan of the best-selling books on atheism on Amazon indicates that almost all of them are written by male authors.

Well that's an interesting topic. Never thought of it really.

One speculation I would make is that I have read long ago (I dont know if science has changed this) that men dont really cross their rational side with their emotional side, yet women do. This is a biological fact.

Thus, maybe men are hard and fast on "either this way or that way", yet women mix emotion with rationality all the time.

But of course I dont quote any research. Its just a speculation.

Interesting topic.

 

[Earthtank]

I'd like to get some theories why Atheism attracts more men

Because we men don't want anyone telling us squat about what we can do, we prefer to be be left to our own and figure things out on our own. That's where Atheism comes in as everything being subjective and basically you answer to no one and you are never truly wrong since nothing is rooted in any solid foundation and the rules are made up as you go along.

 

[viole]

I'd like to get some theories why Atheism attracts more men than women.

Faith in numbers: Behind the gender difference of nonreligious Americans
Scholars have long noted that atheism skews male. Meanwhile, critics have pointed toward the apparent dominance of male authors in the “new atheism” movement as evidence of a “boys club.” Indeed, a quick scan of the best-selling books on atheism on Amazon indicates that almost all of them are written by male authors.

Women do not like to spend too much time with the obvious, in general.

Ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

Tis a claim oft made, but it seems defensive.
It's rational to see fantastic claims made
without evidence, & to not leap to belief.

It's irrational to presume that any evidence, or the lack of it, validates or invalidates the existence of God. Yep humans on both sides of the debate just keep on insisting that 'their' evidence (or lack of it) resolves the question. And no matter how many times or ways it is explained to them that their evidence (or lack of it) is not evidence of anything to anyone but them, they remain adamant. This is how it is with many theists and many atheists, alike.

 

[PureX]

How do you marry that idea with the fact that power in religion has almost always been in the hands of men? Certainly in the traditional theistic religions.

God is not religion. People, men and women alike, relate to Gog through religion. Even if the religions are patriarchal, and even if their image of God is male. It's not an issue of gender, it's an issue of power. God has the power. ALL the power. And people who feel powerless tend to seek out God to help them feel empowered: men and women.

So if women feel more powerless in their patriarchal culture, and many surely do, they would be more inclined to seek out God's power to help them feel more empowered, regardless of the fact that men control the religions, just as they control everything else.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's irrational to presume that any evidence, or the lack of it, validates or invalidates the existence of God.

That's redefining things.
It's simple.
There's no evidence of gods.
So I don't believe in gods.
This is rational.

What's irrational:
There's no evidence of gods.
So I leap to belief in these gods.

 

[PureX]

I think males are are more inclined to be philosophical materialists, and most atheists are philosophical materialists. They tend to believe that physicality defines existence. Whereas women tend to be far more relationally oriented, and less materially or physically oriented.

 

[PureX]

That's redefining things.
It's simple.
There's no evidence of gods.
So I don't believe in gods.
This is rational.

Except that's a somewhat dishonest and misleading statement because you are playing with the words to say what you "don't believe" rather than what you do. What you do believe is that because no one has given you what you consider to be satisfactory and convincing evidence for the existence of any God/gods, then it's logical for you to presume that It/they don't exist. The problem is that it's not logical to presume this, and you know you can't defend it as being logical. So you hide behind the guise of being undecided, when you're not undecided at all. You really just want to avoid having to defend your illogical presumption that 'no gods exist' is the logical default position for you lack of evidence. When 'undecided' is the logical default position for insufficient evidence. But that isn't really your position, is it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Except that's a somewhat dishonest....

Geeze Louise....that's a good start.
I'm trying to deceive you, eh.

An honest observation....
There's no convincing evidence that gods exist.
There's no objective method to detect them.
Just faith.
Well I don't do faith. Not a reliable tool.

A rational reaction to that observation....
I don't leap to belief in things lacking evidence they exist.
So I'm an atheist.

No word games.
No deception.

 

[Roguish]

I'd like to get some theories why Atheism attracts more men than women.

Men are "better" than women at suppressing their intuition,
and since intuition is what links man (and woman) to God,
men are therefore "better" at severing their bond with God.

Of course modern women have plenty of objections against religion in its organized form.
Still, they find it very, very difficult in their hearts to denounce God altogether.
Somehow they know (intuitively) that denouncing God altogether is a final step they should not take.
God has blessed them with a strong intuitive restraint against taking that final, disastrous step.

Men, on the other hand, are much more capable (than women) of stifling their intuition by means of their thoughts. Thus they are capable of disregarding (i.e. not hearing) any warning bells that their intuition rings when it comes to denying God. Men plod on, along the path they have mentally embarked on, and insist on following it to the end: that is, toward the formal denunciation of God, i.e. atheism. Thus, plenty men succeed at killing their own souls, while very few women succeed at it.

(P.S. The above, however, does not imply that women are better at religion. While a woman has the advantage of being better protected from the terrible lapse into atheism, a man has the advantage of being more steadfast in Faith if he does arrive at it.)

 

[PureX]

Geeze Louise....that's a good start.
I'm trying to deceive you, eh.

Not directly. It's just low-brow auto-defense, I think.

An honest observation....
There's no convincing evidence that gods exist.

Certainly none that YOU will accept as evidence, and none that will achieve the level of "conviction" in YOUR mind.

What's amazing to me is that you can't see the blatant and inevitable bias in such a statement. You throw it out there like it's as obvious as light and gravity, and you apparently have no idea that it's a completely subjective opinion-turned-imaginary-fact.

No objective method to detect them. Just faith.
Well I don't do faith. Not a reliable tool.

You 'do faith' all the time. We all do. You just cant see it because you're so convinced that you 'know what you know'.

I don't leap to belief in things lacking evidence they exist.
So I'm an atheist.

That's just being a skeptic. You, on the other hand, have leapt to the conclusion that gods don't exist because you don't see the evidence of it. That's not being a skeptic. That's 'believing in' a proposition that you can't show any evidence to support. And that's not skepticism. Nor is it "unbelief". You're a 'true believer', my friend. As so many atheists are.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not directly. It's just low-brow auto-defense, I think.

You're doubling down on accusation of dishonesty?
No need to even read the rest of your post.

 

[PureX]

You're doubling down on accusation of dishonesty?
No need to even read the rest of your post.

Ha! So then the auto-defense doubles down in response *chuckling*.