Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Atheism and Gender


Based on a few comments I have read on the Internet, it would appear that atheism is perhaps 80% to 90% a male belief. After all, there are The Four Horsemen, but no horsewomen.

There does not seem to be any obvious cause for this. Atheism is not a particularly male-oriented belief, in the way Wicca for example is female oriented. Some suggest that women are more insecure than men and therefore feel a greater need for the comfort of religion. Others suggest that perhaps women are less educated in science than men and therefore are more easily duped by religious leaders. I don't see much proof of these ideas.

In my humble opinion, the explanation is quite simple.

All traditional religions impose sexual restrictions to a certain degree. Atheists feel free to ignore these restrictions. (This is in contrast to religious prohibitions against stealing, killing, etc. which even atheists must continue to obey if they don't want to risk prison.) Therefore, most likely, the primary motivation for atheism is a desire for sexual freedom. The desire for sex is strongly influenced by testosterone, a hormone found in much higher levels among males than among females. Therefore, atheism is found in much higher levels among men than among women.

56 comments:

James F. Elliott said...

The primary motivation for atheism is a desire for sexual freedom.

You're an idiot.

badrabbi said...

"The primary motivation for atheism is a desire for sexual freedom."

Where in the Torah is sex prohibited for the man? As far as I know, premarital sex is allowed for men. For married men, sex with prostitutes also is allowed (see for example the story of Tamar and Judah). Sex with a slave woman is certainly possible, with certain conditions. Sex with a woman that you have hauled off in battle is also ok, as long as certain conditions are met.

Sexual intercourse is OK in practically all circumstances for men according to the Torah.

On the other hand, sex for a woman is not allowed under just about any circumstance:

1. Unmarried women must remain virgins until marriage. If a man, on the night of consummation did not blood stained sheets, he is allowed to return the woman to her parents. This is in the Torah, folks.

2. If a married man merely suspects a woman of cheating, he can haul her off to the humiliating court of the Sota Cohen, wherein her uterus would be exploded by the Cohen's bitter waters (its in the bible!) that she is forced to drink.

3. If a woman does not publicly scream during a rape, she is liable and will be stoned (in the Torah, folks!)

One would think that with all these restrictions that it should be the woman who should cry for sexual freedom. One would think that if atheism is motivated by a desire for sexual freedom that it should be the orthodox Jewish women that would be the horsewomen!

James F. Elliot called it right on JP.

jewish philosopher said...

Bad, rabbinical Jews follow something called the Talmud, therefore our point of view may be a little different than yours.

And name calling is what people do when they don't have anything intelligent to say.

badrabbi said...

According to JP, the Torah is dead! Long live the Talmud?

Shame!

jewish philosopher said...

Bad, I know this will come as a disappointment for Judaism haters like you, but take for example ”an eye for an eye” . We don’t do it and never have.

If you want to critique Judaism, you probably should learn a little more about what Judaism actually believes in.

david said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
david said...

JP, are you saying that the Torah is inferior to the Talmud? Do you hold the words of rabbis above the words of God?
Further more, if the concept of an eye for an eye is a part of the Law of God to be enacted under a given set of circumstances, aren't you telling God he got it wrong. You are basically saying your way is better then his.

I think the best thing we can learn about what Jews believe from JP is that they seem to see themselves as better that God.

jewish philosopher said...

In regards to judicial punishments, the Talmud does take a much softer line than the literal reading of the Torah. The Torah does give an impression of wild vigilantism, stoning, burning, maiming, etc whereas the Talmud negates pretty much all of that. The most common punishments in the rabbinical Jewish community have been shunning and perhaps an occasional flogging.

I, nevertheless, remain convinced of the validity of the Talmud because first of all the overwhelming majority of Jews have always accepted it as valid and also because of the unusual history of Talmudic literature.

badrabbi said...

JP: And name calling is what people do when they don't have anything intelligent to say.

Then, JP says: "Bad, I know this will come as a disappointment for Judaism haters like you,..."

I do not hate Judaism. I think it is a false religion like any other religion. I am a proud Jew however, in the sense of proudly belonging to a set of people with a tradition and heritage. So, baseless name calling is idiotic!

Now, with regards to Torah/Talmud, I remember once you told me that the Torah and the Talmud agree 99% of the time with one another. Now you are saying that they do not, that the latter is a kinder gentler version of the Torah. Aha!

When we debated the validity of the Torah, you used the 'conspiracy of masses' umm 'principle', saying that 3 million people were witnesses to God's giving the Torah to the Jews. We debated the validity of such a principle. But now you are doing a bait and switch. You claim that the Torah is valid because 3 million people watched it being given by God. Yet, you say that the Talmud has now supplanted the Torah, and we should give it more credence. Did 3 million people watch the Talmud being written?

What is more, if you have now degenerated to worshiping a book that you must admit was written by mere rabbis, if you consider a book that obviously was written by people to be holy, then you must own up to its errors. The Talmud, as you know, has more errors in it than a grade school essay written by an inner city student. Are you ready to own up to its shortcomings?

If you want to debate the Talmud, if you want to taut its genius, then put aside the Torah, and let us talk about it. You and your ilk, though, bring out the Torah with its scrolls for all to see, read from it, always being careful that it is read in ancient Hebrew so no one could understand what is being said, and then promptly ignore what it says and substitute rabbinic rules.

This reminds me of Orwell's Animal Farm: All laws are created equal, but some laws are more equal than others!

jewish philosopher said...

People who criticize Judaism by misinterpreting a few Biblical and/or Talmudic quotes as evidence of "Jewish barbarity" I think can be called "Judaism haters" or more bluntly anti-Semites. It's an old game which goes back at least to Jesus.

The written Torah was giving at Sinai together with its oral interpretation, which was eventually recorded in the Talmud.

Josh said...

Tosafos in kiddushin finds difficulty finding any doraisa for premarital sex for men. If so and it's indeed a drabannon, what does atheism have to do with sexual desire? It's the rabbis who outlawed it not man. If you then say the rabbis are an extension of G-d's ratzon in this world I guess I could theoretically hear that but it's weak on many points.

1) The frum veldt is holding so poorly by this then I guess we're all atheists. The shtarkest bachurim out of Lakewood after their engaged are going at it. They're still davening away. How come they're not all becoming atheists? Whatever happened to the halacha of yichud? That one died about two hundred years ago. My rebbe by the Mir would always joke about that one, no one keeps what yichud is supposed to be anymore. We don't see people going off the derech in the frum world because they aren't able to jump on top of the female sitting next to them at the shabbos table. It usually has to do with things like they feel disrespected by their rebbeim and peers, judged, inadequate, etc. etc., and then the older more mature people have many of the logical reasons for going off that are being stated on your blog over and over again such as there's no evidence for most of the events of the Torah, torah shebalpeh just doesn't seem to make too much sense (there's no mention of it in the Torah, no proof to it's being kept before the later period of beis sheni, makloksim which are so essential to the faith you wonder how these things could ever be disputed, etc., etc., though I speak personally I still am a frum believing jew, maybe it's because I compartmentalize like Dawkins once accused that Christian scientist of, forget his name), evolution, age of the universe, the world acts like a place that has no G-d, etc. etc. There's plenty of people doing bad things while clutching a Chumash/"new testament"/Koran to their chest and professing belief in their Deity. Dude look at a prison. You'll prolly find more religious people their per capita than anywhere else.

2) Everything badrabbi said is rabbinically permmisable also. Just because we don't have avadim anymore that one can shtup doesn't mean it's not doraisa also. Just because we don't have wars anymore doesn't mean it's not a mitzvah doraisa. These things were matered by Hashem. So his main point that the Torah is makel on sex with a man stands.

3) Most religions have few standards on sexual intercourse. Buddhism/Hinduism, which by the way are the largest religions in the world. They don't seem to have any need to become atheists to fulfill their desires.

Josh said...

I just need to follow up because I think this is the most crazy thing I've ever read, any time I've ever had a problem with emunah it has never been because oh wow restraining myself from sex to two weeks out of the month is just too difficult, or oh wow I really need to get a nice foursome with some black girls going on (no offense just trying to choose something crazy sounding for an adle jewish boy like me =p). If Torah is true and G-d gave it, I can restrain myself or do the best I can. As the gemmara says, a person does not sin unless a ruach shtus enters him. Why? Because anyone with 100% emunah in the Torah that there is indeed din vonesh won't sin. Obviously you wouldn't press a big red button that you knew would electricute you. But we do sin because we don't have emunah at times, doubt the existence of Hashem etc. I just don't get how you can believe what you wrote.

jewish philosopher said...

I think actually all traditional religions strongly encourage chastity. Can you provide me with the phone number of any rabbi who will say I can have sex with anyone I want to whenever I want to? I mean even a Reform rabbi. Or for that matter a Hindu or Buddhist priest who will say that?

So the simplest solution is to just claim "there's no evidence for most of the events of the Torah, torah shebalpeh just doesn't seem to make too much sense (there's no mention of it in the Torah, no proof to it's being kept before the later period of beis sheni, makloksim which are so essential to the faith you wonder how these things could ever be disputed, etc., etc.," Then you're free. Problem solved.

Josh, I'm just looking at the evidence. I am not going to base my opinions primarily on what atheists say about themselves. I know that few atheists are going to say "I really deny God because I want unlimited sex." They may not even think that. There's a little something called self-deception at work here.

Did you know that in his last days in his Berlin bunker Adolf Hitler is quoted as saying that his only fault was that he was too nice? He should have been tougher with his political opponents. And Rudolf Hoess, the SS commandant of Auschwitz, in his memoirs says that inside he was a warm, caring person. He was supposedly a good father and family man. I am not making this up.

natschuster said...

Didn't Dawkins, not too long ago, say that adultery shouldn't be considered immoral, or wrong, or sinful? That would tend to confirm what Mr. Stein is saying in this post.

FedUp said...

Did you know that God told Shmuel that he wishes he would have never annointed a king that was as kind and humane as Shaul who spared a few Amalekites? Did you know that God told various Jewish leaders to kill women and infants? Did you know that God wants Jews to be discriminatory against non Jews by not treating them medically on the Sabbath?

FedUp said...

Did you know that Adolf Hitler was a Roman Catholic?

In Mein Kampf Hitler wrote “by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord”. Once he gained power he got the support of both the Protestant and Catholic churches. The anti-semitism on which the Nazi movement was built was fostered by the main churches.

Even as late as 1941 Hitler told one of his generals: “I am now, as before, a Catholic and will always remain so.”

Did you know that Catholics say "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic"?

Did you know that Catholics believe in God?

jewish philosopher said...

About the Amalekites - that was then, this is now. There are no more Amalekites. In fact, they are unknown outside the Bible.

About treating a non-Jew on the Sabbath, how often has that ever cost someone his life? Don't non-Jews have the phone numbers of any non-Jewish doctors? Can you find one case where a gentile died for that reason? I doubt it ever happened.

On the other hand, about 40 million unborn children are killed each year with the blessings of atheists.

Look at it like this: It is probably safe to say that a child, if raised in an Orthodox Jewish American family, has a very significantly lower chance of being a violent criminal, drug addict, alcoholic or suicide victim than he would if he were raised in an atheistic American family.

So I think it's a little tough for atheists to claim the moral higher ground.

I have a post about Hitler. If Catholics want to claim him as a member, they are welcome to him.

Josh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FedUp said...

There are no more Amalekites. In fact, they are unknown outside the Bible.

So if someone came up to you with undeniable proof that he was from amalek and handed you a gun would you fulfill the mitzvah to destroy amalek? I certainly hope not. I realize that this is theoretical but if you believe it then religion is wicked and if you don't then religion is false or at least you don't believe in it. I could give countless more examples. Sacrifices, infanticide and the list goes on.

About treating a non-Jew on the Sabbath, how often has that ever cost someone his life? Don't non-Jews have the phone numbers of any non-Jewish doctors? Can you find one case where a gentile died for that reason? I doubt it ever happened.

You've just admitted that OJ is discriminatory and that is all that I wanted from you.

It is probably safe to say that a child, if raised in an Orthodox Jewish American family, has a very significantly lower chance of being a violent criminal, drug addict, alcoholic or suicide victim than he would if he were raised in an atheistic American family.

I'm not sure what you want from this. Firstly I don't know where you are getting your numbers from. I highly doubt that there is statistical proof that atheists are less moral then the faithful. Secondly, if you only claim that OJ works I'll give you that. I think that the average OJ is a good citizen, right now. However we happen to be in a time and place that Judaism is the underdog and aren't in the position to fulfill the more violent totalitarian missions. This certainly doesn't mean that it is true or that anyone can't come along and change it however they wish. This could include immorality. Therefore OJ is simply circumstantial and has no meaning.

jewish philosopher said...

Fed, I don't understand exactly what your point is. You are trying to prove what? That Jews are good people, but evil at heart? Compared to who? That if most Americans would convert to Orthodox Judaism we could kill out everyone who doesn't? How have governments which practiced state atheism treated religious believers?

FedUp said...

I wouldn't say that any people is good or bad based on their race. Religion is evil. Atheism can't be evil because it is simply the lack of belief in any god. If Judaism was in the position of Islam right now then we would be bombing out those non Jews who wouldn't submit to our theocracy. Of course, all we want is Israel, but the violence and wickedness is still there.

If atheists treat others poorly then they are wicked but it has nothing to do with their lack of belief in God. If a religious person does something wicked then it more then likely has everything to do with their belief in God.

I originally posted a comment because you made it seem that atheism is evil and OJ is good. But it is quite the opposite.

jewish philosopher said...

An atheist will not kill because a god told him to kill. However an atheist may kill because he doesn’t believe that any god is telling him not to kill. The greatest murders in history, Stalin and Mao, were both atheists.

So again, what makes you feel that atheists are more moral that Orthodox Jews mystifies me.

James F. Elliott said...

On the other hand, about 40 million unborn children are killed each year with the blessings of atheists.

I repeat: You're an idiot. In fact, that is all the rebuttal ever needed for any "discussion" with you, ever. You're an idiot.

FedUp said...

Mao and Stalin were certainly terrible murderers to say the least. Again atheism had nothing to do with that. Adolf Hitler on the other hand was doing the work of the Lord by wiping out the Jews. Can you see the difference? Atheism has no bearing on your moral status. Religion certainly does and can lead to the worst kind of evil. I'm not sure who originally said this but it goes like this

"Without religion there are good people that do good things and bad people that do bad things. Only with religion can you have good people doing bad things."

When the 9/11 suicide hijackers drove those planes into the twin towers they were doing it for God. When Stalin was murdering his people, well he was plain evil. If those militant islamists weren't under the impression that God wanted them to wage jihad they would have a chance at being peaceful moral people. There have been terribly evil people that don't believe in God and probably will be more. But there lack of belief in God has nothing to do with that.

badrabbi said...

"On the other hand, about 40 million unborn children are killed each year with the blessings of atheists."

Go look up the definition of Atheism. Pro abortion views are not part of that definition.

Once again, James F. Elliot had it exactly right, JP. You are an idiot.

Josh said...

I don't understand why JP never responds to any points that are made. I demonstrated based on the Gemmara how your claim is incorrect but yet you went on about Hitler and his bunker or something. I 100% believe this blog is made by an atheist to poke fun at orthadox judaism.

Josh said...

BTW The tzitz eliezer doesn't hold abortion is murder. But that would require you holding in learning which is apparent you are not from this blog.

natschuster said...

I, for one, think that it is significant that the two worst people who ever lived, Stalin and Mao, are atheists. There are more atheists like Pol Pot, Lenin, and Kim Il Jong in the top ten. There might not be a clear causal connection between atheism and killing tne of millions of people, but there does seem to be a very strong numeric correlation. I think that that is cause for concern.

As far as Hitler is concerned, it is hard to get a grip on exactly what Hitler's belief system was. While he nay have claimed to be a Catholic, he did denounce Christianity as a slave religion, ala Nietzche. While he might have had agreements with Christian groups, he also had an alliance with Stalin, whom he later attacked. He made alliances when it was in his interest. He was also heavily into mysticism and Nordic pagan mythology. Doesn't sound very Catholic to me. His core belief system, however was Darwinism. Chapters 5 and 6 of Darwin's "Descent of Man" and chapter 11 of "Mein Kampf" have a lot in common. He invaded Eastern Europe to find leibensraum for the master race. He built concentration camps to eliminate the members of inferior races. He felt that he was doing God's will by persuing Darwinist inspired policies.

jewish philosopher said...

JFE, you don't sound so brilliant yourself, if I may say so.

Fedup, I am not a fan of Islam either, far from it. Having said that, however, atheism is even worse because it removes any restraint people which would have thanks to a fear of God. The results have been clearly seen any place where atheists have been in power. It can also be seen in the millions of unborn children killed each year with the approval as far as I know of atheists.

For the victim, I think it matters little if the person murdering him is doing so because he imagines it is God's will or if he is doing so because he wants to kill and he doesn't believe any God will hold him accountable. The end result is the same murder. I don't see therefore why atheist murderers are somehow moral while religious murderers are not.

Hitler killed because of his belief in Darwinism. He did seem to believe in some sort of Darwinist god of nature, if that's what you mean.

Josh, I thought I responded to your point. Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism do impose some sexual restrictions which I am suggesting men are trying to rid themselves of by becoming atheists. Women, who do not feel such a strong need, therefore more seldom are atheists.

For gentiles, abortion is murder.

FedUp said...

Atheist and religious murderers are both murderers. But if there was no religion which is directly connected to murder, then there would probably be less murder.

FedUp said...

Natschuster,

If you don't want to accept that AH was a Roman Catholic then that is your own problem. He said he was and they say he was and historical evidence shows that he was.

If someone takes the idea of Darwinism and decides of his own accord that he should commit genocide then he is a sick evil person but his lack of belief in God has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. His belief in Darwinism has nothing to do with it.

Belief in God can keep you from killing some and cause you to kill others. Atheism CANNOT CAUSE YOU TO KILL PEOPLE. It's simply a lack of belief in God.

As to JP's insinuation that atheism states that murdering babies is a virtue please tell me where it says that in the Bible of the Atheists. Sorry to tell you but there is none. However if you look in the Tanakh it will not take you long till you find God telling people or God him/her/it self killing born and unborn babies, and women and children and men and animals and plants and the entire world on one occasion.

natschuster said...

Hitler's primary motivation, as he stated clearly in Mein Kampf, was the promotion of the master race ala Darwin. He though the was doing God's will. To the best of my knowledge Catholicism doesn't discriminate or persecute based on race, but rather religious beliefs.

Atheists seem to kill more people per capita than religious people do, so if we were all atheists, I would expect the murder rate to go up. No traditional theist racked up kill rates of eight digits.

FedUp said...

Can you explain to me how atheism is what motivated them to murder? Did Stalin say, "Gee, now that I realize there is no God, I feel compelled to murder my people"?

jewish philosopher said...

Orthodox Judaism, for one, discourages murder. One of our Ten Commandments is "Don't murder". There are about a half million Orthodox Jews in United States. The majority live in low income urban areas. Due to a high birth rate, many are young males. However, there has never been one American Orthodox Jew convicted of murder.

Saying "atheism cannot cause murder" is like saying "refusing to vaccinate children cannot make them sick". That may be technically true, but failure to vaccinate children will still cause millions of deaths.

david said...

Fedup, Hitler may have identified as a Catholic but his actions are anything but consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. In fact they are inconsistent with any of Jesus teachings, or any Christian denominations teachings.
The reality is that if someboby wants to murder, they will always manage to find some justification to do so. In the case of Hitler, he would have seen an advantage in aligning himself with the Church.

You also say;

"Belief in God can keep you from killing some and cause you to kill others. Atheism CANNOT CAUSE YOU TO KILL PEOPLE. It's simply a lack of belief in God."

You leave out of there that a lack of belief in God may leave you with no reason to resist killing others.

jewish philosopher said...

I have just added a few more words to this post to clarify my point.

FedUp said...

David,

A person with belief in God, for example Hitler, the suicide bombers, and Baruch Goldstien, had a reason to kill, thier belief in God.

If someone needs God to tell him not to kill then he is a terribly wicked person. I will not make excuses for such a person. The faithful often come with this argument that a fear of God is keeping the evil in waiting masses from killing themselves. I think it's fear of police.

Christians believe in original sin. I can't argue with someone that believes in that. OJs believe that man is born half and half and his actions will decide what kind of person he is. His belief in or fear of God will not help tip the scales in either direction, his actions.

As to the vaccine analogy, in it you are saying that murder is a sickness that belief in God will vaccinate. See my above examples where it didn't work, rather it backfired. How is a belief in a God that condones genocide, infanticide, and discrimination to name a few, keep a person from murdering.

jewish philosopher said...

"How is a belief in a God that condones genocide, infanticide, and discrimination to name a few, keep a person from murdering."

The relative lack of violence in the Orthodox Jewish community is proof that it works. And even though no god is telling them to do it, atheists seem to be highly successful at murder, especially when one includes abortion. So I don't quite understand why you believe atheists are all paragons of virtue while theists are all genocidal maniacs. The facts are clearly very different.

Obviously you are just attempting to find an excuse for your own debauchery. It's not working.

FedUp said...

So I don't quite understand why you believe atheists are all paragons of virtue while theists are all genocidal maniacs.

I thought that we were talking about atheism versus religion in regards to morals not atheists versus OJs. I don't think anything like you said and I've repeated that in my comments. Your assumption about excuse for debauchery is insulting.

jewish philosopher said...

Asking generally “Is religion a good thing?” is like asking “Is medicine a good thing?” It depends. Some doctors commit malpractice. Some are incompetent. Some are alcoholics. Some may have bizarre, unfounded methods. However, an expert physician practicing good medicine can be a very good thing.

By the same token, religion includes Satanists, cannibals, suicide bombers, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. However a good religion taught by a good teacher can be a very good thing.

"Your assumption about excuse for debauchery is insulting."

I sincerely apologize for hurting your sensitive feelings. As I am sure you do for saying that "God condones genocide".

FedUp said...

"However a good religion taught by a good teacher can be a very good thing."

That is something we can agree on. But OJ has a dangerous side and praising the Torah with it's stories of Akeidas Yitsach, and the genocide of Amalek can be dangerous.

I do not apologize for saying that God condones genocide. In the Bible it says that it is a mitzvah to destroy amalek. If you don't believe in the Bible literally then terrific. I don't even believe in God. I am merely telling you what the Bible literally says and how the Rabbis have interpreted it halachicly

jewish philosopher said...

"I do not apologize for saying that God condones genocide."

I retract my apology too.

david said...

fedup,
Show me where Hitler tells us his motivation for killing millions of people is his Catholic belief. He killed because of his rasist ideas of a supirior race, views that directly contradict Chritian teachings. Explain to me how Hitlers claim to be Catholic has to mean that his actions were because of his apparent belief.
I agree that if you need a belief in God not to kill then you have problems, as any murderer does. However as a Christian, my God gives me no justification to kill and anybody who claims that they can find one within the bible is full of it.
Furthermore explain what original sin has to do with this argument. I do accept that doctrine as the cause of our issues but iot is in no way a justification for doing wrong.

FedUp said...

David,

As I posted earlier in the comments,In Mein Kampf Hitler wrote “by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord”

He felt he was doing the work of the Lord. And he was Catholic as I also showed before.

If you don't like the Hitler example then there are countless others of people killing because of thier belief in God. Crusades, Inquisition, suicide bombers, Baruch Goldstien. I have said this all before at least once.

I thought you were going to retaliate that we need God not to murder because of Original sin but perhaps that was premature.

jewish philosopher said...

Here is Hitler in context (Mein Kampf, end of CHAPTER II YEARS OF STUDY AND SUFFERING IN VIENNA):

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism repudiates the aristocratic principle of Nature and substitutes for it the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass and its dead weight. Thus it denies the individual worth of the human personality, impugns the teaching that nationhood and race have a primary significance, and by doing this it takes away the very foundations of human existence and human civilization. If the Marxist teaching were to be accepted as the foundation of the life of the universe, it would lead to the disappearance of all order that is conceivable to the human mind. And thus the adoption of such a law would provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we know, with the result that the inhabitants of this earthly planet would finally disappear.

Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbit through ether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions of years ago.

And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.

Hitler seems to be basically concerned about Marxism violating some principle of nature, which he deifies.

jewish philosopher said...

Fed, what you seem to be saying, as I understand you, is that humans are basically morally perfect. People will naturally be generous, kind and peaceful. Religion, therefore, can only harm, not help, humanity by imposing some unnecessary and therefore, ultimately, damaging rules on people’s behavior.

Do any psychologists or anthropologists agree with this? This sounds like some version of the Noble Savage concept, which has been pretty much discredited.

natschuster said...

Hitler seemed to have said that by promoting Darwinism, he was doing God's will. Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf closely parallels chapters 5 and 6 of Darwin's "The Descent of Man." His core religion was Darwinism.

FedUp said...

JP,

I wouldn't say that humans are basically morally perfect.

I would say that religion can be of harm morally. (It can also be of help but the Abrahamic God and the Bible or Koran aren't the best moral guides as they have a very violent side, which is currently largely ignored by believers except for those of Islam and a few extremists in Christianity and even fewer in Judaism.)

I would say that atheism can not harm someone morally. If an atheist is immoral it is not because of his lack of faith, it is because of his lack of morals.

jewish philosopher said...

I would argue on the contrary, religion is the only hope for world peace. But if you have a better plan, I’m all ears.

Rebeljew said...

Your post proposing a direct causation from sexual desire to atheism has got me thinking. It took some time, but the conclusion is inescapable. This is definitely one of the stupidest things you have ever written. Considering the ground that covers, I am duly impressed.

jewish philosopher said...

If this post is so stupid, then it should be easy to find another explanation for the atheist gender gap.

Rebeljew said...

First, the atheist gender gap is an assertion of yours, not a fact. You confuse the two very often. A reason for this impression of yours might be that you are confessedly a man and you probably converse with far more men than women.

Second, even if true, the likelihood that men dominate the public debate, as they do in almost every field, would not be surprising. The fact that atheism probably requires frequent angry confrontations would more appeal to men than women. The need to talk about religious and social issues in an unfriendly forum would more likely appeal to men than women.

There you have several possibilities that are just as sensible as your own "proof", yet you insist that you have found the only reason it could possibly be. I have personally known dozens of atheists who do not keep their beliefs secret. Most just do not care about religion and it does not provide meaning to them. They have no desire or need for it in their life. It is not a drive for sex or money or power or whatever, they simply make a decision that religion and metaphysical matters only have reality to those who give them credence. They are fulfilled without it. What is so hard to get about that?

Honestly, I am seeing drj's point more and more. You are a provocateur, trying to parody fundamentalists and their silly arguments by being absurd. If so, tip of the hat to you, well done.

jewish philosopher said...

"the atheist gender gap is an assertion of yours"

The post states my source.

"men dominate the public debate"

Who said anything about public debates?

jewish philosopher said...

Here are more comments about atheism and gender.

jewish philosopher said...

This is also enlightening.

SkyEyes said...

Hello, female atheist (since 1972) here. Just thought I'd drop by and burst your balloon for you.

And I'am a horsewoman to boot.

Wow. What else can you possibly be wrong about?

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net