Why are women more religious than men?

Post Reply New Topic

[OPINION]
Women are more likely than men to look for "meaning" behind everything.
Women are more easily impressed when a charismatic person tells a lie than men.
Women are more interested in forming a "relationship" with God than Men, who are more interested in demonstrations of God's might than women.
[/OPINION]

yes, yes there is
I guess you could say that the few visible Atheist women are banana farmers

Got anything you base that perception on? Not saying you're wrong, I just don't know that it's right.

A. You are SAID to be sitting in Liverpool. Every British Academic knows, and I was ewarned before going there : PUBLISH IT BEFORE YOU TALK ABOUT IT.

B. This is essentially a bull session in the Junior Common Room [though I try to drag it upstairs to the Senior Common Room to chat quietly over a cuppa]. Crowded, noisy, and no holds barred.

So, what you're saying is that this directly relates back to The 5 Truths of Life..?

Fire is hot.
Food is good.
Good sex is better.
Women are evil.
Men are stupid.

Women look for meaning behind everything because women (in general) are manipulative and expect others to be the same.
With men, what you see is what you get. There is no deeper meaning. And they expect that this should apply to God as well..

???? In a nutshell, yeah?

I just love how, whenever the atheist men look at each other and ask, 'why won't more women hang out with us?' They tell themselves, 'it's because women are illogical and less smart.'

Tell me honestly, would any of you want to hang out with someone who was constantly telling you that your class of people were illogical and stupid? Even if they followed it with, 'you're an exception'?

That still doesn't explain the question of the OP, which is why are women more devout when it comes to the religious population in general and why are less women atheists? The majority of atheists aren't members of atheist groups and yet there still is a underrepresentation of women in them.

I don't buy Fnord's statements, though.

LOL... . you make a good point... BUT... I know plenty of non-Atheist men who do the same.... and, my best friend of 11 years is a female atheist, and she pulls the same "I'm smarter than you" crap (of course she's an eidetic, so has an unfair advantage)...

My point being that this attitude is not isolated to atheists or men.

True; religious men justify it using the Bible (I'm better because god(s) made me that way), and atheist men justify it using crap evolutionary psychology just-so stories (I'm better, and here's the 'research' that says so). Hell, I've seen evolutionary psychology 'research' that claims to prove that men like blue and women like pink. The methodology was crap and the assumptions were obvious, but it still got trumpeted all over the media because it reinforced people's comforting beliefs.

Lots of women go to church for the same reasons lots of women go to playgrounds: that's where they can socialize with other women and find mutual support. Women who join atheist causes do so in spite of the majority of people there, not because of them. I'd bet money that as many women are 'non-religious' as men, and as many women as men (or more) go to church and nominally belong to a congregation without serious belief in the doctrine, even though fewer women call themselves 'atheist' than men.
I call myself 'pantheist' in conversation (even though I agree with Dawkins that it's basically the same thing as atheism) because people find it less threatening than 'athiest.' That does not make me illogical or stupid; it makes me aware of social consequences (which come down harder, in general, on women than on men) due to personal experience.

Evolution.

Women have babies. So they are more likely to bring them up. So they have more need for stability.

I was raised in a cult-like church, and saw the gender imbalance first hand. I think it really is that simple.

Of course, not every woman wants stability, and plenty of men want it - this is only an a slight difference in the bell curve distribution. Also, men and women usually do not consciously think "I have evolved for X therefore my instinct is Y" but evolution is a simple way to explain a lot of things.

Heh, right. I don't think men are really more logical, just men think they are because they have a particular cold and crude mindset with a logocentric facade. The issue is that this is a facade. Even further, nothing really shows that women are less intelligent, the best that one could say is that men have higher IQ variability around the same mean, but, that still says that the average man is about as stupid as the average woman.

Okay, so cdfox7 has been trying to extort credit undeserved credit for inspiring this thread because of some post where he talks about the Mormon Church targetting men. He says that, as a former ally of mine, he'd make a bad enemy.

Let me make this clear to him, right now.

I WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY THUGS!! !!

I DIDN'T READ YOUR POST UNTIL YOU POINTED IT OUT AND THE TOPIC REALLY ISN'T THAT RELATED TO THIS THREAD. I WILL NOT GIVE UNDESERVED CREDIT AS A FORM OF PATRONAGE - I AM NOT A CORRUPT CANDIDATE! THUGOCRATS ARE UNWELCOME AT MY TABLE!! !! !

That's right.

That doesn't make em less logical. Women use both hemispheres more equally, which helps for things requiring holistic processing such as language. We tend to be better at math and have better spatial perception because these things require more localized processing as opposed to holistic processing, not cuz we're more logical. Logic has more to do with the frontal lobe than whether you're left brained or right brained.

Percentagewise there are almost no first rank women mathematicians and theoretical physicists. These areas demand the highest exercise of logic.

Women, on average, are less abstract than men.

ruveyn

Did you see the "OPINION" tags? That means that the statements between are subjective.

I have three sisters and have been married twice. My wife has three sisters, as well. I work with women.

In my experience, limited as it may be, it seems that these women will spend hours on the phone discussing who said what to whom, in what context and tone of voice, and what their attitude was, all in an effort to find out not what was actually said, but what the speakers meant when they said it. Here's something I gleaned from the last hen party at my place:

"Nice outfit. Was it tailored? It seems to fit you perfectly!" could mean "That outfit is too good for you. It's too tight. It emphasizes your 'muffin tops' and 'love handles' in excruciating detail". In other words, what may seem like a compliment to you and I may have actually been a veiled insult.

And how many times has a man come home with flowers for his wife, only to have her try to find out what kind of trouble he is trying to avoid with her or if he is just feeling horny.

(... and if he is, then how did he get that way? Probably that new receptionist at work... )

There's nothing wrong with someone inquiring upon what grounds another's opinion is based.
Opinions aren't facts and cannot be "wrong", but they can be unreasonable.
Evaluating the observations or experiences from which a particular opinion is drawn can help determine whether it was reasonable for that opinion to have been formulated.