(July 8, 2015 at 4:04 am)robvalue Wrote: IMO, having children is entirely a selfish act.

Gee, thanks.

(July 8, 2015 at 4:25 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Well in AF there's a member pictures thread and some people reveal it in the introduction topic or in their profile. From my personal experience (which could be wrong) it is more common for women to put status as "undisclosed" than men

People can also lie or simply not take part in the thread so again, there's no way to know for sure what the gender makeup of AF or that other forum actually are.  "It seems to me" is not a scientifically valid assessment.

I don't think anyone's trying to be scientific...

(July 8, 2015 at 5:19 pm)Cephus Wrote:

(July 8, 2015 at 4:25 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Well in AF there's a member pictures thread and some people reveal it in the introduction topic or in their profile. From my personal experience (which could be wrong) it is more common for women to put status as "undisclosed" than men

People can also lie or simply not take part in the thread so again, there's no way to know for sure what the gender makeup of AF or that other forum actually are.  "It seems to me" is not a scientifically valid assessment.

Well isn't the question being discussed about how many men and women are a part of the atheist demographic and not just one single isolated privately owned internet forum? Because I'm sure the population in AF is not representative of the rest of the world - I wish it were.

(July 8, 2015 at 5:39 pm)Dystopia Wrote:

(July 8, 2015 at 5:19 pm)Cephus Wrote: People can also lie or simply not take part in the thread so again, there's no way to know for sure what the gender makeup of AF or that other forum actually are.  "It seems to me" is not a scientifically valid assessment.

Well isn't the question being discussed about how many men and women are a part of the atheist demographic and not just one single isolated privately owned internet forum? Because I'm sure the population in AF is not representative of the rest of the world - I wish it were.

If you go back to the OP, Catholic_Lady said specifically: 

Catholic_Lady Wrote:I have noticed that the vast majority of the members here are men. On the other hand, the vast majority of the members in the Catholic forum I used to participate in are women. 

Quote:Are men generally more prone to atheism, and women generally more prone to theism? If so, does anyone have any theories on why this is the case?

I'm just questioning her data because she seems to have nothing but her subjective opinions to back up this claim.

(July 8, 2015 at 5:13 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(July 8, 2015 at 4:04 am)robvalue Wrote: IMO, having children is entirely a selfish act.

Gee, thanks.

No problem. That is a very cold and scientific assessment of course. I only refer to the decision to have children in the first place; once you have them, it becomes very much unselfish. At least it should do!

I do hundreds of selfish things every day, so it's hardly a judgement

(July 9, 2015 at 3:23 am)Cephus Wrote:

(July 8, 2015 at 5:39 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Well isn't the question being discussed about how many men and women are a part of the atheist demographic and not just one single isolated privately owned internet forum? Because I'm sure the population in AF is not representative of the rest of the world - I wish it were.

If you go back to the OP, Catholic_Lady said specifically: 

Catholic_Lady Wrote:I have noticed that the vast majority of the members here are men. On the other hand, the vast majority of the members in the Catholic forum I used to participate in are women. 

Quote:Are men generally more prone to atheism, and women generally more prone to theism? If so, does anyone have any theories on why this is the case?

I'm just questioning her data because she seems to have nothing but her subjective opinions to back up this claim.

Huh?

The fact that there are more men on this forum and more women on the other forum are not "subjective opinions." Lol.

(July 8, 2015 at 12:34 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(July 8, 2015 at 12:25 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: Ever? Care to put money on that?  

Yeah, I hear that type of rebuttal often. If I can respond with a question: in a feudal theocracy, what do you think the greatest driver of mores was?

Indeed he is, I'm ridiculously proud. We brewed a good'un. As it happens, his initials are G.A.D.. he was going to have the middle name 'Oliver' until we spotted the acronym  

Church doctrine can't and hasn't changed. Just because particular practices may have been customary at particular time periods, does not mean those practices were under  Church Doctrine.

I don't understand your question. What is mores?

Congrats on a beautiful little boy! LOL at the original initials.

The bolded is COMPLETELY untrue.  I mean it's not even close.  It changes constantly, go so far as to completely rewrite entire sections of the basis of the whole thing.

(July 9, 2015 at 10:26 am)Holden Caulfield Wrote:

(July 8, 2015 at 12:34 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Church doctrine can't and hasn't changed. Just because particular practices may have been customary at particular time periods, does not mean those practices were under  Church Doctrine.

I don't understand your question. What is mores?

Congrats on a beautiful little boy! LOL at the original initials.

The bolded is COMPLETELY untrue.  I mean it's not even close.  It changes constantly, go so far as to completely rewrite entire sections of the basis of the whole thing.

You are incorrect.

And to prove that I am not just making that up, here's this from a Catholic site:

"No, the Church cannot change its doctrines no matter how badly some theologians may want it to or how loudly they claim it can. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the deposit of faith revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, and handed down in their entirety by the apostles to their successors. Since revealed truth cannot change, and since the deposit of faith is comprised of revealed truth, expressed in Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the deposit of faith cannot change."

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/c...-doctrines

(July 9, 2015 at 10:30 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(July 9, 2015 at 10:26 am)Holden Caulfield Wrote: The bolded is COMPLETELY untrue.  I mean it's not even close.  It changes constantly, go so far as to completely rewrite entire sections of the basis of the whole thing.

You are incorrect.

And to prove that I am not just making that up, here's this from a Catholic site:

"No, the Church cannot change its doctrines no matter how badly some theologians may want it to or how loudly they claim it can. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the deposit of faith revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, and handed down in their entirety by the apostles to their successors. Since revealed truth cannot change, and since the deposit of faith is comprised of revealed truth, expressed in Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the deposit of faith cannot change."

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/c...-doctrines

Of course they like to claim that.  Yet the bible has changed many many times over the centuries.  So while Catholic sites will just claim they are "reclarifying the words" and atheist sites will claim "doctrine has changed" the fact of the matter is that this one tome that is supposed to emcompass all of christian faith HAS changed, at times MASSIVELY, over the centuries.  Now where are all these male catholic leaders getting their info if not from this massively changed document?  Remember Jesus never even wrote a damned word of thing to start with.  2nd hand of 2nd hand of 2nd hand of 2nd hand etc etc is this doctrine.  And therefore it changes quite often.  I could give you a whole SLEW of links if want.  Unless of course you can provide evidence these "doctrines" are actually from a divine source not the malleable bible.  That I'd love to hear.