1. This forum attracts a more gender-balanced membership than any other I've seen.
2. Whites a majority on English speaking forum that originated as the forum of an English public figure. What a shock!

LaMont Cranston wrote:One of the things that some people do not want to look at is the demographics of atheism. For starters, from what I can tell, the makeup of RDF and this forum is predominately white, male and of Northern European heritage. Those people attracted to the so-called "new atheism" tend to be people with leanings in the direction of math and the sciences, often while ignoring other subject areas.

Oh, come on. I'm from Central Europe, female, with leanings in the direction of literature and the social sciences, although without ignoring other subject areas

LaMont Cranston wrote:One of the things that some people do not want to look at is the demographics of atheism. For starters, from what I can tell, the makeup of RDF and this forum is predominately white, male and of Northern European heritage. Those people attracted to the so-called "new atheism" tend to be people with leanings in the direction of math and the sciences, often while ignoring other subject areas. It would also not come as any great suprise if those that compose the ranks of the "new atheism" are relatively young and have a higher proportion of single males than the society as a whole. In a sense, atheism attracts certain individuals who embrace atheistic rhetoric as something akin to "the flavor of the month." Do not be suprised if many of those who are attracted to this movement eventually become theists.

do you have any survey or poll to back up those assertions?

what about the parenting and children forums, are they to benefit the single males?
the internet as a whole is dominated by younger people, even so, iv noticed quite a few 40 year olds around here.

Chrisw wrote:This is is such a dumb question. When they talk about "theistic" beliefs what they really mean is supernatural beliefs. Obviously belief in anthropomorphic deities doesn't come "naturally", it's a cultural construct. For example, ancient China was not theistic but there was plenty of superstition. Superstition was universal until modern science.

So the question they are asking (in a science magazine!) is why do some people reject superstition. What kind of a dumb question is that?

Not a dumb question at all. Has anybody actually gone out of their way to answer that question?

Science questions everything and this is but one thing that needs to be questioned. We should not presume willy-nilly that atheism is the default position, at least without trying to disprove the null hypothesis. It may be obvious to us, but is the obvious answer necessarily right?

I am reminded of a time when a group of scientists showed that head-banging is bad for you. Instantly, people were saying, "What a waste of time. Of course, head-banging is bad for you." But can you imagine what these exact same people would have said if the scientists have found the opposite effect? "No, that can't be right. They're obviously doing things wrong!"

I can put a positive spin on any outcome the sociologists can come up with. If it is the default position, then we're normal. If it isn't the default position, then we're unique. There is no downside. You can spin it any which way you want. And on the upside? You have a better understanding of why you are the way you are.

Someone's got the concept of a 'nul hypothesis' wrong.

*bookmarking* (As a soon-to-be 45 years old who has only visited Oxford as a tourist.)

Do not be suprised if many of those who are attracted to this movement eventually become theists.

That's probably the biggest non sequitur I've seen in a long time. You really need to explain how you can get from the demographics of atheism that you mentioned, which I think are probably largely and generally correct - predominantly white, male, relatively young, with a leaning towards the hard sciences and mathematics - to the likelihood that "many" of them will somewhere further down the line abandon atheism and embrace theism, because at the moment I'm not seeing any kind of a connecting line of reasoning there at all.

LaMont Cranston wrote:One of the things that some people do not want to look at is the demographics of atheism. For starters, from what I can tell, the makeup of RDF and this forum is predominately white, male and of Northern European heritage. Those people attracted to the so-called "new atheism" tend to be people with leanings in the direction of math and the sciences, often while ignoring other subject areas. It would also not come as any great suprise if those that compose the ranks of the "new atheism" are relatively young and have a higher proportion of single males than the society as a whole. In a sense, atheism attracts certain individuals who embrace atheistic rhetoric as something akin to "the flavor of the month." Do not be suprised if many of those who are attracted to this movement eventually become theists.

Can you remind me again how you tell someone's skin colour from the forum - I seem to have misplaced that function.

You seem to have extrapolated an awful lot from such flimsy 'data'.

LaMont Cranston wrote:One of the things that some people do not want to look at is the demographics of atheism. For starters, from what I can tell, the makeup of RDF and this forum is predominately white, male and of Northern European heritage. Those people attracted to the so-called "new atheism" tend to be people with leanings in the direction of math and the sciences, often while ignoring other subject areas. It would also not come as any great suprise if those that compose the ranks of the "new atheism" are relatively young and have a higher proportion of single males than the society as a whole. In a sense, atheism attracts certain individuals who embrace atheistic rhetoric as something akin to "the flavor of the month." Do not be suprised if many of those who are attracted to this movement eventually become theists.

Oh my! The old "atheists are secretly believing in god" canard, or a rather disingenious variation of it...

LaMont Cranston wrote:One of the things that some people do not want to look at is the demographics of atheism. For starters, from what I can tell, the makeup of RDF and this forum is predominately white, male and of Northern European heritage. Those people attracted to the so-called "new atheism" tend to be people with leanings in the direction of math and the sciences, often while ignoring other subject areas. It would also not come as any great suprise if those that compose the ranks of the "new atheism" are relatively young and have a higher proportion of single males than the society as a whole. In a sense, atheism attracts certain individuals who embrace atheistic rhetoric as something akin to "the flavor of the month." Do not be suprised if many of those who are attracted to this movement eventually become theists.

What a crock of shit. Demographics of atheism? Yeah, it's where people are educated, places that tend to be European and White.

Seriously, most atheists I know aren't into science, my background isn't in science. It is really very easy to reject superstition.

Tzelemel wrote:

Chrisw wrote:This is is such a dumb question. When they talk about "theistic" beliefs what they really mean is supernatural beliefs. Obviously belief in anthropomorphic deities doesn't come "naturally", it's a cultural construct. For example, ancient China was not theistic but there was plenty of superstition. Superstition was universal until modern science.

So the question they are asking (in a science magazine!) is why do some people reject superstition. What kind of a dumb question is that?

Not a dumb question at all. Has anybody actually gone out of their way to answer that question?

Science questions everything and this is but one thing that needs to be questioned. We should not presume willy-nilly that atheism is the default position, at least without trying to disprove the null hypothesis. It may be obvious to us, but is the obvious answer necessarily right?

I am reminded of a time when a group of scientists showed that head-banging is bad for you. Instantly, people were saying, "What a waste of time. Of course, head-banging is bad for you." But can you imagine what these exact same people would have said if the scientists have found the opposite effect? "No, that can't be right. They're obviously doing things wrong!"

I can put a positive spin on any outcome the sociologists can come up with. If it is the default position, then we're normal. If it isn't the default position, then we're unique. There is no downside. You can spin it any which way you want. And on the upside? You have a better understanding of why you are the way you are.

It does not mean the default position for members of society, but the default postion in examining the claims of theism.