Atheism and celibacy

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LT (Talk | contribs) at 01:30, February 21, 2021. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
In 2017, the atheist PZ Myers, quoting fellow leftist Alex Nichols, wrote:"...the growing popularity of jibes associating outspoken atheists with fedoras, neckbeards, and virginity, led to an exodus of liberals and leftists from the “atheist” tent. Those who remained for the most part lacked in social skills and self-awareness, and the results were disastrous."[1]

In 2017, the atheist PZ Myers, quoting fellow leftist Alex Nichols, wrote:

...the growing popularity of jibes associating outspoken atheists with fedoras, neckbeards, and virginity, led to an exodus of liberals and leftists from the “atheist” tent. Those who remained for the most part lacked in social skills and self-awareness, and the results were disastrous.[2]

Ben Freeland in his article No Sex Please, We're Atheists reported:

...the public face of atheism tends to be dominated by the nerd set — scientists, computer engineers and other geeks who transitioned from awkward, socially (and sexually) insecure teenagers into cerebral adults who tend to view everything from the neck down as machinery necessary for getting the head from Conference A to Conference B.

International surveys of sexual satisfaction — as unreliable as such surveys are — also suggests that widespread atheism is bad news in the bedroom. According to Durex USA’s most recent international survey, the world’s most sexually satisfied country is the spectacularly religious Nigeria, with heavily Catholic countries like Spain, Italy, Brazil, and Mexico (and staunchly Orthodox Greece) in hot pursuit. Among the world’s most atheistic it’s a mixed bag...[3]

Vox Day on involuntary atheist celibacy (restricted sexual options)

See also: Atheism and sexuality and Atheists and physical attractiveness

The English anthropologist Edward Dutton indicates that using right-wing politics as a proxy for religiosity, there is evidence that atheists are less attractive and he pointed out that right-wing politicians are more likely to have symmetrical faces according to a study.[4] See: Atheists and physical attractiveness

The American contrarian blog Half Sigma declared about atheism and social outcasts:

...atheists are most likely to live alone.

This is not surprising. Atheists are less desirable...partners. I observed this once when I was living in Washington, DC, and I wandered by an atheist convention happening on the mall. The atheist were predominately male, and significantly uglier than average.

This is because ugly people become social outcasts, and social outcasts are more likely to be attracted to outcast movements like atheism, libertarianism, communism, etc.

Jay Fink writes:

If you are attractive and have a good social life you will generally not be interested in out of the mainstream groups or ideas. Why buck the status quo when it's working in your interests?[5]

In the Western World, atheists have lower marriage rates (see: Atheism and marriage).

Vox Day wrote:

I know, I know, it's simply astonishing news that women hate atheists. Even atheist women don't like them.
Jen has slammed Richard Dawkins for some comments here. I can confirm that those comments were actually from Richard Dawkins. I also have to say that I agree with Jen and disagree with Richard. Richard did make the valid point that there are much more serious abuses of women's rights around the world, and the Islam is a particularly horrendous offender. Women have their genitals mutilated, are beaten by husbands without recourse to legal redress, are stoned to death for adultery, are denied basic privileges like the right to drive or travel unescorted. These are far more serious problems than most American women face.
However, the existence of greater crimes does not excuse lesser crimes, and no one has even tried to equate this incident to any of the horrors above...
The elevator incident demands…a personal rejection and a woman nicely suggesting to the atheist community that they avoid doing that. And that is what it got. That is all Rebecca Watson did. For those of you who are outraged at that, I ask: which part of her response fills you with fury? That a woman said no, or that a woman has asked men to be more sensitive?...

Look, it's hardly news that atheist guys are creepy gammas, for the most part. That's why they are much less likely to get married or have children. Even the small number of atheist girls don't like atheist guys; the ludicrous internecine kerfluffle was kicked off by a male atheist hitting on female atheist in an elevator...

Dawkins, who as a scientific celebrity surmounted his natural gamma status some time ago, was naturally confused by all this extravagant feminized foolishness, and pointed out how stupid it all was. This caused more hissy fits to be directed his way; Dawkins, being the coward that he has shown himself to be on numerous occasions, was naturally quick to crumble.

Now, I don't think it's absolutely necessary to be hapless with women to be an atheist... No wonder they're so furious at God. He created all those lovely women with those beautiful breasts and they aren't even allowed to even talk to them in elevators.[6]

Vox Day also wrote:

The dichotomy between the theoretical sexual freedom of the male atheist provided by his belief system and his actual sexual limitations caused by his sub-standard attractiveness to women suggests that male atheists, on average, are more inclined to be gamma/omega males whose sexual options are more restricted than the norm. This hypothesis is supported by observing the consistently gamma behavior of male atheists on this site and around the Internet in general.[7]

See also

References