In a previous post
, I provided solid empirical evidence for the claim that sexism and misogyny seems to be rampant between organized “skeptics” and atheists. I provided evidence from insiders
and outsiders alike.
The amazingly beautiful pseudoskeptic girl, Rebecca Watson (aka Skepchick), is one of such insiders who have commented about her first-hand experience with the sexism and misogyny which seems to affect many of the “rational”, “critical thinking”, “enlightened”, “scientific” members of organized skeptical and atheist groups.
“honestly, and i mean HONESTLY.. you deserve to be raped and tortured and killed. swear id laugh if i could”
According to Watson, “I started checking out the social media profiles of the people sending me these messages, and learned that they were often adults who were active in the skeptic and atheist communities. They were reading the same blogs as I was and attending the same events. These were “my people,” and they were the worst.”
Watson’s first-hand testimony provide us with interesting insights about the psychology of hard-core pseudoskeptics and atheists.
As I’ve mentioned, some polls
suggest that atheists are the most distrusted minority in U.S., and testimonies like Watson’s support the conclusion that such distrust is not simply due to bigotry or prejudices, but that it is strongly rooted in the behaviour of (many) atheists.
I’ve researched for years the pseudoskeptical movement (mainly in its philosophical and ideological structure and working), but just recently it has became evident to me that there is a certain connection between organized atheistic skepticism and sexual misbehaviours. Some of the leading representatives have been linked with sexual scandals and misbehaviours.
For example, according to critic of pseudoskepticism Tim Bolen, you can hear in this link
how one of the world’s leading skeptics, James Randi
, is soliciting sex from a YOUNG BOY.
In another post
, I documented in some detail how the leading skeptical publishing house named Prometheus Books sells a lot of book promoting or justifying (in the name of “reason and science”) pedophilia, zoophilia, infanticide, abortion and other moral atrocities.
British journalist and writer for TIME magazine, Jonathan Margolis, in researching for his book on Uri Geller, has commented regarding it:
“Although Prometheus still a claims a strictly rationalist ethic, rationalism has come to include libertarianism, and from there on, pretty much anything goes. Prometheus Books, rationalism’s brave riposte to Uri Geller and the forces of medieval darkness, has had to diversify, a demonstration, perhaps, of the ultimate truth of Randi’s assertion, which I earlier challenged, that the sceptical world is all done with Geller. Even Randi calls some of what Prometheus publishes today ‘awful stuff’ – so ‘awful’ that Mike Hutchinson recently felt obliged to ask the local Obscene Publications Squad to adjudicate over one. It said it couldn’t recommend the book, an avowedly anti-paedophilia work, but with some passages Hutchinson thought ‘were a little bit too descriptive’, be distributed in Britain.
One book on Prometheus’s list is a British academic text onchild abuse. Children’s Sexual Encounters With Adults, republished in the States – with a bright red jacket on which the title is printed in bold black letters three quarters of an inch high, for the benefit, presumably, of short-sighted researchers into child sex. The book consists of hundreds of pages of detailed case histories of adults having sex with children. Others Prometheus texts have little claim to being academic. Cannibalism: From Sacrifice to Survival, The Horseman: Obsessions of a Zoophile [person with a sexual attraction to animals], Whips and Kisses: Parting the Leather Curtain (by Mistress Jacqueline), The Breathless Orgasm: A Lovemap Biography of Asphyxiophilia, Death Dealer: The Memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz … It is all some way from magicians’ arguments over spoon bending.” (Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic, chapter 16)
Margolis, even though not being a philosopher, intuitively realizes that something is seriously wrong with the atheist’s “rationalistic ethic”, which is actually a rationalization of the atheistic libertarianism in moral and sexual matters.
I’ve tried to explain and document in detail with the atheist literature at hand the philosophical foundation for the hard-core atheist/skeptic’s sympathies for these sexual practiques, in the section of my blog entitled “The moral poverty of atheistic materialism
“, and I suggest to you to read carefully the evidence provided there.
ORGANIZED ATHEISTIC SKEPTICISM AS A HATE GROUP
Think for a moment in the rape threats coming from “rational” atheists suffered by Watson. Notice carefully that the atheist mentioned by her suggested that she deserved to be “killed”.
I ask you: What kind of people is going to say something like that? Clearly, there is something seriously wrong in the moral, ethical, spiritual and psychological nature of individuals like that.
According to this article
by Tim Bolen, pseudoskeptics fits with the pattern of organized HATE groups, and he mentions as an example the rape, mutilation and death threats suffered by another woman, Meryl Dorey.
Philosophically, we have to understand that scientific materialism and scientific naturalistic atheism cannot provide any foundation for condemming rape or murder. In fact, according to the leading defender of scientific naturalism Richard Dawkins, rape is morally arbitrary:
However, even if it is a philosophical fact that contemporary atheism cannot ground objective condemmation of rape (nor any other moral atrocity), it doesn’t mean that atheism per se positively stimulates rape actions. Something more is needed: Strong emotional, spiritual and psychological unbalance and even some kind of mental disorder.
I’m sure that some atheists and naturalists are going to justify philosophically those moral atrocities. For example, they can say that free will doesn’t exist and hence those atheists had no choice in attacking Watson. These atheists can appeal to Tom Clark, who’s the Director of the Center for Naturalism
, when he wrote in this article:
In a deterministic universe, we understand that a criminal’s career is not a matter of an unconditioned personal choice, but fully a function of a complex set of conditions, genetic and enviromental, that interact to produce the offender and his proclivities. Had we been in his shows in all respects, we too would have followed the same path, since there is no freely willing self that could have done otherwise as causality unfolds. There is no kernel of independent moral agency — we are not, as philosopher Daniel Dennett puts it, “moral levitators” that rise above circunstances in our choices,including choices to rob, rape, or kill”
Obviously, normal, sane people will know that Clark’s atheistic ideas (and their use to justify actions like “rob, rape or kill”) are DANGEROUS ATHEISTIC NONSENSE.
Actions like the ones suffered by a girl like Watson are moral atrocities and they tell us a lot about the psychology of many hard-nosed atheists and “skeptics”.
Perhaps it is wise to keep them away from us, specially from the females in our family.
I have a strong disagreements with Watson’s views on philosophical and scientific matters, but I strongly respect her, not just because she has the civil, moral and legal rights to express freely her opinions, but (and above all) because she is a WOMAN, and women deserve all our recognition, admiration and foremost respect.
This is a basic ethical principle for any REAL man, a principle which, apparently, is far beyond the reach of super-intellectual, “scientific” and “rational” atheists. Quite deplorable, indeed…