As I documented in a previous post, there is solid evidence which suggests that organized hard-core atheists and skeptics have a personal problem with women and girls. These skeptics tend, as a rule, to dislike females. They simply don't like to have many women and girls among them. They have a clear tendency to be sexists and specially misogynists.
The evidence suggests not only that they ignore women (this fact alone would be already objectionable), but that they tend to actively mistreat and disrespect them. They see girls as inferior beings, unworhty of belonging to the highly elitistic group of super-intellectual atheistic male beings.
I've received some e-mails asking for my opinion about the causes or motives of such a weird attitude. And in all honesty, I have to say simply I DON'T KNOW.
Jime's Iron Law provides me with the resources to not being surprised at all by the most egregious forms of irrationality and stupidity on the part of "skeptics" and hard-core atheists. Moreover, Jime's Iron Law predicts many of the atheistic irrationalism and bigotry (e.g. vicious attacks, unjust and mean-spirited comments against honest parapsychologists, spiritualists, religious people, etc.).
But I have to confess that my law doesn't predict specifically misogyny on the part of hard-core atheists. So, as far as my law goes, the prevalence of misogyny among organized atheists/skeptics is simply inexplicable to me for the moment. We have to research more this aspect of the hard-core atheistic mindset and, eventually, it could be incorporated into Jime's Iron Law.
Just for the record: not all atheists are misogynists. We have to be accurate in the reading of the evidence and don't overstate it: It is only a certain kind of atheist, the hard-core militant/radical/fanatical one who is member or active supporter of "organized skepticism" or "secular humanist groups", who is, statistically likely, to be a misogynist. Obviously, there are atheists not interested in atheisic propaganda or ideological indoctrination, who treat women with the due respect and admiration that they deserve.
But we could speculate about the causes of it, and some people have provided some suggestions:
For example, Tim Bolen, an experienced critic of organized debunking, suggests that the members of organized skeptic groups are mainly angry male homosexuals. In his words: "he so-called "skeptics" are a misinformation campaign run by angry male homosexuals masquerading as atheists whose management has a significant interest in pedophilia, its promotion and protection... Skeptic work is little more than employment of young homosexual men whose anger, self-loathing, and bitterness at the Judeo/Christian world and its handling of homosexuality issues normally makes them virtually unemployable in society. So, they have available time - and a computer. They are taught to use that time to focus their self-loathing outward, Using anonymity, lashing out viciously at those targets they are organized to attack, by "Skeptic Central" on the internet"
I don't know if Bolen is right or not on some of these points.
But some comments are in order. Personally, I haven't found any connection between homosexuality and hard-core atheism or pseudoskepticism. But I haven't searched for it either... It is true that atheists tend to be defenders of the rights of homosexuals, but I suspect that it is for strategical reasons: Atheists need to support other minories in order to create a social force which makes them socially recognized. As such, this kind of social action is not objectionable.
Moreover, Bolen is not talking about homosexuality as such, but about ANGRY male homosexuals. So, someone could suggest that the "angry" plus "male" aspect of the equation (and not simply homosexuality, which could be female homosexuality), if correct, could explain some of the atheists' mistreating of women (perhaps the atheistic male's dislike of women is due to fear of having a potential sexual competition for the alpha male?).
More research about it is needed.
Bolen mentions that these skeptics have interest in pedophilia, its promotion and justification. Certainly, as I've explained in detail in this post, some leading atheistic intellectuals promote or at least justifies pedophilia, infanticide, abortion, and so forth. In fact, Richard Dawkins is sympathetic to the view that killing infants with incurable diseases is morally acceptable:
Dawkins also thinks that evolutionary biology makes "rape" morally arbitrary (and hence, not morally objectionable under any objective and universal standard of morality):
Dawkins's view is not properly a promotion of rape or infanticide, but a moral justification of it based on evolution and atheistic materialism (a justification which most people would consider a moral atrocity).
In my opinion, the militant atheists' sympatheties for these moral atrocities derive from the realization that, given atheistic naturalism, there is not reason to believe in objective morality. Morality is not a dimension of the physical or material world, but a spiritual dimension of reality (which a consistent materialistic atheist cannot countenance).
In any case, this evidence supports Bolen's view about the sympathies of some atheists for moral atrocities like infancticide or pedophilia.
But regarding homosexuality, I don't see any clear connection or correlation between being a "hard-core" atheist and being homosexual.
But I promise to research this aspect of organized skepticism. Stay tuned.
It is a source of fascination to me to know in depth the mental framework and spiritual nature of hard-core atheists and pseudoskeptics!
0 comments:
Post a Comment