In the following video, you can watch the amazingly beautiful and nice atheist/skeptic girl Ashley Paramore commenting on some of her experiences with sexual assaults and abuses at atheist and skeptical conferences:
I'm astonished that in an advanced country like USA (and some European countries) these "atheist predators" who assault women at "skeptical conferences" are not punished by the law.
To any women reading this: DON'T ALLOW ANY ATTACK ON YOUR PHYSICAL INTEGRITY. Make use of the law, let's stop these assaults against women and girls!
More evidence on sexual assaults and aggressions against women by "scientific atheists", here.
Peter Singer is a world's leading atheistic moral philosopher, who has justified on moral grounds the practique of bestiality or having SEX with animals. Just watch carefully what Singer says in this video:
Singer not only justifies bestiality, he also agrees with infanticide and necrophilia (sexual attraction to corpses). In an article by Joe Carter entitled "The Dangerous Mind of Peter Singer", published in First Things, Carter comments:
Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable... He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual)
What kind of person would defend such weird, evil and obviously immoral views? Philosopher Edward Feser comments:
I maintain that there are some views that are so evil that no one who is morally upright could possibly uphold them. To take just one, particularly disgusting, example, it is precisely because Peter Singer sincerely believes that bestiality is morally justifiable thatwe can know that he has a corrupt moral character. For given the correct (classical natural law) approach to morality and moral psychology, no one whose sensibilities are such that he could seriously entertain such an idea could possibly fail to be morally corrupt.
In a previous post I mentioned Singer's concession that only belief in a good God finally secures the conviction that living morally coincides with living well (actually, the "belief" in God is itself irrelevant: What is relevant is the existence or not existence of God, because the former determines a worldview based on a person and hence a worldview capable of grounding person-relative properties like moral values and responsability; while the latter, the atheistic worldview, is ultimately based on the non-personal features of the universe, which cannot ground person-relative properties, like objective moral values, as part of the fabric of reality).
In fact, in the following video Richard Dawkins is talking with Singer about the moral justification of infanticide:
The atheistic materialistic worldview makes no run for objective morality. Morality becomes a matter of subjective, personal interests or tastes, at most justified pragmatically. Consistent atheists like Singer and Dawkins realize this.
Also, new atheist and physicist Lawrence Krauss realizes this, at least regarding INCEST, which he considers to be just biologically inadequate, but "it is not clear that it is (morally) wrong":
That Singer's atheistic ethics justify the practique of infanticide or bestiality is more evidence of the moral poverty of atheism, metaphysical naturalism and materialism... a poverty that some atheists themselves consider to be a secular moral virtue.
Some people could think that Jeffrey Dahmer was appealing to a silly excuse when he blaimed his atheism for not giving him any sense of moral responsability for his actions.
Think again: Was Dahmer inconsistent with his atheistic worldview when he decided to kill or rape other people? In order to answer this important question from a rigurously objective, serious, impartial viewpoint, we have examine carefully what contemporary atheism holds in these regards. And this can be done only by reading carefully what leading contemporary atheists thinkers and intellectuals say and argue regarding the relevant topics.
Contemporary atheism is materialistic, physicalistic, deterministic and impersonalistic (i.e it reduces everything what exists, including human beings, to the blind impersonal forces of physics, unguided evolution and in the case of humans also to the deterministic laws of brain funtioning and enviromental influence), and these factors seem to be at variance with free will, moral responsability, moral accountability and objective moral values (which are person-relative properties or features which are likely to exist objectively, that is, as part of the fabric of reality, in a worldview ultimately grounded on a powerful personal creator, like the theistic worldview, but that are extremely unlikely in a worldview based entirely on blind, mechanical, deterministic, unguided, unintentional, impersonal forces or energies like the atheistic-materialistic-naturalistic worldview), by the reasons explained by atheistic intellectuals themselves:
Tom Clark, who's the Director of the Center for Naturalism, in one article on liberty, commented:
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"
For Clark, a criminal's career (e.g. the career of Jeffrey Dahmer) is not a matter of free personal choice, because in a deterministic universe "no kernel of independent moral agency" exists. According to naturalism, Dahmer's behaviour is fully determined by purely physical and blind causes which have nothing to do with "free will" or other etheric or intangible spiritual matters.
Was Dahmer's wrong in his own opinion that his atheism stole him any sense of moral responsability and ultimate moral accountability?
Richard Dawkins, the most influential metaphysical naturalist and world's leading defender of atheism, in his article for the Edge magazine entitled Let's all stop beating Basil's car, wrote (I quote him fully in order to avoid quote-mining or unintentional misrepresentations):
Ask people why they support the death penalty or prolonged incarceration for serious crimes, and the reasons they give will usually involve retribution. There may be passing mention of deterrence or rehabilitation, but the surrounding rhetoric gives the game away. People want to kill a criminal as payback for the horrible things he did. Or they want to give "satisfaction' to the victims of the crime or their relatives. An especially warped and disgusting application of the flawed concept of retribution is Christian crucifixion as "atonement' for "sin'.Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software.Basil Fawlty, British television's hotelier from hell created by the immortal John Cleese, was at the end of his tether when his car broke down and wouldn't start. He gave it fair warning, counted to three, gave it one more chance, and then acted. "Right! I warned you. You've had this coming to you!" He got out of the car, seized a tree branch and set about thrashing the car within an inch of its life. Of course we laugh at his irrationality. Instead of beating the car, we would investigate the problem. Is the carburettor flooded? Are the sparking plugs or distributor points damp? Has it simply run out of gas? Why do we not react in the same way to a defective man: a murderer, say, or a rapist? Why don't we laugh at a judge who punishes a criminal, just as heartily as we laugh at Basil Fawlty? Or at King Xerxes who, in 480 BC, sentenced the rough sea to 300 lashes for wrecking his bridge of ships? Isn't the murderer or the rapist just a machine with a defective component? Or a defective upbringing? Defective education? Defective genes?Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though it wouldn't surprise me).But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment. (emphasis in blue added)
Again, on Dawkins' explicitly and extended argument, was Dahmer inconsistent with the atheistic worldview when he felt not responsible for his criminal actions?Wasn't Dahmer the foremost example of an "enlightened" man when he understood that moral responsability and "indeed evil and good" are, given atheism and evolution, pure "mental constructs" and "useful fictions", and therefore he felt free to make his own personal rules of behaviour?
Keep in mind that Dahmer blamed atheism AND evolution. Now, look what Richard Dawkins says regarding rape, morality and evolution:
Think again, was Dahmer inconsistent with his atheistic worldview when he committed his crimes?
Massimo Pligliucci, atheistic naturalist and evolutionist, in his debate with William Lane Craig, explicitly argued:
Finally, the problem of morality, which I'm sure we'll have more to say about--oh yeah, I agree with Dr. Craig when he cited Dr. Ruse, a philosopher of science. There is no such a thing as objective morality. We got that straightened out. Morality in human cultures has evolved and is still evolving, and what is moral for you might not be moral for the guy next door and certainly is not moral for the guy across the ocean, the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean, and so on. And what makes you think that your personal morality is the one and everybody else is wrong? Now a better way of putting this is that it is not the same as to say that anything goes; it is not at all the same. What goes is anything that works; there are things that work. Morality has to work. For example, one of the very good reasons we don't go around killing each other is because otherwise the entire society as we know it would collapse and we'd become a bunch of simple isolated animals. There are animals like those.
While denying the existence of any objective morality, Pligliucci appeals to a pragmatic defense of morality, i.e. morality has to work!. But obviously, something "works" only in connection with the purposes of an agent (e.g. rape "works" to produce pleasure in the rapist; and atomic bombs "work" to kill people and win battles; and medicines "work" to cure diseases). The pragmatic notion of "working" is a relational property which always refers (implicitly or explicitly) to one or several ends or purposes in regards to which the means in question "work" (i.e. are effective).
If your subjective purpose is avoiding the collapse of society, then Pigliucci is right that we have "good reasons" to avoid killing each other. But what happens if your subjective purposes have nothing to do with the collapse of society? Or worst, what would happen if your subjective purpose is precisely to destroy the social order? Then in these cases, killing and raping other people is a fine and effective instrument which "works" to your purpose (i.e. destroy the social order).
Since for naturalistic atheism, there is not objective purpose in the universe, the only purposes that exist are subjective purposes (i.e. individual-relative purposes). In words of Richard Dawkins: "In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference... DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music". (River Out Of Eden, p.133)
See also the debate between Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and other atheistic naturalists in one hand, and William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett and other theists in the other hand:
Again, was Dahmer inconsistent with his atheistic worldview?
I think the answer is obvious, and keep in mind that I've quoted exclusively leading representatives of the naturalistic-atheistic worldview, not their critics.
I've provided more evidence for the moral implications of metaphysical naturalism and atheism in this section of my blog.
For more philosophically minded readers, keep in mind that the above considerations about worldviews and morality have a counterfactual character which is often misunderstood (as I've explained in this post). The discussion is not whether atheists are bad or good, or whether theists are bad or good (obviously, there are exist good and bad people in all human groups).
Rather, the question is whether given the basic and essential premises of the atheistic worldview, we WOULD expect objective morality to exist. As proved above, consistent naturalists who understand this question clearly say NO. According to naturalistic-atheistic philosopher Keith Augustine:
It seems to me that all ethical codes must ultimately be man-made, and thus there could be no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right or wrong. Admitting that moral laws are man-made is equivalent to acknowledging that ethical rules are arbitrary and therefore human beings are not obligated to follow them... If objective moral laws are part of the natural universe (not part of some supernatural realm), then the universe cannot be unconscious--it must be, in some unknown sense, sentient. Few naturalists would want to accept such a nonscientific pantheistic conclusion... But given that moral subjectivism is just as logically viable as moral objectivism and that moral objectivism is implausible if a scientific naturalism is true, I think that there is a good case for the nonexistence of objective moral values.
Like Clark, Pigliucci, Dawkins and many other atheists, Augustine (who is a trained philosopher) correctly understand the implications of (andcounterfactual questions related to) metaphysical naturalism.
As Keith comments, if naturalism is true, then plausibly the ethical rules are ARBITRARY. Therefore, human beings are not obligated to follow them. Such ethical rules are useful human inventions which don't come from any ultimate or senior moral authority which is legitimate to impose such rules upon us.
Dahmer understood this, and consistent with such view, he felt free to commit whatever crimes or immoral acts he wished. Being man-made and arbitrary, no ethical rule was obligatory to him. He made his own rules.
In this brief video, an atheist asked William Lane Craig about moral values and atheism (notice carefully the formulation of the question by the atheist: it actuallys confirms the subjectivity and ego-centered morality implied by atheism):
Atheist philosopher of science and biology Alex Rosenberg confirms all of these contentions and summarizes them:
One source of meaning on which many have relied is the intrinsic value, in particular the moral value, of human life. People have also sought moral rules, codes, principles which are supposed to distinguish us from merely biological critters whose lives lack (as much) meaning or value (as ours)... Scientism must reject all of these straws that people have grasped, and it’s not hard to show why. Science has to be nihilistic about ethics and morality. Alex Rosenberg, in his article "The Disenchanted Naturalistic Guide to Reality". Emphasis in blue added
Rosenberg defends in detail the atheistic-nihilist position on morality in his book The Atheist's Guide To Reality:
Ask yourself with absolute objectivity: Does the atheistic worldview provide firm, ontologically solid foundations for the existence of an objective moral realm (i.e. a realm which is a essential part of the fabric of reality, not a mere projection of our minds, desires, emotions or opinions), normative and authoritative ethical rules, free will, moral responsability and ultimate moral accountability for our actions?
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 on child 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. They are NOT real men, and to be honest, individuals like these coward bastards deserve to have their butts kicked.
In the website "For Good Reason" (interview program hosted by D.J. Grothe, who is the President of the James Randi Educational Foundation), you can read an article entitled "A Skeptic Comes Out at 81", in which you can read:
James Randi comes out as gay. He discusses his life as a closeted gay man, and why he is now at age 81 coming out, and why he hasn’t been publicly open about his sexuality sooner. He describes the possible impact his coming out may have on his tireless work advancing skepticism and critical thinking. He discusses his atheism, and whether it, or his sexual orientation, influences the mission of the James Randi Educational Foundation. He talks about gay rights issues such as marriage equality. He discusses his detractors and what they might make of the news of his homosexuality. And he explores the relevance of gay rights to the skeptical movement
In a previous post, I commented that Tim Bolen (an experienced critic of pseudoskeptics), has suggested, according to his research, that there exists a strong connection between homosexuality and organized skepticism. Bolen says that these organizations have a large number of (in Bolen's words) "angry male homosexuals" and also that "the skeptics particularly like to attack women", , the latter being the kind of misogyny that I've discussed in a another post (see here).
Despite of Randi's declared homosexuality, I cannot draw yet any reliable conclusion about the statistical prevalence of homosexuality among male "skeptics", but this is a topic what we'll have to research in depth..
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!
Before you read this post, you have to be absolutely familiar with my series of posts on atheism and morality, in which I provide strong evidence for the philosophical view of leading contemporary atheistic intellectuals on morality. These posts were not intended to defend that atheists are immoral, but to argue that atheism (as a worldview) cannot ground ontologically nor rationally the existence of objective morality. This is a philosophical fact which has absolutely nothing to do with whether atheists are good or bad.
But this post is different. In this post, I'll provide evidence for certain kinds of immoral behaviour which are common (not merely exceptional) on the part of militant "skeptics" and atheists, which suggests that their purely philosophical views on moral subjectivism, relativism and nihilism has PRACTICAL consequences on their own lives as hard-core atheists. This fact has to be understood in the context of the philosophical fact mentioned above.
It is well known that in USA and other countries, certain social beliefs and stereotypes exist about atheists as being immoral. Some polls suggest that atheists are the most distrusted minority in America and the standard response by atheists to it is saying that it is due to religious bigotry. However, as I've argued in this post, I think religious bigotry is not the only factor to consider: The own behaviour and philosophical beliefs promoted by atheists is, for a large extension, responsible for that extreme distrust by the overwhelming majority of society (for example, this kind of irrational, childish and emotional behaviour).
This post will provide more evidence for that contention.
I'll focus on just two proven aspects of consistent immorality shown by militant atheists andhard-core skeptics: Misogyny and Sexism.
Misogynyand Sexism:
Misogyny is defined as "the hatred or dislike of women or girls".
Sexism is defined as "prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender; or conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex"
The question is whether misogyny and sexism, as defined above, are common among atheistic pseudoskeptics.
"One demographic skeptics are particularly uncomfortable with is the female of the species. It's an increasingly acknowledged fact that the skeptic community is rife with sexism... Women are a small minority in the skeptic world, and the few who get involved get shit thrown at them constantly by their skeptic peers. Every day, they suffer the whole gamut of attitudes from sneering to leering.
Bond's observation of his former fellows skeptics imply not only sexism on the part of skeptics, but misogyny too, since they feel uncomfortable with the presence of females among them and, in addition, the few women who are part of the skeptical groups GET SHIT thrown at them. This clearly satisfies the definition of misogyny mentioned above.
Bond's testimony is important because he belonged to skeptical groups, so he's talking as a first-hand eyewitness, as an insider.
In confirmation of Bond's accurate observations as an insider, we get independent evidence for the discomfort felt by "skeptics" towards women and girls from people who have studied the history of pseudoskepticism from a more detached scholarly perspective.
A third distinguishing feature is that the vast majority in CSICOP are male, and this has affected the tone and demeanor of the group... CSICOP is heavily dominated by men, and until 1991 there were no women at all on the Executive Council. A reporter for New Scientist described CSICOP as “white,” “male,” and “slightly geriatric” (Anderson, 1987, p. 51). The inside covers of recent issues of SIdisplay the gender imbalance; the results are summarized in Table 2. The predominance of men characterizes the local affiliates as well. Of the 40 listed local leaders, only two are women. Certainly academia is predominantly male, and so it is not surprising that a majority of CSICOP’s members are men. However, the percentage does seem disproportionate.
Not all the local groups are totally dominated by men, and a CSICOP manual prepared for local groups encouraged the involvement of women. The East Bay Skeptics in California reported that 27% of its members were women (“Members Elect First Board,” 1988), and in a 1990 election of the National Capital Area Skeptics, 3 of 11 listed candidates were women. Despite these efforts, the debunking movement is overwhelmingly run by men.
The perceived demeanor. Some have perceived the gender imbalance as
Table 2 DISTRIBUTION OF MEN AND WOMEN IN SKEPTICS’ GROUPS
Fellows Scientific and Leaders of Technical Consultants Local Groups Men 53 52 38 Women 3 4 2 Figures based on pages 447-48 and the inside covers of the Summer 1990 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer.
If as Bond suggested above, sexism and misogyny is very common among pseudoskeptics and atheist groups, then we'd expect precisely what we find: skeptical and atheist organized groups are, as a rule, "overwhelmingly run by men", as Hansen observed. Women and girls are seen with extreme suspicion and even hostility by most "skeptics", and hence not prominent (or at least egalitarian) status is conceded to them among atheistic "skeptics". Hansen's statistical data tells us a lot about the mindset of "skeptics" regarding women and girls.
Hansen's observation provides an independent confirmation of Bond's own observations as an insider and former skeptic.
But we have more independent evidence of sexism and misogyny among atheistic pseudoskeptics in the case of SKEPCHICK (her real name is Rebecca Watson), a beautiful pseudoskeptic girl who, according to wikipedia, "described an experience at a skeptical conference, concerning an approach by a man in an elevator, who invited her to his room for coffee and a conversation late at night, after she had talked extensively about disliking being sexualized at atheist conferences.[19] In a video blog, among other things, she stated that incident made her feel sexualized and uncomfortable and advised, "Guys, don't do that".[20] Her statement sparked a controversy among the skeptic community.[21] Her critics said she was overreacting to a trivial incident, most notably Richard Dawkins, who wrote a satirical letter to an imaginary Muslim woman, sarcastically contrasting her plight to Watson's complaint. This in turn caused him to be criticized by those supporting her on the issue, including several figures in the community.[22][23] Watson announced that she would not buy or endorse Dawkins's books and lectures in the future.[22] She also wrote that, as a result of Dawkins's criticism, her Wikipedia article was vandalised and offensive images were posted on her Facebook page"
According to the Mail and Guardian website, the skepchick case triggered "a fairly useful debate about feminism, sexism and appropriate sexual boundaries between men and women descended into all out troll warfare and an attendant witch-hunt to persecute sexists in the atheist community."
Watson published in youtube a video commenting on the case:
Moreover, Watson has commented on the bigotry of some "skeptics" in this article.
In order to understand clearly why some skeptics and atheists are like that, I suggest to carefully read:
