Translate

Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts

Saturday, 1 August 2020

The difference between an apatheist and a nihilist

An apatheist is someone indifferent to the existence of God.

Apatheism therefore means belief or disbelief in God would not influence the behaviour of the apatheist. I am an apatheist.

How is an apatheist to be distinguished from a nihilist?

Presumably, an apatheist has a moral code that will be followed whether or not God is believed to exist.

On the other hand, a nihilist is an atheist who denies the existence of God and God-given morality. If he obeys the law, it would be only because he wishes to avoid the law's punishment.

An apatheist is therefore more morally centred than the nihilist, who is assumed to have his or her own code of morality that will be followed irrespective of whether it is believed God exists.

An apatheist who is not a nihilist should at least submit to Truth, Logic and Morality and be prepared to answer questions on the definition of morality and which moral system is better. They should at least be prepared to discuss which of the gentile religions is most Noahide and which the least.

https://radicalisedrabbi.blogspot.com/2020/02/noahide-ranking-of-other-four-world.html

Monday, 4 May 2020

The harm of idolatry and blasphemy atheists find almost impossible to understand




It should be noted that Daniel is an ex-Catholic and is now atheist. Atheists believe both monotheists and polytheists are mad and silly and do not distinguish between

a) the idolatry of non-Abrahamic deities and
b) the worship of the Abrahamic God.

However, any knowledge of Judaism would tell you that the Torah ordains death for any Jew convicted of idolatry. If Jews practised idolatry as the Normans did, they would, like the Normans, be now extinct having assimilated themselves out of existence. Christians are now virtually extinct in the West since very few who identify as Christians are confirmed and very few confirmed Christians actually believe that an executed revolutionary is the co-equal of the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God. In fact, the West is as Christian as a human skeleton used to be human.

In short, to affirm the divinity of Christ is ipso facto idolatrous and to affirm his co-equal status with the supreme and eternal Abrahamic God is ipso facto blasphemous.

Christ was crucified for blasphemy - a capital crime for Jews. Christians have themselves affirmed the blasphemy for which Christ was crucified and to this day affirm the idolatrous Doctrine of the Trinity, apparently blissfully ignorant of God's prohibition of idolatry and blasphemy in His Ten Commandments. If this is pointed out to them, they are indifferent to the gravity of this sin, and are clearly more pridefully invested in their idolatry than in the correct worship of God.

They are also indifferent to warnings that idolatry leads to self-worship and self-worship leads to self-destructive narcissism. Should they end up destroying themselves like Narcissus, they can always blame the Jews who neglected their religious duty to promote the Noahide laws - which also forbid idolatry and blasphemy - amongst gentiles.

And so the endless cycle of blame will continue, until and unless the correction of Secular Koranism is adopted and imposed. I like to think it is not too late to repent, even after 2000 years of idolatry and blasphemy.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2014/05/secular-koranism.html
https://www.learnreligions.com/what-is-teshuvah-2076801

Step 1, Regret. Realize the extent of the damage and inwardly adopt of feeling sincere regret.
Step 2, Ceasing.  Immediately stop the harmful action.
Step 3, Confession and restitution. Verbalize the mistake and ask for forgiveness, either from God or from the wronged party. If possible, the wrong must be righted through compensation. If the sin is against God, acts of charity may be considered as restitution. 
Step 4, Resolution. Make a firm commitment not to repeat the sin in the future.


1:00  Apparently, "Jewish behaviour" is "feigning ignorance of what constitutes Jewish behaviour".
2:00  I am accused of being the Barbara Lerner Spectre of Islam and "avoiding the JQ".
3:00  Gandalf gets hysterical about the Noahide laws.
4:00  Universal laws and Natural Law
5:00  Rejecting the Noahide laws because they are Jewish
6:00  Spokesperson for the Rabbinate
7:00  Idolatry
8:00  Jews are godless. Does he mean they are liberal?
9:00  Wotan
10:00  Obsessed with Jews
11:00  Idolatry
12:00  Christ was an executed revolutionary!
13:00  "Jesus is divine by nature."


1:00  Just as most gentiles are liberals, so are assimilated Jews liberal. Should gentiles apologise to Jews for corrupting their morals with liberalism?

Tuesday, 21 January 2020

A paradoxical correlation between those who worship God and those who deny His existence

It is people who are without religion who are most lowered in status. There is a correlation in the social status between a tribe who have been worshipping the Abrahamic God for longest and the atheist gentile antisemitic Islamophobic white Westerner who hates rules, religion and the very idea of being humble before God.

Wednesday, 9 October 2019

Deism, Theism, Atheism and Nihilism

Adherence to any of the five world religions - belief that we were created by God to follow certain rules of morality in order to make ourselves worthy of having


1) an afterlife not in hell or
2) a next life that is not worse than the one we have.

Deism, the idea that God exists but does not know our hearts and minds, does not intervene in human affairs and is indifferent to us and never answers our prayers, leads to nihilism. 

Thursday, 13 September 2018

Atheism, fornication, degeneracy and why our politicians only fill their boots

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fill-your-boots

Your nation is degenerate when your government will not even discuss making the law supporting marriage and family values because it knows that the majority of parents are not married parents in a society where fornication is normalised whose human stock has been destroyed, as the late Keith Joseph warned in 1974.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2010/nov/25/conservatives-davidcameron

In a degenerate society that is a matriarchy, short term thinking is the ignoble rule and abstractions such as the long term national interest and morality are not the concerns of its leaders who can think no further than the next general election, always less than five years away.

Everything about feminism undermines marriage and every feminist condones fornication. Feminism keeps men quiescent by bribing them with fornication. If fornication were a drug, the slut is the drug dealer.

Knowing this, addicted Western Man will nevertheless not want to give up fornication or the idea of it being his human right because he knows he and his civilisation are dying and, being atheist, wants to enjoy all its available sexual pleasures in this life before it is over.

The addict will not be calling the cops on his dealer.

After what happened to Enoch Powell and Keith Joseph, no senior male politician will be thinking of risking his career for a society whose human stock was not only threatened, but appears to have been destroyed. It is indeed true that people get the government they deserve.

Are there even ten good men in Britain any more, let alone ten righteous men in our political class?

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/832/why-did-abraham-stop-at-ten-in-genesis-1832


Why does Hungary have Orban but the British only have May, a childless clueless woman who wouldn't know what the British national interest is even if it walked up to her and snatched her handbag?

Catholicism, though failing, has managed to preserve some of the patriarchy that remains in Hungary. 

Only a patriarchy would produce enough good strong men capable of defending the national interest.

A patriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of married fathers.

A matriarchy is a society that prioritises the preferences of immoral unmarried mothers who are bad mothers and bring into being illegitimate offspring who tend to be criminal and even if not actually criminal, underachieve and then become a burden on society. Their offspring tend not to be desirable employees thus creating a demand for cheaper more willing foreign labour.

Britain has been a matriarchy since 1974.


Sunday, 6 May 2018

Why atheists are invariably narcissists

Basically, atheists are narcissists because they have no religious principles. They may say they have non-religious moral principles, but they follow them only imperfectly. Some will even insist that they have moral principles, but be quite unable to articulate them. Because they made their own rules, they can break their own rules when the mood takes them without any sense of guilt or shame.

He might tell you one day quite earnestly that he believes in God and then deny God's existence a few weeks later. When you point this out to him, he will shrug indifferently and say that he no longer feels this way now. The statement was true at the time of the declaration, but is now no longer true, because his emotions are not the emotions they were when he declared his belief in God.

This behaviour is very much analogous to the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. (This is the rule that every law that Parliament passes it can always repeal at a later date when circumstances and political expediency requires.)

If the narcissist breaks his own rules, he will think no one else has noticed because he does not believe in an all-knowing God.

If you notice this and point this out, you will be met by a bare-faced denial.

If you persist, you will be abused, insulted or possibly worse, because the more violent type will not hesitate to use violence and is even more the slave of his emotions which he is unable to control.

For the narcissist, the only thing that is real is his emotions. This means his emotions trumps truth, reason and morality because he only acknowledges the primacy of his emotions because they are his emotions while the unwelcome conclusions he is faced with are someone else's truth, reason and morality.

This means the only thing that would motivate the emotional narcissist is bribes and threats. There is no better side to appeal to in a person whose primary motivation is to please himself and who cannot see why he should care for anyone else, not even his parents and not his usually illegitimate children.

The interesting paradox is that he is often not very good at looking after his own interests either.

Tuesday, 24 April 2018

The brain drain of the white race





I have been saying for years that sluts and socialists are the eternal enemies of society and the only protection against this is the practice of slut-shaming that is required by any religion that promotes patriarchal moral values. These would be the five world religions, but as you know, all religions can be subverted once they ignore their own rules and people either don't notice or don't care.

The sexually-liberated atheist is more prone to doing this than a Jew or a Muslim because Jews and Muslims are more likely to know about the prohibition against premarital sex than the atheist, even if they do not agree with it.

The trouble with nationalists is that they are atheist antisemites and Islamophobes who would rather die than even be seen to be investigating the religion of those they hate and fear with any show of objective impartiality.

Everything about feminism undermines marriage. Patriarchy cannot exist without marriage. Without the patriarchy, not enough good strong men will be produced to defend the national interest. If Western men were mostly Christian husbands and fathers of legitimate offspring, they wouldn't and needn't put up with the matriarchy for even a minute.

Without the family and a functioning religion, men are atomised and competing against each other for the sexual favours of immoral women, incapable of co-operating with each other to deal with their internal enemies: sluts and socialists.

Without patriarchy there is no hierarchy and therefore no accountability.

A matriarchy is basically buck-passing politicians who will blame other buck-passing politicians where the apparent leader is really not in control of anything and cannot rely on the loyalty of beta males to support him. This makes him cowardly, hesitant and cautious and also means nothing much will be done in Trump's term of office.

Without patriarchy, no one in a senior political position will stick his neck out to defend the beta males below. Enoch Powell and Keith Joseph tried to point out the obvious, but had their careers destroyed.

Because courage and truth is not rewarded, no more politicians will speak it on your behalves.

Not only is pointing out the obvious unrewarded, it will get you ignored even by the people who are supposed to be on your side who cannot bear to accept the truth either.

The problem with atheism is that the atheist can only think in terms of his own life and does not care what happens after he is dead, especially if he has no biological investment in the next generation.

Most white nationalists are atheist unmarriageable bachelors which means they are easily intimidated and bribed.

Without religion, there is no possibility of enjoying the inter-generational co-operation that Jews and Muslims enjoy which means each generation of nationalists has to more or less reinvent the wheel.

Often, I feel that nationalists of the previous generation would actually hate to see the younger generation succeed where they have failed.

As far as the younger generation are concerned, they are now so atomised that they cannot form a political party or even discuss anything other than what they imagine their YouTube subscribers want to hear.

And this is why none of them will talk to me. It is abuse of power really, but they don't see anything wrong with that either.

If you really are a political activist, you owe it to your cause to seek the truth and operate on logic, guided by your principles. This is the very least that is required.

Sexual corruption leads to moral corruption.

Moral corruption leads to intellectual corruption.

Intellectual corruption leads to the inability to form logical conclusions based on indisputable facts and solve political problems guided by moral principles. Only those from a religious background practising family values would have internalised the categorical imperative to have principles and follow them. The illegitimate, singly parented and the badly schooled will find this almost impossible to do, however patient you are with him. Believe me, I have tried.

The degenerate who has difficulty understanding the nature and purpose of principles will have greater difficulty applying them if they their morality is non-existent. Most of them will have difficulty even recognising a situation when the exercise of principle is required, because they are accustomed to responding instinctively and thoughtlessly to the promptings of their baser appetites. If sex is offered, they will take it, even if they have already said they are not looking for a relationship and would even agree with you that immoral women who are also bad parents of illegitimate offspring cause the social problems of immigration they are always complaining about.

Such degenerates are only left with denial, apathy and the stated intention to leave the country if it all gets too much to bear.  

Thursday, 1 February 2018

The link between feminism, mental illness, rising crime, immigration and suicide

www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/mind/norman-lamb-my-sons-mental-health-problems-made-me-determined-to/


I wonder if RT will give me a platform to debate feminism if the liberal media of the West won't.  Perhaps Fox News might do this. The bad news is that the Editor in Chief of RT is female. Will the Russians be prepared to let me discuss feminism on RT or are they also just as cucked really? I had in mind being interviewed by Sophie Shevardnadze or Oksana Boyko.





On the necessity of hierarchy and the men who have a problem with authority

Does anyone else get it that logically and necessarily we must have hierarchy if we are to have patriarchy, and that marriage is the best way of ordering the rank of individuals in society?

The antithesis of patriarchy is matriarchy, and in a matriarchy it is impossible to establish your rank or indeed to pull rank on anyone at all.

This is because matriarchies are egalitarian. Women tend to be feminists and feminists are socialists, and socialists are egalitarian. Socialism means a nanny state without which feminism cannot exist. Feminism cannot exist outside an overbearing nanny state because a society of men with male solidarity simply wouldn't put up with feminism.

How is male solidarity achieved? It can only be achieved when men agree amongst themselves that sluts have to be shamed. Since most men are atheists and only think in the short term, they are incapable of thinking beyond their own lifetimes or immediate prospect of pleasure. Since this life is the only life they expect to have, any threat or bribe would work with them. This means they are incapable of making any sacrifice or showing any courage because they fear loss of status, income and employment and most certainly sexual access to women which they think is a badge of their virility.

In an egalitarian society, individuals will not receive constructive criticism gracefully. Everyone is asking anyone else who tries to correct their behaviour "Who the hell are you to tell me what to do?"

If the person attempting to do the correcting says "Well, it is true that you do X and X is wrong" you would be told mulishly "Even if what you say is true, I still won't do what you say and you can't do anything about it, so fuck off."

This could be said to the person supposedly higher in rank to the mule, or lower in rank.

Why would any aspiring male with leadership qualities who is also atheist, cowardly and not prepared to make any sacrifice for any principle wish to lead a herd of mules? Far better to trick, bribe or threaten them than appeal to their reason and good nature which is mostly eclipsed by their massive egos.

The British used to be known for their rules of fair play. The 21st century British male if he is working class is usually someone who has problems with authority, said to be something commonly suffered by delinquent black youth who underachieve in life.

If you have a problem with authority, you will only want to be the leader. If you only want to be the leader, you will not be prepared to obey orders, follow rules or observe the boundaries of correct behaviour.

If you are defiant, rebellious and rude, then people who do actually have something to teach you will reject and avoid you, and this will stop you from making the most of your opportunities.

People who have problem with authority are of course atheists. Their ultimate authority is themselves guided only by their ego, appetites and emotions. Such people would hate the idea of having their behaviour restricted by anything as banal as rules, which they think is for losers, little realising that they are themselves the losers.

What rules should we obey?

From the standpoint of survival, we should always acknowledge truth, logic and morality. However, we all know people who are so egotistical and stubborn that they will never admit that they lost the argument. We might have at some in our own lives be guilty of this trait ourselves and already know that a majority of the households in the land does not have a responsible adult capable of making their offspring acknowledge the error of their ways. Most children are badly parented by their irresponsible single mothers and even married fathers are often weak or allow themselves to be undermined by their wives. This is a great shame because people who never admit they are wrong are condemned to repeat their mistakes again and again and again.

In a matriarchy, all males are beta males. This is unhealthy and dangerous because no beta male will accept the authority of another beta male.

This means beta males will have no one to represent their interests. In a matriarchy, there are at best only beta males with alpha male qualities, but they tend to be flawed characters who have a problem with authority, unable to either obey or lead properly or be guided by religious or moral principles, since they are overwhelmingly atheist, and atheists only worship the False Idol of Expediency.

If they claim to be religious, this really means nothing more than a vague belief in some higher power. If you suggest to them that this higher power might be the Abrahamic God who has taken the trouble of making laws for humanity, they will immediately say that they don't subscribe to that kind of religious fanaticism.

Such people tend to prefer the religions with the vaguest possible rules so they can interpret these principles in any way they like, to suit themselves. Such people are always on the lookout to enjoy spiritual experiences while being disinclined to obey anything as pedestrian as rules, which they think are for losers and uncool people.

To be an alpha male, you must be a leader of beta males and be chosen as leader by beta males without females interfering with their choice of leader. Otherwise, such a leader will end up being chosen by the worst kind of promiscuous and irresponsible female who is a bad mother to her variously fathered illegitimate offspring.

A patriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of married fathers while a matriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of unmarried mothers.

We know what we are, don't we?

The average voter in the UK is a 40 year white single mother who hates white men. Sadly, the plebeians of the West overwhelmingly have a problem with authority while the patricians are terrified of being divorced by their feminist wives under the rules of no fault divorce with the consequence of being deprived of their matrimonial home and children for no good reason at all. They are also terrified of being accused of a historic sexual offence by a female and feminist Director of Public Prosecutions.

I am just here to record the fall of the West and explain it to future generations since there is really not much more I can do other than explain and chronicle this process. After all, no one ever listens to me.

I am not really complaining, because men don't listen to each other either. In a matriarchy, all men are beta males and no beta male will accept the authority of another beta male. Leaderless beta males think and behave exactly like women and the most telling way that this manifests itself is that these men, like women, cannot ever grasp the principles of truth, logic and morality, however often, clearly and loudly you explain it to them.

If you cannot give them immediate gratification eg sex, success etc, they are not interested. Such men will never be able to make sacrifices for the principle of the thing. In fact, they would openly sneer at anyone prepared to do such a thing as a fool or a fanatic. Not only will they lie to you, they will lie to themselves, even worse and even more. The most bemusing thing about them is that they will always be doing the equivalent of saying "No, thank you" when you offer them something while reaching out a paw to take it. They genuinely don't even know they are doing it, and when you point it out to them, they will be puzzled and offended. Principles are of course the key to moral reasoning so that one knows what one's principles are, and will notice when they are being broken. British men are entirely bereft of the ability to use moral reasoning to check themselves, and instead rely on their emotions and caprice, just as women do.

http://www.puckermob.com/lifestyle/20-struggles-of-having-issues-with-authority

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder

Wednesday, 11 October 2017

Rabbi Sacks challenges Liberal Jews on their atheism




4th minute
Howard Jacobson: 

"The business of what I eat, the business of what I wear and the whole business of the minutiae of a religious life doesn't suit me, and I also don't like to see it." 

That was when Rabbi Sacks should have burst into song.


After the song, Rabbi Sacks could have added:

"As for eating pork, you stuff yourself with pork as much as you like, Jacob, but even bad Jews like you know you are not supposed to do that. Therefore we and the goyim know you are a self-hating Jew and you know what, Jacob? The anti-Semites won't stop hating you just because they think you are an unobservant self-hating pork-guzzling Jew. That is because we have the best and worst of both worlds of Jews being both a religion and a race."

When Jacobson asks Rabbi Sacks if he is sure God exists, the answer could have been

"I am sure belief in God and His laws and our attempt to obey them as much as we can has helped the Jewish people stay together, work together and exist as the most powerful tribe in the world, and that is really the most that can be expected. We are nothing without our traditions. Without our traditions, we would be goyim."

11th minute
Alain de Botton:

"Why can't I pick and mix my religion?" 

Rabbi Sacks could have said:

"If we lived in a theocracy, you wouldn't be able to pick and choose the laws you obey, would you? Well, you could in theory, but if you were caught, arrested, tried and convicted, you would be treated and punished as a criminal, and this should probably stop you from breaking the law of the land, if you know what's good for you, Alain."



Rabbi Sacks should have said to Colin Blakemore:

"Science is the study of natural phenomena but religion is about imposing morality on your group to bring about group solidarity and keep it in existence. Jews have been around longer than the Chinese and have held on to their traditions better and longer. This is because Jews have a unique and supreme deity, while Chinese beliefs are a jumbled mish-mash of some wisdom mixed with a huge heap of hooey. It is for this reason that Jews are the most powerful tribe in the world and a superior race running AIPAC, dictating who becomes US Presidential candidate and controlling US foreign policy. So there."

'Prof Baker is one of the signatories of a British-led petition of more than 700 academics from several countries launched by Steven Rose, an Open University professor. Signatories including Oxford professors Colin Blakemore and Richard Dawkins say they "can no longer in good conscience continue to cooperate with official Israeli institutions, including universities".'

Lisa Jardine asks why God allows suffering.

Ho hum. These things are sent to try us, innit? Why does she think we already live in heaven? Who said we are already in Paradise entitling us to complain about room service to the Management?? Bloody hell, it is infuriating that these atheists don't get a good kicking every time they ask that dumb question again and again and again.

Rabbi Sacks, you must know that God created evil too.  Doesn't anyone know anything these days?! Give me strength.  http://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm

Maybe he was just holding back on Lisa Jardine cos she was a girl and might get upset if he mansplained things to her.

He said an interesting thing though, that Judaism is a religion of protest, a religion of struggle.  

Does that remind you too of jihad?

She also asked where is God in the howling mob. Rabbi Sacks says God is the protest against mob rule.

Rabbi Sacks:

God is the protest against the crowd. 

I suppose he means that having moral principles and defending them allows us to protest against the mob. Regrettably, Rabbi Sacks did not as I would have done in his place go on to develop the point that a theocracy would bring about good government and good government would protect Jews and others against pogroms and rich people would have their property rights respected by the mob if the mob thought the rules are fair enough and their country was being run properly ie not by a bunch of pussified libtards following the orders of stupid promiscuous women who are in the main unmarried and bad mothers incapable of being reasoned with.

Saturday, 16 September 2017

Rabbi Sacks and Rabbi Meir Soloveichik on Atheism, Fundamentalism and the Future of Faith



Sunday, 9 July 2017

Did the Jews really break the moral compass of the Christians, as it is being claimed?

I think it is being suggested here that it was the Jews who "warped" the moral compass of the gentiles.

Does this mean that the Jewish moral compass is more robust and works better than the Christian one?

What is the purpose of a moral compass?

What is the purpose of morality?

All systems of morality are dos and don'ts for their particular group. The best morality will obviously produce the most powerful group ie Jews.

Jews are obviously very powerful because Christians even in their own land cannot mock Jews without suffering loss of status, employment or income or even loss of liberty. This seems to be the price of "winning" WW2 for the Allies and losing it for the Germans.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-irving-holocaust-denial-neo-nazi-alt-right-london-forum-meeting-auschwitz-hitler-revisionist-a7719291.html

If the Jewish moral compass works better than the Christian moral compass, what can be done about improving the quality of the Christian moral compass?

Is the Christian moral compass broken beyond repair?

Is the Christian moral compass just the liberal moral compass these days, because Christianity and liberalism seem indistinguishable from each other?

Are the directions of the liberal and atheist compass all wrong eg saying East is North, and West is South? Perhaps that is the real problem.

If so, what should it be replaced with if the operation of the Jewish moral compass is beyond the ability of Christian and libtard comprehension because the Christian and libtard are now both degenerate?

Is the Jewish moral compass superior to the Muslim moral compass?

Could it be said that the Muslim moral compass is easier to operate than the Jewish moral compass?

If your moral compass is not working properly, what should you do?

What if the Jewish moral compass is better than the Christian moral compass?

Is the Christian moral compass these days like the liberal/atheist moral compass compass ie pointing in the wrong direction?

How do you know if your moral compass has broken down completely?

Is it when you think someone else has broken yours while accepting no responsibility whatsoever at all for not looking after it properly yourself?

When you start blaming others for breaking your moral compass, is that conclusive evidence that yours has now broken down irretrievably and get yourself a new moral compass urgently and immediately?

If you are saying that someone else's moral compass has broken your moral compass, could it be that your moral compass was never much cop to begin with?

Should gentiles snatch the Jewish moral compass from the Jews and use it for themselves, or just break it - like Hitler tried to do - so no one can use it at all and all be equally lost?

Could Jews validly argue that it was Christians who broke their moral compass first?

Nowhere in the Old Testament does it tell Jews to encourage gender confusion amongst gentiles. If Jews are indeed encouraging gender confusion amongst gentiles, this is not from their holy book.

Indeed, Jews are specifically told not to confuse gender roles. Deuteronomy 22:5 says:

A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

Could it be that living in Christians lands has broken the Jewish moral compass or made it work less well?

Could it be that even with a malfunctioning moral compass, Jews being a superior race do not suffer the consequences of a malfunctioning moral compass as much as Christians?

Is it breaking anyone's moral compass to acknowledge that the Jews are obviously a superior race?

Monday, 8 August 2016

Why liberalism will eventually be extinguished by Islam


From the 23rd minute

Roosh says he will not martyr himself or die for a principle. This conclusively demonstrates the fatal weakness of liberalism and atheism, because it tolerates atheism and laws that flout what are said to be God's laws.

An atheist would believe that this life is the only one. He would therefore cling fiercely to it, unwilling to make sacrifices for any principle and seek as much carnal pleasure in this life before his life is snuffed out. A society consisting of mostly men like this would of course fall to more determined men such as IS terrorists who have no fear of death.

The real purpose of religion is to make men and women prepared to make sacrifices for posterity. Liberalism and atheism is the antithesis of this.

Tuesday, 14 June 2016

God, Patriarchy & Progress v Atheism, Matriarchy & Degeneracy

As long as humans exist, wish to protect and prolong their civilisation and use sexual reproduction to produce the next generation, they will find it in their interests to obey the laws of God which promote and maintain the patriarchy and prevent a matriarchy from establishing itself. A general belief in God is therefore in the long term national interest. Only feminists, LGBTs and degenerates cannot understand this, or pretend not to, because being atheists their intention is to gratify themselves in this life which they believe is their only life, without regard for posterity or the long term survival of their nation or civilisation.

Sunday, 4 October 2015

Should you buy Alister McGrath's latest book?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06f4z37

William Crawley talks to Alister McGrath, author of ' Inventing the Universe: Why We Can't Stop Talking About Science, Faith and God'.



Sunday, 21 September 2014

Adam Lee the puppy attempts to supplant Richard Dawkins as Top Atheist Dog




Below are the results of my dissection of
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name


"The atheist movement – a loosely-knit community of conference-goers, advocacy organizations, writers and activists – has been wracked by infighting the last few years over its persistent gender imbalance and the causes of it." 

Is it a rule for people who do not believe in God to be gender balanced?

"Many female atheists have explained that they don’t get more involved because of the casual sexism endemic to the movement: parts of it see nothing problematic about hosting conferences with all-male speakers or having all-male leadership – and that’s before you get to the vitriolic and dangerous sexual harassment, online and off, that’s designed to intimidate women into silence."

Is atheism a "movement"? Surely it is just an absence of belief in God.

If "sexism" is endemic in society in general, why is there an expectation that atheists should not also be sexist?  Feminists are always accusing men of being "sexist", but this only means men saying things that offend feminists. What conferences is Lee referring to and who speaks at these conferences? What is the nature of this "vitriolic and dangerous sexual harassment"? Is Lee suggesting that Dawkins is responsible for it?

"Richard Dawkins has involved himself in some of these controversies, and rarely for the better – as with his infamous “Dear Muslima” letter in 2011, in which he essentially argued that, because women in Muslim countries suffer more from sexist mistreatment, women in the west shouldn’t speak up about sexual harassment or physical intimidation. There was also his sneer at women who advocate anti-sexual harassment policies. http://skepchick.org/2011/07/the-privilege-delusion/

But over the last few months, Dawkins showed signs of détente with his feminist critics – even progress. He signed a joint letter with the writer Ophelia Benson, denouncing and rejecting harassment; he even apologized for the “Dear Muslima” letter. https://richarddawkins.net/2014/08/who-is-belittling-what/ On stage at a conference in Oxford in August, Dawkins claimed to be a feminist and said that everyone else should be, too.

Then another prominent male atheist, Sam Harris, crammed his foot in his mouth and said that atheist activism lacks an “estrogen vibe” and was “to some degree intrinsically male”. And, just like that, the brief Dawkins Spring was over.

On Twitter these last few days, Dawkins has reverted to his old, sexist ways and then some. He’s been very busy snarling about how feminists are shrill harridans who just want an excuse to take offense, and how Harris’s critics (and his own) are not unlike thought police witch-hunter lynch mobs. Dawkins claimed that his critics are engaged in “clickbait for profit”, that they “fake outrage”, and that he wished there were some way to penalize them. 

For good measure, Dawkins argued that rape victims shouldn’t be considered trustworthy if they were drinking.

Benson, with whom Dawkins had signed the anti-harassment letter just weeks earlier, was not impressed. “I’m surprised and, frankly, shocked by Richard’s belligerent remarks about feminist bloggers over the past couple of days,” she told me. “Part of what made The God Delusion so popular was, surely, its indignant bluntness about religion. It was a best-seller; does that mean he ‘faked’ his outrage?”

There’s no denying that Dawkins played a formative role in the atheist movement, but it’s grown beyond just him. Remarks like these make him a liability at best, a punchline at worst. He may have convinced himself that he’s the Most Rational Man Alive, but if his goal is to persuade everyone else that atheism is a welcoming and attractive option, Richard Dawkins is doing a terrible job. Blogger and author Greta Christina told me, “I can’t tell you how many women, people of color, other marginalized people I’ve talked with who’ve told me, ‘I’m an atheist, but I don’t want anything to do with organized atheism if these guys are the leaders.’ "

Organised atheism? That is a bit like talking about disorganised crime, isn't it?

'It’s not just women who are outraged by Dawkins these days: author and blogger PZ Myers told me, “At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.” '

Is atheism a movement that is "expanding its reach"? If you don't believe in God, then just don't, but why proselytise about it in such a weird evangelical way?

"What’s so frustrating, from the standpoint of the large and growing non-religious demographic, is that Dawkins is failing badly to live up to his own standards. As both an atheist and a scientist, he should be the first to defend the principle that no one is above criticism, and that any idea can be challenged, especially an idea in accord with popular prejudices. Instead, with no discernible sense of irony, Dawkins is publicly recycling the bad arguments so often used against him as an atheist: accusing his critics of being “outrage junkies” who are only picking fights for the sake of notoriety; roaring about “thought police” as though it were a bad thing to argue that someone is mistaken and attempt to change their mind; scoffing that they’re “looking for excuses to be angry” as though the tone of the argument, rather than its factual merits, were the most important thing; encouraging those who are targets of criticism to ignore it rather than respond."

Dawkins is saying stop making a mountain out of a molehill, which he is entitled to do if these silly women really are.

"The artist Amy Roth, who recently debuted an exhibit in which she literally wallpapered a room with the misogynist messages that she and other feminists have received, finds the systemic sexism incredibly frustrating. As she told me this week:

The men and women in this community have a right to speak up about it, and if the best argument you have against us is that we are the ‘thought police’ or we are writing for ‘clickbait’ or that the weight of our words is equivalent to an actual ‘witch hunt’, then perhaps it’s time to retire to your study and calmly reevaluate the actual topics at hand."

Are the feminists telling Richard Dawkins to shut up?

On other occasions, Dawkins himself has emphasized the importance of awakening people to injustice and mistreatment they may have overlooked. But when it comes to feminism, he’s steadfastly refused to let his own consciousness be raised. Instead, he clings to his insular and privileged viewpoint – and, worse, he’s creating the impression that “true” atheists all share his retrograde attitudes.

Where does it say that people who don't believe in God must be feminists??

"Like many scientists who accomplished great things earlier in their careers, Richard Dawkins has succumbed to the delusion that he’s infallible on any topic he chooses to address, and in so doing, has wandered off the edge and plummeted into belligerent crankery."

What is so "cranky" about this tweet? Does Lee mean "bad tempered" or "weird"? Cranky can mean both as you can see at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cranky





"Whatever he may say, it’s up to the wider atheist community to make it clear that this one public intellectual doesn’t speak for all of us. If the atheist movement is going to thrive and make a difference in our society, it needs to grow beyond its largely older, largely male, largely white roots."

Not this guy, obviously.

"Dawkins’s very public hostility toward the people who emphasize the importance of diversity, who want to make the community broader and more welcoming, and who oppose sexual harassment and sexist language, is harming the cause he himself claims to care about."

Like this guy, maybe?

Adam Lee

"In the long run, however, the reputation Dawkins will damage the most is his own."

Feminists would naturally prefer a younger man who knows how to pander to their vanity and give them a good seeing to rather than an elderly man of 73 who tells them off for being very silly girls, I imagine. Perhaps they are even now signing up to be members of Lee's harem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8291000/8291710.stm
Stags locked in 'mortal combat'


https://www.facebook.com/pages/Is-feminism-dangerous-to-free-speech/221315967999943?fref=ts

Thursday, 27 September 2012

All healthy societies have a healthy loathing of the promiscuous female. Western society is sick and dying.


Any healthy society has this VISCERAL loathing of sluts. Stored in the memory of every race and society is the memory of how things turned to SHIT when they let sluts take power like they have now.

All societies made the same mistake at some time in their history.

Socialism, feminism, communism and atheism are just ideologies that says it is OK to be an SSM  and are just Man's periodic attempts to rid himself of this memory that Free Love kills your civilisation.

Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to re-learn them again - the hard way.

The only good matriarchy is a dead matriarchy.

God behaving badly

1:03:00  CLAIRE  KHAW joins to say God in the Koran is more reasonable than God in the Old Testament, but there is only one Abrahamic God.  ...