Kevin Benko

Random stuff from a chaotic mind

Concerning The Stupid Idea Of Living For The Future.

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2015.02.24


Some people tend to say stupid things. One such stupid statement is that we should preserve our resources for the future, and do without those resources in the present. These people who say such things are generally “Social Justice Warriors” of some sort or another.

In my opinion, I think these “Social Justice Warriors” are very wrong. Let me explain:

A minor point is to ask the “Social Justice Warriors”, at what point in the future are our future generations allowed to use these resources? And that is a serious question. Is it one generation? Is it ten generations? Hell, will some future generation actually be allowed to use those resources at all?

Based on the mindset of the “Social Justice Warriors”, I would imagine there is absolutely no future generation to use those natural resources. In my opinion, that is bullshit, but is also expected.

But my major point is this:

What we have today has come down to us from the past. Our technology over time has grown until there is no single person that knows all about everything about even a single technical subject. About one hundred years ago, it was possible to know EVERYTHING about Mathematics. But that simple fact is no longer possible. Even if an individual Mathematician attempted to know everything about a single small piece of Mathematics, he would fail.

That is because the technology of modern science is such that it is growing faster and faster every DAY. Thus, everything we have learned from past generations has given us today’s technology to the point of our medical science was not available ten years ago. Our current plastics and polymers depend on our oil production, as a waste process of our oil production.

There are medical procedure that are in common use today that were not available at all ten years ago. Personally, twenty years ago, I would have died if I had not had a procedure from ten years ago.

Thus, when our current generation is “wasting” our “precious” resources, these resources are being used today and tomorrow to benefit future generations. That is the way technology works. DUH!

Now, our current fracking technology was not known prior to 1947, and the first commercial application of fracking was in 1950. Today, really today, in North Dakota, there is an assload of oil under western North Dakota, and through fracking, that technology is being used and has changed the global price of oil in Saudi Arabia.

So, our technology, and use of resources from the past is benefiting our current generation. And, so, our current use of resources will benefit the future generations.

We don’t need to “look after” the future generations, the future generations will develop new technology in their time to benefit themselves.

But, suppose we listen the “Social Justice Warriors” and prevent us from using our resources today? Can you tell your children and grandchildren that you chose to NOT develop technology anymore and they would never be able to use that technology since the understanding has faded away in the past? Could you tell the future generations must suffer and starve because the food that they need is somewhere far away, and they will not use the resources to save those starving people half way around the world?

Posted in economics, education, ethics, freedom, morality, philosophy, politics, science, Social Justice Warriors | Leave a Comment »

Turn Down The Thermostat Or Not?

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2015.02.21


I live in Fargo, North Dakota (by choice) and in the winter it gets cold, as North Dakota is the fifth coldest state in the United States. So, anyway, I am one of those people who turn down the thermostat at night or when I go out for more than an hour.

Now, I would imagine that some of you people out there will hear that and suggest that I don’t do that. Well, when I checked on the Internet about half of the people said I should turn down my thermostat, and about half the people said I should not do that. So, that was of no help to me, but after thinking about this dilemma for a few minutes, I have decided to continue turning down the thermostat at night, and I will make an attempt to explain it to you.

The Explanation:

Quite simply, it is all about difference in temperature.

Also, your heat is no more nor less efficient when you turn it off for a few hour or not, so the fact that you left your heat off for a few hours does not make ANY difference.

Now, for keeping the thinking simple, I will assume that when you turn down the thermostat the temperature in you place drops suddenly, and when you turn on the thermostat it heats up suddenly.

This because to use realistic number will need differential equations, and due to my stroke, differential equations are beyond my understanding.

Also let us assume that the outside temperature is zero degrees Fahrenheit, your high temperature is eighty degrees Fahrenheit, and your low temperature is forty degrees Fahrenheit.

Thus, the difference in temperature for your low temperature is forty degrees, and the difference in temperature for your high temperature is eighty degrees.

So, at your low temperature you need to pay 40-money to keep that temperature. And at your high temperature you need to pay 80-money to keep that temperature.

Now, suppose you are on a 12-hour schedule where your low temperature is 12 hours and your high temperature is 12 hours. So, if you do not turn your heat down, you pay 24*80 = 1920-money to heat your place. However, if you turn the thermostat then you pay 12*80+12*40 = 1440-money to heat your place. 1920-1440 = 480.

Thus my scheme will save 480-money when compared to someone who keeps the heat on.

The only downside is a minor inconvenience for me, but that inconvenience is worth it for me, although you mileage may vary.

Posted in science, Welcome To My Life | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

What The Fuck Is Up With President’s Day?

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2015.02.17


Yesterday was “President’s Day”. Now, originally, when I was a child, in elementary school, there were two holidays, Washington’s Birthday and Lincolns’s birthday, we were not given off from school on those days. But somehow, for some reason, these two “holidays” were combined and called “President’s Day”.

What is up with that?

Now, depending on the state in question, this holiday is commemorate George Washington, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson, or a combination of all of the presidents. This holiday pisses me off, regardless of which president or presidents are being commemorated.

Why does this holiday piss me off?

First off, the United States is a constitutionally controlled republic, and, thus, it is not, and never was, a monarchy. As such, there is no one that deserves to be treated as such. Hence, get rid of president’s day because the United States is not a monarchy, and the USA cannot stomach such a concept. Get rid of the trappings of monarchy and get rid of president’s day.

Second, every single president, starting with George Washington, has harmed this country. And for those of you who need a history lesson, you should recall from history that the Whiskey Rebellion, wherein George Washington order federal troops to fire upon West Pennsylvania citizens of the United States.

And every president thereafter screwed people over until we have Obama openly instituting socialized medical care for the United States. Thus, there is no president under the constitution that deserves my respect, and those of you who are aware of history should feel the same way.

In my opinion, prior to the constitution, when we were under the articles of confederation, that was probably the best system of government. It required unanimous consent to do anything, the federal government had no power to do anything unless they had unanimous consent, and each president served for exactly ONE YEAR….

Aaahhh… the good old days….

Posted in freedom, politics, rant, socialized medicine | 1 Comment »

Let Us Consider The Farce Of Valentines Day.

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2015.02.02


St Valentines Day was originally a formal public worship or celebration of one the early Christian saints names Valentinus. Several mythologies were invented for the various Valentines that belonged to 14 February, and had been later added to later list of martyrs to justify the reason for people celebrating the common holiday. One set of mythologies on this said that Saint Valentine of Rome was imprisoned for performing weddings for soldiers who were forbidden to marry. And that these priests who did the marriages were persecuted under the Roman Empire. {}

There are some other such nonsense that justify the existence of Valentines Day in the modern era, although the tale concerning the original Saint Valentine seem to have no actual history other than by the Catholic and Anglican churches. Which, in my opinion, are suspect.

Now, for some reason, the greeting card industry has taken a firm grip on the mythology of Valentines Day, and in 2013 the the average spending is estimated to be approximately $131 on Valentines Day every year. But, of course, it is almost alway men that give Valentine’s presents to woman, with very little, if any, men receive anything other than a $1 card on the occasion. So looking at this statistically and realistically, men spend approximately $262 for a women on Valentines Day and receive absolutely nothing on the “holiday”. So, in essence, this is a women’s holiday. So you had better not resist keeping your money in your wallet. Instead, you should all be a “good man” and just part with the money to buy your wife/girlfriend a damn gift.

Of course, I will have absolutely nothing to do with Valentine’s Day.

And, in my opinion, neither should you!

Seriously, why should we part our hard earned money for some damn foolish non-existent holiday that only benefits the greeting card industry? Hell, the greeting card industry is trying to create more holidays to get us to buy these damn little cards for every occasion. However, the primary recipient is women. Men, in the past, would work long hours and would have to part with their hard earned money on this single day where women would, essentially, tell the men that if the man doesn’t spend enough money on this single non-holiday, that he was a piece of shit.

Now, of course, the women would never say these things directly, but that is how the women feel. It’s like another Christmas for women. Hell, it’s been slightly less than two months after Christmas, so the women should get an expensive gift.



And what do men get? Mostly men get an insignificant card. And then, of course, men MUST take the women out for a meal in an expensive restaurant.

And let’s talk about the experience in the restaurant.

First off, a great deal of these restaurants earn a great deal of money on Valentine’s Day. And the restaurants know that. So you need a reservation, and you really cannot enjoy yourself because about 45-50 minutes after you sit, the waiter is trying to hurry you about for the next reservation. Thus, you do not have the time to enjoy your meal. So, if for example, you practice mindfulness, you just do not have the time to experience your meal before you are shuffled out.

So, in essence, you are treated like veal. you are rushed in and rushed out and you are out of there in less than a hour.

Second, the waiter/waitress are stressed. Severely stressed. The restaurant is making a great deal of meals in a relatively short period of time. And it is up to the wait staff to make certain that every one gets in and out quickly. Now, since this only occurs a few times a year, they really cannot afford to hire permanent people all the time, so the wait staff is always going to be understaffed. And they will be tired.

So, you are going to get your worst service on Valentines Day from the wait staff. Why do it? And why even go near a restaurant on Valentine’s Day? Or the day after?

And since the restaurant is doing all of this business in such a short period of time, the restaurant is going to inevitably under-cook your food.

In my opinion, Valentine’s Day is the day that the food inspectors should be inspecting restaurants. It is when people who are under stress is when the truth comes out.

All I am saying is that, in my opinion and observation, Valentine’s Day is a crock. It has always been a crock, and it will always be a crock. So, why don’t you do what you really want to do, why must you behave like someone else wants you to behave. It is far cheaper to eat at home, in general, it is far safer to eat at home if you cook your own food.

In addition, men, why do put up with this bullshit on Valentine’s Day? Has your women shamed you into spending money on that day? Has your women shamed you into going to a restaurant on the worst possible day to visit a restaurant?

You should spend your money on what you know you need, not on what someone else needs. If she wants to eat substandard food in a restaurant, shuffled through like a veal calf, then she can go out alone if she really wants it.

Boycott Valentine’s Day!

Posted in Men's Rights | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »

I Had A Doctor’s Appointment, Today.

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2015.01.26


I had a doctor’s appointment today. That is because I am Fifty years-old and that means I have an examination ever year, whether I want it or not.

The only thing that he told me of any importance is that my iron levels were low. Now, a few years ago, my blood test had noted that I had low iron, so I was on Ferrous Gluconate (FG), one pill twice a day. About after two years of that stuff, and my blood test had shown that my iron levels were OK, so my doctor pulled from the ferrous gluconate, and he would see what happened. Today, he told me that my iron levels were pretty low, so, once again, I was put on the FG, probably for the rest of my life. My current dosage is one pill twice a day with each pill being 325 MG of FG.

I am probably, for some reason, anemic. Which is odd, because I eat red meat every day, because I HATE chicken, turkey, quail, pheasant, and other birds. But still, I have become anemic. Perhaps, when my iron raises the doctor will reduce my dosage. Now, I have become tired over the past few months, and my low iron is probably to blame.

The problem with FG is that it turns my … hmmm… shit black. Now, this would be no problem for a normal person, but I have had an entero-cutaneous fistula for the past nine years, and I will not have the surgery to attempt to correct it, because it could reopen, and it could be made worse by the surgery. And, I am on Warfarin for the rest of my life, and I need to note if I am bleeding, and with my shit turning black, I cannot tell if I am bleeding from the Warfarin, bleeding from the fistula, ar my shit is black because I am taking the FG.

So, life sucks in a minor way for me with this situation.

However, my doctor had told me that my cholesterol level were low. Well, not just merely low, but pretty damn low. Now, A few years ago, around 2012, I had a blood test and that doctor had noted that my cholesterol level at the upper end of normal. That doctor had wanted to prescribe Statins, to which I said, NO. But, over the past few years, I had changed my diet. See, my current doctor said that I probably had a good diet.

Then I started to tell him about my diet.

I eat red meat, I generally avoid starches and sugars, I generally don’t eat fruits, because of my fistula, I cook everything in LARD, BUTTER, or olive oil. According to some people, I should be FULL of cholesterol that is blocking my heart. But it isn’t. And it is not my genetics. I don’t drink soda or fruit juices, I put a teaspoon of sugar in my coffee, but the last time I had a soda was about a year ago. And, seriously, that diet is, in my opinion, the reason my cholesterol is so damn low. Also, I avoid sugar-free and low-fat foods like the plague.

I am dead serious.

I do not subscribe to any particular diet, I just eat whatever I want, and I generally smother it in butter. I eat a liverwurst sandwich about 5 times a week, I have bacon and eggs for breakfast, I use LARD to lubricate my cast iron, and my diet is good.

OK, I had some Bagna Cauda on one occasion: olive oil, butter, garlic, anchovies, hot peppers. Heat it slowly and dip some fresh cut vegetables in the concoction. My fistula couldn’t handle it, so I will never do that again. But it was GOOD. And is smelled up the apartment and the apartment above.

Yes, I have some medical issues, but those are medical problems. I am healthy.


Posted in cholesterol, diet, food, health, medical, Veterans Administration | Leave a Comment »

Men, Voting, And Military Service

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.11.10

I had stated in a previous post that women have never earned their right to the vote, for the most part.

This statement was that men did have the right to a vote, since men are disposable because most men have no choice to get drafted into military service. However, since women have a choice to enter military service, and if they choose to not enter military service– no harm, no foul.

Now, I stand by what I had said, for the most part. My true beliefs on the matter are probably a bit harsher. Since tomorrow is Armistice Day, also known as Veterans Day, Remembrance Day, and Poppy Day, I am in a certain mindset right now. Additionally, we had voted on 4 November and I am also thinking about that event.

Most people will disagree with my position on voting, since I haven’t voted since 1997. However, I do have some very good reasons:

First, if we assume the honesty of politicians, there has never been any candidate that I totally agree with , and since the lesser of the evils is still evil, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a politician I disagree with in any manner. Maybe if there is a politician that I agree with, I will vote, but not until I am aware of that mythical politician.

Second, I know that during the primary election the democrat is talking as he is the most representative of that party. And the same is true for the republicans. However, during the general elections, these parties present themselves as centrist. So, who are the politicians? What do they really believe? For that reason, I distrust politicians.

Third, most politicians are probably psychopaths. It seems to me that psychopathy attracts politicians or maybe vice versa. I have taken a personal interest in psychopaths, as my sister, a real live psychopath, had screwed me over about 1_1/2 years ago.


So, what this have to do with Veterans Day? These ideas I am about to present are directly from the book “Starship Troopers”, by Robert A. Heinlein was published in 1959 (the book has absolutely nothing to do with the 1997 movie). In the book, there are some important ideas:

First: The right to vote is a privilege reserved in military service, directly or indirectly.

Second: A politician must have served in the military service.

Now, as I have earned the right to vote, although I do not choose to do so. I seriously think that an able-bodied women has no obligation to go to military service if the politicians say that they must fight, and die, on a battlefield. Then the woman who does not enter into military service is, probably, a parasite.

Additionally, a politician who doe not enter military service, and for this military service that means active duty, no national guards or reserves allowed, then the politicians are, likewise, parasites.
How can the politicians lead us into war unless they know, first hand, what they are getting into? Unless the politicians understand military service directly, they do not have the right to be in charge of anything other than a quicky-mart or a burger-barn.

Of course, as usual, this is merely my opinion.

Have a good, but sad, Veterans Day.

Posted in Men's Rights, philosophy, politics, Veterans Administration | Leave a Comment »

Personhood / Right To Life / Male Abortions

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.11.06


On 4 November 2014, North Dakota had rejected the damnable “personhood” amendment. In the past, Colorado and Mississippi had also made attempts in the past to pass the personhood amendment. See, the wording of measure 1 would have been simpler in North Dakota that in the other two states. The wording was “The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected.”

Yup, even though the people that had been trying to pass this damnable amendment in the past, the people of North Dakota have rejected it, approximately 2 “no” votes for every single “yes” vote. And even though this has failed in North Dakota, every one else needs to be aware of this type of amendment in every state in the United States, since these “personhood” people will probably not stop anytime soon.

These “personhood” amendments are intended to act as an argument against Roe vs Wade as an attempt to start a legal fight to make abortions illegal again. And, even though I a man, it is important for me to allow the woman to opt out of parenthood. Even if I cannot do that as a man, I would like the opportunity to opt out of parenthood at some point in the future.

Well, lets explain this disagreement of mine again, because I can never go through this argument too many times.

A women has the inalienable right to opt out of parenthood, through an abortion or adoption. This has been the right of a women since approximately 1973. Now, one way of getting equality is through overturning then banning that Roe v Wade result. However, I would propose that in order to gain equality for men, men should have the same rights that women have had over the past forty-one years.

Let me explain further.

A women has the option to opt out of parenthood, whereas a man does not have that option. My suggestion would be that we need a constitutional amendment to allow a man opt out of being a parent. The details would need to be worked out, but the primary rule is that a man could choose the option to not be a parent.

Now, this does not in any way, shape, or form, require a women to have an abortion. I think the man should have the same option as a women. And if the man opts out of being a parent, the women has the sole responsibility of taking care of the child.

Really, what is wrong about giving the man the same option as women have had for the past forty-one years?

See, that is a better option that the “personhood” amendments. This would place men and women into a state of equality with the option to not be a parent. Yes, there are some difficulties with my suggestion, but these difficulties are problems that can easily be worked out and the problems are a great deal more manageable that those “personhood” amendments.

Also, in my opinion, it is easier to give men the same rights that women have than it is to remove a pre-existing right from all people. Although, the “personhood” people are probably not rational.

The “personhood” people have slightly changed their tune several times in the past to the point where the “personhood” people are actually misrepresenting themselves as being “pro-choice” rather than the true fact that the “personhood” people are attempting to ban abortions. Additionally, the “personhood” people are, for the most part, trying to distract us with false evidence by telling us that is not a “personhood” amendment.

But it really is a “personhood” amendment.

Nevertheless, North Dakota has not embarrassed itself since North Dakota has rejected the “personhood” amendment.


Posted in Men's Rights, politics | Leave a Comment »

My Problem With Paul Elam

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.11.02

I was listening to an AVFM podcast about a month before I had started this weblog. On that podcast, Paul Elam had claimed that a man who needed some assistance from AVFM, would get that assistance through allowing the man to post AVFM articles on his website.

Well, I had noticed that I had not seen a men’s website in the Fargo, North Dakota area, so I thought about it for a few weeks and had set up this website and had emailed Paul Elam for his, nominal, promised assistance. However, Paul Elam had apparently forgotten what he had said on that podcast 2-3 years ago, and told me that he, essentially, had no idea what he wanted and then he suggested I ask his question on another website.

I let it drop, I have been trying to write articles on this weblog that are, hopefully, worth reading to someone.

Also, in my anger, and because I did not want to read anything that was not my own words, I had disconnected myself from AVFM. Now, recently, I have been hearing thing concerning AVFM. Apparently, JohnTheOther has been thrown under the bus, some women have positions in AVFM, and they have changed in essential ways. So, for the most part, I am glad that I had not been helped by AVFM, considering what they seem to have become.


My first problem with Paul Elam is married, but yet he claims to be a MGTOW. I am sorry, a MGTOW cannot be married.

My second problem with Paul Elam is that MGTOW is NOT a movement, rather, it is a philosophy. However, Paul Elam treats it as if it is a movement.

My third problem with Paul Elam is that has essentially been dishonest with regards to helping people who wish to be affiliated with AVFM.


Apparently, Paul Elam is attempting to make MGTOW a movement, as if it falls under the bailiwick of MRM (Men’s Rights Movement) or MRA (Men’s Rights Activist). Paul Elam is, essentially, attempting to co-opt MGTOW as a part of AVFM. But because he is married, he cannot speak for MGTOW. Additionally, MGTOW is about freedom and individuality, whereas MRM/MRA is a legitimate movement with the necessary hierarchy. And those true MGTOW will not tolerate to being under a hierarchy.

So, in my opinion, if Paul Elam does attempt to co-opt MGTOW, then he will either fail, or the MGTOW will, essentially, be at odds with AVFM. Also, AVFM is a money making business, and it exists for a profit. However, his profit is being funded by the MRM/MRA, and possibly the MGTOW. In my opinion, we should not forget that AVFM is a money making business.

Paul Elam, please stop this nonsense and leave the MGTOW alone, you are not, and cannot, be a MGTOW as long as you are married. You must accept that simple fact. You risk alienating all of the MGTOW who will not stand for your shit.

Posted in Men's Rights | Leave a Comment »

11 September 1857: Mountain Meadows Massacre

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.09.11

So, who knows, generally, what happened on 11 September 1857, 157 years ago?

The Mormons, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, certainly know what happened their, because that slaughter of innocence was all about the Mormons.


The brief explanation is that there was a wagon train that had departed from Arkansas in April of 1857. It was referred to as the Baker-Fancher party that was emigrating to California. The wagon train was attacked by a group of Indians and Mormons and almost all of the party was slain, except for 17 children.

This  massacre was called the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It has been estimated that 137 men, women, and children were killed on 11 September 1857, approximately 35 miles from Cedar City, Utah. Those 17 children, under the age of seven, that were not killed were left alive because they were sufficiently young because they were “too young to tell“. They were spared and taken in by Mormon families in Southern Utah. In 1859 those 17 children were reunited, by the Federal Government, with their extended families in Arkansas.


The Baker-Fancher party was very well outfitted with travelling carriages a large herd of 1,000 cattle and  oxen, and numerous horses. They had gone through Salt Lake City around 4 August 1857 to resupply. They had apparently gotten permission to rest in Southern Utah for several weeks to resupply and graze their cattle and oxen before continuing on their way to California.


But, for some reason, which I will explain, they decided to murder everyone in the wagon train. However, it wasn’t as simple as you might imagine, the Baker-Fancher party was well armed and well provisioned. A band of Mormon militia, under a flag of truce, had lured the disarmed members of the wagon train from their fortified encampment and accompanied by some Paiute Indians, or Mormons dressed as Paiute, had massacred them.

“The Mountain Meadows Massacre stands without a parallel amongst the crimes that stain the pages of American history. It was a crime committed without cause or justification of any kind to relieve it of its fearful character… When nearly exhausted from fatigue and thirst, [the men of the caravan] were approached by white men, with a flag of truce, and induced to surrender their arms, under the most solemn promises of protection. They were then murdered in cold blood.” William Bishop, Attorney to John D. Lee.


So, why the hell did the massacre occur?

Aside from the fact, that in my opinion, the Mormons are bat-shit-crazy. It was all about Joseph Smith and Missouri.

See, the Mormons had been persecuted since they had first formed a religion. However, in looking into Joseph Smith and his antics, the persecution of the Mormons was, in my opinion, entirely justified. Let’s face it, Joseph Smith was a con-artist, an asshole, and a dickhead to everyone that did not believe in his bullshit.

It was during the Missouri Mormon War that had caused all the problems. Apparently The Mormons were at war with the state of Missouri (I am dead serious). The story is that Joseph Smith had threatened Governor Boggs, and Governor Boggs had replied with that threat with Missouri Executive Order 44, also known as the Extermination Order.

 “the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description“.

Apparently, Boggs had taken the threat by Joseph Smith, reworded it and passed the executive order to apply to the Mormons. That executive order, written in 27 October 1838, was rescinded on 25 July 1976.

Now, there were some rumors that some members of the Baker-Fancher party were from Missouri. That’s it, the Mormons knew that Missouri is the state north of Arkansas, someone got their mind that maybe someone on that wagon train is from Missouri, so lets kill them all!

Yes, I am dead serious about this. This has got to be the stupidest reason in the world for a massacre. But, it is the Mormons, so go figure. And, yes, I really dislike the Mormons, as I had lived in Salt Lake City, Utah for FIVE YEARS!!!!!


In closing, I have referred to the included links, above with some additional source being:


Posted in Mormons, Mountain Meadows Massacre, religion | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

My Problem With Atheism+ version 1

Posted by Kevin Benko on 2014.09.09

My Problem With Atheism+

Kevin Benko

Sep 9, 2014

Disclaimer: Note that I had a stroke three years ago, and it has taken me a great deal of time to write this post. And while this posting is partially about Atheism, it is also about feminism, thus, I have posted this on two separate blogs. Also, I have problems communicating (Aphasia), so if I have gotten confused in my writing this post, you may to look at it in the future if I have made any changes.

 I, like so many other people have a big problem with what is known as Atheism+, hereafter referred to as Not-Really-Atheism.

I will be talking with my particular problem with Not-Really-Atheism, while of the many other people have their own reasons for not liking Not-Really-Atheism, that is of no concern for me.

First of all, for those who have been living under a rock since the dreaded elevator-gate thing, let me discuss what happened with elevator-gate, and how Not-Really-Atheism was formed, in my opinion.

Rebecca Kay Watson, who you see a picture below acting like a slore at an Atheist conference with dollar bills being stuffed in her, insubstantial, cleavage. Now, when at an Atheist conference, a man asked him in the elevator if she would like a cup of coffee with him, she became outraged. She had claimed that “it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me.” However, in my opinion, the guy was just asking to have a cup of fucking coffee. Also, from her appearance, she is no prize, even without her attitude. She went onto say that she felt threatened by advances and warned other men that this is not how you should treat women.


Again, this was only because the other man had asked Watson if she wanted to have a cup of coffee with him.

Now shortly after that elevator-gate thing exploded, a movement started to grow within Atheism which had named itself Atheism+ , or Not-Really-Atheism. Jen McCreight started Not-Really-Atheism, a self described feminist and atheist. However, in my opinion, based on the official definition of Not-Really-Atheism, if we ignore all the extraneous nonsense, it is supposed to be some sort of “new Atheism” that is, essentially Atheism PLUS:

  • they care about social justice,
  • they support women’s rights,
  • they protest racism,
  • they fight homophobia and transphobia,
  • they use critical thinking and skepticism.

Now, I have three problem with this definition of Not-Really-Atheism.

First, Atheism is the null hypothesis concerning the existence of god. And that is all that it is, there are no other restriction, guidelines, or rules concerning Atheism. And, as far as I am concerned, all that other nonsense in Not-Really-Atheism is not only extraneous bullshit, it is also detracting Atheism as it has cause some conflicts between Atheism and Not-Really-Atheism.

Second, that last item has got to be a typo of some sort, because the last thing that Not-Really-Atheism proponents do is think critically or skeptically. First off, on “freethought blogs” they heavily censor their posts to the point where if you actively disagree with the Not-Really-Atheism party line, you will be booted from their forums. If you don’t believe that absolute fact, ask Thunderf00t, from youtube.

Not-Really-Atheism almost seems very cult-like. It is starting to behave like some sort of quasi-religious movement.

My third problem of the definition of Not-Really-Atheism is that it really is a part of the feminist movement. It looks like Atheist Feminism, to me. I kid you not. Some of the speakers in Not-Really-Atheism, Richard Cevantis Carrier, for example, have essentially admonished non-Not-Really-Atheism Atheists with some less than pleasant words. And those words were if they were coming from the feminist handbook. Following the announcement of Atheism Plus, fellow freethought blogger Dr. Richard Cevantis Carrier posted an article titled “New Atheism+ ” in which he expressed support for the idea and came forth with the view that anyone not immediately supporting (despite it still being quite unclear as to what it was) it were engaging in “douchery “.

So, in my opinion, Not-Really-Atheism is a parasite on proper Atheism, and it is sucking the life out of Atheism. In my opinion, there may be a war brewing as Atheism versus Feminism.

I think what the problem is that Not-Really-Atheism isn’t anything about Atheism. It is not about thinking critically and skeptically, it is about “social justice”, it is about feminism, but, and make no mistake, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM.

See, Atheists are supposed to have intellectual veracity, evidence, empiricism, objectivity, universality, and skepticism. Now there some people who do not deny that god exists, but that they do not like what god has to say. In my opinion, that is the heart of the matter. The Atheists that have a null hypothesis concerning the existence of god, versus the so-called Atheists who do not like god because he is a dick. That is where the divide between Atheism versus Not-Really-Atheism begun, and exists.

The Not-Really-Atheism is like choosing the faith that they want to hear. But it is not an acceptance of objective reality, but of agreement with the option that they agree with based upon emotions.

Atheism is a search for objective truth, weighs the evidence and finds evidence of of a deity lacking in veracity. Atheism is the acceptance of what is and the rejection of belief in those things that are not supported by evidence. And that is all Atheism is. Atheism is not by the appeal to consequences inherent of the religious community. Particularly with a rigid set of rules, society will collapse. Now while there are people who do need those rules, Atheists recognize that others are able to police their own actions. Atheism really doesn’t care about that at all, Atheism is only about a lack of evidence, and everything else is vacuous.

Atheism is not the appropriate place for people who dislike the constraints and requirements for religious dogma. Atheism is not a safe port in a storm for feminists, homosexuals, social justice warriors, those who have been oppressed by Christianity, Judaism, are Islam. Atheism is not for people who want to eat shellfish, eat bacon, have premarital sex, and it is not about preaching about belief systems that have oppressed people over human history. All of those things are appeals to consequences, and Atheists don’t, or shouldn’t, care about those types of issues.

Now, the consequence of Atheism are, in my opinion, better than the consequence of religion. And that is all concerning the arguments for or against Atheism and religion. It is like an argument against evolutionary psychology because it could be used to justify sexism. And that argument is all about emotion rather than rationality. That is a vacuous argument, and a real Atheist will, or should, say that.

So, all of those emotional appeals have no place within Atheism. Atheism is a commitment to the objective truth and reality, and nothing more. It has no room for emotional appeals of any sort at all.

Atheism is about objectivity and reality, not about consequences. Atheism is about facts, not feelings. Atheism is about evidence, not about the greater good.

Additionally, if compelling empirical evidence existed that theism created more just and prosperous societies that Atheism does, I would still be an Atheist. if compelling empirical evidence existed that Atheism was responsible for increased rates of poverty, crime, suffering, anti-social behavior, violence, war, improper grammar, bad hair, and STDs, I would still be an Atheist. If research into behavioral biology revealed that all the horrible things that had been done in the name of religion had been done in name only, that the flaw resided in human nature and not god, I would still be an Atheist.

Why? Because there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a god.

And any other reason to embrace Atheism is based on a logical fallacy. And the most popular fallacy is an appeal to consequences.

Unfortunately, this logical fallacy had opened the door when Watson, and her elevator-gate debacle happened, when McCreight created Not-Really-Atheism, and when proponents of Not-Really-Atheism, particularly Carrier, walked into Atheism with the realm of emotions. That was when Atheism was at risk from the feminists.

And the sad thing is that the Atheists opened that door willingly, and in my opinion, that door has never closed, and it may, possible, never be able to be closed. And the Not-Really-Atheism will always talk about how harmful religion is, rather than how irrational religion is. And that harm that religion has caused is not evidence of anything. And I think that Atheism has forgotten that simple fact ever since the Not-Really-Atheism has infested Atheism.

The fact that religion is cruel, harmful, and mean is of no consequence to Atheism. Because it is an irrelevant fact, because it is not based on objective facts. However, the cruel nature of religion has caused many people to embrace Atheism, and that appeal to emotions has allowed the Not-Really-Atheism to knock on the door. Ant the Atheists that opened the door has very probably ruined Atheism for a long time until someone, somehow, can manage to close that door on that emotional fallacy.

Make no mistake, Watson and McCreight did not embrace Atheism because of their skepticism. They didn’t embrace Atheism because of empirical evidence of god does not exist. Rather, they embraced Atheism because they do not like the way that god treats women, and their denying the existence of god means that, through Atheism, they do not have to put up with it. And, as a bonus, they can embrace Atheism and not have to get rid of their own ideological beliefs. And their entrance into Atheism, through Not-Really-Atheism, is just giving god the finger.

So, when the Not-Really-Atheism people came into the open door to Atheism, they let in all the people who do not think in a rational manner, rather, they let in a whole bunch of people who really do not understand Atheism at all. And now, there is a religious sect within Atheism, sad to say. And Not-Really-Atheism is still ruining Atheism, and while it may, hopefully, just scream and die, the damage is continuing today, as they try to destroy Atheism, burn it down, and salt the earth and replace it with Not-Really-Atheism.

And that Not-Really-Atheism sect is using the same tactics that the religious preachers use to keep their member in check, to police their own members: shunning, ostracism, othering, harassment, whispering campaigns, censorship, witch hunts, blacklists, vague feelings-based admonishments like “you just don’t get it”, accusations of sinfulness , or imputations of malice in reply to request for evidence.

Feminism is a belief system that does not care about how the real world operates, they don’t even, really, understand any position other than their own. It denies objective reality and an adherence to the unfalsifiable. Feminism does understand the facts of anything, as they are only concerned about how they feel about the thing. Subjectivity trumps objectivity, emotion trumps rationality, and belief trumps evidence.

And the Atheists have invited all that crap into their house, via Not-Really-Atheism, with open arms. Atheism, some of you, have asked for it! And now we are all stuck dealing with it.


File translated from TEX by TTH, version 4.05.
On 9 Sep 2014, 12:03.

Posted in Atheism, feminism, philosophy, reason | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 69 other followers

%d bloggers like this: