Difference between revisions of "Essay: Atheism and gamma males"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 30: Line 30:
 
*[[Atheism and sexuality]]
 
*[[Atheism and sexuality]]
 
*[[Atheism and social outcasts]]
 
*[[Atheism and social outcasts]]
 
  
 
== See also ==
 
== See also ==

Revision as of 19:14, January 20, 2019

According to the article Social-Sexual Hierarchy Revisited:

Alpha – The top of the hierarchy. President Donald Trump is an Alpha. He’s confident, boisterous, and handsome...

Delta – The normal guy. Most men are Deltas...

Gamma – These men would be low-end Deltas if they did not think of themselves as being secretly Alpha. They are secret kings in their own mind and believe themselves to be worthy of admiration, which is often undeserved... They are also on the unattractive side in terms of looks but don’t seem to understand or accept this. Of all people in this hierarchy, the Gamma needs the most improvement but often times rejects criticism or even helpful advice, instead believing themselves to be gods among men. Very dangerous if given any kind of power.[1]

Vox Day wrote:

I know, I know, it's simply astonishing news that women hate atheists. Even atheist women don't like them.
Jen has slammed Richard Dawkins for some comments here. I can confirm that those comments were actually from Richard Dawkins. I also have to say that I agree with Jen and disagree with Richard. Richard did make the valid point that there are much more serious abuses of women's rights around the world, and the Islam is a particularly horrendous offender. Women have their genitals mutilated, are beaten by husbands without recourse to legal redress, are stoned to death for adultery, are denied basic privileges like the right to drive or travel unescorted. These are far more serious problems than most American women face.
However, the existence of greater crimes does not excuse lesser crimes, and no one has even tried to equate this incident to any of the horrors above...
The elevator incident demands…a personal rejection and a woman nicely suggesting to the atheist community that they avoid doing that. And that is what it got. That is all Rebecca Watson did. For those of you who are outraged at that, I ask: which part of her response fills you with fury? That a woman said no, or that a woman has asked men to be more sensitive?...

Look, it's hardly news that atheist guys are creepy gammas, for the most part. That's why they are much less likely to get married or have children. Even the small number of atheist girls don't like atheist guys; the ludicrous internecine kerfluffle was kicked off by a male atheist hitting on female atheist in an elevator...

Dawkins, who as a scientific celebrity surmounted his natural gamma status some time ago, was naturally confused by all this extravagant feminized foolishness, and pointed out how stupid it all was. This caused more hissy fits to be directed his way; Dawkins, being the coward that he has shown himself to be on numerous occasions, was naturally quick to crumble.

Now, I don't think it's absolutely necessary to be hapless with women to be an atheist... No wonder they're so furious at God. He created all those lovely women with those beautiful breasts and they aren't even allowed to even talk to them in elevators.[2]

Vox Day also wrote:

The dichotomy between the theoretical sexual freedom of the male atheist provided by his belief system and his actual sexual limitations caused by his sub-standard attractiveness to women suggests that male atheists, on average, are more inclined to be gamma/omega males whose sexual options are more restricted than the norm. This hypothesis is supported by observing the consistently gamma behavior of male atheists on this site and around the Internet in general.[3]

See also:

See also


References