I do receive a lot of hate mail. While those who regret that I didn't
drown in the December 2004 Asian tsunami, or wasn't terminated in one of
the Bali bombings, typically do not specify which of my opinions so
much antagonized them, my suspicion is that most of the hate mail I get is
from American Christians, and most of the rest from anti-sexual
feminazis.
And while I am against all religions, I am not against all feminists,
only against feminazis (who are against men on grounds of gender, which
is on one level with being against a certain group of people on grounds
of race, thus justifying the -nazi suffix).
Actually, I am a better feminist than many of the women who claim to be
one, and here is why: for both men and women the basics are the same.
Only the pursuit of optimal sexual experience, and after that, a gentle
death, are a sensible value system. However, for women, such a value
system is even less accepted publicly than it is for men. Genuine
feminism targets this imbalance; it aims at the sexual liberation of women.
Unequal pay at the work place, or similar issues, are of subordinate
relevance.
I never shared anybody's religious opinions, but personally (and for
practical reasons), I can be on good terms with people who hold religious
ideas, as long as they are not proselytizing. But unfortunately,
American Christians, especially those who are "born again" (typically in
gatherings that promote mass hysteria), cannot keep their faith to
themselves.
As they challenge me, here a simple reply.
Monotheistic religions, such as Christianity, claim that there is an
almighty god.
But they cannot offer any proof. Their final argument always is that
while they cannot come up with any proof that there is a god, I also
cannot provide proof that there is no god. They claim this to be a pat.
But while even some great scientist have fallen into the "pat" trap,
there is always, by standard principles of sanity, a higher priority for
positive claims to be proven than for negative ones.
Normal people don't waste much time on pondering the truth of what they
consider non-existent. This is one of the features that distinguishes
them from the inmates of psychiatric institutions.
A schizophrenic mind may come up with abstruse claims, such as that on
every full hour, every person’s asshole moves from the buttocks to the
forehead.
However, during this event, time stands still, which is why we never
notice this. But he knows that it is true, and all others just ought to
believe it. Bingo.
The patient may not be aware of it, but the psychiatrist, and most
everyone else, knows that this person qualifies for anti-schizophrenic
medications. And for this assessment, we agree that we do not have to prove
the non-truth of the patient's claims. It's his making of positive
claims (something exists) for which there is no proof, what establishes his
mental disorder. The physician does not have to prove that what the
patient claims it exists, does in fact not exist (a negative claim).
So, why would we have to prove that there is no old man with a white
beard (or, for that matter, a younger one with crucifixion scars), behind
the universe, who secretly pulls the strings on every move we make. The
burden of proof is with those who make these outlandish claims. And
it's only by convention that those who propagate such nonsense are not
confined to mental hospitals.
