Hi Harald,
Hope things are going well. I wanted to thank you for making my family possible.
As I was leaving the Mormon Church I was going to university taking physics courses. At that time I thought that 'science and reason' had all the answers. Eventually I sought out atheist and 'humanist' groups, and I found a group you and I used to be members of: Utah Atheists, which later changed their name to Salt Lake Valley Atheists (SLVA), and SLVA was later dissolved and unilaterally absorbed into the separate Atheists of Utah.
Reason & skepticism means being willing to see if our beliefs are falsifiable. But atheist groups do not operate as engines of reason & skepticism. My first exposure to this fact happened as I was attending meetings with you for SLVA.
During one meeting for SLVA, Atheists of Utah existed as a separate entity from SLVA. SLVA was the longer running local atheist group. A president of Atheists of Utah (A of U) was at the SLVA meeting with his pro-life atheist girlfriend. At the SLVA meeting in question, the potential for a merging of SLVA with A of U was discussed. During the meeting members of SLVA stated that a merging was not possible because the girlfriend of the A of U president was pro-life, and it was stated that SLVA had always been 'pro-choice.'
This whole observed experience seemed strange to me at the time. Shouldn't the words 'reason' and 'skepticism' mean that we have an open exchange of ideas? But in this case a pro-life atheist was quickly booted and a merging of two atheist groups was rejected also because of the pro-life stance of a woman in the other group.
A few years later SLVA was unilaterally absorbed into A of U - SLVA was taken over by A of U and essentially simultaneously dissolved. This happened after a.) the past president with his pro-life girlfriend moved out of state and they had a baby together, and b.) A of U was taken over by Gay-Pride festival attendees (local Stonewall Center people).
While the pro-life-girlfrinded A of U president was still president of A of U, he made the mistake of doing membership outreach during 'Pride,' and this then resulted in A of U being completely taken over by 'Pride' participants.
Your wife helped me find my wife. Yes the fact that I have a wonderful family now, is thanks to the efforts of your wife. So thanks to her and you for that.
You were a 'Utah Atheists' person, a group dominated largely by those over 60. SLVA continued in that vein. Whereas the history of A of U differs a bit, in that yes there is now a lot of young people who attend, but mostly all people who love 'Pride' type events.
What is Atheists of Utah? It's a social group for Pride attendees and nothing more. If A of U were about science & reason, they wouldn't boot conservatives. Similarly if SLVA were a group whose focus were science & reason & skepticism, they wouldn't have booted conservatives & refused a merging with A of U back in the days when A of U was headed by an atheist man who had the audacity to have a pro-life girlfriend.
Regardign SLVA, at another meeting I recall a libertarian was invited to speak. At the time of that particular meeting I was still an economic-leftist. Thus during the Q&A I argued vociferously with the libertarian atheist speaker.
With SLVA, they didn't outright boot the rare libertarian, but libertarians were not really welcomed with open arms. The libertarian man was treated, by myself and others at SLVA, rather like a turd in a swimming pool.
After starting a family, I observed that my wife was basically a social conservative, with zero connection to the Bible or Book of Mormon or Quran. Pro-traditional-marriage. Skeptical of outlier pride. It was an eye opening experience.
As is normal for some, the process of starting a family naturally caused my own social views to move in the conservative direction.
Meanwhile I was still attending A of U weekly coffee chats. By this time A of U had been taken over by the Pride attendees and the pro-life girlfriended past president of A of U had moved out of state.
At one Pride-lover-run A of U coffee chat, a foul mouthed lesbian woman bemoaned how she didn't like 'breeders.' I was surprised by the crass and stupid crafting of such a response. Didn't she appreciate how she came into existence? 1.2 billion years of sexual evolutionary history, and then this type of anti-life anti-'breeding' crap comes out of the mouth of people like this foul crass woman.
But her anti-children response was not a one-off. For example for an A of U house party we were explicitly told that the party was 'not children-friendly.'
Back in the days when A of U wasn't run by Pride-Stonewall people, children were always welcome at the A of U parties. But regarding the non-reproductive outliers who love Pride & Stonewall, kids are definitely not on their list of priorities. Thus the 'Pride' incarnation of A of U was overtly anti-children and anti-reproductive-family.
The final straw with A of U came when I told them I liked Duck Dynasty. This stated heresy triggered all the social justice warrior (SJW) inclinations of the A of U leadership. A public heresy trial was conducted for myself on the A of U public facebook forum and I was booted and banned from their forum by their leadership.
So Harald, I voluntarily left the Mormon Church. But, I was booted from one in-person atheist group for my social views. And in subsequent months & years, I've also been booted from many other online atheist/humanist/naturalist groups.
With reactionary-leftist run atheist groups, there are definitely all the trappings of religion present. Dogma. Doctrine. Heresy trials. Excommunications.
I don't think you've been keyed into a lot of this history.
After being booted from A of U, I encountered an ex-Muslim atheist cartoonist who appreciates Ayn Rand. I observed the left's response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. I observed what happened with the Draw Mohamed Cartoon Art Contest in Garland, Texas, how two Muslims wanted to shoot up the conference, and how the cultural left wanted to ban the conference and blame the victims and conference organizers for the violence - rather than to blame the human spirit destroying cult of Islam. In the wake of Hebdo & Garland, I observed that mostly only libertarians supported freedom of speech.
In the wake of Islamic attacks the cultural left wanted to kiss Mohamed's ass. In response I started to take a first look at the libertarian views on economic issues.
The ex-Muslim atheist cartoonist I referenced keyed me into valuing the general Republican field for the 2016 presidential election. And I discovered other people, such as Mark Steyn, Douglas Murray, and Dave Rubin.
Dave Rubin introduced me to Milo Yiannopoulos. It was Milo who first introduced me to the value of having Trump as president.
I know you remember Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens was the one who first redpilled me regarding the corrupt raping nature of the Clintons. And later I learned of the pay to play whoring and rape enabling ways the Clintons, via the Clinton Cash book by Peter Schweizer and the similarly named graphic novel by Chuck Dixon.
Before the 2016 election, I didn't know much about Trump. Trump didn't have to run. He could have stood by and just let corrupt rape enabling pay to play whoring Hillary slide into office. Instead, he ran, and valiantly so.
Trump apparently wants to save America from the globalist raping whores who want to quash the American dream.
Now, today, I am basically a center right social & economic conservative. Pro-life. Pro-family. Pro-children. Pro-true history. Pro-true-evolution. Pro-true-science. Anti-chosen-forced-outlier. Pro-freedom-of-speech.
It's true that my wife, and my new family, helped me see the evolved & natural value of social conservatism, and social conservatism's power to help humans thrive and be happy.
In my transition away from leftism, there were a few other people who helped in addition to my wife.
They are:
Jordan B. Peterson
Gad Saad
Stefan Molyneux
Some of the people Dave Rubin & Joe Rogan interview on their youtube shows
Steven Crowder
Friend of Hitchens Dinesh D'Souza.
So Harald, as a friend, I've tried to share some of this info with you. During the 2016 election season, I started emailing you more regularly.
Remember that for many years, you would send me general broadcast emails once a month or more on political issues, always advocacting for the leftist side on all issues. But, when I finally returned the favor and started emailing you regular with new info I had found as noted above, you became angry.
In response you to my first few emails after coming out as a conservative you send me an email stating that you would auto-forward all of my emails sent to you back to me. My response to this stonewall & 'facepalm' was to naturally and reasonably take offense. Years of friendship, and helping me find my wife, and many dinners and in person visits, straight out the door when I revealed to you that I had essentially redpilled and become a conservative.
Harald you sleep during the day, and you wake up at about 4:30pm just so that you can watch Mr. Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. You refuse to join Facebook and other social media. You run a legacy website which mostly no one visits now. And you have chosen to have zero exposure to other sources of information beyond whatever it is that MSNBC shovels into your brain on a daily basis.
We still come over to your house on occasion, perhaps once a year now instead of once every two weeks or so as in the past.
When I come over to your house now, I cannot discuss what's really on my mind & what I'm thinking now about life the universe and everything.
Functionally, you have treated me exactly the way Mormon families often treat their dissident members & dissident children: with angry and often a booting out the door. Muslims do this also to their dissident family members. Scientologists also. And yep atheists too. Religious-style booting, to a T.
Functionally, atheist groups you've been a part of treat dissidents who differ with the general group on social or economic issues, they treat such people with disdain and heresy trials and excommunications. Atheist groups act exactly like religions do. Tow the party line, or you're out!
Thus Harald, I question the veracity and validity of the 'leftist project,' as exemplified by:
1. Social Justice Warriors (SJW).
2. The Democrat Party.
3. The Unitarian Universalist Church, which is nothing more than an SJW outlier church and a magnet for reactionary-leftists with hurt feelings about the ultra-right.
4. The Stonewall Centers nationwide, which are denialist cults regarding human nature.
5. Humanist groups, which are seas of grey hair where children are very rare.
6. Atheist groups, which are not really interested in honesty regarding the human condition.
Religion couches evolved traits. This is a damn hard thing for an ex-religionist with a chip on his shoulder to admit.
The 'answer' to the ultra-right isn't ultra-leftism. Rather it's just advocacy for increased honesty.
Yes there are no literal gods. But without god not everything is permitted.
Harald, I thank you because your actions led to a path which then allowed my family to exist. But overall I think my family exists precisely in spite of the anti-children anti-family culture present within leftist run atheist groups (and within general cultural leftism), and not because of any particular pro-family stance of such groups.
A gold star on the forehead of those who're the very best at not having children. This is what the cultural left is about today: slow motion suicide.
As my family was growing, you did somewhat playfully accuse me of having 'Mormon values,' and of wanting more children because I was 'still a closet Mormon.'
No Harald, I'm not a closet Mormon. I'm an 'out of the closet' 1.2 billion year evolved inherently-reproductive sexually-dimorphic sexual-animal, merely doing what I am rather thankfully inclined to do, and what I believe humans thrive best via doing: promoting life!
The abusively-permissive leftist clamors for one-sided stilted 'joys' and pleasures of non-reproductive sex, without recognizing why sex exists in the first place: to have children.
The hippies thought they were just so revolutionary, with all the let it all hang out attitudes and atmosphere. They were noobs and naive fools Harald. They didn't understand that for all of our past history, sex equaled children period.
Your average Whole Foods shopper, who values 'organic' food, should value what human nature really is and why it exists in the first place.
If atheist groups were about reason & skepticism, they'd invite with open arms economic and social conservatives! But they don't!
Religion is do damn natural, that two or more atheists gathered in the name of their usually-leftist reactionary social agenda, can't help but form de facto religions, with all the trappings of religion, and pretty much zero reason, zero honesty, and zero true skepticism.
Harald I say:
Go Trump.
Go Sebastian Gorka.
Go Stephen K. Bannon.
Go Breitbart.
Go Jordan B. Peterson.
Go Milo Y.
Go Gad Saad.
And may the family which you helped create, in spite of your stances & views & history & memberships, continue to grow and thrive. Thanks Harald.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
--------------------------
Articles relating to my journey to conservatism:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/conservative
Harald Illig
Showing posts with label atheism is a religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism is a religion. Show all posts
Monday, September 25, 2017
Monday, September 11, 2017
Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Neil deGrasse Tyson: Priests in the Cult of Climate Hysteria
The religious cult of climate hysteria, infects the brains of the 'new atheists.' There's other bad infections.
Socialism
Postmodernism
Third Wave Feminism, Critical Race Theory, Gender Studies, and all 'disciplines' which end with the word 'studies'
Marxism
Communism
Climate Change Hysteria is a tool used by authoritarians to control the lives of others. When will Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, and Neil deGrasse Tyson be leaving this cult?
I used to think scientific consensus had a direct correlation with facts. Now I see consensus as essentially being a warning sign indicating mindless lazy groupthink exactly consistent with all the trappings of a particularly bad religious cult.
Prime example: climate 'science,' aka Global Warming Hysteria.
There's cash to be made via lying, skewing data, misinterpretations, and having heresy trials and excommunications for detractors.
The current state of affairs is an utter sham, scam, Ponzi scheme, and cult.
VERY MUCH par for the course of humans.
Just recognize that climate-hysteria-related lab coats are nothing more than attire within a new bad religion, period.
Sanity, reason, skepticism, and honesty on the climate issue:
Christopher Monckton - excellent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RFj7wmp5-A
William Happer:
Socialism
Postmodernism
Third Wave Feminism, Critical Race Theory, Gender Studies, and all 'disciplines' which end with the word 'studies'
Marxism
Communism
Climate Change Hysteria is a tool used by authoritarians to control the lives of others. When will Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, and Neil deGrasse Tyson be leaving this cult?
I used to think scientific consensus had a direct correlation with facts. Now I see consensus as essentially being a warning sign indicating mindless lazy groupthink exactly consistent with all the trappings of a particularly bad religious cult.
Prime example: climate 'science,' aka Global Warming Hysteria.
There's cash to be made via lying, skewing data, misinterpretations, and having heresy trials and excommunications for detractors.
The current state of affairs is an utter sham, scam, Ponzi scheme, and cult.
VERY MUCH par for the course of humans.
Just recognize that climate-hysteria-related lab coats are nothing more than attire within a new bad religion, period.
Sanity, reason, skepticism, and honesty on the climate issue:
Christopher Monckton - excellent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RFj7wmp5-A
William Happer:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/yL1FU442RFDy/
Ivar Giaever:
https://vimeo.com/140399283
Judith Curry:
https://youtu.be/1L5AVBOh4SM
Mark Steyn:
https://youtu.be/yEBeF_Rz1MU
Bill Whittle:
https://youtu.be/v_RuverrEZ4
"‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/09/delingpole-nearly-all-recent-global-warming-is-fabricated-study-finds/
The Church of Climate Change Hysteria, with priests and inquisitors. I don't wish to belong to this church which Harris, Shermer, and Tyson are apparent priests of.
Ivar Giaever:
https://vimeo.com/140399283
Judith Curry:
https://youtu.be/1L5AVBOh4SM
Mark Steyn:
https://youtu.be/yEBeF_Rz1MU
Bill Whittle:
https://youtu.be/v_RuverrEZ4
"‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/09/delingpole-nearly-all-recent-global-warming-is-fabricated-study-finds/
The Church of Climate Change Hysteria, with priests and inquisitors. I don't wish to belong to this church which Harris, Shermer, and Tyson are apparent priests of.
Friday, January 8, 2016
Charlie Hebdo rest in peace (RIP): Not all gods are equal, some are peaceful and some are terrorists
The original & only Charlie Hebdo rest in peace. The new Hebdo is not the same magazine as the old one. RIP Charlie Hebdo. Not all gods are equal nor are all religions. "Religion" as a concept is just as dangerous a thing when it flowers on the left as when it continues to exist on the right, and probably the leftist version is even more dangerous & denialist & dishonest.
[Charlie Hebdo’s anniversary edition proves Islamic terrorists won]
Charlie Hebdo claims that the "god of all religions is a terrorist" as per a recent cover talked about in the video below. That's not true though.
The god the Jains is not a terrorist. The god of most Amish is not. Even the hippie god of leftie Christians/Unitarians is not (except in as much as that god says one must law down and let fascists thrive "in their own lands").
The god of Mormonism is a horny white & delightsome man who has sex with thousands of women every hour of every day [do the math: to make 10,000,000,000 spirit babies in say 1,000,000 years, that's 1 baby making activity even every hour].
The god of Scientology is an angry alien.
The god of Catholicism & Anglicanism is a mystical undefinable asexual parthenogenic blob, and in the case of Catholocism who really really hates making Jesuses via normal vaginal sex while at the same time really really liking perverted old fart virgin pedophile priests.
The god of Islam is vain & brutal & narcissistic & jealous & mean & evil. Check the links at:
Not all gods are equal nor are all religions.
--------
Related posts & additional notes:
On the god of Mormonism:
Advise for TBMs on porn: Why society accepts pornography but not littering?
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/advise-for-tbms-on-porn-why-society.html
We were all just sperm in god's balls:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/god's%20balls
Questions for Mormon missionaries (includes references to how the Mormon god had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus)
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/03/questions-for-mormon-missionaries-god.html
On the god of Catholicism (defined by a bunch of fucking mumbo jumbo):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Concept_of_the_Divine#Essence_and_attributes
and unlike Mormonism Catholicism firmly maintains the birth of Jesus was virginal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus
God's wiener did not go anywhere near Mary's hoohaw, and in Catholicism God probably doesn't even have a wiener & to suggest as much would be sacrilege to Catholics.
On the god of Islam: the core text of Islam clearly states his intentions:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/
...on that page check out the following categories:
Injustice
Intolerance
Cruelty and Violence
Absurdities
Good Stuff
Women
Science and History
Contradictions
Interpretations
Family Values
Sex
Language
Whereas the god of Jainism is much different:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#God
Five main vows of Jains, which is a much different list from that of your average Mohamed lover:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Five_main_vows
Jains must be non-violence, but sometimes violence is called for:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/iraq
God of Scientology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4SBfhRmvzU
and http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x21d8ks_south-park-what-scientologist-actually-believe_fun
--------
Related posts & additional notes:
On the god of Mormonism:
Advise for TBMs on porn: Why society accepts pornography but not littering?
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/advise-for-tbms-on-porn-why-society.html
We were all just sperm in god's balls:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/god's%20balls
Questions for Mormon missionaries (includes references to how the Mormon god had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus)
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/03/questions-for-mormon-missionaries-god.html
On the god of Catholicism (defined by a bunch of fucking mumbo jumbo):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Concept_of_the_Divine#Essence_and_attributes
and unlike Mormonism Catholicism firmly maintains the birth of Jesus was virginal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus
God's wiener did not go anywhere near Mary's hoohaw, and in Catholicism God probably doesn't even have a wiener & to suggest as much would be sacrilege to Catholics.
On the god of Islam: the core text of Islam clearly states his intentions:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/
...on that page check out the following categories:
Injustice
Intolerance
Cruelty and Violence
Absurdities
Good Stuff
Women
Science and History
Contradictions
Interpretations
Family Values
Sex
Language
Whereas the god of Jainism is much different:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#God
Five main vows of Jains, which is a much different list from that of your average Mohamed lover:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Five_main_vows
Jains must be non-violence, but sometimes violence is called for:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/iraq
God of Scientology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4SBfhRmvzU
and http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x21d8ks_south-park-what-scientologist-actually-believe_fun
Monday, January 4, 2016
The religion of the "non-religious" left: anti-free-speech, anti-science, anti-Enlightenment
Islam v. Free Speech: Twitter Surrenders
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429190/islam-twitter-and-free-speech
[Bernie Sanders:] Global warming a worse threat than terrorism, "...climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism..."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427094/sanders-absolutely-global-warming-worse-threat-terrorism-tom-s-elliott
The main arguments supporting Sanders' assertion seem to revolve around resource availability:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/sanders-on-climate-link-to-terrorism/
However what's missing from Sanders' equation is the impact of the Islamic meme set itself upon the stability and viability of societies.
Mark Steyn's response:
http://www.steynonline.com/7299/the-leader-of-the-free-world-and-his-universal
Obama's statement about what, according to him, the future "must" not belong to:
https://reason.com/blog/2012/09/25/president-obama-says-we-must-condemn-tho
(never talking smack about Mohamed)
Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz collaborating discussions:
https://www.samharris.org/blog
Maajid is an unfortunately-singular truly-liberal voice within "Islam."
Cartoon posted by Maajid:
https://twitter.com/maajidnawaz/status/422342223460855809
more on Maajid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz
https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz
https://www.facebook.com/MaajidNawazFanPage/
Sam Harris chats w/gay neocon Douglas Murray:
http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/on-the-maintenance-of-civilization
Re climate change, Mark Steyn is engaged in a legal battle with Michael Mann.
http://www.steynonline.com/6234/the-silencing-of-science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bARjABDqok
Judith Curry & Mark Steyn at the Senate:
Anyway I've come to conclude that, as per Daniel Dennett's "dangerous" idea regarding religion being a natural phenomenon, religion is so damn natural that two or more atheists gathered in the name of their favorite social or political agenda cannot help but form a de facto one.
Charismatic charlatans come in all shapes and sizes. When our favorite "prophet" is on our side of the political spectrum we're more ready to dismiss their flaws. For example when Clinton was in office I personally wrote to the White House expressing my support during their trials & tribulations. However I now see that I was hoodwinked, just like I was hoodwinked about Joseph Smith.
Why are the rape crimes of Bill Clinton given a pass while the probably-natural activities of Catholic Priests & other pedophiles are not? Just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean it should be valued. Sociopathy and psychopathy are natural too, natural abusive outlier activities that is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Recoverers from religion have a hard time seeing value in fully natural & fully evolved human morality which says "no" to certain activities. Why did fully natural religions/cultures evolve moral codes of conduct? For fully natural reasons.
So how "conservative" should we be? It's a balancing act. An evolution if you will. And we aren't the first people to deal with the tension between letting it all hang out, and hanging people for doing so. Somewhere in between those two extremes lies human happiness & human thriving.
Islam & Mormonism are too conservative.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429190/islam-twitter-and-free-speech
Why ‘Draw Mohammed’? The Artist Explains
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429175/draw-mohammed-cartoonist-speaks-out-why-i-entered-garland-contest
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429175/draw-mohammed-cartoonist-speaks-out-why-i-entered-garland-contest
[Bernie Sanders:] Global warming a worse threat than terrorism, "...climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism..."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427094/sanders-absolutely-global-warming-worse-threat-terrorism-tom-s-elliott
The main arguments supporting Sanders' assertion seem to revolve around resource availability:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/sanders-on-climate-link-to-terrorism/
However what's missing from Sanders' equation is the impact of the Islamic meme set itself upon the stability and viability of societies.
Mark Steyn's response:
http://www.steynonline.com/7299/the-leader-of-the-free-world-and-his-universal
(that the Western political leadership is largely in denial about the real root causes of terrorism)
Obama's statement about what, according to him, the future "must" not belong to:
https://reason.com/blog/2012/09/25/president-obama-says-we-must-condemn-tho
(never talking smack about Mohamed)
Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz collaborating discussions:
https://www.samharris.org/blog
Maajid is an unfortunately-singular truly-liberal voice within "Islam."
Cartoon posted by Maajid:
https://twitter.com/maajidnawaz/status/422342223460855809
more on Maajid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz
https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz
https://www.facebook.com/MaajidNawazFanPage/
Sam Harris debates Cenk Uygur (an example of the new regressive left vs those few lefties who're willing to be honest regarding Islam)
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-young-turks-interview
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-young-turks-interview
Sam Harris chats w/gay neocon Douglas Murray:
http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/on-the-maintenance-of-civilization
Re climate change, Mark Steyn is engaged in a legal battle with Michael Mann.
http://www.steynonline.com/6234/the-silencing-of-science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bARjABDqok
Judith Curry & Mark Steyn at the Senate:
full hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KVTmo2Vxnk
Anyway I've come to conclude that, as per Daniel Dennett's "dangerous" idea regarding religion being a natural phenomenon, religion is so damn natural that two or more atheists gathered in the name of their favorite social or political agenda cannot help but form a de facto one.
Charismatic charlatans come in all shapes and sizes. When our favorite "prophet" is on our side of the political spectrum we're more ready to dismiss their flaws. For example when Clinton was in office I personally wrote to the White House expressing my support during their trials & tribulations. However I now see that I was hoodwinked, just like I was hoodwinked about Joseph Smith.
Why are the rape crimes of Bill Clinton given a pass while the probably-natural activities of Catholic Priests & other pedophiles are not? Just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean it should be valued. Sociopathy and psychopathy are natural too, natural abusive outlier activities that is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
Recoverers from religion have a hard time seeing value in fully natural & fully evolved human morality which says "no" to certain activities. Why did fully natural religions/cultures evolve moral codes of conduct? For fully natural reasons.
So how "conservative" should we be? It's a balancing act. An evolution if you will. And we aren't the first people to deal with the tension between letting it all hang out, and hanging people for doing so. Somewhere in between those two extremes lies human happiness & human thriving.
60s/70s SanFran-Glory-Hole-style liberalism is probably too permissive.
Humans aren't Bonobos. Shame regarding certain otherwise destructive
activities exists for some reasonable evolutionary reasons. Moral codes
of conduct evolved as counterweights to proclivities which can be
destructive.
Friday, December 19, 2014
The Atheist Movement: Pour in more laxative
A quote from Faisal Saeed Al Mutar (December 18, 2014):
My response:
I am going to confess about something that has been bugging me for the past 6 months that I want to get out of my chest and I know that some people will disagree me about it.
Since June this year, I have "partly" quit the Atheist community in America and put full focus on human rights in dictatorships which has always been my interest since I read Christopher Hitchens's first book, when I went to the first Atheist conference last year in Austin, I was filled with excitement and joy, after finishing my last conference for this year in North Carolina, I was filled with fear.---quote ends
This fear comes from an Iraqi who lived a civil war, there is so much inner fighting that happens in the Atheist movement that put me so many times in between choosing between two people that I both consider friends.
It's like being the child of a divorced parents who hate each other.
I am a foreigner to this country and I noticed this behavior to be extremely weird and destructive.
It's always to good to disagree and have a civil discussion about it but the movement doesn't seem to fulfill what it claims to aspire to.
I have formed a wonderful family in that movement and I am very happy about it.
I sincerely hope that things will be alright whether I will be dead or alive in future to witness it.
Best Regards
Faisal Saeed Al Mutar.
A freaking refugee from a war torn country.
www.faisalalmutar.com
My response:
One
could well ask what type of movement the atheist movement is. Clearly
one which requires a lot more laxative, to clear out those who very much
prefer to have atheist groups be de facto religions.
I
agree that examining the life work of people like Christopher Hitchens,
and frankly the life work of the Monty Python group (seriously!) is
key. Also make note of Steven Pinker, Dennett, Harris, and others who've
chosen to push against both sides of the political & social
spectrum - to push against dogmas which simply do not accurately
describe human nature or facts on the ground about many matters.
Atheism Plus? Pour in the Ex-Lax.
Unitarian
Universalism's fawning appreciation of Islam & Mohamed, with the
help of religious curricula drafted directly from Reza Aslan works? Pour
in the Metamucil.
A
rejection 13.8 billion years of evolution by natural selection, basic
good family values, basic biology, and evolutionary history - from the
left? Add the Miralax. The left can deny human nature too (ref. Pinker
as a start).
It's
hard to have atheist groups which aren't echo chambers, and little
petty cliquish mirrors of the pompous frantic idiocy of
know-it-all-but-know-nothing college students.
Dennett's
dangerous idea is that religion is a natural phenomenon. It's so damn
natural that two or more atheists gathered in the name of a social or
political ideology cannot help but form a de facto one, with heresy
trials & excommunication all waiting in the wings as ready tools of
belief maintenance and thought control.
There
is a sickness present in American universities. The sickness of
dogmatic political correctness. Dogma does not help humanity move
forward toward the truth. What you're seeing in atheist groups is a
symptom of this sickness.
A crucible of ideas cannot work in an atmosphere of stifling thought control.
Related thoughts:
The Atheist Movement needs more laxative - Making room for social & political conservatives!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-atheist-movement-needs-move.html
A crucible of ideas cannot work in an atmosphere of stifling thought control.
Related thoughts:
The Atheist Movement needs more laxative - Making room for social & political conservatives!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-atheist-movement-needs-move.html
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic - another de facto atheist religion & leftist echo chamber
Atheism Is A Religion series...
Got booted today from the facebook group "Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic," in response to the following post:
Amerindian Culture condemns an 11 year old to death, today, now, in 2014
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/11/amerindian-culture-condemns-11-year-old.html
Two admins on the group, one named Mark Wittgruber (the apparent group founder), and a Sean Michael Carter took particular special exception to my presence on the group, when I had the audacity to do the following:
As an atheist, challenge the general leftist stance of atheists.
The two men were essentially a tag team engaging in an admin enabled pile on.
Threatening to kick if one refuses to kow tow to the cherished views of the leaders.
Not really engaging in a debate or discussion.
Instead engaging in abusive attacks - when they find your views particularly inconvenient.
Hey, when admins do it, it's ok right?
Not really an atmosphere for an honest & open discussion, to say the least!
This is not new.
Actually this type of activity by admins on facebook is very common.
But it's also a sad commentary on human nature.
Religion is so damn natural (ref Daniel Dennett) that even atheists cannot help (!) but form one when they gather together in groups. Very hard for them to avoid!
The apparent founder of the group appears to be an atheist. But he has no problem with engaging in personal attacks when it suits his apparent needs to have a playground centered around HIS questions, and HIS thoughts, ensuring that HIS beliefs are not questioned or challenged, and that's it.
Here's some of the supposed rules of the group in question:
And so, onward.
Atheists in general don't value free speech any more than anyone else.
And in fact, if they're on the cultural left they usually value it LESS than the cultural right does. A lot less.
Liberals often cannot wrap their heads around problems with their own culture.
I'm generally speaking an economic liberal and a social moderate. A 9/11 liberal. A Christopher Hitchens liberal.
But I have no use for fools, even liberal ones, who can't handle deeper discussions about ALL issues, without restriction (other than, perhaps, a banning of commercialized spam).
Things are related. There's synergies between views. Not everything is one way or the other. Politics and religion are joined, even for the liberal.
When the Unitarian Universalist uses his religion to back his actions, he doesn't see a problem with that. But he gets very upset with a right wing person refers to his religion as something of value.
Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic - not a debate group nor a regular discussion group. A group where the admins have no concept of what the word "debate" actually means. Actively telling participants what they are allowed to say in their replies. Using threats against those who refuse to comply (threats to ban & kick). Using petty expletives to refer to posts they don't agree with. And so on.
It's par for the course, a course I've seen several times on Facebook.
Atheists don't like their beliefs challenged, by fellow atheists. They get just as upset as any right wing religious person - and they will happily engage in heresy trials & excommunication against those who challenge their beliefs in any meaningful way.
Got booted today from the facebook group "Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic," in response to the following post:
Amerindian Culture condemns an 11 year old to death, today, now, in 2014
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/11/amerindian-culture-condemns-11-year-old.html
Two admins on the group, one named Mark Wittgruber (the apparent group founder), and a Sean Michael Carter took particular special exception to my presence on the group, when I had the audacity to do the following:
As an atheist, challenge the general leftist stance of atheists.
The two men were essentially a tag team engaging in an admin enabled pile on.
Threatening to kick if one refuses to kow tow to the cherished views of the leaders.
Not really engaging in a debate or discussion.
Instead engaging in abusive attacks - when they find your views particularly inconvenient.
Hey, when admins do it, it's ok right?
Not really an atmosphere for an honest & open discussion, to say the least!
This is not new.
Actually this type of activity by admins on facebook is very common.
But it's also a sad commentary on human nature.
Religion is so damn natural (ref Daniel Dennett) that even atheists cannot help (!) but form one when they gather together in groups. Very hard for them to avoid!
The apparent founder of the group appears to be an atheist. But he has no problem with engaging in personal attacks when it suits his apparent needs to have a playground centered around HIS questions, and HIS thoughts, ensuring that HIS beliefs are not questioned or challenged, and that's it.
Here's some of the supposed rules of the group in question:
1. No preaching.The admins of the group are free to break rules two and five.
2. No personal attacks.
3. No politics.
4. Do not ban the admins
5. Enjoy the discussion!
And so, onward.
Atheists in general don't value free speech any more than anyone else.
And in fact, if they're on the cultural left they usually value it LESS than the cultural right does. A lot less.
Liberals often cannot wrap their heads around problems with their own culture.
I'm generally speaking an economic liberal and a social moderate. A 9/11 liberal. A Christopher Hitchens liberal.
But I have no use for fools, even liberal ones, who can't handle deeper discussions about ALL issues, without restriction (other than, perhaps, a banning of commercialized spam).
Things are related. There's synergies between views. Not everything is one way or the other. Politics and religion are joined, even for the liberal.
When the Unitarian Universalist uses his religion to back his actions, he doesn't see a problem with that. But he gets very upset with a right wing person refers to his religion as something of value.
Apologetics, Philosophy, Reason and Logic - not a debate group nor a regular discussion group. A group where the admins have no concept of what the word "debate" actually means. Actively telling participants what they are allowed to say in their replies. Using threats against those who refuse to comply (threats to ban & kick). Using petty expletives to refer to posts they don't agree with. And so on.
It's par for the course, a course I've seen several times on Facebook.
Atheists don't like their beliefs challenged, by fellow atheists. They get just as upset as any right wing religious person - and they will happily engage in heresy trials & excommunication against those who challenge their beliefs in any meaningful way.
Friday, October 3, 2014
latest thoughts on how atheism is a de facto religion
Found this on facebook:
Using all caps does not increase the validity of an argument.
If political ideology & goals have been brought into one or more atheist groups you belong to, which I'm sure they HAVE, then yes you have a de facto religion.
Are children blank slates? The modern denial of human nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
Are the wages of sin, death (in other words, are there very good fully natural evolutionary reasons religions came up with prohibitions regarding destructive behaviors)?
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29442642
More general counter-counter commentary:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/
Additional humanist counter-theory:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/
The more popular groups, such as CFI, American Atheists, and national humanist groups do very much have political goals & ideologies engrained in their core group "missions." And so, rather like the creationists do with Darwinian evolution & the god concept, they put the cart before the horse.
Oh, and pot does rot your brain...
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/16/casual-marijuana-use-may-damage-your-brain/
http://io9.com/5903837/what-cannabis-actually-does-to-your-brain
Add Atheist Community of Austin and Atheists of Utah to the list of new religions.
A single atheist may not be a religion. But when more than one is gathered in the name of a political ideology, they quickly become one, de facto.
Recovery from Atheists of Utah
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/recovery-from-atheists-of-utah.html
Do you all see a difference between being an atheist and being antireligion? | Atheism is a religion
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/04/do-you-all-see-difference-between-being.html
Shermer on confirmation bias:
http://www.michaelshermer.com/tag/confirmation-bias/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/
"Atheism is a religion" I see that is the new thing going around. This is simply NOT true!!My response:
Using all caps does not increase the validity of an argument.
If political ideology & goals have been brought into one or more atheist groups you belong to, which I'm sure they HAVE, then yes you have a de facto religion.
Are children blank slates? The modern denial of human nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
Are the wages of sin, death (in other words, are there very good fully natural evolutionary reasons religions came up with prohibitions regarding destructive behaviors)?
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29442642
More general counter-counter commentary:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/
Additional humanist counter-theory:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/
The more popular groups, such as CFI, American Atheists, and national humanist groups do very much have political goals & ideologies engrained in their core group "missions." And so, rather like the creationists do with Darwinian evolution & the god concept, they put the cart before the horse.
Oh, and pot does rot your brain...
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/16/casual-marijuana-use-may-damage-your-brain/
http://io9.com/5903837/what-cannabis-actually-does-to-your-brain
Add Atheist Community of Austin and Atheists of Utah to the list of new religions.
A single atheist may not be a religion. But when more than one is gathered in the name of a political ideology, they quickly become one, de facto.
Recovery from Atheists of Utah
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/recovery-from-atheists-of-utah.html
Do you all see a difference between being an atheist and being antireligion? | Atheism is a religion
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/04/do-you-all-see-difference-between-being.html
Shermer on confirmation bias:
http://www.michaelshermer.com/tag/confirmation-bias/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Do you all see a difference between being an atheist and being antireligion? | Atheism is a religion
Q. Do you all see a difference between being an atheist and being anti religion?
A. Atheist / Humanist / Secular / Unitarian Univeralist groups all have the trappings of a religion. They are naturally & of course "anti" to other religions they disagree with, just as all religions are "anti" to other religions.
Not everything is equal. Some religions, including the religion of atheism, do make valid claims & contentions about the problems with other religions.
The UUs will admit their group is a religion, "but with no dogma." However that claim of theirs is basically a lie.
Most atheist & secular groups will & do have (unless great effort is made to avoid it) de facto or outwardly expressed dogmas, doctrines, tenants, heresy trials, excommunications, priests, elders, and prophets.
The trappings of religion appear to be part of human nature, and thus are VERY difficult to exclude from ANY social group formed by humans. Meme set (belief) maintenance. Heresy trials. Excommunication. And so on. These are a few of religion's favorite things.
The god thing is not so much an issue, really - when we consider how religious liberals use the term. The muff mouthed Templeton Foundation smoke generator Krista Tippett has shown us the way: for the liberal god can mean anything you want. She & her cohorts strongly want to continue to use the "g" term even if their definition essentially means nothing.
But in any case, like I say liberal religion (which includes most atheist groups) includes dogma, doctrines, tenants, heresy trials, excommunications, priests, elders, and prophets - and that's the main problem, and why they ARE religions in my view.
A "break" from the religious tradition would entail the following key principles:
1. Not being doctrinally tied to any one political AND social agenda.
2. Being willing to accept what honest science, honest experience, honest history, fully uncensored & open discussion, and fully open membership, may result in. A free & open exchange of ideas. A crucible. Science has shown as the way, as have people like Pinker & Hitchens.
3. Being willing to challenge our own suppositions, really challenge them & not just give lip service to such challenges. Are your beliefs falsifiable? From what I've seen many atheists do not maintain their beliefs are, not really. G term this G term that. It's not so much about the G term. It's about doctrines, dogmas, and ideologies, and agendas we ourselves are unwilling to question.
4. Not having de facto heresy trials for people who disagree with the group-leader's positions or beliefs.
5. Not having de facto excommunication trials for people who disagree with the group-leader's positions or beliefs.
6. God forbid, being willing to accept that some aspects of social conservatism may actually have some value to human happiness & well being. The fact that religion is a natural phenomenon (ref Daniel Dennett) cuts both ways.
7. However we have to be careful of the "naturalistic fallacy." Just because something is natural doesn't mean that activity is helpful to humanity. And yet, fully-naturally highly-valuable actions & activities can be fully couched within fully-natural religion. This is a hard pill for the recoverer from an abusive cult like Mormonism to accept. Mormonism by it's own actions is hurting the otherwise good causes they advocate for. Revisionist history. Harsh treatment of heretics. Child abuse. Their extreme abusive actions actually HURT the otherwise good things they may advocate for. Their way-over-the-top responses to things like masturbation, well, it pushes people WAY over to the other side - but the other side isn't any better. But it takes time for an exmo to learn this - via first hand experience, and taking a step back from ALL the craziness on ALL sides.
Additional related thoughts:
Humans are not a tabula rasa. Pinker showed this via his most excellent book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate
Libertarians are "lightly" tolerated in atheist groups. Social conservatives are not. Such a state of affairs indicates a problematic naivete which is highly common among "liberals," speaking as a liberal myself perhaps for the most part.
Liberals don't know crap about what happens in conservative religions. They pretty much know nothing about Islam for example. AND they also know nothing about what happens within their own camp on the ultra-left side.
Conservatives have their problems. But the answer or solution to a given problem is not always the exact opposite view. Being willing to take a step back from our little realm & sphere of experience helps to see where the real truth may lie.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com
A. Atheist / Humanist / Secular / Unitarian Univeralist groups all have the trappings of a religion. They are naturally & of course "anti" to other religions they disagree with, just as all religions are "anti" to other religions.
Not everything is equal. Some religions, including the religion of atheism, do make valid claims & contentions about the problems with other religions.
The UUs will admit their group is a religion, "but with no dogma." However that claim of theirs is basically a lie.
Most atheist & secular groups will & do have (unless great effort is made to avoid it) de facto or outwardly expressed dogmas, doctrines, tenants, heresy trials, excommunications, priests, elders, and prophets.
The trappings of religion appear to be part of human nature, and thus are VERY difficult to exclude from ANY social group formed by humans. Meme set (belief) maintenance. Heresy trials. Excommunication. And so on. These are a few of religion's favorite things.
The god thing is not so much an issue, really - when we consider how religious liberals use the term. The muff mouthed Templeton Foundation smoke generator Krista Tippett has shown us the way: for the liberal god can mean anything you want. She & her cohorts strongly want to continue to use the "g" term even if their definition essentially means nothing.
But in any case, like I say liberal religion (which includes most atheist groups) includes dogma, doctrines, tenants, heresy trials, excommunications, priests, elders, and prophets - and that's the main problem, and why they ARE religions in my view.
A "break" from the religious tradition would entail the following key principles:
1. Not being doctrinally tied to any one political AND social agenda.
2. Being willing to accept what honest science, honest experience, honest history, fully uncensored & open discussion, and fully open membership, may result in. A free & open exchange of ideas. A crucible. Science has shown as the way, as have people like Pinker & Hitchens.
3. Being willing to challenge our own suppositions, really challenge them & not just give lip service to such challenges. Are your beliefs falsifiable? From what I've seen many atheists do not maintain their beliefs are, not really. G term this G term that. It's not so much about the G term. It's about doctrines, dogmas, and ideologies, and agendas we ourselves are unwilling to question.
4. Not having de facto heresy trials for people who disagree with the group-leader's positions or beliefs.
5. Not having de facto excommunication trials for people who disagree with the group-leader's positions or beliefs.
6. God forbid, being willing to accept that some aspects of social conservatism may actually have some value to human happiness & well being. The fact that religion is a natural phenomenon (ref Daniel Dennett) cuts both ways.
7. However we have to be careful of the "naturalistic fallacy." Just because something is natural doesn't mean that activity is helpful to humanity. And yet, fully-naturally highly-valuable actions & activities can be fully couched within fully-natural religion. This is a hard pill for the recoverer from an abusive cult like Mormonism to accept. Mormonism by it's own actions is hurting the otherwise good causes they advocate for. Revisionist history. Harsh treatment of heretics. Child abuse. Their extreme abusive actions actually HURT the otherwise good things they may advocate for. Their way-over-the-top responses to things like masturbation, well, it pushes people WAY over to the other side - but the other side isn't any better. But it takes time for an exmo to learn this - via first hand experience, and taking a step back from ALL the craziness on ALL sides.
Additional related thoughts:
Humans are not a tabula rasa. Pinker showed this via his most excellent book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate
Libertarians are "lightly" tolerated in atheist groups. Social conservatives are not. Such a state of affairs indicates a problematic naivete which is highly common among "liberals," speaking as a liberal myself perhaps for the most part.
Liberals don't know crap about what happens in conservative religions. They pretty much know nothing about Islam for example. AND they also know nothing about what happens within their own camp on the ultra-left side.
Conservatives have their problems. But the answer or solution to a given problem is not always the exact opposite view. Being willing to take a step back from our little realm & sphere of experience helps to see where the real truth may lie.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)