Recovery from Atheists of Utah

Thoughts on recovery from Atheists of Utah, and similar "secular," "humanist," and "naturalist" groups.

A new religion is born, and as with all religion there are de facto elders, priests, doctrines, dogmas, belief maintenance, heresy trials, and excommunications. With the new religion of atheism things are a bit more subtle, but not by much.

Recently in the very exclusive ultra-leftist-atheists-only closed facebook group for A of U I had the audacity to state that I thought Duck Dynasty was provocative, useful, and mostly ok. That was heresy for the group leader.

Here's an expanded version of a response I posted in their closed exclusive de facto ultra-leftie-atheist group:

You're already well on your way to becoming an anti-normal-family religion.

Here's one recent example of the leftist hatred for the normal productive family:

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/stfu

The common stance of your membership falls along similar lines to the STFU-Parents-woman who'd prefer that normal families just shut up about the joys of having children.

In response to my expression of appreciation for Duck Dynasty, your group has given religious responses thus far, straight from the latest human religion.

Belief maintenance. Heresy trials. 

I don't wish to belong to the religion of atheism plus or similar dogmatic faiths.

The founder of your church hooked up with a pro-life atheist and had a kid with her. But she was never welcome at SLVA (Salt Lake Valley Atheists) because of her views. SLVA was decidedly pro-ultra-left.

The fruit of the founder's outreach work has resulted in an ultra-Stonewall focus for your group. That's just the way it is. But it's a bit ironic that the founder of A of U ended up having a kid with a woman forcibly excluded from SLVA because of her social conservative views.

Hmmm. As the world (or stomach) turns. I would have expected better, but it's all rather par for the course in the long history of human religion.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled mirrored echo chamber of unquestioned newly dominant paradigms.

Is the judgement of the church court in now? Sounds like it may be.

Yes I like Duck Dynasty. 

Heresy for A of U.

If you want to have a discussion that's one thing. But if you're just a priest of a church, who pulls every tool out for discounting an argument other than possibly reasonable ones, then I'm not particularly obliged to respond - any more than I am to the leader of any other religion.

---

Atheists of Utah was recently named the "best Religious Group" and a runner up for the Best Social Group, as awarded by Q Salt Lake. Apt & appropriate awards. But being at the pinnacle of appreciation for the ultra-left is not all it's cracked up to be. An ultra-leftist cult. That's what Atheists of Utah has become in my view - and so I don't wish to be a member.

Were a group to be founded to help people recover from this new destructive cult of the left, here's draft short & long descriptions for such a hopeful recovery group:

Short description:

At Recovery from Atheists of Utah we help you recover from recovery from religion, particularly the religion known as Atheists of Utah.

Long description:

Did you leave one cult just to find you'd jumped right into another? Atheists claim their beliefs are falsifiable - unless you question the social-agenda aspects of their views. THEN the de facto heresy & excommunication trials begin.

Here at Recovery from Atheists of Utah we recover from the ultra-leftist side of atheism. The extreme-cultist left. Yes the right has their problems, but the left can be just as dogmatic and abusive.

An open exchange of ideas is welcome here. We don't resort to unwarranted name-calling as a means of shutting people up or belief maintenance!

Humans have in and out group morality.

Our in group morality is expanding, and that's a good thing.

But human nature DOES naturally include shaming for certain activities which are otherwise destructive. A damn hard thing for an ex-conservative religionist to realize is that SOME of that shaming actually is a damn good thing for the future of humanity.

Speaking the truth. Liberal cultists don't like it any more than conservative cultists do.

We didn't leave one religion just to join another.

Atheists of Utah, in the view of the author of this description, has become a leftist cult. Just as abusive as cults on the right.

But it's worse in my view: It's a part of the LDC - the Liberal Death Cult, a cult which does not value life & survival - again in the view of the author.

Does this description go too far? Maybe. My beliefs may be falsifiable. I'm willing to listen to evidence. They however, apparently, are not.

Recover from the dogmatism of the left. Avoid politically correct destructive whirlpools of consensus, mirrored echo chambers, and unquestioned newly-dominant paradigms.

Does the right have a point, at least on some issues? It's heresy amongst liberals to say: YES!

But again, we didn't leave one fucking cult just to join another.

Recover, from Atheists of Utah, and similar destructive leftist cults. How? Through honesty, and avoiding affiliation with all de-facto ultra-leftist new-cults. Cults & religions, on the left & the right. We need to find a new way to be human than these petty shallow infantile first-attempts: Through science, honesty, honest history, and being willing to listen to ALL sides.

Does the other side have a point? For example, the guys on Duck Dynasty? What if they do? What if the right is right on at least some points? Heresy, heresy, heresy to admit this. But the LDC is stuck in their own narcissistic hole.

These are all the views of the author - after a lot of observation & seeing what happens on all sides - PLUS after taking a step back from America and seeing what happens in other countries. Come to find out social-conservatvism, aspects of it, DOES actually help humanity survive, thrive, and be happy. Whodathunkit?

The TBMs (True Believing Mormons) don't like my blog. AND the TBULAs (True Believing Ultra Liberal Atheists) don't like it either. Maybe that means I'm making progress!

It's also worth noting that we may need recovery from the Exmoron Foundation. That's another story.

---

Related blog posts:

The Atheist Movement needs move laxative - Making room for social & political conservatives!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-atheist-movement-needs-move.html

Advice for Social Conservatives & Moderates, from a Family Values Atheist
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/advice-for-social-conservatives.html

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/atheism
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/homosexuality

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

Exmormon Foundation 2013 conference: anti-human, anti-children, and anti-life!

Regarding the Exmormon Foundation 2013 conference:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130730052521/http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/conference2013.html

"...Due to the nature of the conference presentations and the serving of alcohol during the evenings, we have established a strict policy that no children are allowed except for nursing infants. In addition, since the presentations are recorded for our website, it's important that we control the ambient noise during the recordings. If you have any questions about this policy, please contact the Conference Chairman..."

Your strict "no children" AKA no-normal-human policy is still present. As such we won't be going.

Suggest your foundation be led by people who realize that people who grow up in a children-friendly environment (eg: sacrament meetings where children are welcome) may expect to have a similar environment in their so-called "recovery-from-Mormonism."

I think we need recovery from recovery from Mormonism, if "recovery" means giving up our kids or leaving them behind.

The Salt Lake conference should be Salt-Lake-people-originated, and operated by people who remember what many years of life were like as a Mormon: Children were there, and that was actually a good thing. We didn't kick them out or send them away like Unitarians do, and we aren't going to do so as so-called "exmos" - not even if there's a "strict" policy requiring this.

Hey, I remember when Tal Bachman brought his several kids to the conference. No problem right?

Anyway, in my view the current leaders of the Exmormon Foundation have constructed a group which is essentially a cult of personality.

Utah is a kid friendly place, even for people recovering from recovery from Mormonism. We aren't from Portland, and we didn't grow up going to UU churches. Sending kids away is not natural for us, and neither is a "strict no child policy." Such a policy is anti-human and anti-life.

Jonathan
http://corvus.freeshell.org/psittacus/one/jonathan.html
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/

related post:
Atheist Family Values: Attention Exmormon Foundation: humans have children. And more on presuppositional apolegetics.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/07/atheist-family-values-attention.html

Star Trek; Sneaky Biology; Built in human morality; Fun includes work; Can I join your church?

Commentary on Star Trek Enterprise.

On the new Star Trek movie franchise: Not Star Trek - should instead be called "Kiddie Trek" or "Millennials Trek."

The original Star Trek is rather like Shakespeare. Should we change the stories of Shakespeare? No. Changing the basic story lines of the original story lines is not what they do with Shakespeare & it's not what people should do with Star Trek.

Roddenberry wrote cowboy stories. We need cowboys in space. If we use robots forever, what happens when the sun gets 10% hotter & the sun boils off? The childless liberal hippie may well be extinct, but the "breeders" won't be. Childless liberals get what they want: no place on the great mandala.

Biology can sneak up on everyone, left & right. Thank goodness.

See what birth control does now: We have people who think that the child-free life is just as good as one with children. Catholics have a point. It's not what's in the Bible - it's basic human morality, nature, instincts, and survival.

In Mormonism & other religions they teach you to be afraid of sexual thoughts.

If you're a Mormon wife, maybe you shouldn't wear your temple garments at night, or even during the day. Wearing them interferes with your ability to be intimate with your husband. No wonder he's looking at porn so much even though he's married to you.

Religion can fuck you up, but religion is a natural phenomenon. So we have to separate the lies from the truth. That's why I like Bart Ehrman. He helps separate the lies from the truth.

You have can you religion & your values. You can be pro-life, and wary of birth control. You can be wary of the homosexual agenda. Why? Because you can tie into natural normal human morality & human nature. You can use your brain to evaluate the outcomes of various activities & thought processes.

You don't have to believe in the lies of your religion to hold onto your values. True humanist values! True naturalist values! Being natural includes having stigmas for destructive behaviors - that's the key epiphany that I've had.

We don't have to lie to say the truth.

Can I join your church? If I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, but I think there's some valid & good human values in the Bible & in other books that humans have written?

Humans write human stuff. Some of the groups that have Bart Ehrman debating, I think they actually believe the guy. They can't move along the road because they're afraid that without their god everything is permitted. They look at the ultra-leftie liberals & thin this. But, you can codify your values without having to believe in lies. Examine things objectively and make judgements. Judging can be highly valuable.

Remember the Great Mandala song by Peter, Paul, and Mary. "...Win or lose now you must choose now..."

Fun includes work, hippie, and not just staring at your own naval all your life.

September 4, 2013 7:37am

Miley Cyrus and Breastfeeding: Don't censor either!

Part of an image shared on facebook in response to the Miley Cyrus incident:

The original facebook poster added words on the bottom of the image stating how they were outraged that the picture on the right was reportedly sometimes censored on facebook, and yet the image on the left was widely shared with no problem.

Well, facebook is no panacea. Here's my response though to both photos being combined and posted together:

Hey liberal: The first picture leads to the second picture - and it should!

Hey conservative: Don't be afraid of either picture!

I only barely knew about the VMA's before hearing about the incident on the BBC.

The apparent wildness of sex leads to the beauty of a child. Whodathunkit. It's not one or the other - it's both intertwined.

We apparently need sex ed for both sides of the social & political spectrum...

Hey liberals: have kids - it's a good thing!

Hey conservatives: Sex is fun, and it should be. Sex can free you from your made up gods. And: don't be too hung about about masturbation or oral sex. And if you're a Mormon woman, stop wearing your garnments during sex.

Ok...

don't throw out the baby with the bathwater: hard work for an ex-religionist

The guy is right:

"...So who is to blame? The breakdown of families, the pernicious promotion of single motherhood as a desirable state, the decline of domestic life so that even shared meals are a rarity, have all contributed importantly to the condition of the young underclass..."

"Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters." in the Daily Mail.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater: hard work for an ex-religionist. But examining how other cultures work who have zero association with your former religion can help re-center and re-root yourself.

Exmormon Foundation: discriminating against children & their parents

Below are copies of post & replies in connection with a related post on here entitled Atheist Family Values: Attention Exmormon Foundation: humans have children. And more on presuppositional apolegetics.

Original post on 7/5/2013 on the exmormon email discussion group on yahoogroups:

Now that I actually have a child I'm finding that some secular  advocacy
groups either are actively not child friendly, or they are  passively so (by
inaction or just not thinking things  through).

Related blog post: http://goo.gl/4f1L2

Jonathan

Reply received from the vice president of the Exmormon Foundation:

On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:34:29 -0400 (EDT), Sue wrote:

>Jonathan -- if you will read carefully our position on children at the 
>Conference, I think you will find that it's pretty reasonable.  Because  we
>film and record the talks, and extraneous noise can seriously  affect that
>filming, we cannot have toddlers and older children in the  room.  We all have
>experienced times at other events (including Sac.  Mtg.!!)  when the noise
>from children has compromised a speaker.  The  serving of alcohol is another
>reason.  Nursing babies are allowed.
>
>Sue

----end of quote

And here's my reply as of July 14, 2013:


----quote beings

Howdy,

I'm aware of the reasoning behind the "strict no child policy" and I believe it's fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:

1. Having people show up is more important than creating what some might perceive as youtube friendly multimedia presentations or podcasts.

2. Having a no child policy is discriminatory. In apartments, housing, work, and at exmormon conferences - and for the same reasons. It simply seeks to pretend and hope like a certain segment of the population does not exist, and should stay away.

3. Humans have children. Atheists & exmormons should have more of them and they should be encouraged to do so. Having a "strict no child policy" serves to directly counter that noble and highly valuable goal.

4. Children are part of life and part of valuing life, and they are the ones who will help us move forward.

So, when I was a 365 pound single guy with thick glasses living in my parent's basement, yes, policies which bar children didn't much affect me. When Steve Clark of Latter-Day Lampoon / the Salamander Society was running the Salt Lake conferences I don't believe he had a no child policy. But in any case, I've moved on from "needing" to have an association with a group which labels itself as "exmormon" per se. Naturalist. Humanist. Atheist. Skeptic. Enlightenment Values Advocate. These are a few of my favorite things. "Exmormon" is a bit too myopic, limited in scope.

It's unfortunate that participants in the current exmo conferences are little more than props in a presentation primarily targeted at the Internet.

I've seen groups go down hill before. A pet bird club in Salt Lake (Avicultural Society of Utah) was run into the ground by an overly controlling president. The other club here continues ok. Atheist groups have has similar splits and shenanigans, in Salt Lake, Portland, and Texas.

I guess the bottom line is that, if you're going to continue with this no child policy, you'll end up turning advocates into adversaries. So, as of this time I'm against support for attendance at the Exmormon Foundation conferences, and I suggest that other people also not support attendance. Instead, I'd suggest that people either attend local secular advocacy groups, or start a secular advocacy group of your own. But, if you really don't like children at your events, consider the morality of also excluding blacks, gays, and Mexicans from your events as well while you do so. As you pan your camera across the audience you'd perhaps want to ensure that no non-European faces appear, so as to not upset anyone - just as some people don't want to upset their youtube presentations with the presence of children.

I make this point just to remind people what category of activity discrimination against people with children fits into. Having a "strict no child policy" is in the same category as a strict no black person policy, a strict no gay person policy, and a strict no Mexican person policy.

Real people who show up are the most important.

I realize that in ultra-social-liberal culture there is the view that people should have less or no children. I don't agree with that view, and I think it's not only misguided it's destructive.

A child and his parents being present is more important than the audio quality on your online podcast.

A child and her parents being present is more important than whether you have a personal distaste for children.

A child and his parents being present is more important than whether people on youtube can hear 100% of what's being said by a speaker. Flesh & blood people who show up are the most important, and if they are not, then they are merely your unwary props.

We, who left the Mormon Church, are not your props. We're humans, and humans have babies.

So, don't get stuck in cults of personalities. That's one key thing we've learned. If you encounter a group with an overly controlling president, then don't spend too much time with that group. Be honest in what you say. Maybe found a group of your own. Find like minded people. That's my advise to people who leave the Mormon Church.

Not everything that happened in the Church was bad. Children are good and should be valued. A "strict no child policy" does not value them, nor does it honor the fact that humans have them.

I know you've done a lot of good work in the past. And when I was a fat bast*** virgin with thick glasses living in my parents basement, I didn't really think about "hey, where's the kids?" at the exmo conferences. But, now that I'm 100 pounds lighter, have a wife and a kid, and am living a more normal life I can now see the more true situation.

A group that meets in Salt Lake should have Salt Lake roots. And no group should have the right to discriminate against people with kids. It should be illegal, just as it is illegal to discriminate against black people, gay people, and etc.

Sincerely,

Jonathan