Brigham Young. Mormon Temples. Genealogy. Mormonism, including "part member families." The Mormon Church sets itself up above you, as a non-member spouse. Mountain Meadows massacre. Atheism doesn't make people immoral, except when it causes you to forget where human nature comes from. Postmodernism is the root of all evil, not religion. Leftist Atheism does make people less moral therefore.
Listening to the incredibly crass way Dan Savage conducts himself is revealing. One wonders if he even knows where babies come from?
The left is in denial about human nature. Built in by evolution by natural selection good human values. Active denial. Dangerous denial. Abusive denial.
Agreed the Mormon Church abuses people. But so does the other side. It's hard to hold onto basic good human values when you've been so severely lied to & deceived. Takes time to recover. And then to recover from recovery.
Both the left & right are in denial about human nature. Both are rather highly upset at the prospect of admitting that we are human, set up by evolution by natural selection, to have build in morality, and an apparent propensity or high susceptibility for mysticism. The right doesn't like admitting that we are evolved animals. The left doesn't like admitting that we are evolved animals with built in morality & evolved culture - culture which helps us avoid the pitfalls built into human nature. Religion (AKA culture - ref Daniel Dennett) is a fully natural effect of how we've evolved.
Outliers naturally come about. But they need to be a.) classified & identified for what they are, and b.) curtailed when they're destructive or dangerous. Not forcibly treated as "equal" in all venues IMO. For example maybe a child needs a mommy & daddy, ideally, for it's own best welfare & development - as a normal non-outlier child. Can the left (& libertarians) question their own presuppositions? Are they in denial about human nature also? I have observed that they are.
And back to Peter, he was a leftist, then he moved more right. Same with me, after I met a socially conservative completely-non-bibical atheist from rural China.
My legacy website, more reflective of my first state after leaving Mormonism (ultra left after being ultra right):http://corvus.freeshell.org
Here is some general advise for the religious & social right & middle:
1. Put more of your energy into searching for secular arguments to back up the otherwise good & valuable human morality that exists with your cultures.
3. Admit that on the "god" front (including on evolution), the intellectual argument has mostly gone to the side of the left.
4. Many of the moral arguments you make do have value - when made a bit less harsh.
Daniel Dennett's dangerous idea: Religion is a natural phenomenon. This fact cuts both ways. Fully natural, normal, valuable, and useful human morality can and does exist within religious frameworks. A damn hard thing for a liberal to admit! In fact many liberals are in active denial.
It's no wonder that Steven Pinker has commented about the modern denial of human nature, in his book The Blank Slate.
The left IS in denial, just as the right has been about god & evolution.
Yes we ARE animals, with BUILT IN morals, AND some damn good reasons for ascribing shame (yes shame!) to certain otherwise descructive human behaviors.
I remember when Christopher Hitchens made not of how the left was in denial about Islam and both the right & left about Mother Theressa.
I remember when Daniel Dennett stated "Dennett's Dangerous Idea" (thanks go to me for coining this if no one else has to date!), that: Religion is a natural phoenomenon. Again, this apparent fact cuts both ways. Very inconventient for the social agenda of assholes like P.Z. Myers and the like. The fundie left.
Why all the gay stuff? Because the left worships homosexuality as the pinnacle of liberal sex. No kids. "Cha-ching" they say - "we're helping the environment!" Automatic birth control. Perfect liberal sex. Also perfect liberal marriage.
People trying to "recover" from conservative religion can be and are easily sucked into the abusive fundamentalism of the left.
For example: Atheists of Utah - in my view a fundamentalist religion of the left. Doctrines. Dogmas. Unquestionable paradigms. An ultra-leftist social agenda. Voted by Q Salt Lake as the best religion, and a runner up to being the best social group.
But where's the regular straight families? Where's the children? Where's the people who value good old fashioned healthy happy useful family values? They're actively excluded. They MUST be, because politically correct leftist dogmatism is their core religion.
Boozer parties where high alchohol content liquor is raffled off.
Not only does the conservative emperor have no clothes (eg: Joseph Smith), the liberal emperer has none also (eg: "gay culture"). The latter group are happy about that though, with their constant posting of near-naked photos of themselves on facebook.
Hey, I've seen it all first hand. I've seen the ultra-right AND the ultra-left. Unlike your average muff mouthed muff brained liberal, I've done in depth research into BOTH "ultra" sides. And here's what I've found: BOTH SIDES are nearly equally abusive!
It's sad that scientists claim they're being objective when they're not - on social issues.
They're ok with being mostly-objective when it comes to far off things like planets, or far distant in history things like dinosaurs. BUT, question their ultra-leftist social agenda on things like marriage & family, and by fuck they will revert to the new-ultra-dogmatic-religion-of-the-left as quick as a bat out of hell. Two seconds. Maybe one
"Yes, here on the high pillars of academia, we poo poo and laugh at the poor middle & right leaning religionists, with their views on the existence of god & evolution. BUT, question our social views and we'll quickly show you just how religious WE ARE as scientists - so-called scientists who refuse to be scientists when it comes to social issues."
So, yes, Mr. & Mrs. Conservative, you ARE right to conclude that groups of scientists, AND atheist groups, AND secular groups, most such groups are religions - dogmatic religions of the left.
----------
Both sides, right & left, poison of the well of reasonable discussion regarding natural normal good valuable useful human morality.
Jumping from one extreme to the other is no solution.
Honesty is the answer! Both to dogmatism on the right & the left.
All sides are right (& wrong), liberals, moderates, & conservatives.
All sides are right - all sides have valid points. And all sides are wrong also.
Attention atheist groups: I don't want to be in your religions. I left one religion already. I don't wish to join yours. I don't wish to kiss the ass of your de facto priests. I don't wish to join your chump chorus of ultra-liberalism.
It's been a long hard road. I've examined what goes on with "the left," and I've found it to be just as abusive as what goes on with "the right."
Key background:
1. Spending 26 years in the Mormon Church.
2. Went on a Mormon mission to Alaska.
3. Going to Rick College for a year (now BYU Idaho).
4. Being a temple worker in more than one Mormon temple.
5. Going to BYU in Provo, Utah for a year.
6. Leaving the Mormon Church.
7. Living in Texas.
8. Living in Oregon, checking out the wild Alice-in-Wonderland-style scene there & the fucking hippies.
9. Marrying a woman from China, where they've had pretty much zero exposure to Mormonism, Catholicism, & most other churches, and examining what their views are.
10. Hearing from people like Steven Pinker with his book The Blank Slate. Also from Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.
11. Daniel Dennett talking about how religion is a natural phenomenon.
12. Making note of how I had one uncle who grew up in Manti, Utah (ultra conservative Mormon small town). This uncle went to San Francisco to "let it all hang out," to apparently rebel against his ultra-conservative upbringing. He ended up dying of AIDS as a supposedly gay man, leaving his straight family with no father. WTF. A victim of BOTH Mormonism, and the gay freaks of San Francisco. Forced to jump from one side directly to the other. Abused by both!
13. Making note of the drunk bum aunt with no kids I knew as a child, the one who'd often phone my father while drunk. No kids of her own. A dead end largely meaningless life.
14. Making note of my gay nephew who leads an incredibly petty, shallow, and misguided life as an angle reader, and as a guy who readily accepts convicted pedophiles into his network of friends - I saw this first hand. Also making note of my many experiences going out with this nephew to gay bars & parties, and observing first hand the narcissistic messed-up people who tend to show up to such events (friends of my nephew). Truman Capote types. Shallow, sorry, messed up, narcissistic, people.
15. And yet (!) also making note of the service oriented gay people who help us & other people, and whose life work is centered around helping others. Also making note of the life work of people like Stephen Fry & Oscar Wilde.
16. Making note of how BOTH ultra conservatism and ultra liberalism are abusive to the progress of humanity.
Before viability (the closer to conception & the further away from viability), the more "choice" there is that can be reasonably allowed.
In the case of the average crack whore pregnancy, or rape, or incest: before viability, the "choice" is still there to help prevent the birth. But, once viability is reached, the point of "choice" has fully & completely passed.
On the whole gay thing:
It's true that a gay marriage is not the same as straight marriage. Gay sex is not the same as straight sex.
Straight sex & straight marriage is inherently more valuable, to humanity, and to the individual, and to human flourishing!
Gay sex is not as inherently valuable as straight sex. Gay sex is inherently a dead end.
Whatever the biological underpinnings are for being gay, because of the nature of how sex works in humans (& other animals), unless you work to avoid it you may end up having a dead end stunted life.
I was a liberal chump about this issue in the past. Now, as per taking a step back and examining what I observed first hand both with my gay nephew & gay uncle, I've changed by views.
And yet: There are service oriented gay people who spend their lives helping others. That's great! And I value the life work of people like Stephen Fry & Oscar Wilde!
It's true that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against regarding apartments or jobs! They should be able to have civil unions.
But on the other hand, when we talk about things like adoptions, or having children around, a straight kid growing up in a gay household will not have his or her straightness valued as much - by default. The abusive narcissistic petty dead end shit that goes on in gay culture could well easily mess up any otherwise-normal straight kid growing up around gay culture. So the right does have a point about this!
A certain level of concern regarding homosexuality is good, but on the other hand, the ultra-right goes way to far with their level of concern.
For example, in Mormonism they tell their children that masturbation can lead to homosexuality. Such a claim is child abuse. And of course the stance of Uganda on the issue is abusive. So the right goes way to far in their condemnation.
We shouldn't be as harsh as the right on the issue, nor as open as the left.
Children may NEED a mommy & a daddy, to be healthy, happy, well rounded, and thrive.
So like it or not, both sides are right, to a point, and with appropriate caveats.
On environmentalism, tree hugging, and overpopulation:
How are both sides right?
We do need to work to preserve & protect the garden. Yes that's quite true. Humans DO contribute to global warming. Also true. BUT, on the other hand, population control IS an abusive response!
Science & technology are the answers! Nothing else is! NOT forced population control on a personal or country level! That is an abusive response!
There's no such thing as overpopulation in first world countries - this is quite true. And humans DO come first above other animals and plants.
Liberal ideology, prompting you to be childless, may leave you a zero on the great mandala.
From what I've seen: Liberals hate children, normal families, and so on. STFU Parents is the tip of the iceburg. It seems to me that: liberals hate having children, and the normal family structure.
Your average college age kid will go to a liberal college or university & come away convinced that he or she should probably not have kids of his or her own because of concern over the environment. Abusive. Wrong headed. Brainwashing. Just as much braining washing by the left as what goes on with the right.
For the relativist liberal their ideal "family" is a childless one - because then the environment and the Earth is protected - supposedly. Stupid. Abusive. Such wrong headed evil ideology will lead them, and everyone sucked in by such ideology, to be pretty much a zero in the long term. Win or loose now you must choose now. Where will you be the tapestry of life?
To fully accept the equality of gay marriage the left must first assume that having children is not a valuable thing.
It's a good thing that we want to have kids - for many reasons. Not just because we're horny. Children are our future. And the liberal death cult is rather quite similar to the Shakers. The childfree life, and the homosexual lifestyle, is de facto celibacy.
Simply replace the word "god" with "14.5 billion years of evolution by natural selection." I know it's hard, but try to see though the Bible-centered language - through to our incredibly deep history as a species. DOES HAVING NO CHILDREN really honor your own personal billion-year history?
Being childfree is sad, petty, and ultimately a dead end. A death cult, by any other name, is still a death cult.
Leftist relativist brain washing. Leftist dogma that will stunt your life!
No, having a dog or cat around is not the same as a having human child! Not the same in the fucking least. Abused by liberalism, just as much as you may have been abused by conservatism!
Go to the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City. There you will find a congregation of grey haried liberals who don't really value having children, and normal families. Cultural relativists being abused by their own anti-children anti-family leftist ideology.
De facto religions of atheism & humanism are abusive.
Catholicism is also of course abusive when it comes to child raping priests. But, both Mormonism & Catholicism DO have valid points when it comes to abortion & birth control. Yes, you ARE abusing yourself if you exclude the possibility of children from your life!
It's a damn fucking hard truth to realize that very valuable & good elements of positive human morality can be fully rooted within otherwise abusive religion.
HOW can we realize this?
By examining what non-Catholic non-Mormon human cultures do and think!
Here's a hard question for the religion of Judaism:
Is your own promotion of separation from other groups, as part of your religion, in any way responsible for the past expression of fully natural human out-group morality, natural human out-group morality which was expressed in the past?
Forced genital rape of your own children.
Teaching your children that they are better than others.
Such actions naturally caused other groups of humans to more readily express natural human out-group morality in your case. Like it or not.
Examining what happened with Naziism and the Holocaust is rather like staring human out-group morality directly in the face.
The Nazis were fully human, humans expressing out-group morality.
And when your religion promotes separation between your group & others, you could well more easily fall victim to sociopathic nut jobs like Hitler who were able to effectively take advantage of this fully natural readily available negative side of built-in human morality.
Group think. Mob mentality. Survival morality. Nationalism. Provincialism. And even the Old Testament is completely filled with expressions of advocacy for out-group morality.
I don't accept your religion, left or right. Rather I want to be an advocate for science, helpful progress which promotes widespread happiness, well being & health, and survival.
Truth & honestly are required for healthy progress. That means staring our own history in the face and being willing to accept what we see. And to then try to work through what we see clearly.
Mormon Bishops DO abuse children in their care when they teach children that masturbation is evil & may lead to homosexaulity.
And yet, homosexual couples do PERHAPS abuse children by raising them in forcibly-relativist dogmatically politically correct households where straightness is not valued, nor honored, nor supported, nor promoted.
So BOTH sides are being abusive, ok?
The answer to conservatism is not liberalism. Instead it's honest science, observation, and tying into ALL of what it means to be human (including being willing to shame & blame & judge where appropriate & useful - !!!). A VERY VERY fucking hard thing for an ex-conservative-religionist to accept! Damn hard.
-----
Thank goodness the Internet is expanding our in-group morality.
There is hope though. In all religions people are becoming less abusive. It just takes time.
And, let me say there's aspects of ALL cultures & religions which I personally value.
I'm PRO-human. Pro-happy-human. Pro-true-and-honest-naturalism, in as much as being for those natural parts of us which can help us be happy. But, I'm also pro-honesty. Falling into naturalistic fallacies is also a consideration.
We have to be willing to look ourselves in the mirror, and to help promote what looks good, and remove the pimples which don't. That's all.
---
Did Jewish Circumcision help lead to the Holocaust? | Both sides are right: Liberals & Conservatives
Social conservatism. Social liberalism. Politics. Etc.
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.
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.
Shaming. Fear-mongering. Belief Maintenance. Do people in China read the Christian Bible? Not much at all. How about in Russia?Not much. Also, once again, since religion is a natural phenomenon human morality CAN be and IS expressed in religion.
Video response then more commentary:
Quote of comments posted on the Minnesota Atheists page:
Sounds like a religion to me - the religion of the left. "You're not a 'true' atheist or humanist if you don't agree with 100% of the homosexual agenda." Indeed.
Dogma. Heresy. Excommunication. Sounds like a religion. Since religion is a natural phenomenon perhaps we need a new term. How about: "Meme set backed up by dogmas, heresy trials, witch hunts, and virtual or de facto excommunication courts."
Having examined the gay "movement" first hand for several years via a gay nephew & an uncle who died of AIDS, I can attest to the fact that it's rather highly unsavory & petty. It's also, in my view, a "death cult" - part of the more general "death cult" of the left, which embraces other views such as how concerns about overpopulation should mean YOU should not have any kids. A religious dogma that leaves you childless - sounds like a bad one to me.
...speaking as an atheist, and an enlightened humanist & naturalist.
Humanism / naturalism / atheism / science & Enlightenment advocacy does not mean embracing the homosexual agenda 100%, nor the other dogmas of the liberal death cult - not to me, as a human who values life, how we got here, and not wasting the little speck of time we have here.
Examples of atheist groups that are actually religions:
Minnesota Atheists
American Atheists
American Humanist Association
Atheist Community of Austin
Center For Inquiry
We already know Unitarian Univeralism is a religion. It's just that these other groups have now become one also. Leftist religion - still a religion nevertheless, with unquestionable dogmas, elders, and de facto heresy & excommunication trials.
The "gay marriage" question has become a watershed issue, showing not which destructive outlier human behavior "deserves" the "right" to indoctrinate all and suck children into the cult of homosexuality, but rather, to show which supposedly "objective," "skeptical," "free thinking" groups actually, in fact, have any real connection to reason, objectivity, skepticism, free thought, and what could be called: honest true enlightened humanism and naturalism.
Human groups have taboos against destructive behaviors for some damn good reasons. This fact seems largely lost on the naive leftist new-atheism-religionists.
According to a political compass I'm still a leftie in some respects, largely on economic and social welfare issues (eg: the dole, social security, and advocacy for single payer healthcare). On abortion I think it should be discouraged, but legal before viability. On gay marriage I'm against it. Contractual allowance via civil unions - maybe. But marriage's primary focus is and should remain children and continuing the human species. Homosexual sex is inherently non-reproductive, and homosexual culture is generally speaking destructive & petty. Children should not generally speaking be exposed to such culture.
Still a leftie?
Well, since I don't agree with gay marriage, according to the lefties I've spoken with I'm now in the same camp as the ultra-right. Ok, well, on that issue maybe I am - and maybe that fact speaks to the bogusness of the above scale. Maybe "post-modern?" But reportedly post-modernists agree with gay marriage. So it's all rather too simplistic. How about: Honest human?
Take in enough data & maybe you'll change your mind. An honest human would & should do that.
Advocacy for a enlightened naturalism, humanism, atheism, and memetics ROOTED in human nature, flourishing, life, honest science & history, and in the revolutionary concept that because religion is a natural phenomenon, many of their stigmas & taboos have damn good reasons for being there.
TheGreat Mandala - taking your place on it.
"Liberal values" reportedly includes advocacy for "diversity," but only a diversity of acceptance. What if a given culture has good human-centered reasons for a given taboo or stigma? Does your advocacy for "diversity" include allowing around you people who believe that certain human activities very much need "shame" attached to them? Examples: adultery; wild sex with many partners with no commitment; sex with underage people; and even, heaven forbid, sex with people of the same sex. What if another human culture draws the line of acceptable behavior at a different place than you? Will you welcome into your "big tent" of supposed diversity such cultures & people?
The word "bigot" implies a lack of knowledge. But we have knowledge. Cultures which ascribe shame to some or most all of the activities mentioned above (adultery, homosexuality, etc.) have knowledge - human knowledge about impacts. Belief in some god is just the WAY some humans otherwise preserve ideas which offer protection from harm & damage, and it's simply the WAY they promote life. But, come to find out (and this is also a revelation for the religionist also), *humans who have no exposure* to the Christian Bible, or the Koran, or the Torah, ALSO have stigmas & taboos regarding the exact same destructive behaviors you're concerned about!
So, we're not talking about Biblical morality, or religious morality - rather, for these widely shared stigmas & taboos, we're talking about HUMAN morality! How's that supposed "humanist" & "naturalist" in America? Can you accept the key concept that being human does, for good reason, include having stigma for behaviors which you currently want to advocate for - for "equal rights?" But not every human behavior is worthy of respect. And it's not bigoted to say this - it's just the facts. Human facts. Natural facts. Human animal facts.
CAN an atheist, an ex-conservative-religionist, look back and realize that at least some of what they were taught while in a cult was in fact stuff rooted in human nature (& therefore worth considering & valuing), as opposed to stuff that was associated with the lies that were in their former religion?
There will be push-back from people who are still very angry at being lied to. I am still angry about this also. But, having examined countries who have zero do to with the religion of my youth, when I examine what THEY do, it makes me more fully realize that the list of taboos in a given religion CAN actually be beneficial to human survival, thriving, and happiness.
14 billion years of evolution by natural selection. You're here. You have one little speck of time. What are you going to do with your time here?
My wife & son & I attended part of the Mormon meeting this morning. We tried some bread and water, listened to a couple of hymns, and part of a boring wrote-recitation-style talk by some lady. My son's fussiness gave us an excuse to escape early.
During the service the following item was read, as from article 10 of the Japanese Seventeen Article Constitution, by Shōtoku Taishi:
Let us cease from wrath, and refrain from angry looks. Nor let us be
resentful when others differ from us. For all men have hearts, and each
heart has its own leanings. Their right is our wrong, and our right is
their wrong. We are not unquestionably sages, nor are they
unquestionably fools. Both of us are simply ordinary men. How can any
one lay down a rule by which to distinguish right from wrong? For we are
all, one with another, wise and foolish, like a ring which has no end.
Therefore, although others give way to anger, let us on the contrary
dread our own faults, and though we alone may be in the right, let us
follow the multitude and act like men.
Shōtoku Taishi - authored in 604 and published in 720 CE
Also we have article 6:
Chastise that which is evil and encourage that which is good. This was the excellent rule of antiquity...
'How can any
one lay down a rule by which to distinguish right from wrong?' - contrast that with the claim that we should '...Chastise that which is evil and encourage that which is good. This was the excellent rule of antiquity...' ?
Human morals come from a combination of socialization and genetics.
Additionally the preacher guy stated that people who come to his church from other religions should consider going back to their religions. How uneducated can a person be about what actually happens in other religions?
"...For example, an atheist has no need to decide what kinds and occasions of profanity or blasphemy can be tolerated and what kinds should be confronted. Persons who don’t believe in God or in absolute truth in moral matters can see themselves as the most tolerant of persons. For them, almost anything goes. This belief system can tolerate almost any behavior and almost any person. Unfortunately, some who believe in moral relativism seem to have difficulty tolerating those who insist that there is a God who should be respected and that there are certain moral absolutes that should be observed..."
My response: What a shallow, obtuse, non-sequitur, and just plain wrong evaluation of what & who atheists are. We fight against abusive religions like yours because there's good reason to do so. And no, being an atheist does not automatically make one a moral relativist. I am not one, Mr. Oaks.
Silverman doesn't speak for all atheists. Atheism is not a religion per se, and we aren't required to join hands with everyone who may be classified as an atheist.
Merry Christmas. Happy Solstice. Merry Festivus. Whatever. I don't have a problem with any of these unlike Silverman.
And Singer's past comments are disturbing, wrong, and amoral. Religion is a natural phenomenon. Whatever good comes from religion still is natural, not supernatural. So Dinesh should make note of that, if he can. And at the same time, being an atheist doesn't have to mean being a zero population growth ultra-leftie.
I don't have a problem with American Atheists as a group per se, but I'm not into leader-worship though. So Silverman is just plain wrong on the specific point of Singer's morality or lack thereof. Since atheism is not a religion per se we're not obliged to kowtow to arguments from authority.
There is a theme of relativistic amorality in the ivory tower. I agree with the assessment of Steven Pinker and Sam Harris about the state of higher education in America, with their belief in the blank slate, and advocacy for cultural & moral relativism so anally retentive that it's no problem for these people if religions oppress their own people. Who are we to say what's moral? We are. And not everything is relative...
''...the authors argue that what we
call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a
newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is,
including cases
where the newborn is not disabled..."
While I agree that abortion in the first two trimesters should remain legal, I think there's good arguments to be made for highly discouraging the practice at the very least during that time, and good reason to bar it legally after the first two trimesters:
So, I do differ with Singer. I'd rather see all the dogs and pigs on this planet destroyed than to see one innocent human child killed. So, how's that for atheist morality?
It's not the atheism or theism that's the issue here. Most people have built in morals, except for psychopaths and sociopaths, and people who've spent far too much time in the morally & culturally relativistic sewer of academia.
“For nearly a century, the moral relativism of science has given faith-based religion--that great engine of ignorance and bigotry--a nearly uncontested claim to being the only universal framework for moral wisdom. As a result, the most powerful societies on early spend their time debating issues like gay marriage when they should be focused on problems like nuclear proliferation, genocide, energy security, climate change, poverty, and failing schools.”
"...the consequences of moral relativism have been disastrous. And science's failure to address the most important questions in human life has made it seem like little more than an incubator for technology. It has also given faith-based religion -- that great engine of ignorance and bigotry -- a nearly uncontested claim to being the only source of moral wisdom. This has been bad for everyone. What is more, it has been unnecessary -- because we can speak about the well-being of conscious creatures rationally, and in the context of science. I think it is time we tried."
-------------------------
1-8-12 addendum:
Video commentary added:
And another blog post:
atheist morality: response to Peter Singer, Moshe Averick: after birth abortions, infanticide, and human rights http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/atheist-morality-response-to-peter.html
The rationalist may not enjoy admitting to the biological evolutionary naturalistic roots of what he concludes is "rational." A good analogy is how Spock was portrayed as viewing the world: logical until mating season came around, but even then his actions were in the end logical to him.
It's is indeed rational to eat, breath, have sex, love, make babies, have fun, and so on - so the rationalist will naturally conclude because his brain and being are coded to conclude as much. So be it. Humans aren't fully rational though, whatever the fuck rational may actually mean.
In any case, the idea that we can divorce ourselves from emotion is an illusion and is in many ways a potentially damaging self deception. Go without food long enough, or other of our primary biological needs, and the supposedly strict rationalist will very quickly go right off the rails. Pretend like you've got a "rational mind" divorced from your "emotional mind" and you're frankly drive yourself and others crazy.
On cultural relativism: I don't have a problem with judging how people acted in the past. There's a limit to my own tolerance regarding past behavior, and I believe everyone has a limit. My mentioning of Mohamed's 9 year old wife was to show one example. Maybe people did marry at 14 in the past more, but there's all sorts of things that used to happen which we now have concluded were incorrect actions. Incorrect now, and, incorrect then. For example: slavery, the oppression of women, having kings rule with an iron fist, and so on.
Down at BYU in the psychology & religion departments, they may strongly decry the "hedonistic" nature of "the world," and try to get their students to be wary. They go to their churches on Sunday where Mormon bishops interrogate youngsters about masturbation, and where all the youngsters learn to fear normal natural human sexuality. But, meanwhile, their founding prophets have been reasonably documented as doing things which the Mormon Church would excommunicate people for. So that's the point. Hypocrisy.
Don't masturbate Johnny, but meanwhile worship a god who had literal sex with the wife of another man. Don't have oral sex, Julie and Jim, but meanwhile Brigham & Joseph got to have sex with the wives of other men and with under age girls.
My own experience with Mormonism has made me more of a strong naturalist, on both sides of the cultural spectrum. So for example I'm all for people having as many babies as they want - if that's what deep down they feel like doing. The exuberance of the gays has a companionship with the exuberance of a large family. I try not to disparage either course of action because deep down people are doing what they feel included to do as animals. So be it. And, as rather intelligent animals maybe in the long term we can engineer and way to stay alive when the sun gets 10% hotter.
The bottom line is that I don't think everything is relative. All societies past & present can for example be evaluated against the following yardstick: How well did each help humans be happy & thrive, and how much did each hold people down & make them unhappy?
