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

Did Jewish Circumcision help lead to the Holocaust? | Both sides are right (& wrong).

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.

Examples of how both sides are right (& wrong):

On abortion:

Yes, Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, and Peter Singer is an amoral fuck.

After-viability abortion is murder.

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?

Lesbians at the weekly Thursday coffee chat of Atheists of Utah claim that Mormons who have a lot of kids are stupid. However it's the angry loud mouthed lesbians who're being stupid. Who will have the last laugh in 100 years?

I remember the related talk I gave at my mother's funeral at a Mormon meeting house.

Additional thoughts on all these issues:

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.

Read this article:
http://www.strangenotions.com/very-sad-childfree-life/

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.

But, read what the Guardian says about the issue:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/16/choice-child-free-admirable-not-selfish

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.

But on the other hand (!!!): Rightist religions like are Mormonism are also abusive, for example when they tell children that masturbation is evil, should be feared, & may well lead to homosexuality.

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!

Go to fucking China!

Take a step back!

Also consider again the double edged sword of Daniel Dennett's true revelation that religion is a natural phenomenon.

More on the problems with leftist religion:

The largely leftist religion of Judaism, which engages in the mass genital rape of their children, is very abusive.

Recently I toured the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.

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.

For Judaism here's a hopeful website:

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org

Life is not so simple.

--------------

Don't want me in your atheist church? I don't want to be in your church.

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.

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

Latest thoughts on homosexuality & gay marriage - as of April 26, 2014

On facebook I found the following image:



Point three is valid.

All the other points are either purposefully wrong, stupid, or lies.

Hey, whomever created that image with collections of mostly outrageously untrue & abusive quotes, seeing stuff like that pushes people like me ever more into the pro-gay-marriage camp.

I have examined both sides, or is it three sides?

A gay uncle who died of AIDS leaving his straight family with no father.

A gay nephew who leads an incredibly petty & shallow life.

On the other hand I very much appreciate the work of people like Stephen Fry and Oscar Wilde. I also have seen first hand how some gay people are much more service oriented, and who appear to have their heads screwed on much more than my Angel Reading Boy Chasing Convicted Pedophile Friend Accepting gay nephew.

There are atheists who agree with concerns about homosexuality:

Black Atheists of Atlanta

Greek Culture - Black Atheist Of Atlanta - 05-23-11:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFXwgPLW378

Gay Zeus & Ganymede - Black Atheist Of Atlanta - 08-08-11

Part 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfpQaUwIqbQ

Part 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFnAlsrj9zA

Part 3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5nqwrFck58

------------------
Is Homosexuality Destructive For The Black Family?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kka3ECinb6M
------------------

However I don't believe they'd agree with too many more points than point three on your photo.

Serial killers? That is destructive abusive bullshit, no question.

"Consider the source." This phrase is pushing me more & more toward the pro-gay camp. Now, I do still believe ALL sides need to be questioned. Unlike some I AM willing to at least listen to the few seculars who are either socially moderate or conservative.

As we know, it's not the number of people who believe in something, it's whether the ideas are actually valid or not.

A recent post of mine:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/03/listening-to-narth-guy-issues-more.html

What you'll find on my blog is the playing out of a tension between several forces. The ultra-pro-gay-everything-else-be-damned position within the secular community, and the built-in desire to be more, well, pro-reproduction & pro-family.

Having gone to China & having a Chinese wife has given me a wider perspective.

And previous related thoughts:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-values-atheism-paths-to.html

and also check the long list at:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/homosexuality

Again my experiences with my own gay nephew have influenced my views (and having a gay uncle who died of AIDS leaving his straight family with no father). But, on the other hand, there's this very nice man who helps keep our birds while we go on vacation. A service oriented guy who spends his life helping others. He's not a petty kook like my nephew. The guy is softening my view. So I'm perhaps somewhere in between the Black Atheists of Atlanta and the left at this point - on that issue. And the image you posted is pushing me further left still.

Children may really NEED both a mommy & a daddy. You ARE selling yourself short if you don't have kids. These two points may be true, regardless of how much hand wringing the left may do. But, on the other hand, the right is completely unhinged (as per what's in that fucking image you posted). So the right is completely wrong & lying about the issue also. The bottom line is that I'm not going to be tied to either side, not until more evidence is in. And if the evidence shows that children DO need a mommy & a daddy, then we should accept that evidence, period.

Free St. Patrick's Day from ultra-leftist religious dogmatism

Seculars against ultra-leftist religious dogmatism.

Naive ultra-liberal dogmatism is highly present in the following de facto branches of the religion known as Stonewall: American Atheists; Atheism Plus; Unitarian Universalism; Council for Secular Humanism; Center For Inquiry, Atheists of Utah, and so-called naturalists and humanists.

Since when did being human or natural mean we have to accept 100% of the gay agenda? Inherently non-reproductive sex? By default a petty dead end narcissistic lifestyle? Perhaps concern about homosexuality is natural? How's that?

Most recently the LGBTQPZ community became very upset with the New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade.

Found this on American Atheists' facebook page:

Generally speaking the American Atheists group, located in Cranford, New Jersey, is in my view yet another branch of the liberal dogmatic religion known as Stonewall, as are all of the other groups I mentioned above.

My response to the social-justice oh so righteous warriors on the ultra left, who want to fly the gay flag at every possible event:

Not every parade needs to be a gay pride one. The boycotts are stupid IMO. The parade organizers get to decide who's in their parade. If the Stonewall place in NYC wants to have their own parade, they can. But they shouldn't demand to hijack the regular parade for their own agenda. Liberal dogma can be a de facto religion. Whatever American Atheists or the advocates for atheism plus happen to say isn't automatically on my own list of important agenda items.

The quintessential struggle of our time is not the promotion of the ultra-liberal agenda. Rather, it's just general advocacy for science, survival, and a prudent amount of hawkishness so as to curtail the actions of world-stage bullies. That's my view...

As for the rest, you can put me on a heresy trial if you wish, but if you do so you'll be just acting in yet another religion, just one with a new name.

I'm not a member of your church, nor do I wish to be.

Related post I generally agree with:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1467403400144168&id=293011477509961

Quotes from the post of the group Seculars Against Same Sex "Marriage:"

Just as black pride, brown pride, feminist pride, etc cannot be emphasized at the Boston St. Patrick's Day Parade; the same applies to gay pride groups as well. The parade and day has nothing to do with any of the causes mentioned above. Blacks, Hispanics, Feminists, and Gays can still be in the parade, but just not promoting their own identity politics.

*"In their defence, parade organisers claim that gay people are not prohibited from marching, just not allowed to march under gay-themed banners. In Boston, organisers point to the fact that gay people this year joined a ‘diversity’ float that represented a South Boston neighbourhood.

*According to Boston’s lead parade organiser, Philip Wuschke: ‘We don’t ban gay people. We ban groups that are trying to make a statement.’ He notes that they have rejected a variety of groups, including the Ku Klux Klan, Irish heterosexual pride and an anti-abortion organisation, among others...

* Or you might ask, why do gay activists insist on joining a parade that isn’t about their cause and, in the case of Boston and New York, doesn’t want them there as a separately identified group?

*The notoriously anti-gay Westboro Baptist Church probably doesn’t expect to be able to join a gay pride march, and gay pride organisers wouldn’t let them in if they tried (in fact, St Patrick’s Day organisers in Boston say they turned down an application from Westboro, which is anti-Catholic as well as anti-gay, to join the parade)...

*This is the top-down, elite-led politics of name and shame, rather than a properly liberal campaign that draw upon popular support.

*What we are witnessing is an attack on those who don’t share today’s pro-gay outlook. Some may not want to opt out of this Culture War, but the war increasingly won’t allow there to be any bystanders. Instead, there is pressure to conform. Even if it does not spill over into the political or legal world, such conformism is problematic for the free flow of ideas.

*The sky will not fall if gays and lesbians are allowed to march in the Boston and New York St Patrick’s Day parades. But we will create a conformist, intolerant and unfree society if we do not allow space for the expression of different views, including traditional religious teachings about homosexuality and same-sex marriage."

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/who-are-the-real-bigots-in-the-st-pats-spat/14797#.UycY1PldWaR

 ---end of quote

Related posts:

Listening to the NARTH guy - issues more complex than either side says
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/03/listening-to-narth-guy-issues-more.html

A high abundance of angel readers and other nutjobs within the gay "lifestyle"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-high-abundance-of-angel-readers-and.html

Again from http://www.naturalism.org/sexualit.htm

"...Since there are no objective harms of being or acting gay, there are no reasons to withhold any constitutional right from homosexuals, including marriage..."

But there IS objective harm! The naive liberal just doesn't know. It's par for the course.

And I am reminded of:

1. My gay uncle who died of aids leaving his straight family with no kids.
2. My gay nephew who leads a petty, shallow, dead-end type of life.
3. However and also: gay people I know who spend their lives helping others, in service oriented lives.
4. Gay people like Stephen Fry, who I largely admire.
5. The crappy crazy warped & perverse sexual morality in Mormonism & Catholicism.

In any case, I don't wish to be annexed by either side. Just because I think there may be problems with the petty selfish lifestyle present in homosexual culture doesn't mean I believe we should shame children for masturbation, for example, or teach children that masturbation automatically leads to homosexuality, which of course it does not.

Religion basically fucks up people's built-in sexuality. It can fuck it up so much that you can go WAY to far over to the other side. So in my view gays are ALSO being abused by religion, by being pushed away from normal productive human relations by the extreme anger on the issue present in conservative religion. So this is not a simple issue.

The Mormon & Christian Memetic Whirlpool - response to: Gebhardt's story: From Christianity, to atheism, and then back to Christianity again

Our neural networks are highly mailable. We can be swayed into various memetic-social camps due to various influences including: parental, social, educational, experiential, etc. When within one memetic camp we erect walls of defense to keep from being pulled into another camp. If pulled into another camp, we erect new memetic walls to keep us in the new camp.

I remember my time in Portland as being like an Alice in Wonderland. One of my experience paths involved going to weekly meetings for the new sadly defunct group United States Atheists. At those meetings a very nice man befriended me and we would often go to a nearby bar to talk, with a few of the others from the meetings. Also this man later headed up atheist group monthly visits to the OMSI Science Pub events, in connection with atheist related meetup.com groups & later with the Center For Inquiry, Portland.

Another experience path involved appearing a few times on the Sciligion cable access show.

Here's another video of my friend (who would go to the USA Atheists meetings & the bar afterward & to the OMSI Science Pub CFI events), from 2009. In that 2009 video he talks about going from being a Christian to an atheist.

Within the past few days from February 4, 2014 I found that my friend has converted back to evangelical Christianity. Here is a related video, and some additional debate notes I found about the issue.

The Mormon & Christian Memetic Whirlpool

Mormons wear nice clothes. That was the first comment from my wife as I drove her around downtown Salt Lake, especially during their General Conferences. But just wearing nice clothes doesn't mean you are happy.

As I have walked with my wife & son around Temple Square, I know she's felt the pull of the Mormon memetic whirlpool. I've felt it too, but I also get a huge icky poo feeling along with. A cult is a group which engages in a few key things:

1. Leader worship.
2. Excommunication of those who disagree - both from your own family if you disagree, and from the cult in general.
3. Active suppression of evidence that may discredit what the leaders are claiming.
4. Putting the cult first, above family & other human relationships.

A cult is an especially strong form of memetic group or camp with especially strong defenses, and strong belief maintenance to keep people in line.

Our path through the forest of competing ideas can result in our being sucked one way or another, based on how we are feeling & what's happening to us at any given time.

So, I won't be returning to Mormonism or Christianity any time soon. Why? Because I remember the deception, the lies, and the pain. I haven't forgotten the lies of the leaders or their hypocrisy.

My related video commentary on this whole situation:

Commentary included with above video:

------quote begins

This is an initial video response to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxjSAuLAG48
Gebhardt's story: From Christianity, to atheism, and then back to Christianity again

Created February 4, 2014 7:39am

While in Portland I was befriended by a man who went with me to weekly meetings for the now defunct group United States Atheists. After those meetings we often would go to a bar for a chat. Also the man became an organizer for Center for Inquiry, Portland and their past monthly OMSI Science Pub events. Also the man invited me to participate in a cable access TV show called Sciligion.

Here's one example where we're appearing together on the show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCSnEh16anA

and here's another example of where he's talking about converting to being an atheist (before converting back to Christianity):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEe0KfQ1L1w

In the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxjSAuLAG48 my friend talks about a differentiation between the the physical and the metaphysical, the normal and the paranormal. For me such differentiations are simply memetic camp defense mechanisms. If some god exists in another dimension as a "spiritual being," he or she or it would still be a physical entity. Does the so-called metaphysical item or entity exist? If the answer is yes then they are physical AKA a real thing with real physical properties.

It's sad that to belong to a human social group we have to a.) suck up to a leader, and b.) state that we believe in one or more joint-lies. Can we change this situation? Can we have human social groups where we don't all have to state that we believe in the joint lies?

When we leave conservative religion we may encounter what is essentially liberal-religion. Many atheist & "free thought" groups are essentially liberal religions. If you don't tow the party line in these liberal flavors of religion you will then undergo a heresy trial, one which almost exactly mirrors the heresy trials of conservative religions. In those trials you will be accused of having held onto tenets from your old religion, concepts which you should have just completely tossed according to them. But the key fallacies in their arguments can be revealed via the following activity: Going to China, where they know nothing about your religion, and see what they believe in & do. Do the same thing in other cultures. Religion is a NATURAL phenomenon, and so even tenets in conservative religion can still be fully natural.

------quote ends

thoughts on gay adoption - 1-16-2014

response to "The sciphi of gay adoption,"
at http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-sciphi-of-gay-adoption.html

It's too simplistic to state that because human brains have come up with medical advances, that therefore a child does not need, and would best benefit by having, a father and mother - normally, ideally, usually.

From an experiential perspective I've seen a lot of gay culture. For several years I went to gay parties & gay bars with a nephew of mine. However we recently had a falling out & no longer speak. I feel I’ve finally seen the light about his position & my need to stay away from it.

My gay nephew spends his life chasing his own tail, going to petty alcohol centered parties & bars, and in vain & petty pursuits that lead nowhere. When a convicted child abuser (12 year olds – sex related) was released from prison, my gay nephew & his friends readily accepted the man back into their social circle. And like I say he appears to be living a life that will in the end count for pretty much nothing.

Also I have in my experiential profile a gay uncle who died of AIDS because he cheated on his wife during the ‘60s, therefore leaving his family with no father or grandfather. Also he apparently influenced one of his daughters such that her brain was modeled in such a way as to allow herself the internal latitude to consider herself to be gay.

Ok, so there's that. But, I also have been an observer of some gay people who are not quite so petty,  shallow, and destructive. For example there's a very nice man who helps us out when we go on vacation. He spends his life helping others, both professionally and personally.

Here is a list of my current views, after making all these observations, and taking into account exposure to cultures outside of the United States which are largely secular, but which also have concerns about homosexuality:

1. People who are accepting of convicted child abusers are themselves suspect. There may be a dangerous trend or propensity within some parts of “gay culture” to be accepting of child abusers.

2. Having children is a good thing. People who "choose" to not have them are making a huge mistake, in their own lives, and for humanity as a whole. Also people who don't have kids due to environmental concerns are also highly misguided & deceived.

3. Maybe human children really do need a father & a mother, normally, and ideally. Children can adapt, but I'm talking about what is "preferred" and "ideal."

4. What if science of any reasonable flavor disproves progressive or liberal dogma or presuppositions?

5. Religion is a natural phenomenon. This fact cuts both ways. What can be "instilled" by a religion, can nevertheless be fully natural with fully naturalistic roots. Concerns over masturbation & pornography. Concerns over non-procreative sex. Concerns about preserving life. It's simply too easy and lazy to state that all such concerns can be dismissed out of hand because leaders in a given religion express concerns. For me, as an ex-Mormon, it's a matter of balance.

Should children be shamed for masturbation? Should adults be prevented from viewing porn? No to both. But on the other hand, both pursuits can be detrimental if they prevent someone from having real meaningful interactions with another flesh & blood human being.

Should life be valued? Yes. In my view abortion should be discouraged, but not illegal before viability.

And so on.

It's very hard work for an ex-religionist to find what really is of value, from a human perspective, amongst all the chaff & lies in their former religion. With religions like Mormonism this is a particularly hard task because of the incredibly strict & controlling nature of Mormonism. When one leaves such a religion one can naturally feel the need to let it all hang out & to rebel as much as possible. On the other hand, if you let it all hang out for too long, you may either a.) cheat on your wife, get AIDS, die, and leave your family with no father, or b.) spend your life as a morbidly obese virgin who's obsessed with porn & masturbation - to the exclusion of normal & healthy flesh & blood human relations.

Do humans have a right to marry if they're gay? Perhaps. But regardless enough people now feel as if their "moral zeitgeist" has moved along such that they now feel self-professed gay people should be able to marry legally. Most any opinion can be justified by case law, left or right or otherwise.

Should gay couples adopt children? Maybe. I suppose if abusive straight ones can adopt & take in foster kids, then more reasonable & kind gay couples probably should be able to. But it's still an open question for me as to whether having a lack of gender balance with parents has a negative or detrimental effect on children. It may, at the very least, allow the brains of children to be drawn more readily into them considering themselves to be “gay,” when they may accurately be more “bi” or a mix, or both, or able to go either way – reasonably. Being "gay accepting" can allow for the brains of children to consider "gayness" as more of an option. There are gradations.

People can choose to become "ex-gay" or to live the life of a straight person - and be happy.

Saying all these things is heresy to the Stonewall liberal. Non sequitur assumptions, accusations, ad hominem attacks, black listing, and heresy trials – leftist style, can quickly and easily begin when a person says much of any of the above. But, in my view we need to nevertheless question liberal dogma points as well as conservative ones.

The person who angrily tells either side to just "shut up" goes too far & needs to be militantly ignored. Both the conservative preacher and the politically correct liberal need to be ignored & pushed past in my view.

Anyway, I appreciate hearing what you have to say in most cases. I’m simply trying to convey that it’s too simplistic to state that conservative views can be dismissed out of hand because people who’re currently religious happen to make such claims. Dennett’s truth about the natural state of religion does cut both ways, and should give pause to the liberal as he may be working to fervently adhere to his own dogma points.

What comes out of the mouths of humans is always natural. I think we can be more kind & compassionate though, and expand our in group morality. But we also need to be careful. Warnings from religion can have value & can be fully natural & reasonable. It's hard work to separate the lie-infused covering from the nevertheless-naturalistic-truths which may be inside and which need to be considered even if they were inside of the Mormon or Catholic burrito. My apologies to Mexican food. I prefer human free thinker atheist Chinese burritos myself. Much more tasty.

=========================

1-16-2014 afternoon addendum containing a discussion exchange:

Another person wrote:

>I do think it's a good idea to be very skeptical of ideas promoted by religion. <

My reply:

Skeptical, but not dismissive just because the ideas happen to be harbored within a religion. Does Thor exist? No. But natural human morals & ethics existed within the religion which loved him.

It's hard work for a liberal to be skeptical of liberalism. Pinker / Harris / Dennett / Dawkins have been skeptical of certain aspects of "liberal" as well as "conservative" thought.

>It can be very hard to know which of your values have been instilled by your upbringing and which have rational justification. <

Taking a step further back, away from Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, helps one to see the forest through the trees. If all the cultures I had examined thus far were Mormonism followed by ex-Mormonism, more of my views would probably lie firmly within the liberal camp.

<clip>

>In particular on masturbation and pornography<

<clip>

I'm a masturbation advocate, as well as a marriage, life, and children advocate. I'm also appreciative of the fact that certain forms of porn can be useful, to adults, and in moderation. But what I'm trying to say is there's value in making note of why people say the things they do. When people express concerns over non-procreative forms of sexuality, why do they do that? Because their mommy said so? Because the Bible says no? What I'm saying is that the answer seems to be, n-o - no it's not that simple.

The lies expressed by religion, especially by religions like Mormonism, have tainted the well of conversation. Their lies & controlling nature have made it more difficult to sift & see if, and what, they may be saying may actually be of value. How can we free ourselves of this problem? Go visit China. That's one way. Perhaps 99% of Chinese people have 0% exposure to Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. And yet, for some reason, they do express concerns about destructive or non-procreative forms of human sexuality. Why is that? Maybe because they're human, and such concerns have naturalistic roots.

It's rather highly inconvenient to be a liberal and to find out that some of your own suppositions & opinions as a liberal may in fact be wrong, unfounded, or damaging.

<clip>

>... it really does seem to me that you are left with a lot of overly-conservative values that need to be re-examined... <

After leaving Mormonism I did a fair amount of exploring. Time & experience has allowed me to take a step back from the letting it all hang out "phase" of my departure from Mormonism. I ain't goin' back. I also am not going to kiss the rear end of Jesus in the future.

I don't advocate the type of concern level expressed by people in Uganda for example. That goes way way too far. Mormon Prophet Spencer Kimball's book Miracle of Forgiveness also goes way way too far in the level of concern expressed. But, on the other hand, I've also seen what happens when people let it all hang out in their rebellion.

The death of my uncle who died of AIDS is one example. He was perhaps a victim of the strictness of Mormonism. Perhaps he would not have rebelled quite so much if either a.) the Mormon Church were itself less strict on sexuality, or b.) his wife had met him part way in his exit by leaving Mormonism herself & being more open sexually with him. It's a valuable thought experiment to consider - post mortem iudicium of rebelling too much and getting AIDS & dying as a result.

> Your overly negative stereotype of masturbation, <

There's no need to personalize too much on that point. I'm advocating looking at what non-Abrahamic cultures do & think. Masturbation can lead one to very much want a real relationship - that's also true. It can enhance a real relationship. But there's destructive forms of the activity which can also lead one away from a real relationship. Do you have enough "sexual energy" left for the date you're about to go on, or are you pooped out? That's one small example. But again I'm advocating taking a step back from American / Christian / Islamic / Jewish myopia on this & all issues. What do non-Abrahamic cultures do & advocate in countries which have had little exposure to the religions of our youths?

>I mean, why should it be?<

Are humans more happy when they are led or lead themselves into a relationship which is inherently non-reproductive?

Is being straight "better" than being gay? Exclude the outliers (psychopaths, etc.), what if the answer is yes?

Is the "childfree" life better? No. 

Would it be better if humans had never existed? No.

But liberals tend to answers these questions differently.

Rejection of the nihilism present in Evangelical Christianity is a happy activity of some atheists. But how about a rejection of the nihilism & defeatism of the left? Who's advocating for that?

Only the "Black Atheists of Atlanta?" I'm not a member of their group, and some of the stuff they advocate for is quite nutty. But, listening to them at the very least provides an opportunity for your average ultra-liberal rebelling atheist to take a step back and question liberal presuppositions as well. And perhaps more importantly, listening to my own wife who had zero exposure to all the (admited & acknowledged) crap I was exposed to as a kid, has helped me take a step back as well.

What I'm advocating for is that the questions of whether elements of conservative thought are actually valid should be *on the table* so to speak, and not swept under the carpet out of fear of offending the new self-appointed leaders of dogmatic liberal de-facto religion. One way of sweeping them under is to try & dismiss them out of hand "because a religion advocated for a given point." It's not that easy or simple is what I'm saying.

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

Islamofactia, Islamotruthia, Homofactia, Homotruthia - and the Black Atheists of Atlanta

The page:
"Nothing Atheist About “Real” Black Atheists"
http://spiceislandatheist.blogspot.com/2013/04/nothing-atheist-about-real-black.html

My response:

I can see why black atheists in Atlanta are inclined to be nationalistic. I don't agree with them that every aspect of European culture is inherently evil. However listening to their views helped me take a step back & realize that many atheist & humanist groups in America are dogmatically, politically, and socially ultra-left - and de facto religions themselves as a result. If you find yourself to be an atheist who's not socially ultra-left, you will be kicked out of such groups. So, the new atheist groups are now in my view religions in and of themselves.

Given enough education about Islam, and one may advocate for Islamofactia and Islamotruthia, rather than being guilty of "Islamophobia." The same can go for homosexuality. "Homophobia?" In my view it's more like homofactia and homotruthia - when given enough knowledge.

Political correctness & towing the party line IS a part of the atheist "movement," and thus we don't have rationalism or skepticism, - instead we've got just another religion.

Can you question your dogma? The atheist may well want to accept all of the "yes you can do that" precepts in all cultures, but they're rather loath & unfortunately wary to realize that sometimes there's also value in having stigmas associated with destructive human behaviors.

It's taken me a LONG time to realize this, after taking an Alice in Wonderland style journey through some "let it all hang out" type activities, and having a gay uncle who died of AIDS leaving his regular family with no father, and a gay nephew who spends his life in petty dead end pursuits (eg: posting near naked pictures of himself on facebook & near constant talk of sex with "boys," plus he & his friend's acceptance of a convicted pedophile back into the gay community after he was was released from prison).

So, given enough knowledge, even a liberal can wise up and realize that not everything is equal... Black Atheists of Atlanta helped me realize this, along with my wife who comes from another country - where they never heard of Mormonism and very very little of Christianity.

Daniel Dennett showed us that religion is a natural phenomenon - a realization that can cut both ways.

So, human nature & human morality can be expressed in religion. But just because a given religion says something is bad - that doesn't automatically mean they are wrong. They can merely be expressing a key part of human morality & human nature.

many atheist groups ARE religions: gay marriage & liberal dogma

Example of the new de facto religion present among some atheist groups:

"Genuine Atheists and Illegitimate Christians Support Gay Rights."
...by Minnesota Atheists

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.

more references and links:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013_08_01_archive.html

8-19-2013 4:44pm

Family Values Atheism: path to immortality: children; religion is a natural phenomenon - it cuts both ways; thanks black atheists of Atlanta

Family Values Atheism:

Religion is a natural phenomenon - it cuts both ways

The dogmas of a religion can actually be natural

Concern about non-reproductive sex can be natural

Maybe a children need a mommy & a daddy

Maybe if you spend your life in a non-reproductive hole you'll be unhappy as a result

Why I've become more socially conservative: several years of observation of the gay community.

Thanks black atheists of Atlanta, for introducing some much needed skepticism into the "atheist movement."

Bad ideas & dogma can come from anywhere, including the left.

On the left we have dogma, elders, inquisitions, heresy trials, and witch hunts.

Go question liberal dogma in a group of liberals and see what happens.

Excommunication trials - only in Mormonism? No, liberals will happily do these as well.

The only real immortality we can ever experience comes via having children. I'm for questioning liberal dogma that draws us away from that. True & honest & enlightened naturalism, atheism, and humanism means this to me.

Can we open a "Friends of the Black Atheists of Atlanta" branch here?

Maybe if you work to be an ex-gay, maybe that's a good thing. Since I spend several years closely observing gay culture, I feel the need to mention this. Also ready heresy trials will quickly happen if you question this key liberal dogma point.

http://narth.com
http://pfox.org/default.html

Without god is everything permitted? If you listen to the liberals you might think so. But no, we're talking about humans. Humans have built in morality. Without god not everything is permitted - even if the liberals might think so, or act like this is true.

If you force yourself to believe a certain thing - a more deep part of human nature, that can make you unhappy. And being in a dead-end non-reproductive loop can, indeed, make you and everyone unhappy.

Tying into 14 billion years of evolution, directly, by having children is of value. Immortality - great value. More valuable than chasing your tail all your life, and trying to force others to state that your "choice" is just as valuable as any other choice.

Not all things are equal. Not all choices are worthy of respect.

Family values atheism - thanks black Atheists of Atlanta for reminding us that it's possible to have these words exist together. And, we can also thank the people in other countries who aren't members of the American-liberal-dogmatic church - people who may value family over forced relativism. How's that for naturalism & humanism? Examining what people *actually do* and making note that sometimes there's damn good reasons for stigma to be assigned to certain activities. A very hard thing for an ex-religionist to realize.

If you're not careful, a liberal-dogma-questioning epiphany may cause you, Mr. & Mrs. Leftie, to be subjected to a liberal heresy trial. But, you jumped out of one church, you may as well be prepared to jump out of another.

Free speech. Free thought. Freedom from religion, on the right and on the left. And thankfully we're human, so without god not everything is permitted - even if the lefties may de facto act like it is.

8-16-2013 7:38am

updated religious and political views... an atheist moderate / conservative

Here's an update on my religious and political views:

Religion: Atheist

The only gods worth worshiping are love, sex, life, and children.

Make a difference. Do something useful. Think about legacy. Don't be a drunk bum who stares at your own belly button all your life. Find someone else's to stare at instead.

Straight pride is life affirming, and worth valuing and supporting. You wouldn't be here if it weren't for straight pride and dare I say straight sex.

I've observed first hand:

1. A gay uncle who died of AIDS and left his hetero family without a father.

2. A gay nephew who lives and incredibly childish, petty, and stunted life.

3. Homosexual culture at many gay parties and bars.

4. The acceptance of one pedophile (abused 12-16 year olds) into the gay community after being released from prison. Constant talk in gay groups using the term "boy," and an apparent desire on their part to lower the age of consent.

5. A sister who has been sucked into the liberal death cult, where she believes she should have no children because of overpopulation. She's also living a petty and stunted life.

So several years of first hand observation & exploration has yielded this result.

Questioning all dogmas, at first. Initially take a step back. Examining all cultures. Seeing what is at the heart of human nature. Don't take the liberal view or side just by default. Questioning that side also.

Then, here's the hard part: Realize that:

Religion is a natural phenomenon. So not every tenant of a religion is necessarily bad. Some tenants ARE fully natural and rather good, both for the individual, and for the community.

The ONLY PATH to true flesh & blood immortality is reproduction. A mommy. A daddy. Good old fashioned straight sex and marriage. Damn right!

Not everything is equal. Make a difference. Share your memes if you can, but, if in the end you fail to also share your genes, that is too bad for you and for humanity.

Do what you can while you can to not live a stunted life. Ok? If doing so requires taking drastic action (like looking far and wide for a compatible mate - DO IT!). Don't let the liberal meme set leave you as a virtual zero on the great mandala.

Political views: moderate

Socially moderate to conservative.

After several years of first hand observation of "gay culture" I've come to conclude that it's one which is stunted, petty, childish, sad, and a dead end. The ex-gay movement is something worth checking out, if you find that you're either attracted to people of the same sex, or if you've been sucked into that culture.

Economically liberal, with the admission that too many people are on the dole (visit your average social security office on any day to see the status of things). But, the state sponsored dole is better than the Church or the street.

Hawk regarding Islam.

Christopher Hitchens fan.

Wary of cults of personality though.

more info: http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/

Families Can Be Together Forever... Through Evolution!

Families can be together forever... through evolution and natural selection.  Marriage. Sex. Children. This is the path to the only real flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience.

Thoughts on related topics:

Masturbation: Ok if it doesn't detract one from reproductive sex. For most people it won't. It doesn't need to be encouraged nor discouraged. And it won't in and of itself lead to homosexuality.

Sex before marriage: As an addendum to the comments I made in the video, on top of education and disease prevention, if we could have a system of verifiable virginity before a person enters into a long term committed relationship (eg: marriage) that would still be nice & preferable. Of course it's not 100% possible as per what people actually do. But I am just saying that 16, 17, and 18 year olds should find some other way of "playing around" that rules out a.) disease transmission, and b.) hey, may even a loss of virginity.

Abortion: Should be discouraged but legal before viability, and illegal after. As the viability timeline is reduced via science, then the legal line should follow it downward. People who engage in abortion before viability are not murderers per se. Not 100% free from ridicule perhaps, if the procedure is just used so that "you can be you" and for fully selfish reasons. But on the other hand people like Peter Singer who advocate for after birth abortions have been infected by the liberal meme set.

Homosexuality: Justified by the liberal meme set.
.
Living the childfree life: People who're hurt & abused by the liberal meme set. People who cut themselves off from the only immortality we will ever experience. Chumps & fools.

Overpopulation: Not a concern, and certainly even if it were you should still have children!

Religion is a natural phenomenon: A hard concept for the ex-religionist to accept also.

Can you question liberal dogma?

Related posts:

Family Values Atheism: Questioning liberal dogma -- the Gay Flag: Freaks Welcome Here -- questioning gay marriage -- secular reparative therapy (choosing to live straight)
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-values-atheism-questioning.html
and
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013_08_01_archive.html