Breeders will inherit the Earth. Problems with "recovery" from religion.

Is there evidence for a god?

There's evidence that people believe in gods.

There's also evidence that they believe in them for fully natural reasons.

Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WhQ8bSvcHQ

My own experiential & observational evidence shows that when people leave their religions they can assume that the opposite position is healthy or correct. They can then fall right into a virtual pit.

It takes time to "settle" after leaving a religion - if people will settle. Sometimes they don't or can't.

I cannot force myself to believe in clear & apparent lies.

I realize that humans are set up to believe in lies as a means of survival, avoiding destructive behaviors, reproduction, happiness, and so on.

On the other hand, there's some religions which really do grind people down & abuse them.

The ultra-left is just as much a religion as the ultra-right.

Unquestionable dogma & doctrines. Heresy trials. Excommunication.

They also deny basic human nature. Ignoring what desert, African, and Chinese tribes do, while focusing in & only valuing what the "hippie" tribes do & advocate for. Desert-tribe-o-phobia. Non-hippie-tribe-o-phobia.

All of what I've observed first hand.

I try not to surrender to peer pressure. Right now I'm pushing pretty damn hard against peer pressure on the left, just to even consider that the middle or right may have some valid points on some issues. Fully natural fully reasonable points which help protect people. Protection from the pitfalls of human nature. Protection from outliers. Yes religion & culture help manage all this, for very natural & reasonable & rational reasons.

Additional people who helped me on my journey:

Steven Pinker. Daniel Dennett. Christopher Hitchens. Michael Shermer. Sam Harris. And now even Peter Hitchens.

Maybe all of these people are more socially liberal than I am. But all of them have been willing to speak the non-PC truth that questions confirmation bias & presuppositions on the left as well as the right. Anyway just fyi.

First hand observational experience came from having what was an Alice in Wonderland journey or theme park ride through a lot of what ultra-liberalism has to "offer," plus one to China where they're much more socially conservative (and yet no Bible), which all led me to conclude what I conclude today.

I can talk about evidence for this or that. But my main point & position is that religion is simply a way for humans to have a cushion or protective cocoon around fully natural morality. Protection. Survival. Reproduction. And when people leave that cocoon they can go right off a cliff.

Religion is culture. And most all cultures include some form of religion - some more lighter than others. But even your average atheist has de facto doctrine & dogma - political & social views they consider non-questionable.

Religion is such a natural phenomenon that many atheist groups are religions. Unquestionable political & social doctrines & dogma. Exclusion. Attacks against those who are skeptical of their doctrines & dogma. Heresy trials. Excommunication. This all happens readily within most atheist groups.

But the abusive part of atheist religion is how they deny human nature. The part of human nature that says "yes, we should be concerned about outlier behavior." The part of human nature that says "yes, we should value & promote life and normal inherently-reproductive families."

Those who fool themselves into believing that the childfree life / outlier-marriage life is in any way equal to non-outlier inherently reproductive marriage fall right in line with, what is frankly, slow motion suicide. And everyone should be against suicide in any form.

related book:
Decline & Fall: Europe’s Slow Motion Suicide
http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Europes-Motion-Suicide/dp/1594032068

The low birth rate amongst people who've rejected a god shows how humanity is really only barely ready to not have gods. And in Europe all the childfree liberals are being overrun by humans in the Islam camp. The breeders will inherit the Earth, like it or not. And one place to step away from all this is China. Rural China, where they have very light religion, light ancestor worship, and yet more conservative values. No Bible. No Book of Mormon. How do they do it? They aren't caught up in "recovery" from bad bad religion, like much of the west is. They don't assume that the extreme opposite side is the "answer." And so on.

Conservative Naturalism: Don't put your willie in the deadly destructive glory hole of the left. You might get both an STD and an MTD

(link to video - for iphone users and others)
Conservative Naturalism. Make some room please, in the universe of ideas.

[Collections of several recent posts from the past couple of days, advocating for the value of conservative naturalism.]

Here's one prime example of why the "secular left" is no solution or answer to the religious right:

http://thunderf00tdotorg.wordpress.com/2012/10/17/the-comments-pz-myers-doesnt-want-you-to-see/

P.Z. Myers. What a bummer.

No easy solution or social group to associate with after leaving Mormonism.

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

I question liberal dogma.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-values-atheism-questioning.html

Can we find a cure?
http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/a-gay-germ-is-homophobia-a-clue/

...to the LDC?

Time will tell, as will reproduction.

Who will care that you were alive, in 100 years?

If you're straight, have some kids. Write a book. Create some good art or science!

If you're gay, devote your life to service oriented pursuits, helping everyone especially the crazy straights who happen to value reproduction (god fucking forbid!). Create, if you can, some damn good art that amuses & provokes both gay & straight people, and which annoys people also. Annoyance is the key to good art - both straight and gay. The more annoying the better. This advise holds for both straight & gay artists.

Try to help your kids learn about the value of science, so that we can help the garden we've been given survive.

Survival is the bottom line.

Sex is set up in humans to be selfish - WISELY selfish.

If we AREN'T sucked into kid stuff, it's EASY to lead a petty dead end life, straight or gay.

Dunk straight aunt with no kids, who used to call my father while drunk all the time?

A zero on the Great Mandala.

Angel Reading Gay Nephew with a convicted pedo for a friend, nephew who spends his life posting near naked photos on FB?

Mostly a zero on the Great Mandala.

Service oriented gay guy who helps us with we go on vacation, and who has a highly service oriented career.

A reasonable place on the Mandala tapestry.

Stephen Fry & Oscar Wilde - mostly reasonable places from what I can tell so far.

Roman Polanski, should have his placed burned off the Mandala.

Joseph Smith also.

David Koresh also, and Jim Jones. Should be wiped CLEAN from the cloth.

What will your contribution be?

There are conservative fully naturalistic reasons to be concerned about birth control, sperm banks, and the forced equivalence of gay marriage & adoption.

If all respondents have in their tool box are ad hominem attacks, I'm acutely uninterested in those types of responses.

If you can change my mind, then change it. Otherwise, if I'm annoying, too bad. I'll still be on the net transmitting. Whether you listen or not is your choice. I just advocate that you find some useful place on the tapestry before your little tiny chance is gone.

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

Political history:

Dad liberal. He was always upset w/conservative stance of most Mormons.

I voted democrat while Mormon, and after leaving their church.

Went on an Alice in wonderland style journey after leaving.

Checked out nudists, polys, Portland sex party people, gay bars and parties.

Finally got married to a down to Earth socially moderate woman from China. She's atheist.

One kid. Another on the way.

Still like social welfare politically (Obamacare - w/a pref. for single payer),

Ayn Rand was an idiot who knew nothing about human nature. On the other hand Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist.

Perhaps like the South Park guys I hate conservatives, but I hate liberals even more. However I'm not libertarian, nor do I have "everything should be forcibly equal" gay colored glasses on.

I'm a truth and survival advocate. I care more about the truth (and general human survival) than group memberships or sucking up to any one group leader.  

Perhaps I am following in the footsteps of my rebel father to some extent. But I also highly value the life work of people like Christopher Hitchens, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, and Carl Sagan.

I don't have empathy for wastrels. Take your place on the tapestry of life if and how you can, and while you have a chance.

I'm not a gaybot (similar to a mobot, but more gay).

Hey in a democracy in theory the people get to decide - except when naive judges take away our rights.

I know it's a balancing act between inherent rights and not. But until parthenogenesis is a natural reality, not everything will be equal.

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

Knock knock knock on the sperm bank door - the anxious lesbians wait outside. Non married to a person of the opposite sex women probably should be denied sperm from strange buildings such as those.

I can see why the religious right are upset. I'm not for a gay "marriage" ban. More for an alliance that promotes straight family life. The gays can do the interior decorating. That's ok. But regular natural families should be our top priority. Not STFU Parents woman on Jian G's show. 

Where's the socially conservative gays? Somewhere with the log cabin group?

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

Reach into the tool box of meme set defense mechanisms. Pull out one tool, after another, after another, after another.

Down deep in your meme set defense bag is the more heavy hammer & sharper instruments.

But, mostly what you've got so far is one logical fallacy, after another, after another. Smoke. Refusing to read what the other person says, or lazy name calling.

No wonder Mormons & other conservative religionists are wary of the other side. Wary for many reasons. And, regarding some of those reasons, I don't blame them!

They should fear for the safety of their children. Quite true. If your children get sucked into the "loving" arms of the LDC, they could well get AIDS or some other STD, become a druggie, "choose" to not have kids because of LDC ideology at school, "choose" to become gay or a mixed-sex freak, become destructive in other ways, etc.

Don't get an STD (sexually transmitted disease) or an MTD (memetically transmitted disease) by putting your willie into the glory hole of the left - it's no panacea.

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

What's the balance between straight marriage, straight family life, and not?

13.8 billion years to 10 years.

10 years or so of lesbians knocking, knocking, knocking on the sperm bank door.

13.8 billion where a woman had to find a man and vice versa.

Quite a comparison.

Liberal denial of human nature, and our long history.

Traitors to their 13.8 billion year history. A repugnant death cult. THIS is liberalism for you TODAY!

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

[Responding to a post by one man who is exhibiting traits of currently being held down by LDC ideology:]

Slow motion suicide, helping rob YOU of a place on the tapestry of life:

"...there are perhaps other reasons why homosexual behavior may be increasingly cropping up in human and other species. There is a certain 'carrying load' of animal species and homosexuality may actually be nature's way of bringing things back into balance."

"Humanity is in no danger of dying out from lack of reproduction. It may be seriously endangering itself though, through overpopulation. Personally, those who are hysterical about the 'gay agenda' are simply fear-mongering in order to exert social control over a behavior that they find...icky? I have many gay friends. Their agenda is quite simply. To enjoy the same legal protections in their relationships that heterosexuals enjoy. That is the sum total of their agenda."

"To assume that procreation is the only societally building relationship ignores all of the couples who are for one reason or another unable to procreate. The argument that homosexual relationships are unproductive are meritless since there are millions of gay people who are functioning and productive members of society."

Responses to the above LDC meme set collection expression:

1. Your answer proves my point. To support the equivalence of "gay marriage" you MUST advocate that most people NOT have children. You must advocate for the value of childless marriage - and that such a state may actually be good. Slow motion suicide. A death cult. No other words for it.

These people have a point:
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/
and http://overpopulationisamyth.com/category/categories/pop101

Lurking behind LDC dogma are things like China's mandatory one child policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

Totalitarian eugenics.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/margaret-sanger-also-amoral-fuck.html
and
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/Margaret%20Sanger

An ideology of death, for the individual, and for society. The only fools who are listening are the liberals. Suicide for their own culture. Perhaps that's not so bad?

People WILL ignore you! They are ignoring you! They will continue to ignore you! Thank goodness!

Take your place on the Great Mandala, or Not!. It's up to you! I just advocate that you do. Don't allow yourself to be robbed of life & key foundational life experiences by LDC dogma!

2. Meritless?

False equivalences are the meritless, dangerous, destructive doctrinal points of the left.

Hey, I'm quite familiar with the dogma of the LDC. I've seen it first hand. My sister is a victim. My gay nephew is one. You are probably one too. I ask that you not be.

13.8 billion years. To 10. 13.8 billion years. To 10. Quite a ratio.

Traitors to life & to your own history.

"Carrying load" - may as well commit suicide now. Too many people? Let's be childfree.

May as well commit suicide. Hey, if your choice holds, the net-result will be pretty much the same.

But please DON'T! Have a kid if you can, using good old fashioned reproduction! And if you cannot, then help support those who do! Don't be a traitor to your own history.

Conservative naturalism. Advocacy for life. Honoring our true history, as 13.8 billion year evolved highly intelligent sexual animals. But sometimes our neural networks can send us right off the fucking rails and into a ditch. The LDC is one such ditch.

Please avoid it. Embrace life. Is that too much to ask?

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

Further liberal-meme-set expression posted:

"A.) Homosexuality is not maladaptive to psychosocial health. B.) There is no evidence that allowing gays to marry increases rates of homosexual behavior. In short, allowing gays and lesbians to marry the person they love will have no statistically significant negative impact on individuals or society as a whole."

My response:

A. Tell that to the people robbed of their place on the tapestry of life by LDC ideology.

B. Are we sure? The endeavor of science cannot yet be trusted on the question, because of the strong bias against a non-PC non-LDC honest answer from science.

No impact? Unless it does. Straightness is not honored in such a household. An imposition of destructive LDC ideology is by default imposed on the kid. Child abuse to grow up in such a household. More ready exposure to "gay culture." 
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/response-to-site-claims-attack-by-lds.html

A betrayal of basic human nature.

13.8 billion years. 10 years.

13.8 billion years. 10 years.

13.8 billion years. 10 years.

LDC denial of basic human nature.

What if a child needs a mommy & a daddy - by their very nature?

Can an LDC-member "scientist" ask this question?

Is the "right" right? Can you ask, as a true honest scientist?

Not easily.

Not and keep your current friend circle.

The Stonewall warriors are there, waiting to POUNCE on anyone who questions their dogma & agenda.

It's a war. And war is no time for science to inconveniently show that the leftist side may be wrong - wrong in ANY way.

Not science.

A betrayal of natural history.

A preference for slow-motion suicide.

A death cult.

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

response to: The Childfree Life - When Having It All Means Not HavingChildren, in Time Magazine

Recently the following article was published in Time magazine online in August, 2013:

Having It All Without Having Children
The American birthrate is at a record low. What happens when having it all means not having children?

As an atheist I've heard some of my fellows complain about people who have too many kids. And my own sister has "chosen" to not have them. I think this is a memetic disease of the left. Here's my response, to atheists, and to anyone who "chooses" to not have children:

Atheism & having kids: the right to choose to be a zero

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2011/11/atheism-having-kids-right-to-choose-to.html

Should Atheists be trying to have more children?

I would answer a strong yes. Here's quotes from another blogger who also agrees:

"...Having children consciously, in full awareness of the insanity of the leap you are taking is a revolutionary act. It can be compared to picking up a weapon and walking on to a battle field. Sure, there are far more idiots that are willing to become soldiers, but when an educated individual chooses to take a stand it is very different. One who chooses to fight in full understanding is not a soldier but rather a warrior..."

"...Intelligence is a virtue but is it worthless without bravery. If you have brains and have a sense of what this world needs, then have children. Otherwise you have no one to blame but yourself when you find yourself old and infirm, surrounded by blithering morons."

Relative to overpopulation: There will be a natural curve limiting to exponential growth, and those limits will occur more on the uneducated ends of the curve, not so much in places where highly educated atheists tends to live. Science, technology, and education about both can help to save things.

Relative to whether it's stupid for someone to have 8 or 11 kids: Was it stupid for them to pass on their genes & memes more easily to a wide group of people? Transmitting memes is of value, but there's something about a living breathing human that doesn't quite compare to a book or computer. Their right to choose is the mirror of your right to choose not to. The drunk bums in my own family who were in the end zeros both genetically & memetically - their wasted lives show that sometimes there really is value in doing what comes natural.

There's a certain anti-having-kids ideology from the 1960s and 70s which continues today, and it goes something like this: Because there's overpopulation in third world countries that means I should have no kids myself. It's a false analogy, and it's about the same type of thing as saying that one should eat one's peas because of starving children elsewhere. This ideology robs people of a key part of life: reproduction! Yes that's right, having kids. It's not all about you. Biology & evolution will have the last laugh.

Just because resources are scarce in third world countries doesn't mean you shouldn't have kids. Have them, have as many as you want (!), but teach your kids the value of science and the value of continuing The Enlightenment.

After my mother died I gave a talk at her funeral, at a Mormon (LDS) meeting house, while still being an atheist (whodathunkit). Here's a relevant excerpt:

---quote begins

As far as I can tell, relative to our position in the Universe, we're rather like some moss growing on the top of a mountain.

As moss we're very intelligent. And maybe some day, being the smart green moss that we are, maybe we'll find a way to extract ourselves from the mountain top.

In a few years our lone peak which is the only place we can live is going to get scorched. And we happen to be so smart in fact that we have predicted the future scorching.

So if we are very lucky & very smart indeed, our science & technology may save us.

Or perhaps we'll fade away to dust like most life has on the mountain.

It's either the sky god or the volcano god, or the real truth about our rather humble state

Noble & beautiful, yes, but if we're going to make it in the long term at least a few of us have to take a longer view.

There is no Christian Armageddon waiting. But in about 500 million years our Sun will be 10% brighter thereby causing the oceans boil off. So our descendants either need to re-engineer the Sun by then, or get us off of this rock. And we've only known about this for ten or so years. And there are other huge risks to our survival.

What we teach our children about science may save humanity.

There's no heaven or hell. But that means we have an added responsibility to care for what we have here. To make this life here & now into a heaven or a hell.

We are related to other animals. We are animals, and our morals come from a combination of genetics and socialization. Whether such a fact is good or bad, it doesn't matter. That's simply the way it is.

Being concerned about legacy is an issue. Who will care that you lived in 100 years? Make a contribution. Be a great artist or a great scientist or have kids. And if you have kids, teach them the value cutting edge art and science, and of the value of taking the proverbial red pill as from the film The Matrix.

---quote ends

So yes, as either an atheist or an ultra-leftie, you do have the right to "choose to be a zero," but that doesn't mean you deserve more respect. You rather deserve a lot less. And in the end, you'll get what you want - death, and a lack of access to the only real flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience.

8-1-2013