As someone who was proud to bang some pots and pans when the guy was elected to office, I'm sad in some ways to admit that I generally agree with the right's criticism of the left on this point. There's far too much self hatred and America hatred on the left side of the isle.
If you hate your country too much then something else more unsavory will replace it.
America was founded on the *basis* of the Reformation and Enlightenment. Enlightenment thinkers put Enlightenment ideals into America's founding document.
Yes in subsequent years some less than perfect things. But not everything is equal.
America has a more healthy birth rate.
Americans are more generally proud of their country - and that's a good thing. It means people who come here are actually drawn to something positive. If for example people come from a more oppressive culture, if there's isn't a positive cultural draw to something better, they may more readily retain the oppressive culture they're more used to (as a sort of safety blanket).
As an atheist, let me say: thank god for rural America, where there's a general counter culture to the relativism on the coasts. Not everything is equal nor relative. America is better because it's founders drew up documents directly from key Enlightenment values. Freedom of speech & therefore freedom of thought. Separation of church & state. Separation of powers. Not having direct democracy, but instead having a democratic republic. The right to bear arms - aka the right to be a Duck Dynasty person.
Liberal self hate is just as distasteful as the conservative variety. For example conservatives are upset that we're sexual animals, and that pleasure is an inherent part of sex. Liberals are upset that the reason sex exists in the first place is for reproduction. Conservatives are upset that outliers naturally exist. Liberals are upset that outliers aren't treated with "full equality," even though not everything is equal. Thus both sides are upset with the facts regarding human nature, evolution, and biology, in their own way.
Both sides question each other's motives, and refuse to realise that each side has some good faith goals. Both sides tend to be too short sided to give an inch on the key issues they care about. Fully natural human morality can and is rooted in religion, because religion is a natural phenomenon. It's so natural that two or more atheists gathered in the name of a social or political ideology can't help but form de facto religions, with belief maintenance, heresy trials, and excommunication all waiting in the wings.
The answer to conservatism isn't full blind liberalism. Rather a key answer to human flourishing is examine what's of value from all sides. What are the facts. What ideas help humans flourish & move forward and survive. The Enlightenment yielded some key answers. And that's why America is better - because it's founding ideals are better.
Foolish naivety leads bleeding hearts to venture into Syria, while other naive leftist bleeding hearts want out of Iraq.
When these two leftie forces come together, a "perfect jihadist synergistic storm" called Islamic State is born, and it happily & easily grinds up the naive bleeding hearts which helped birth it.
I do not doubt that the work of the woman noted in the news story was "noble" in it's own way, but it was also very foolish.
Islamic State (aka Islam) doesn't care about how much you care for others. You are kafir (a non-believer / apostate) to them, and that's it.
The left helped birth Islamic State, out of foolish naivety, and a desire to just "get out" "get out" of Iraq.
The response of the left to 9/11 was to embrace the religion of the attackers, and to invite humans whose brains are tied down by the cult of Islam into our borders en masse. Then when the cult members come to America and Europe, the left does *nothing* to help free these humans from the cult they belong to. Instead they set up legal protections to limit free speech & free thought which might rock the Islamic boat.
Jim Jones David Koresh L. Ron Hubbard Joseph Smith Mohamed
Cult leaders all. And the worst of these is Mohamed who birthed Islam. More destructive & dangerous. More destructive to the human spirit.
Thugs
across America (to the tune of Hands Across America). Thugs across this
land I love. Thugs everywhere, especially in and near Ferguson, Thugs
across America...
Commentary on recent events:
Don't dress like a gansta and get all in the face of the self appointed Latino private community security.
Don't remove the orange end from a fake gun and then wave the now even more real looking fake gun around in a park.
My
view: I agree with Bill Maher that Mr. Brown Jr. was a thug. A
strong-arm robber (as per convenience store video) who was well on his
way to trouble with the police. The officer involved probably reasonably
felt threatened, after tussling with Mr. Brown Jr. in his car.
The
incident with Mr. Brown Jr. is a piss poor vehicle for the black
community to latch onto for "justice" or much of anything else.
The
strong arm robbery (meaning a robbery done using just mass &
strength, being a HUGE guy who pushes people around such as the store
clerk shown in the video) that happened just before Mr. Brown's
interaction with the officer involved:
A
piss poor vehicle for justice or anything. Yes it was sad that the huge
thieving bully thug involved got killed, but he was a huge thieving
bully thug who struggled with a police officer & so on.
Humans are not born blank slates, and leftists work to deny human nature in huge ways. Righties deny human nature in other ways (& truth & facts). But it's sad to see that both sides are in denial.
Anyway I agree that NFL jocks who hit their girlfriends & wives should be ejected. I agree that abusers who break the law should be locked up.
There *may* be "rape culture" in some hiphop music. But it's way too non-PC to be honest about that...
Also rape is about sex, not just about control. I have no idea why people say it's not about sex. How do they know? And what happens during rape anyway?
"...Evolutionary psychologists have been at pains to show that rape is
actually a sexual crime through which men seek sexual gratification from
women who would otherwise refuse them..."
"...Which leads in to the reason why we keep hearing that rape is not about
sex. It is philosophically untenable to keep pushing the boundaries of
the sexual revolution without making rape seem less and less violative
by comparison, as the act which is coerced in rape becomes less and less
private, personal, and valued in society. So the only way to retain
the sense of horror at rape is to alter the rationale for rape being
bad; that the goal is total violation, so that the violence
becomes the issue; rather than the horror coming from the intimacy of
the act which was forced upon the victim, which is the old rationale..."
---
A tough topic but it's important to be honest. There's fear mongering & inappropriate shaming on the left that needs to be debunked, called out, and resisted.
Forcibly imposed upon self, and all people, undue flagellation & shame, because yes some humans are criminals or abusers. But not everyone is and we all shouldn't be treated like we are.
Anger and hatred at being human, at all humans, because a few humans do bad things. Now that is a type of "rape culture," rape of a different kind.
Both the right AND the left seek to use & abuse students in colleges & universities for their own ends. Both sides tell them lies, about human nature, and the truth.
A portion of the "sexual revolution" has, can, and does destroy families (ie: advocacy for non-monogamy, for the "childfree" life, for disposable marriages, and for seeking to have a general disconnect between sexuality & reproduction - all incredibly abusive tenants of the revolution).
The parts of the revolution that advocate for honesty, education, having more fun with our partners, being less inhibited with our partners, and not shaming for adults viewing other adults sexual activities (eg: sexuality expressed in art & film) - yes those are some generally good parts. But seeking to outright deny human nature, and decouple sex from having babies is evil & abusive.
Both sides have an agenda: to hide the truth in their own ways.
Yes evolution by natural selection did happen. No there is no god. But, on the other hand you can really fuck up your life if you "choose" to live a wastrel childfree life when you could have, and should have, had some kids. You can fuck up your children via adultery and believing you can easily bail on your husband or wife.
Separating yourself too far from the tree of life, and from basic human nature, can screw up your life & the lives of others.
Oh, and a certain percentage of humans will be naturally born criminals (sociopaths & worse). Lock them up, I very much agree...
BBC news: The world is going to hell in a hand basket. We all live in one country. When a medieval / stone age barbarian kills people in "another country," they are really killing people in "your county," in our country too.
When it comes to illegal immigrants, liberals believe in erasing the border.
When it comes to people being killed in Iraq, boy howdy that U.S. border goes up damn quick for them.
Speakin' as a (now former) liberal myself - well a modified liberal who wants nothing to do with Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Glenn Greenwald, or etc.
My experiment with touching my toe into the pool of conservative ideology is largely over. One too many worshipers of Ayn Rand showing up on "The Atheist Conservative's" page? Was that the tipping point? Maybe.
Being away from wastrels from the past, and their abusive friends, has helped. Plus being married, having two kids, and a wife with zero association with all the crap I've seen has helped also. Still taking a step back. But becoming more compassionate & open to hearing what the left has to say. The right is generally increasingly poopy smelling. The left, not so much. So, I'm a left-leaning moderate as of now.
Thanks 1.3 billion Chinese, oh and the Black Atheists of Atlanta, and even your average Mexican, for helping me question the leftists who hate "breeders," and life, and who are essentially wastrels part of a destructive death cult.
There's often zero room in your average atheist / humanist / Unitarian Universalist group for people who question the incredibly naive, dangerous, destructive, denialistic, nihilistic, narcissistic, denial of human nature, history, evolutionary biology, and so on, social positions of the left. The leftist death cult. Yes, I'm skeptical of that! Life is more important than these wastrels & their kin. Oh, but wait, they usually don't have children. But breeders will inherit the Earth...
Doesn't mean there is a god. But humanity may not quite be easily readily to go without this fully natural evolutionary trait (religion), like it or not.
-----------------------
July 2017 addendum:
I'm not longer in the leftist camp at all.
From socialist to very pro-capitalist.
From social leftist to social consevative.
Pro baby killing to pro life (with caveats for incest and rape, and only during very early pregnancy).
Against outlier 'marriage.' Children deserve to be in a normal-for-them environment, one which honors 1.2 billion years of sexual evolutionary history.
When leftists control the government they operate it in such a way which serves to deny their own evolutionary history and nature.
And with the passing of Christopher, his brother Peter is becoming more appealing every day, even if he himself doesn't accurately identify where his own morals come from:
Daniel Dennett's dangerous idea is one key: Religion is a natural phonomenon. Thus fully natural & useful human morality exists within religion.
We need protection from the pitfalls of human nature. Protection from outliers. Yes religion & culture help manage all this, for very natural & reasonable & rational & evolutionary reasons. An evolutionary response to how evolution has set us up.
So, judges can be incredibly naive. Even conservative ones. Outliers naturally come about. But they need to be a.) classified & identified for what they are, and b.) curtailed when they're destructive or dangerous. Not forcibly treated as "equal" in all venues IMO. For example maybe a child needs a mommy & daddy, ideally, for it's own best welfare & development - as a normal non-outlier child. Can the left (& libertarians) question their own presuppositions? Are they in denial about human nature also? I have observed that they are.
"Freaks Welcome Here." This is the key motto of the SVUUS, and of Unitarian Universalism / leftistism / atheism plus / most atheists groups. De facto.
I agree with Adam Corolla on this point: "...I don’t want to be lying on my deathbed and realize gay marriage and legalization of marijuana is all I discussed the last half of my life..."
Apartments? Ok. Jobs? Ok. Being funny? Yes please. Making art. Ok, good.
But raising kids? Not so fast.
When two John Thomases or two hoohaws can produce babies naturally, then there will be gay marriage.
Kids may well need a mommy & a daddy. 13.8 billion years of evolution by natural selection. Is that enough "proof?" Hey at least let's be skeptical of ripping children away form this long established fully natural non-outlier more-healthy norm, ok?
Even Dan Savage says that gay men are "pigs." Should two pigs raise a kid? Where's the naturally moderating force of a female human? The lesbian friends of the Dan-Savage-gay-couple? I don't think so.
Gayness is a side effect of how sex gets set up in humans. A side effect. Not a primary effect. The primary effect results in reproduction. Children come from reproduction.
Any oh so natural vegan, and Whole Foods shopper, should recognize the high value in raising children in a more natural & healthy way. And adopted kids should have an environment which most closely matches the natural & health way.
Not a single woman who has no intention of having a man around, knocking on the sperm bank door.
Not two men, or two women, knocking on the sperm bank or adoption agency doors.
Leftist denial of human nature & evolutionary history, all so they can claim to be protecting everyone's rights. What about the right of the majority to be protected from dangerous or destructive outliers? Indeed. We have that right too.
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.
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.
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.
Questions: "...How has life been since you left the LDS church? Do you feel like you're happier?"
Yes, I'm happier, for many reasons.
I'm also upset, for other reasons.
Happy because:
1. I have a wife & kid who aren't Mormon.
2. I'm out.
3. I can touch my John Thomas.
4. I can engage in oral sex.
5. I can drink coffee, tea, and cabernet sauvignon wine.
6. I can watch Destricted, or Caligula without shame or guilt.
7. My kid won't be a Mormon.
8. I'm more intellectually honest.
9. I'm more emotionally honest.
10. I'm no longer in the soul-destroying culture of Mormonism.
Upset because:
A. The "recovery" groups like Atheists of Utah, Unitarian Universalism, CFI, Humanist groups, Minnesota Atheists, Atheism Plus, and even your local Stonewall center (for those so sucked in), are all de facto ultra-leftist religions, with their own unquestionable dogmas & doctrines. Denying human nature & human history, while claiming to be skeptical. Assuming that everything IS permitted when there is no god, even though it's not.
B. The defeatist Krausian mayfly theory of human existence is out there in the secular community, teaching atheists to be just as nihilistic as your average evangelical Christian.
C. Finding that the left can be just as abusive as the right.
D. Finding that the left is so incredibly myopic about the entire scope of human experience. Only the hippie tribes are valued. But desert tribes, or even Chinese tribes, oh, we must ignore them. Hippie colored glasses slant their view.
E. On the other hand, I'm also upset that the Mormon Church continues to destroy the lives of children & adults, via wide publication in many languages of incredibly abusive books like Miracle of Forgiveness. I'm also upset that sexually intrusive interviews still happen with children & adults.
1. Tiny Robots Can Become Humping Lesbians Dreaming of Parthenogenesis
2. Old Fart Liberal Atheists sometimes can create life - Whodathunkit
3. Thanks to those who help us.
4. Speaking the truth.
-------------
Currently obtaining the newer Battlestar Galactica. My wife is very tired of Star Trek TNG. She liked Enterprise better. And DS9 may be way too boring I think though.
We need something much more sexy!
She also likes the Henson's Dinosaurs tv series. Thanks to me the S.L. library has copies in stock again of the latter item.
Hmmm. Farscape was another good one by the general Henson family. But it's a bit too, well, visceral for my wife's taste.
As for BSG, it's worth noting that we're also comprised of little robots of a sort - with apparently emergent properties once you get enough of them together.
Will machines eventually create robots that're more human like?
At present machines called humans naturally & rather easily produce more machines called humans. A uniquely fun, rewarding, & very challenging experience I recommend to those lucky enough to push forward with such an endeavor. Had to go to China to get mine - with the help of a man I met through a now defunct atheist group here who also has a Chinese wife. Worth it though.
Thanks long-time-atheists-in-Utah for that one, the old farts in the atheist community here who have zero to do with the new crowd. I wouldn't have a wife & kid if it weren't for you.
Sometimes the work of liberals does produce a baby. Amazing! Hmmm, I'll have to remember that. Oh, and there's the very nice gay man who helps us when we go on vacation. Yes, by hell that's true. A service oriented guy who spends his life helping others. Ok, thinking of him softens my view a bit perhaps.
Anyway, when the robots realize they're robots in fiction & stories, it's quite an experience for them.
What happens when humans realize the same?
The debate between Sam Harris & Daniel Dennett is one example:
Hey I like Harris when he does debates with theists. BUT on the issue of free will, I'm with Dennett.
IF you know you're made of tiny robots, and you think an MRI machine shows you DON'T have free will, will you be less, well moral? Yes, you will be less moral.
However if you know you're made of tiny robots, BUT you ALSO believe you have a reasonable amount of free will, you will be more moral.
Hmmm.
By extension, belief in the Bible may make you more moral. Quite true. It may also make you less moral, especially during the time of the Spanish Inquisition.
Black Atheism has nothing to do with the support or promotion of homosexuality, but White atheism does. Why do White atheists promote and support homosexuality? The answer lies in their European myths (Google Gay Zeus and Ganymede).
Homosexuality was routinely practiced by the Greeks. Their high god Zeus routinely had sexual contact with the mortal called Ganymede the Water Bearer proving that homosexuality and pedophilia was the highest standard of their culture. The ideas, concepts, customs and traditions that went into the making of the deity is a reflection of the culture of the people. Simply put, if you have no problem with homosexuality then you have no problem with deifying that concept into your ideal god.
Africans clearly had a problem with homosexuality because they never based a god around that idea and concept. They never based their culture or gods around that behavior. Another difference between Black Atheism and White Atheism —-White Atheism is based around Darwin and European science and culture. But, Black Atheism is based around the African symbol Khepera (Dung Beatle) and African science and culture. We follow the signs and symbols of African original culture, which clearly understood reproduction and evolution that is verified in the symbol of Khepera in the Nile Valley as early as 56,000 B.C. or earlier (reference Dr. Ben Jochannan and Dr. John Henrick Clarke).
Khepera is one of Africa’s oldest symbols of evolution and reproduction, which predates Darwin by thousands of years. Therefore, we don’t recognize Darwin as being the origin of the theory of evolution. To add, the law of reproduction clearly played out in the fertility figurines of the Black goddesses that you find first in Africa and then all over the world. White Atheists , however, do not acknowledge the law of reproduction. This is due to European science failure to officially recognize that the law of reproduction is the mechanism that causes evolution (gene mutation). Finally, the biggest distinction between Black atheists and White atheists is that we recognize racism and White supremacy.
----quote ends
Fascinating. I wonder how much of their views come from the fact that their ancestors were forced to come to America as slaves? Maybe some. Doesn't mean they aren't right on some points. Oh well, and they're made of tiny robots too.
Hey, if you're made of tiny robots, I suggest you try to make a new collection of tiny robots based on yourself and a friend. And, when our sun becomes 10% hotter causing the oceans to boil off, may I suggest that our distant children either re-engineer the sun or find another place to live.
We don't need to be defeatist narcissists like Lawrence Krauss. Or anally retentive a-holes like P.Z. Myers to represent the "atheist community" or the "atheist movement." But as with any movement you sometimes need a whole bunch of laxative to clear out the turds.
Thanks, Pinker, Dennett, and Hitchens, and the liberal atheist guy who helped introduce me to my wife. Also thanks to the gay guy who helps us go on vacations. Thanks, the Internet, for letting me speak even though some people want me to shut up.
Oh, and thanks Deseret News, you ARE good for something once in a while. Exposing the pedo that my gay nephew was friends with. Hey, if I'm ever friends with my gay nephew again, I'll be sure to tell him about how it was pretty stupid of him to befriend such a man. Live & learn. That's what I say. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Hey, it's human nature. Emergent activities of tiny robots. Whodathunkit.
And, this uncle who grew up in ultra-conservative Manti, Utah - dying of AIDS leaving his straight family with no father. A victim BOTH of Mormonism, and of the opposite side he jumped to in response.
Examples of the dark side of "social justice" advocacy in the atheist (bowel) movement:
Atheism Plus Social Justice Update Pt. 1: The Lulz
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
"...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.
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.
