And the worst of these is Islam: Foolish bleeding hearts helped birth Islamic State

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.

US Islamic State hostage Kayla Mueller confirmed dead
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31375445

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.

Homosexuality occurs in nature? So what. Can I be a "black atheist" too?

Homosexuality occurs in nature? So what. Can I be a "black atheist" too?

From the Black Atheists of Atlanta: "The homosexual community is co-opting the whole atheist movement." And they present the view that there's a difference between "black" and "white" science.

I can very much see their point on the first item. Gay flags are popping up as the front face for several atheist groups.

Also I can agree with them that when hard natural science attempts to address issues which are also in the "social sciences," scientist's own presuppositions & biases can and do affect both the options they're willing to explore, and the outcomes of their research.

Their videos:

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

My response:

URL for above video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px8vqBjmVFg

Ok, so when I left the Mormon Church, I rejected as much as I could of everything they said. That was the first starting point. But, as per Daniel Dennett, religion is a natural phenomenon. Not everything that comes from a religion is there because of the religion itself. Some of the ideas in a religion are natural, and those ideas are there for good naturalistic reason. Take away the religion, and the apparently built-in morals tend to remain - given time.

Religions can also warp a person's built in morality, but, and here's the key point, so can other ideologies.

Here's a picture of when I protested in front of the Mormon Temple Square in 1999:

...(oh my goodness, what a fat bastard I was in those days. It took a lot of work to loose 100 pounds and those thick glasses. Also I now consider Unitarian Universalism to be advocates for belief in and apology for bullshit. So that's been my evolution and Enlightenment process.)

Notice the book I'm holding up the book Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity by Bruce Bagemihl.

So, when I was a Mormon they taught us that masturbation would lead to homosexuality and that it must be confessed to a Mormon bishop. So they taught me & others to fear thoughts of sex, and of what happens when you come of age. Being a normal "straight person who sometimes masturbates" was who I was. And the whole gay movement had a similarly themed agenda. "I'm gay and that's who I am, so you have to respect me."

But, now, after being out of Mormonism for several years, and after learning more about science & history & hearing from all sides including those who question liberal dogma, I've come to conclude that not everything is equal.

Homosexuality is natural! - they say. So what. So is pedophilia. Oh, heresy, heresy, I've spoken heresy to an ultra-leftie liberal. But, hey, I've discovered the value of taking a step back, even from the presuppositions of the left!

Here's quotes of some one and two star reviews from Amazon.com of Bagemihl's book which I now largely agree with. See the original pages for author names:

Half-baked theory, July 28, 2004

The book's extensive documentation of homosexuality in animals may be valuable, but the book's style doesn't leave me with much confidence that its interpretations of the research are sufficiently unbiased to be relied upon.

The book's discussions of why it is hard to provide an evolutionary explanation of homosexuality are mostly reasonable, but the alternative to evolution that the book proposes isn't sufficiently well thought out to qualify as a testable scientific hypothesis. Evolutionary theory has a good enough track record at explaining things that appear at first glance to be counterproductive that people shouldn't reject it without finding an alternative with a good deal of explanatory power. But exuberance is an idea which explains very little. And anyone who has made impartial observations of typical natural ecosystems should see that the extravagance and waste that the book worships are sufficiently uncommon as to be hard to reconcile with the book's characterization.

So Much Written, So Little Conveyed..., December 27, 2004

Bagemihl belongs to the genre of writers who write a great deal but convey very little. His huge book is divided into two parts; the second part describes case studies of homosexual behaviors among several animal species, and the first part provides what could-with great difficulty-be called an analysis of these reports.

Bagemihl groups sexual behavior in terms of five broad categories: courtship, affection, interactions involving mounting and genital contact, pair-bonding, and parenting activities. Such broad categorization risks confounding social interactions with sexual behavior, possibly leading one to mistakenly assume that a preference for specific social partners is a sexual preference for these partners.

Bagemihl alleges same-sex sexual partner preference in at least some individuals in over 50 bird and mammalian species, based on five types of interactions: intersexual competition for same-sex sexual partners, sexual interactions between the object of intersexual competition and a same-sex competitor, repeated pair-bonding with same-sex individuals or repeated selection of same-sex sexual partners, reuniting with same-sex partners following prolonged separations with opposite-sex individuals, and engaging in sexual activity with same-sex individuals in the presence of opposite-sex individuals. Whereas these criteria are consistent with a same-sex sexual partner preference, none of them definitively prove a same-sex sexual partner preference, and an examination of the examples presented by Bagemihl reveals that the majority of the cases of same-sex courtship, mounting, and genital contact can be explained without assuming a same-sex sexual partner preference [see P. L. Vasey, Ann Rev Sex Res 13, 141 (2002)]. Besides, the large number of case studies cited by Bagemihl notwithstanding, his book cannot be used to claim that homosexual behavior is widespread in the animal kingdom because Bagemihl's case studies are drawn from a less than miniscule non-random fraction of the millions of animal species out there.

Bagemihl, failing to find themes behind homosexual behaviors among animals, offers a concept of biological exuberance, whereby homosexual behavior is pursued for pleasure and is a goal by itself that need not serve any purpose other than pleasure. Whereas this may be true, it is difficult to believe that this could be the result of normal developmental processes. Even among humans where much heterosexual behavior is non-conceptive, non-conceptive heterosexual behaviors typically occur as a prelude to or in conjunction with conceptive sexual behaviors. Additionally, the pleasure that accompanies orgasm not only prompts heterosexuals to repeatedly indulge in conceptive intercourse but also facilitates pair-bonding, which would come in handy if an offspring results from the union. Bagemihl's thesis on homosexuality, within a paradigm that he calls non-Darwinian biology, is meaningless for species that are capable of sexual reproduction only.

On the other hand, whereas Bagemihl fails to provide evidence for a same-sex sexual partner preference among the animal studies he cites, it has been proven that homosexual behaviors and a same-sex sexual partner preference are natural (i.e., occur irrespective of human intervention) in some individuals in some breeds of some animal species. However, nobody, let alone Bagemihl, has shown that homosexual behaviors are normal in some animals, i.e., result from development in accordance with design. Whereas the question of the normality of homosexual behaviors among some individuals of various animal species remains unanswered, a considerable amount of information shows that human homosexuality results from abnormal development, specifically prenatal developmental disturbances. See a newly published book in this regard: "The Nature of Homosexuality: Vindication for Homosexual Activists and the Religious Right."

Biological Exuberance or Scientific Burlesque?, June 15, 1999

This review is from: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Hardcover)
I must admit that I find some satisfaction in being a thorn in the side of the homosexual fantasy, but I do apologize to all the honest readers of Bagemihl's work for exposing this "manual of gay opinion" for what it is. Although the second half of the book might serve as an excellent reference for students of ethology (and as a sidebar to one reviewer, there are many, many texts about animal sexual behavior on the shelves of the libraries I frequent; I suspect many from before the reviewer was born), the first half of this text is nothing more than opinion, or what would be termed "observational science." Most unfortunate is the fact the Bagemihl's opinion is actually a second-hand opinion, dependent on the first-person opinions of original observers. I do see that such an extensive volume could be a labor of love, since the homosexual fantasy does not separate sex from love or vice versa.

As to whether or not homosexual behavior occurs elsewhere in nature, is there a true biologist, especially wildlife biologist, that believes otherwise? Every American farmboy can tell stories of observed homosexual behavior. Although it may seem a small step for Bagemihl to jump from adaptive homosexual behavior to homosexual orientation and lifestyle, this is truly a "giant leap for mankind." If one accepts Darwinian evolutionary theory, then at the species level all behavior serves one purpose: survival. Survival of the species depends on reproduction--asexual or sexual, and sexual reproduction exhibits a myriad of sexual behaviors all designed to enhance survival, specifically survival of the fittest.

Most of the behaviors Bagemihl references have been described as enhancing reproductive success, e.g. female bonobo copulation prepares females for future mating and increase fertilization success (and may even stimulate male bonobos, thus enhancing copulatory success). I will admit that there is little hard core, or "conclusive" science to support these interpretations, but the point is that all Bagemihl does in this voluminous text is offer a different interpretation based on his opinion (or a minority opinion if you will). Other interpretations are based on far more knowledge, experience, and collective reasoning.

Proposing consideration of modifications to traditional evolutionary theory based on his interpretation of other workers observations is a real travesty. If we were to modify our assumtions, hypotheses, and conclusions regarding evolution every time someone had an alternative perspection, evolutionary theory would be about as valuable as the theory of genetic predispostion to sexual orientation. We cannot construct science to fit any particular "perspective", such as the homosexual perspective, or it is no longer science, but politics, which is where the argument for homosexual equality should remain. At least in the political realm it is a valid argument. In the scientific realm, it has no ground on which to stand.

Because of the very unscientific nature of Bagemihl's interpretation, I strongly suspect this work will go the way of the early 90's so-called genetic research on the origins of homosexuality--quickly and quietly discredited. It is unfortunate that the discrediting of such works in the scientific community does not receive anywhere near the media attention and fanfare that the original release of such garbage receives.

To sum up, let me say that Bagemihl's work proves absolutely nothing and is more a product of a fertile imagination that of scientific rigor. Bagemihl does present a convincing argument, but he DOES NOT present any conclusive proof of anything. He is much more the marketer than the scientist. Homosexual behavior may (I emphasize "behavior" and "may") have adaptive significance as far as survival of the species. Most ethologists accept that humans do have bisexual behavior tendencies. However, sexual orientation or sexual lifestyle are human choices and deserve psychological interpretation, not biological. Rather than psychoanalyzing wildlife biologists and ethologists, Bagemihl should consider the psychology of the homosexual lifestyle, which in humans includes an emotional element not present in other species, because it is this choice, not homosexual behavior, that flies in the face of evolutionary theory, reproductive strategies, and ultimately, species survival.

Don't put any stock in this book, September 1, 2008

This review is from: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Stonewall Inn Editions) (Paperback)
Interesting how "scientists" can prove anything they want. State a hypothesis, then go about collecting information, categorizing it to suit your purpose, then use it as "proof" of your claim. The reason this book is dismissed by virtually every true biological scientist isn't because of "homophobic academia," (like the book's advertising claims)-it's because true scientific academia can see right through his preposterous claims. Come on, use real science and we'll all get on board with you.

Damn right. "There's gay animals?" So what. There's also ducks who rape. Lions who kill. And humans who are "naturally born" pedophiles, sociopaths, psychopaths, and so on. The "machinery" of biology & evolution may result in some outliers, but just because outliers exist naturally that doesn't mean they should always be fully respected in all cases.

I rather think homosexuality comes from two sources: a.) an artifact (natural byproduct) of the sexual "machinery" built into humanity and of the ways sex gets "set up" in growing infants in the womb, and b.) social acceptance & ultra-left liberal education. Not all a choice, but not all born in. Exposure to hormones in the womb can have an influence. But socialization has a huge influence, much larger than the politically correct left says.

There is something to be said for examining how homosexuality is expressed, or not, in other cultures, so as to question ALL dogmas on the issue, including those on the left. And of course to not go the way of Uganda and have the death penalty for such things. But I have observed my gay nephew & his friends at many gay parties and some gay bars. I have learned that not everything is equal.

Being "gay" for many is this: a near permanent petty & vain childhood state. No opportunity to have their own children, really. Selfishness. Sex which is non-reproductive, and thus they're left in this state for the rest of their lives - unless I suppose they adopt. Sometimes unless biology & nature forces responsibility upon us, we may get sucked into the trap of an otherwise stunted life.

So, THIS is the type of discussion which should be able to take place in atheist groups and in society as a whole, without demonizing or attempting to shout down the person who surfaces the idea!

I can hypothesize what it may feel like to be a gay man who currently dislikes or is fearful of the idea of sex with a woman. But like it or not, from a biological naturalistic perspective, such a person is damaged. An animal that chooses to not reproduce of it's own accord is damaged. Can you choose to work to become less damaged? Yes you can. Not by kissing the bum of some god. Not by joining some church. But rather by opening up your mind to the idea that sex with a person of the opposite sex may not only be valuable, it may be fun.

Look, a lot of sex is in the brain. Maybe your brain was exposed to too little testosterone. Maybe some quirk, accident, or artifact of nature allowed you to consider the possibility of sex with someone of your same sex. But, so what. Consider the costs of just assuming that everything is equal: a.) a largely selfish & permanently-childish life, b.) no real biological flesh & blood children of your own, c.) having to associate yourself with ultra-left demonizing dogmatists who have their own core list of dogmas and heresies, d.) being a perpetual outsider, and e.) having to waste a lot of your life in a wrong-headed "crusade for justice" - just so that you can try and force others to justify what was, in the first instance, an unfortunate choice on your part.

Maybe you cannot "choose" if you happen to like people of the same sex, but I argue that in a lot of cases you CAN choose to open your mind up to enjoyable sex (& therefore reproduction & true marriage) with someone of the opposite sex.

If you're a man who at present is reluctant to have sex with American women, maybe the thing you really oppose is the omnipresent ultra-feminist easy-divorce disposable-relationship culture present in America. If so, there's hope: go overseas if you must, or search harder for a down to Earth woman here. But don't let the hateful ultra-feminists get you down. There are down to Earth real women out there who will value family and children over other considerations.

So, no, you aren't going to hell. No you don't need to be kicked out of your family. But yes, relationships which include the option of real reproduction are superior! That's my view, as a naturalist, "humanist," atheist, and Enlightenment advocate. But, I know these words are heresy to some atheist groups, and that they'd happily go on witch hunts against such views. In that way they ARE rather like controlling religions. Atheism Plus is one such new religion of the ultra-left. And there's others. But those of us who took a step back from one religion don't wish to be sucked into another de facto one.

A gay flag flying on the front page of your "secular advocacy" group means you're not for really for reason, fully honest science, or truly open debates about all issues. Rather, it means your group has been hijacked by people who have naive & foolish assumptions, and by people who will demonize & call out "heresy!" to people who disagree with their assumptions.

I am a human who took a step back from a cult, took a while to explore, and to find that what remains inside us, our desire to reproduce, is something good & worth valuing. It's core to who we are and who we should be. Survival. Life. And true & fully honest science will back this up.

Additional post with more thoughts:

Family Values Atheism: Questioning liberal dogma
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/family-values-atheism-questioning.html
response to: "Porn site claims attack by LDS Church servers" and questioning sex with "boys" in gay culture
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/response-to-porn-site-claims-attack-by.html

Just because you like dicks doesn't mean you should cheat on your wife - and comments on the gay flag

Just because you like dicks doesn't mean you should cheat on your wife, get aids, die, and leave your family with no father. And just because you like vaginas as well as dicks that doesn't mean you should cheat on your husband, and then go off to live with your lesbo buddy.

I'm an atheist and I don't believe in cults of personality, nor in being drawn into the assumption that atheism necessarily leads to being socially ultra-left. Being an atheist for me means being willing to take a step back from all dogmas, not only from the right but also from the left.

Criticisms of flying the gay flag universally, as doing so may transmit the assumption that people in the flag-flying group universally agree with all aspects of the perceived "gay agenda."

On when bi or homosexual men cheat on their wives, get aids, die, and leave their families with no father. I believe we should be open to debate whether "middle children" should be encouraged to live a straight life - otherwise we are having unquestionable dogma points just like in a religion.

Just because a person is an atheist, a secular advocate, or an advocate for science & naturalism doesn't mean they embrace 100% of the ultra-left agenda.

Wives who're members of conservative religions should meet their apparently bisexual husbands half-way, by leaving their abusive conservative religions, and by not being upset about porn. And then the husbands should not cheat & go elsewhere.

July 19, 2013 - 7:44am

Exmormon Foundation: discriminating against children & their parents

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

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

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

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

Jonathan

Reply received from the vice president of the Exmormon Foundation:

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

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

----end of quote

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


----quote beings

Howdy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real people who show up are the most important.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jonathan