Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

The Batons of Christopher Hitchens; The natural underpinnings of social conservatism; Jordan Peterson's work

Recently I engaged in a debate with a muckety muck in the Church of Sam Harris regarding Jordan Peterson. The man is highly upset at my 'slander' regarding Harris.

Some people fancy themselves as the quintessential sons-of-Christopher-Hitchens. They have their profile photos permanently set as a cartoon of a cigarette smoking Hitch, and they never change that photo to something else, ever.

From my perspective the batons of Hitch have passed to several people, and several of those people are on the current right-side of the political spectrum, much the chagrin of fervent Church of Harris believers.

Partial list of people who've been the recipients of a Hitchian baton: Andrew Breitbart, Douglas Murray, Mark Steyn, Gad Saad, and even Dinesh D'Souza.

List of people who're traitors to the legacy of Hitch: Sam Harris; Church of Sam Harris priests who get upset at 'slander' against Harris; and all atheists who voted for Her.

One person interviewed by Saad is Jordan Peterson. Peterson recently engaged in a discussion with Harris, and Harris could not wrap his brain around what Peterson was saying. Understandable for more reasons than one.

Peterson speaks valuably against social constructivism and Marxism (as does Saad). He also speaks valuably regarding the nuclear bomb level impact of artificial birth control upon the human animal. And even before I heard of Peterson, I wrote the exact same type of thing.

https://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2016/02/lies-present-in-conservative-religion.html

Regarding Peterson's religiospeak, it's important (and mostly required) to interpret the totality of it within an enlightened naturalistic framework.

Dennett's 'dangerous' idea regarding religion being natural cuts several ways. One way it cuts is that fully evolved human moral codes are couched within religious contexts. Another is that every single syllable emitted from the vocal orifice of Jordan Peterson needs to be interpreted within context.

A highly valuable project: more accurately (and without leftist SJW prejudice) describing the inherent, evolved, and high value to enlightened social conservatism, and naturalistically articulate evolutionary psychology.

Peterson approaches such a merging more than Gad Saad, in his own way Petersonian way.

Thus a great thanks to Peterson for opposing Marxism and social constructivism, on campus and off. And thanks to him for revolutionarily speaking the truth regarding one specific concern of social conservatives (widely available artificial birth control).

Valuable and fully natural scientific work.

-----------

The Harrisian (Sam Harris and his aficionados) brain has problems grasping many things. For example:

1.) That free will fully exists within the human animal, in a natural, reasonably adequate, and compatiblist sense. Dennett is right. Harris is a myopic hack on this front.

2.) That consciousness is not an ineffable humming glow.

3.) That male circumcision is highly abhorrent.

4.) That there was high utilitarian value to voting for Trump.

5.) That voting for Hillary was a huge betrayal to the legacy of Hitch. The crooked racketeering Team Rape versus a pro-American and thus pro-Enlightenment good-hearted businessman who used His Own Money to block the raping racketeering Clintons.

Also Harris engaged in malpractice regarding his psychological diagnosis of Trump, one which was petty, shallow, moronic, analy retentive, boring, stupid, and obtuse - and fully on par with most Harrisian projects and pronouncements.

So thanks to Peterson, Gad Saad, and others.

Saad is a social liberal. Peterson seems to be a moderate. When more scientists get some balls and brain cells, and finally see value to fully evolved social conservatism, then there'll be progress. But until then, the pro-eugenics pro-death nihilistic hacks aren't scientists but rather they're just worse than worthless nihilists.

At least Saad is willing to entertain conservative ideas without becoming an utter nutter. And Peterson is closer to the truth of the evolved situation, in his own Petersonian way.

What evolutionary process is involved when decidedly childfree denialist abusively permissive SJW leftists just want want want to import admittedly also abusive Muslims to breed on their behalf?

The SJW children of let-it-all-hang-out 60s hippies love forcibly-hijabbed women and abusive Islamic Puritanism and Islamic large families.

Whodatthunkit.

Yes Islam warps natural evolved processes in highly wrong headed ways.

A better course would be for children of the Enlightenment to wake up, reject baby killing and artificial birth control, and breed themselves rather than to import rapey barbarian savages to breed on their behalf.

In any case Harrisian logic is rather like a weak cog in a half baked pie, to mix a metaphor. Krausian logic isn't any better by the way.

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

Excerpts from an exchange with a Church of Harris priest (COHP) on all the above:

"Peterson's ideas are only valuable inasmuch as one is willing to take his epistemologically foolhardy presuppositions for granted."

My response:

Hardly. No more than one must assume the god believer does everything in his life >because< his god is a 100% actual fact, as opposed to a perceived fact - one which exists within the required/knowledge support structure of the meme-gene system in which he exists.

Why do people do the things they do? A combination of biology, biological history, genes and memes, which all inseparably play off each other.

Biology, evolution, life, and ideas which are rooted in various aspects of being alive, and a processing machine which can (by happenstance and not) be used for other purposes also. But even those other purposes tie into the fundamentals of existence.

For example the mathematician and physicist usually want humanity to survive, and they can be driven to use their realms of knowledge for fully biological-imperative type purposes.

How does the world work, and thus by extension how do humans work.

Peterson is concerned about what happens when humans toss the baby of morality with the bath water of religion.

Since religion is a fully natural memetic-encasement of evolved morality, it's reasonable to add 'evolved' as a preface word to the terms 'religion' and 'morality.'

COHP: "Again, his epistemology is predicated on an exceptionally precarious conceptual foundation"

Response:

It's a fundamental fallacy and also myopic to assume that expressed-views are only valid if the person expressing them can articulately state a reasonable fully-scoped foundation for those views.

Peterson uses religiospeak which must be taken within a naturalistic context. There's no other context which is reasonable. And a lack of understanding on the part of the naturalistic evaluator can lead to fundamentally flawed conclusions.

Aside from the terms he uses, Peterson has concerns about the state of humanity, concerns which do directly relate to Dennett's dangerous idea regarding religion being natural, Peterson's concerns are highly relevant, telling, and apparently factual.

The baby of evolved human morality tossed with the bath water of evolved and fully natural mysticism.

There's big costs and impacts.

COHP: "His entire philosophy collapses beneath the weight of its own incoherence."

Response:

He seems pretty coherent to me. His concerns are highly valid and valuable to make note of.

The memetic bathtub he's in is interesting and nuanced, and must and can only be understood within an enlightened naturalistic context.

COHP: "an epistemology anchored to an ontological fact is conceptually unsustainable."

Response:

How does the world work.

How do humans work.

What is human nature.

Why do humans do what they do.

Why are we here.

How can we survive.

The noob atheist, the rebellious leftist and weed smoking libertarian, all assume that without (the concept of) a god everything is permitted. Such people, and their abusively permissive and denialist meme sets, simply do not understand how the world and humans work.

COHP: "It's based on essentially circular logic"

Response:
You're stuck in the weeds of philosophical word games and forced paths which fully fail to understand what's going on, with Peterson and with religious believers in general.

Idea sets which are inadequately contextualized need not be 100% self consistent nor 100% 'reasonable' to be 'valid.' 'Valid' meaning having naturalistic causes, and meme sets which can result in reasonable naturalistically-rephrased ideas and natural material useful facts.

As for circularity, humans are evolved animals, and many aspects of human nature circle back to this fact and the general facts of how the human animal works.

COHP: "any truth claim he makes atop that foundation instantly fails."

Response:

...only for those who lack a fully contextualized and enlightened materialistic understanding of what's going on.

COHP: "It's important that one's conception of truth can at least sustain itself."

Response:

Religions do sustain themselves via and for natural reasons.

COHP: "Peterson's truth eats its own tail in a million different ways."

Response:

Not that I've seen. And the truths within religions need to, and can only be, properly understood within natural contexts.

COHP: "If his definition of truth ultimately leads to the extinction of the human race..."

Response:

He wants us to survive, and rightly so.

COHP: "...does that mean that it was never true?"

Response:

Properly contextualized truth, yes.

COHP: "It makes absolutely no sense."

Response:

He makes sense to me.

Marxism: Peterson observed highly negative impacts. He doesn't like what he saw. He doesn't want a repeat.

One of Peterson's points is that rejecting traditional religion can lead to errors in thinking, and to incredibly high levels of abusiveness, denialisms, and moronity, as was and is the case with Marxism. The utter stupidity continues on campus today.

COHP: "The soviet union"

Response:

...was an anti-human-nature identitarian leftist utopian totalitarian evil corrosive human spirit destroying dead-end endeavor. Peterson knows this.

COHP: "It was the result of disillusionment in the church..."

Response:

...which led to something far worse. And the Soviet Union was a de facto religion, as is Marxism.

Visit most any atheist (or humanist or Unitarian Universalist) group in America.

State to them that you enjoy Duck Dynasty, and that you're a pro-life anti-gay-"marriage" atheist. See how long it takes for them to boot you: faster than a Mormon Bishop. A de facto religion with dogma, doctrines, heresy trials, and excommunication.

COHP: "Most Nazis were devout Christians."

Response:

Fascism is a left spectrum endeavor. National Socialism.

There is identitarianism in both Marxism and fascism. Group rights and group blames. Utopianism. De facto eugenics. Racism. Dogmas. Doctrines. Heresy trials.

Yes I see that Communism/Marxism and fascism all have corrosive tribalistic elements and religious ones too. Peterson rightly points out negative impacts.

COHP: "You've COMPLETELY misconstrued Dennett..."

Response:

Many hours listening to Dennett.

COHP: "Sam's positions."

Response:

Ditto.

Harris is a myopic hack.

https://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/sam%20harris

...on many fronts.

No Hitch-honoring Hitch-appreciator could or ever would vote for a Clinton.

The micro differentiations between spandrels and other effects are weedy sticky mud, regarding arguing about differences between what's one and what another. False choices based on myopathy. Why? Because here's the situation as previously noted:

Religion is a natural phenomenon which couches evolved traits.

There's synergies between memes and genes.

Not all religions are equal regarding positive and negative impacts.

Harrisian woo (Chamlers and Harris):

https://youtu.be/qi2ok47fFcY

https://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-woo-of-sam-harris-consciousness.html

Harris didn't learn from:

Dennett.
Hitchens.
Gad Saad.
Jordan Peterson.
Me, whom he censored.

------------------------------------------------------------ end of quote of direct exchange

Am I a quintessential 'son of Hitch?' Hitch isn't more important than my family & I don't claim he was correct on all issues. During his tenure I was partially swayed to the pro-Iraq-war side, but now I'm much more skeptical regarding the value of it. Moron Bush and even-worse moron Obama screwed up the place big time.

Time for Trumpian pragmatism now. But Hitch did free many brains from dogma, especially from leftist dogma.

Thursday, September 29, 2016

My Journey to Conservatism

The Aristotelian-Ptolemaic model of the universe ended up being wrong:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

Galileo helped correct as did others.

Newton wasn't wrong, but his concepts didn't include Relativity nor Quantum Mechanics nor  Quantum field theory.

Jeffersonian Deism's clockwork universe with a Supreme Architect was the most reasonable one at the time, but in light of current observations such a stance can no longer be reasonably supported.

Questioning dominant paradigms is actually quite a useful activity. And questioning and sometimes lampooning sacred cows. It's essential.

Enlightenment Values are worth preserving. America is the best example of a country which exemplifies Enlightenment values.

Values not given by any god. But rather given by 13.8+ billion years of evolution by natural selection, and by our history & choices.

The religious right denies the facts of evolution, while living lives which are often in fact 'most true' to it.

The dogmatic de facto religious left claims to believe in evolution, while often living lives which are essentially traitorous to evolution.

"...Although the initial development of moral foundations theory focused on cultural differences, subsequent work with the theory has largely focused on political ideology. Various scholars have offered moral foundations theory as an explanation of differences among political progressives (liberals in the American sense), conservatives, and libertarians, and have suggested that it can explain variation in opinion on politically charged issues such as gay marriage and abortion. In particular, Haidt and fellow researchers have argued that progressives stress only two of the moral foundations (Care and Fairness) in their reasoning, and libertarians stress only two (Liberty and Fairness), while conservatives stress all six more equally."
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

Religion is a natural phenomenon, a fact which cuts several ways. Yes it's another reason for the mystical claims to be debunked. But it also means that fully natural evolved human moral codes of conduct are often couched within religious contexts.

Dennett on religion being natural:
https://youtu.be/56VAZNx8HBQ

...a fact also mostly fully lost on all dogmatic leftist atheists who still have a chip on their should regarding being lied to in their former conservative religions.

Being wrong can be a virtue, if we're willing to change our minds upon new evidence.

Was born an atheist.

At age 5 learned there was a sky god. Seemed strange to me, but ok.

At age 9 learned I was a sexual animal. Whodathunkit.

At age 11 learned that the sky god was more than a bit upset at my being a sexual animal. The natural man, and 11 year old kid coming of age, is an enemy to god after all, right?

Between the ages of 19 and 21 I spent 2 years making maps on 3x5 cards, taking pictures of sunsets, and avoiding a proper admission that I was a normal sexual animal.

While at BYU at the age of 23 I started questioning the shaming the sky god likes to do regarding being a normal sexual animal.

While at Weber State I learned about physics and evolution. What I learned filled a hole left by my increasing rejection of the mysticism learned in my youth.

At age 26 I fully rejected the mysticism, and I resigned from the religion of my youth (Mormonism).

Between the ages of 13 and 23 I was a socially (religiously) conservative Democrat, because my father was a somewhat rare Democrat within a sea of Republicans within his religion.

At 26 I became more socially liberal, an ultra-liberal essentially. Drafted an exit journal.

In response to leaving an ultra-conservative religion, I switched to being an ultra-leftist socially.

Participated in a few nudist events, until I realized they were hypocritical.

Fully bought into Bruce Bagemihl's theory that because there's gay animals therefore gayness must be valued as a primary trail which is being selected for - which I now realize is completely & utterly wrong. Homosexuality is an outlier effect of the way sex gets set up in humans & in all animals which exhibit the treat. A side effect which is not being selected for. What's selected for is reproduction & survival, period. The machinery of biological evolution produces outliers. Doesn't meant the outliers have inherent value. Also doesn't mean they should be thrown off buildings, except for outright pedophiles and psychopaths.

Was a fat bastard living in my parent's basement. Developed cataracts. Had cataract surgery. No more thick glasses. Lost 110 pounds. Lived in Portland, Oregon for a year and a half. While in Portland visited a swingers event once. Didn't witness anything explicit & didn't participate. But I saw basically how they operate. And my assessment was that the way they organized themselves was strange & basically abusive.

After leaving Portland I married a socially conservative atheist from rural China with zero connection to the Book of Mormon, Bible, or Quran.

Took in via videos & lectures much of the work of the following people:

Christopher Hitchens
Richard Dawskins
Daniel Dennett
Steven Pinker
Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Events like 9/11 happened. The Denmark Mohamed cartoons & the stupid & crazy responses. Theo Van Gogh being killed after he released a film about how women in Islam are abused. The Charlie Hebdo massacre. The Garland, Texas Draw Mohamed contest which two Islamic people tried to shoot up.

I examined the response of the left, of the Democrat part of my father, of all the stations & people who liked & listened to & would have listened to. As an ex-Mormon, I examined who exactly supported drawing Mohamed. Who supports ex-Muslims? Who supports Muslims leaving Islam? It's not he left. It's not the Democrats. So, I realized I was wrong, about politics.

My socially conservative atheist wife helped me question the socially leftist paradigm I had bought into as an ex-Mormon with a chip on his shoulder about the lies of Mormonism. Daniel Dennett's talks about religion being a natural phenomenon helped also. Plus I had years of experience of engaging in first hand observational de facto studies of what the left has to offer socially. The nhilism of narcissism of gay culture. What being 'childfree' really means: slow motion suicide. That the left is in denial regarding the roots of homosexuality. And when I told an atheist group in Salt Lake that I liked Duck Dynasty, they booted me in a worse way than I ever experienced when leaving Mormonism. A very religious way of booting.

The children of breeders will inherit the Earth. The 'childfree' will not, and neither will the non-breeding gays.

In the past I used to hate Ayn Rand. Now I'm willing to check out some of her ideas, because mostly *only* libertarians support drawing Mohamed nowadays, and a very few lonely leftists who're mostly in denial regarding how the left has left them behind.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, really was a eugenicist. And Christopher Hitchens has rightly pointed out that the unborn do have some rights. The left is wrong about these points also.

While a member of another leftist atheist group, Salt Lake Valley Atheists (now defunct), I observed how they kicked out of their midst a pro-life atheist woman. That experiencing was eye opening for me. Prior to that I thought that atheism equaled skepticism & reason. Now I realize it doesn't, not automatically. Leftist atheism is just another f-ing religion, a cult.

So I'm in recovery from leftistism, politically & socially.

The conservatism I embrace is not that of Glenn Beck, nor of establishment Republicans. I reject religios conservatism which seeks to shame people for masturbation & oral sex & an appreciation of art which falls into the nude and erotic spheres. There is no god who gets upset when gay people meet up. But, from an evolutionary perspective, they'd probably be happier if they lived straight lives.

Heresy, heresy, heresy, for your average leftist atheist who is just so upset with the conservative religions of their youths & etc.

Not throwing out the baby of good evolved highly valuable human values with the bath water of mysticism is a very hard task. Most just assume that 'without god everything is permitted.' But it's not. Not because there's no god, but because we're highly complex evolved moral animals. Evolved moral codes act as counter weights to also evolved proclivities which can lead to destructive dead ends.

Current people on my appreciation list:

Trump - what swayed me to his side after some initial skepticism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiA0P9iELAA
(Milo Y talking with Rubin)

Christopher Hitchens - provided initial key skepticism regarding the Clintons, and regarding some leftist doctrinal tenants. No one left to Lie To, book info.

Daniel Dennett - a much better philosopher than Sam Harris (Harris is I realize now, a myopic hack)

Steven Pinker - debunked the 'blank slate' concepts of social constructivists. Related videos, longer part 1, part 2. And a Ted talk.

Bosch Fawstin - an ex-Muslim who won the Draw Mohamed cartoon contest in Garland, Texas. Talk to Children of Jewish Holocaust Survival. Cartoon contest talk.

Mark Steyn - skepticism regarding the 'hockey stick' concept regarding climate change. Very honest regarding the facts & impacts of Islam.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - an ex-Muslim truth teller. Colleague of Theo Van Gogh who got killed as noted above. She needs round the clock security, and in America only a conservative think tank would help pay for that security. Leftists consider her to be racist & bigoted - so this is a key reason also why I'm no longer a leftist.

All Enlightenment thinkers, and the Enlightenment-based founders of America.

Roger Stone - a long time truth teller who I've newly found

Dinesh D'Souza - a debate partner with Hitchens. Hitchens told the truth about the Clintons, and Dinesh has a great movie about the issue now. Dinesh may be wrong about whether a god exists, but he's right about the impacts of leftist atheism (very negative nhilistic impacts).

Rush - a valuable truth teller who for too long I discounted & hated. He was right all along. I was wrong for many years.

Sean Hannity - a guy with 20 years of real work experience who hasn't forgotten what it's like to be a regular working Joe. Truth teller.

Milo Yiannopoulos - a brash conservative gay Brit who helped me see the high utilitarian value to a Trump presidency.

Doug Mainwaring - a guy who came to his sanity and returned to be with & support his straight family, AKA his family. My uncle wasn't so lucky, and was a victim of the ultra-right and the ultra-left.

---

Related posts:

Lies present in conservative religion force children into the abusive arms of the denialist myopic left.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2016/02/lies-present-in-conservative-religion.html

Where does social conservatism come from? From human nature.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/11/where-does-social-conservatism-come.html

Humans are not Bonobos - Response to Darrel Ray and his brand of so-called Secular Sexuality - Commentary about abusive leftist confusion regarding human nature, and the evolutionary roots and benefits of some degree of sexual shame.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/10/humans-are-not-bonobos-response-to.html

Lives and families are destroyed by Tranny and Gay acceptance and promotion - LGBT abusive outliers are not equal
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/07/lives-and-families-are-destroyed-by.html

Homosexuality occurs in nature? So what. Can I be a "black atheist" too?
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/homosexuality-occurrs-in-nature-so-what.html

On American exceptionalism: the left's hatred of America
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/02/on-american-exceptionalism-left-hatred.html

Thank God for the Crusades - speaking as an atheist
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/02/thank-god-for-crusades-speaking-as.html

And the worst of these is Islam: Foolish bleeding hearts helped birth Islamic State
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/02/and-worst-of-these-is-islam-foolish.html

Naked women protesting: The EXACT response needed, to Islam in general, Islamic State, and censors of Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/02/naked-women-protesting-exact-response.html

Comments in response to the general Mormon stance on marriage
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/02/comments-in-response-to-general-mormon.html

Latest thoughts on the pressing issues of the day
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/02/latest-thoughts-on-pressing-issues-of.html

Leftist religion loves Islam and hates the West and the fruits of the Enlightenment
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/01/leftist-religion-loves-islam-and-hates.html

The Atheist Movement needs move laxative - Making room for social & political conservatives!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-atheist-movement-needs-move.html

John Harvey Kellogg: what a fucker. Masturbation prevention is evil.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/10/john-harvey-kellogg-what-fucker.html

response to Rory Patrick's 100 day masturbation abstinence - the pain and sorrow of having genitals
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/10/response-to-rory-patricks-100-day.html

Balkan Erotic Epic - part of the set of short films in Destricted - commentary & review
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/10/balkan-erotic-epic-part-of-set-of-short.html

Liberal anger at being human - Criticisms of California Senate Bill SB 967
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/10/liberal-anger-at-being-human-criticisms.html

whitewashing history -- sex obsessed ancestors -- nudist hypocrisy
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/09/whitewashing-history-sex-obsessed.html

Are Mormonism & Catholicism homosexual & pedophile generators?
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/are-mormonism-catholicism-homosexual_24.html

Questions for Mormon Missionaries - God, Sex, and honesty | 16 questions for Mormon Missionaries
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/03/questions-for-mormon-missionaries-god.html

Repackaged bullshit: Porn The New Tobacco | Jack Fischer | TEDxBinghamtonUniversity
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/08/repackaged-bullshit-porn-new-tobacco.html

The best part of social conservatism advocates for family & life & children & what leftists derisively call 'breeding.'

Breeders will inherit the Earth. Problems with "recovery" from religion
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/breeders-will-inherit-earth-problems.html

Really the children of breeders will inherit the Earth.

The worst part of religious-based 'conservatism' comes from religions which use fear & shame to teach children & adults to hate the evolved sexual systems in their bodies. But this 'conservatism' doesn't conserve anything. It just tends to churn out destructive ultra-right and ultra-left abusive extremists. The ultra-right religionists who stay in their religions & who continue teaching their children to hate their bodies & the fact that we're sexual animals. And the children who reflexively rebel, turning into non-reproductive outliers & 'childfree' wastrels.

Liberals have a strange alliance with ultra-right religious 'conservatives.' Leftists hate human nature just as much as the ultra-right religionists seems to. The combined human-nature-hating team consists of: Islam people, some Mormons, some Catholics, and leftists who a.) love Islam, and b.) hate the fact that human males are evolved to enjoy good looking women - and who hate 1.2 billion years of evolutionary sexual history just as much as the ultra-right religionists do. Leftists also hate the fact that humans are sexually dimorphic, and they actively ignore that we're not 'blank slates,' as Steven Pinker has commented on.

I'm for good women and men who put family & children first.

I'm proudly voting for Trump. He's my kind of Republican. Not a highly shaming human-nature-hating right-wing religionist, nor a human-nature-hating leftist.

Conserving through truth telling. Conserving through advocacy for family. Conversing through de facto advocacy that the Western Enlightenment continue - which also means conserving and protecting America & traditional American values.

Perhaps where I'm at is a socially moderate / conservative / pragmatic libertarian. But I strongly maintain that pot does rot your brain. And I don't dogmatically follow all libertarian principles. Libertarianism can be a de facto religion too, and I don't wish to join any religions.

I probably aspire to the conservatism Jonathan Haidt mentions, with more equal alliance to Care, Fairness, Liberty, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. The Sanctity of life, not the Sanctity of sacred cows. Loyalty to the Enlightenment and Enlightenment principles. The Authority of the Rule of Law. Care, but not through the Dole because the Dole helps no one mostly. Fairness, but not 'social justice.' Fairness through a fairness of opportunity - but not opportunity at the cost of group rights hierarchies nor identity politics.

Friday, February 19, 2016

Lies present in conservative religion force children into the abusive arms of the denialist myopic left.


Frankly, the thing which hurts conservatism are the pervasive and *required* lies present within religions like Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity.

Are you a pro-family & pro-life conservative?

Then don't lie to your children about a mystical god, or a about a prophet who's rear end all are required in your religion to kiss, or a non-existent Savior who also likes rear-end kissing (of his own).

By lying to your children, and by forcing them to lie (oh, and by too much shaming regarding such issues as masturbation (!)), you will force them to respond ping pong style.

Ultra-right as a chump in your religion, and THEN ultra-left!

The exact opposite of what you were hoping for.

It's quite true that the left (including the hippie & communist left) deals with the new technology of birth control with the same care & consideration as nuclear bombs were dealt with back in the '50s - ask all the cancer-ridden 'down winders' who were exposed to radiation during that time.

It's quite true that birth control & easy birth-control-connected-abortion have given humans the false impression that sex is for anything BUT reproduction, which it is not. Sex only exists in an inherently reproductive context, period.

So, Mr. & Mrs. conservative religionist, I can see why you're wary of having your children exposed to the vagaries of leftist relativism, extreme naivety, and myopia.

But you aren't helping things via lying to them about your imaginary god, nor about how everyone MUST suck up to your prophet or to your Savior, or else.

The Atheist Movement needs more laxative. Room should and must be made for social & political conservatism.

Exactly what connection does rural China & rural India have to do with the Bible or the Quoran or the Book of Mormon? Zero. So they are essentially a de facto control experiment, and can be accurately seem as an example for your average leftist atheist / "humanist."

Is "religion" the root cause of social conservatism, or is it human nature & evolution? Will life be a f-ing panacea if we can all just live like Bonobos, and let it all hang out? No. Lives are destroyed via such assumptions. We are NOT bonobos.


Let children be raised by two non-inherently-reproductive outlier-type females or males? It matters not, right?

Being "childfree" helps you be the most "true" YOU there is, right?

Don't have children because people in third world countries have too many, but for some reason they don't get enough peas in their diet so you still need to have as many peas in yours as you can in response, right?

Let strangers raise your children while you show that your EQUAL EQUAL EQUAL in all ways to men, right?

These are a few key tenants of current denialist leftistism. Denial of human nature. Denial of human history, evolutionary history, and sexual history.

And when you essentially force your own children out of your house and out of your religion, by a.) forcing your children to believe lies and maintain-as-true key lies, and b.) engaging in far too much (!) sexual shaming & too much shaming & control on other fronts, you will force them right into the hands of abusive leftist relativist denialist moron culture. The exact opposite of your otherwise reasonable goals for them.

So, how to move forward?

Some degree of shame regarding sex is warrantied, the type that helps people avoid lethal STDs for example, but not the type which says that masturbation is evil! Why mention the latter, because f-tard leaders in religions like Mormonism do.

Teach your children about the >fact< of evolution, but also teach them that religion & culture *evolved also and simultaneously* to help us *avoid* destructive behaviors!

Yes we should wake up about the non-existence of all gods and the facts of evolution by natural selection, but we should also be woken up to the FULL facts, not the partial denialist relativist "facts" which are generated solely from the ultra-left side.

Religion is a fully natural phenomenon as is culture.

Yes humans have fully evolved destructive & outlier proclivities which can destroy. Prohibition-elements of various types *also* evolved to counter destructive impulses.

Like it or not that's how things have been set up in us, not by some god, but rather by fully natural evolution by natural selection.

-----

Where does social conservatism come from? From human nature.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/11/where-does-social-conservatism-come.html

Lives and families are destroyed by Tranny and Gay acceptance and promotion - LGBT abusive outliers are not equal
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/07/lives-and-families-are-destroyed-by.html

The Atheist Movement needs move laxative - Making room for social & political conservatives!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-atheist-movement-needs-move.html

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
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/conservative-naturalism-dont-put-your.html

Conservative Naturalism: Culture War General Commentary - 5-22-2014
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/conservative-naturalism-culture-war.html

Embracing true honest naturalism: Marriage is about children
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/embracing-true-honest-naturalism.html

More on the ping pong game - hard facts for the Mormon & Catholic churches:
Are Mormonism & Catholicism homosexual & pedophile generators?
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/are-mormonism-catholicism-homosexual_24.html

The talk I gave at my mother's funeral - February 2010
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/funeral-talk-that-i-gave-in-february.html

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Where does social conservatism come from? From human nature.

Leftists seek to censor, again and again and again. They demand you either fall in line with their views, or that you shut up.

Here's some of my recent reflections on the pressing issues of the day, posted in a place where deletion is less likely (originally posted on
Faisal Saeed Al Mutar's facebook page).
============

OMG there is no such think as an unbiased journalist. Some bias is useful, and the more I look at things I see that a rightist bias is more reasonable.

Pro-family.

Pro-life, as in human life, as in survival.

Pro-Enlightenment, generally speaking, de facto (even if a given person claims they just 'hate' 'hate' 'hate' Darwin's findings, they can still be de facto pro-Enlightenment but what they say and do).

Pro-the-truth.

In the wake of Hebdo, exactly who on this planet published the cartoons? Who, exactly? Leftist media? "Main stream" media, which is de facto leftist? N-O.

As an ex-Mormon I can see the plight of ex-Muslims, fighting to be heard. People like Bosch Fawstin, who face death threats in response to their life work, and there's many others: Ayaan, Maryam; and that's not to mention the atheist bloggers who've been killed.

Where does the truth lie? In being honest and true to our evolutionary history. Embracing enlightenment & science, but not throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Daniel Dennett's dangerous idea is that religion is a natural phenomenon. That fact cuts several ways. Fully natural & useful & evolved human values exist w/in religion - values evolved to help us avoid destructive behaviors. But religions can and do go overboard: the hijab; controls on dating & marriage - Islam goes *way* too far in the negative & controlling direction.

In the 90s I thought Mormonism was the fruit of all evil, but now I see Islam as a far bigger problem.

And an an ex-religionist it's hard to admit that some shaming is useful, from a utilitarian perspective. Yes there's damn good reasons not to get an STD and leave your family with no parent, for example. Letting it all hang out has real world downsides.

Finding a balance between the crazies on all sides is hard work. The left is too permissive. The right is too uptight.

Freedom of speech comes from a limited slice of human heritage & experience (ref. Mark Steyn). Most people don't value it - which is one reason why it must be valued by those of us who were either born into or adopted into the Western heritage.

Who stands up for free speech? Not "the left," generally speaking. Who published & who was willing to show the cartoons? There is your answer - the camp we should go to & join.

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

[In response to the above post a pro-gay-marriage person complained and stated that his gay "marriage" to his gay associate was an example of family values. I then drafted the following reply, a reply which resulted in a ban from FB for 24 hours. I don't think they liked my use of the tranny &
femin*zi terms. But it's apparently quite true that there are strong institutional barriers against speaking one's mind & speaking the truth. Honest observations and honest opinions. True diversity encompasses a diversity of opinion (!), just just a diversity of skin tone.]

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

Control experiment: Visit human communities who're opposed to gay-advocacy & gay "marriage," communities which have zero connection to the Bible or the Quran. Ask what they think. Do their views have value? Where do their views come from?

Religion is a natural phenomenon as noted. Dismissing out of hand everything w/in religion simply because given values are couched w/in a religious context is wrong headed & foolish & unscientific and unhistorical.

Outliers exist. They are side effects of how evolution works, how sex gets set up in humans. Outliers are a side effect of selection, not a root cause for selection.

When the human animal can naturally produce children via outlier "sexual" activity, or via natural non-interventionary parthenogenesis, then outlier "sex" will no longer have an outlier status.

Gay people can be service oriented and they can help main-line non-outlier humans who can and do naturally reproduce. But outliers can also inappropriately assume that they should essentially steal away children into outlier culture.

Gay culture is no place for children. Gay men tend to not be faithful. Gay women don't have father-figures around at all.

Non-faithfulness is simply a way of life w/in gay culture. Also children have been hard coded (by evolution, by nature) to *need* to be raised in a household where a mother & father are present.

So re gayness: here's for contributors like Alan Turing, Stephen Fry, Douglas Murray, and so on. That's all fine and good. But I suggest not whitewashing problems with gay culture & so-called gay "marriage."

Yes gay people can hook up, but they cannot have true sex nor true & honest marriage. Why? Because sex only happens when two sexual animals engage in inherently reproductive activities with their sexual organs. Other activities with one's sexual organs are not, literally, and in any real meaningful scientific sense, sex. And as marriage has been a direct extension of inherently reproductive sex, AKA sex, there is only one type of true & honest & meaningful marriage.

It's not about civil rights. Outliers have every right to work to not be outliers. That's why I support secular groups like NARTH. My gay nephew certainly would benefit from association with such a group. He lives such a wastrel, petty, selfish, mostly meaningful life, it's amazing and sad. Seen this first hand. I also say how he & his friends readily accepted a convicted pedophile into their friend community after the pedo was released from prison.

Oh and then there was my gay (or "bi") uncle who died of AIDS: a victim of the abusively permissive glory hole culture of San Francisco, thereby leaving his straight normal family (AKA his family) with no father. My uncle was a victim of both the ultra-right and the ultra-left - a victim of the ping pong game that happens when people rebel in response to exposure to ultra-right religion.

Ultra-left religion is no "answer" to the cultural & religious right, nor is it a panacea.

In my infancy I drafted:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal_Mormonism.htm
...a Mormon exist journal of a newbie ultra-leftist

Then when I grew up and tossed my ultra-leftist colored glasses I graduated to:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/
...where I am willing to examine truth from all sides, and where I take w/a grain of salt the dogmatic claims of all sides.

Gay "marriage" is not about families, it's about a basic denial of human nature, a denial of 1.2 billion years of sexual history, and ~13.82 billion years of evolutionary history. Leftists deny human nature all the time even more than righties do. At least rightist culture can help one avoid deadly STDs, the "childfree" life, a dead end life, a wastrel, a life as a lesbian femin*zi, and so on.

I am happy to have the gay people (AKA biological outliers) who contribute to society, and who help those of us who *are* inclined to naturally reproduce. But please don't steal away our kids into your sometimes-abusive culture. Gay culture is no place for kids.

Related thoughts:

Lives and families are destroyed by Tranny and Gay acceptance and promotion - LGBT abusive outliers are not equal
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2015/07/lives-and-families-are-destroyed-by.html

Embracing true honest naturalism: Marriage is about children
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/embracing-true-honest-naturalism.html

https://www.facebook.com/Seculars-Against-Same-Sex-Marriage-293011477509961/

I'm Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
by  Doug Mainwaring
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/

From Jesse Bering: "...Even in societies where homosexuality was tolerated, such as in Ancient Greece, men tended to engage in pederasty with adolescent boys while maintaining wives and families at home..."

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/08/01/the-end-of-gays-gay-marriage-and-the-decline-of-the-homosexual-population/

Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'
http://www.wnd.com/2002/04/13722/

A journalist's second thoughts
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-10/gorman-second-thoughts/4809582

Children of gay "marriage" who're against gay adoption:
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK64ajNt9QU
2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeNrPJ42Xoo
3: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/ten-arguments-from-social-science-against-same-sex-marriage

Geezus is not my savior, nor do I believe in Mohamed. But socially conservative atheists from rural China can serve as a control group and a counter to leftist relativism & leftist denialism.

In as much as gay culture produces people like Douglas Murray, I say let's have a million of them. The more neocons the better, yes that's true. But please let's have less gays like my gay nephew & less gays like my gay uncle, please.

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

Related thoughts:

The Atheist Movement needs move laxative - Making room for social & political conservatives!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-atheist-movement-needs-move.html

Monday, November 24, 2014

Buddhist ideas polluting science & reason: free will, the self, and consciousness

Found this.

Sam Harris’ Buddhist Bullshit
http://chrisdierkes.com/sam-harris-buddhist-bullshit/

I agree that Harris's general views on the brain, free will, and the self may well all be warped by and clouded by his exposure to Buddhism.

Listen to the *whole tone* of Harris's work on free self, consciousness, and the self, and one general path emerges: toward Buddhism masturbatory obsession with getting *all things* out of your head, to find some sort of "peace."

But Harris's views on free will & the self are in my view myopic & simplistic.

When the "software" of the brain is running, the "self" does exist. We feel it does. Is that an illusion? No. Simply because the software or wetware or whatever can be turned off partially doesn't mean that when it is up and running it's an "illusion." No, it's not an illusion. It's quite real, and quite physical.

Free Will and The Self Are Not Illusions!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/11/free-will-and-self-are-not-illusions.html

And found this today:

"...Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate..."

"...Even if you achieve a blissful acceptance of the illusory nature of your self, this perspective may not transform you into a saintly bodhisattva, brimming with love and compassion for all other creatures..."

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2003/02/buddhist_retreat.html

Ha ha!!! So this is Harris's problem! Even someone like Harris can have his views warped by a religion - one he likes very much, apparently.

I like a lot of what Harris has done in debates, but talk of free will & the self being illusions, well, smells a bit too much of Buddhism, AKA a religion.

Additional thoughts on Buddhism:
the violence of Buddhism - relativism, cult of personality, ignorance, & pacifism
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-violence-of-buddhism-relativism.html

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Amerindian Culture condemns an 11 year old to death, today, now, in 2014

Should an 11 year old American Indian with leukemia be condemned to death, because  of the new age raw food eating modern medical science denying "aboriginal" beliefs of her parents? When self hating leftist hipsters in Florida and Canada do it it's not child abuse, right?

Is this a triumph for "native" "aboriginal" rights?

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5028666-aboriginal-girl-who-refused-chemo-is-critically-ill/

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/11/17/an-ontario-court-dooms-a-first-nations-girl-with-cancer/

The savages are not so noble after all.

More info on the term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

Pinker on the general issue & other leftist denial of human nature:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

A related book found:
War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage
http://www.amazon.com/War-Before-Civilization-Peaceful-Savage/dp/0195119126

In my view Canada has become oh so very politically correct, and enmeshed in liberal self hate, that they cannot help but let this 11 year old "noble savage" die of leukemia.

My own further views on so-called "natives:"

American Indians: No group of humans are uniquely more noble
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/american-indians-no-group-of-humans-are.html

Noble Savages? Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez, Wikileaks, Bolivia, Amerindians (American Indians), and so on.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/07/noble-savages-edward-snowden-julian.html

Leaders in the Amerindian community are furthering past abuse by  whitey by such actions. Taking the sword from the whites of the past, holding it in their own hands, and using it themselves on their own children.

Friday, October 3, 2014

latest thoughts on how atheism is a de facto religion

Found this on facebook:
"Atheism is a religion" I see that is the new thing going around. This is simply NOT true!!
My response:

Using all caps does not increase the validity of an argument.

If political ideology & goals have been brought into one or more atheist groups you belong to, which I'm sure they HAVE, then yes you have a de facto religion.

Are children blank slates? The modern denial of human nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate

Are the wages of sin, death (in other words, are there very good fully natural evolutionary reasons religions came up with prohibitions regarding destructive behaviors)?
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-29442642

More general counter-counter commentary:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/

Additional humanist counter-theory:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/

The more popular groups, such as CFI, American Atheists, and national humanist groups do very much have political goals & ideologies engrained in their core group "missions." And so, rather like the creationists do with Darwinian evolution & the god concept, they put the cart before the horse.

Oh, and pot does rot your brain...
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/16/casual-marijuana-use-may-damage-your-brain/

http://io9.com/5903837/what-cannabis-actually-does-to-your-brain

Add Atheist Community of Austin and Atheists of Utah to the list of new religions.

A single atheist may not be a religion. But when more than one is gathered in the name of a political ideology, they quickly become one, de facto.

Recovery from Atheists of Utah
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/recovery-from-atheists-of-utah.html

Do you all see a difference between being an atheist and being antireligion? | Atheism is a religion
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/04/do-you-all-see-difference-between-being.html

Shermer on confirmation bias:
http://www.michaelshermer.com/tag/confirmation-bias/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Resignation from the FB group Uncensored LDS/Mormon Discussions

Today I resigned from the group Uncensored LDS/Mormon Discussions.

Why, might you ask?

Oh my god. The answer is so easy: Because the group has censorship!

Here's a copy of the letter I posted:

Ok I'm out of here. I returned to the Mormon pie for a while. Now it's time to leave I can see.

Previously I had mostly moved passed the need to constantly chat about the Mo church. Then I was invited to join this group. I was attracted by the "uncensored" label, and found some joy in being in a place which I thought was truly uncensored. An open forum. And so on.

My experience here was not fully pleasant. Personal attacks - once I questioned some people's dominant paradigms. Then having to block several people who either were directly offensive, piling on, and then as a defense to block a few others who looked to me like they probably were good candidates (because they probably wouldn't like hearing from the "other side" of a given issue as per their own profiles).

Many admins are still too "new exmo," or they've landed in a place where their whole being cannot easily tolerate criticisms of where they've landed.

I have no idea why I blocked one of the admins. But at the time I probably had a good reason. Maybe it's time to search for forums outside the scope of FB again. More anonymity. More freedom. Less control, in general. But mainly more freedom to speak.

FB does have a "blocking" feature. IMO it's generally an abuse to force people to refrain from blocking "all admins" on a given forum (especially when a given forum has many admins), if some of those admins are either a.) the attacking type, or b.) engage in admin-enabled pile ons, or c.) appear to be a person who probably would engage in an attack based on their own strong positions unyielding positions on a given issue.

Ok, so we'll see you on the flip side. Enough of the Mormon pie.

Recovery from Mormonism.

Recovery from the Exmormon Foundation.

Recovery from the Unitarian Universalists.

Recovery from the "PostMormon" coffee group.

Recovery from Atheists of Utah.

Recovery from naturalist & humanist groups who are religions unto themselves.

Recovery from a temporary wade back into the deep waters of Mormonism via this forum. Time to depart...

Don't stay too long w/recovery groups - for your own well being. Move on to greener pastures... That's my advise. I have. I need to remember that. Bye.
-----------------------

Anyway it's quite sad really. When Mormons leave the Mormon Church they easily retain their propensity to control & censor others. Is the reason for this that religion is a natural phenomenon? Perhaps. Perhaps it is simply natural to try to control other people. To try & force them to your own meme set's rules & ideals.

The "Uncensored LDS/Mormon Discussions" group is still hierarchical. Thus they MUST censor to maintain their hierarchy & leadership. Disrespect (or block for whatever reason) one of five admins, and you're out. That's censorship.

Also the group constantly chats about Mormon stuff. Really, I was mostly past the need to chat about Mormon minutia. I've got bigger fish to fry & better things to spend my time responding to. So really, it's perhaps a blessing in disguise that these ex-Mormons acted exactly like many ex-Mormons do: They act exactly like Mormons. So, time to move on past these people. And by the way, many other religions act like Mormons too. Heresy trials. Excommunication. Even liberal groups do this! That's why it's important to try & move beyond religion, where possible. To embrace fully free speech. Even free speech for those who hurt the feelings of others.

Honesty must take precedence.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

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.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Embracing true honest naturalism: Marriage is about children

Here's a copy of a forum exchange, regarding a post I found from the group Seculars Against Same Sex "Marriage:"

My post:
Marriage is about children. I agree with that... Also children may well need a mommy & a daddy. Sounds good to me. 13.8 billion years. So far so good. Compared to ~20 years of denialism and knocking on the sperm bank door.

Quotes from where I found the link:

----quotes begin

Paddy Manning, who is same-sex attracted and against same-sex “marriage,” debates and explains why he opposes it:

----

*5:30-8:01 “Marriage is a uniquely child-centered institution. It is the only place in our society where children can be created, reared, and socialized; and the institution exists for that. If we move to a status where we have a one-size fits all marriage (institution), we part the idea of children and having children from marriage. After that the state gets to decide what your relationship is with the child. Natural parents never require that decision.

-----

*Let’s be clear, nobody is blanket opposing same-sex adoption. What we want is the recognition that a child has a right PRIMARILY to a mother and father...Do u want to enshrine in law the accidental?

----

*You don’t like the idea that children might have a right to a mother and father; which they do. PRIMARILY the law should recognize that. Everything else comes after that.

-----

*In response to the elderly couples who get married past child-bearing age: “It doesn’t affect the institution."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h6yX4dY1Qs

----end of quote

In response to posting the above I received the following response:
But this only works if every single person has the goal of making sure that life goes on in the same way it has for 13.8 billion years, as you say. "...that a child has a right PRIMARILY to a mother and father..." is a statement that just goes along with that same theory. All Children have the right to proper nutrition as well, but plenty of kids have died from malnutrition for 13.8 billion years. Only recently has the world tried to stop that. But maybe we are messing with something that was working just for for billions of years. Should we let the kids be? All I am saying is that change is okay, even if that changes the course. We have no inherent responsibility to stay the course.
==============

And here is my reply to the above paragraph:


Hi.

You wrote:

<clip>
>if every single person

Humans have built in traits which come from nature, evolution by natural selection, genetics and memetics.

The traits babies are born with fall onto a bell curve graph.

Outlier traits are less common. More common traits tend to increase genetic/memetic frequency.

Humans are animals, just as much animals as are salmon that swim up stream, birds that sing, and we share a common ancestor with chimps and bonobos. Humans are not bonobos, nor are we chimps, but our nature appears to like both in between and beyond.

>has the goal

The goals of humans come from a combination of genetics & memetics.

>of making sure that life

Most humans within the larger set of more common traits tends to value the continuance of life. If this were not the case, humans would go extinct.

>13.8 billion years

It took ~13.8 billion years for you and I to be here today. The so-called big-bang. Stars living, then exploding. The exploded star matter reforming into new stars & solar systems & galaxies.

A very long process indeed.

>a child has a right

Children generally have several key rights. A right to life is one. I argue that it's fully reasonable, and naturalistic, and human, to just assume, by default, that children need a mommy and a daddy. Plus my own observation of outlier-groups who wish to claim the right to raise children, my observations have yielded direct evidence which I'm generally satisfied with, which show to me that outlier-trait-human-culture, such as it is, is not a particularly healthy environment for children. Also, there are the basic needs of a child, who, more commonly, would be born with the more common trait of being straight. Within that context, a child's "straightness" would be most valued within a house who's parents also fall within the general more-common-trait set. Also, the basic healthy brain & psychological development of human children may well require, ideally, the presence of a male & female in a house - both sexes, not just one or the other, ideally.

So there's several needs & issues at play. What do children have a right to. What does the human animal, in the form of growing children, really need.

When it comes to the current situation, there is incredible pressure to not be honest on these points - not in the secular community.

The so-called secular community is so very angry at being lied to about the presence of a god, and about the bad aspects of religion, they have come to incorrectly include that all allowable answers must oppose what religious people may advocate for.

So, regarding physics, cosmology, and basic biology, yes on those topics your average scientists has no issues with being more objective. However, when it comes to social issues, the left-leaning scientists will introduce confirmation bias, and denialism, into his or her interpretations of evidence, what questions to ask, what studies to do, what conclusions to draw, and so on.

For many years the so-called "right" denied human nature, or connection to other animals, and so on.

Now, today, the left also denies human nature, the fact that religion is a natural phenomenon cuts both ways - in that fully natural human morality, morality which can otherwise protect us from dangerous outlier behavior, is fully rooted within middle & right religion.

Confirmation bias can also be seen in the study of anthropology. Yes, the 60s era hippie scientists/anthropologists go to visit tribes who happen to agree with their hippie views on life. But what about the "aboriginal tribes" who created the Bible? What about the "aboriginal tribes" who live in rural China - people who've had zero contact with the Bible or the Torah? What do they advocate for? What do they think?

Honesty about why people do the things they do. That's what we need more of.

The religious may well have their religion because it helps them better survive. Some lies, and a lot of truths, all mixed together - helping humanity survive.

Rip out one part, tear a person away from their religion, and they can go right off the cliff! Yes, this is quite true.

I've personally gone on an Alice in Wonderland Style Journey. Gathering data over several years. Seeing what different groups do. Nudists. Polys. Sex party people. Gay house parties & bars (via my gay nephew). Making note of what happened with an uncle who grew up in Manti, but who fell prey to what happens when you jump to the extreme opposite side.

In the case of Atheists of Utah, they celibate the fact that they were nominated by Q Salt Lake to be the best religion, and a runner up for the best social group. Parties centered around raffling off wheelbarrows full of booze. They see themselves as the key answer to Mormonism!

Where does such a generalized status leave humans born into the more-common less-of-an-outlier set of naturally I-want-to-reproduce set? The set that helps keep humanity alive?

Saying "there's plenty of other people who breed, why do I need to?" is an incredibly crass & nihilistic & abusive way of looking at the world, and at your own life. People who say this are frankly victims of a slow-motion-suicide destructive meme set on the left.

So there's several issues at play here.

Societies can become ill, sick, defective. Honesty is one way to fix problems. And for me, listening to people like Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, plus also listening to what the middle & right say - really listening & trying to understand why they say the things they do, plus also having a direct connection to Chinese-aboriginal-culture which states that non-outlier naturally-reproductive human culture & activity is more valuable than forcibly embracing outlier activity like the left does in America & Europe.

So, tearing someone away from their religion can screw up their life, or even kill them. It can cause them to lead a petty dead end life. And I say this fully realizing that religions also can destroy & grind down people. What's the cure? More honesty on all sides. The type of honesty that realizes that yes, very damn good parts of human morality & nature, the parts which help us avoid destructive behaviors & protect us from outliers, do fully & naturally reside within religions. The type of honesty that recognizes abuse where it's present, on all sides. Honesty about there being no god, the fact of evolution, and the lack of divinity of scripture. But also honesty that fully natural & useful human nature came up with some pretty damn good rules to help protect us.

Humans, writing things down, for very human reasons. Some of the things they wrote down do help people survive & thrive. Embrace those things. And try to reject the more destructive things.

>plenty of kids have died from malnutrition

What is the most common desire of parents in this regard? To help their children live. What does a healthy society advocate in this regard? To ensure that all children get enough food. What do other animals advocate for in this regard? The same.

>Only recently has the world tried to stop that.

Hardly.

See above.

>maybe we are messing

Yes, we are "messing." Denying our history. Denying our nature. Denying what may well be the most-healthy nature of our kids. Denying what kids may well need. Denying the abuse that happens, very commonly, today in outlier sets. Denying our place on the great mandala - the tapestry of life that we can either choose to be a part of, or not. I advocate that we choose life.

>Should we let the kids be?

"Letting them 'be'" would mean letting them grow up in a traditional long standing history most natural most common household, for their own good (for many reasons, including their own needs, plus the more common directly observed problems with outlier 'culture').

Fucking with them, would mean forcing them to grow up in a two mommy household where one mommy had to knock on a sperm bank door, and having no father in the house. Plus not helping a straight child growing up in a house which values & honors & promotes straightness (eg: the most common productive, more-healthy, set).

>We have no inherent responsibility to stay the course.

Responsibility comes from several sources. Being true to ourselves. Getting along in a community. Helping ensure that other people don't go off a cliff.

Sex, in the more common set, is wisely selfish. Even an Randian objectivist could appreciate that (even though Ayn Rand was a complete know-nothing idiot). If we AREN'T sucked in, by nature, to reproduction, we may well, and can easily, lead a petty & dead end life.

So, why are Catholics concerned about birth control?

Why does sperm bank use by single women & lesbians cause people to be concerned?

Why do people get concerned about homosexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, sociopathy, psychopathy, schizophrenia, and other outlier-traits? Why do most all human cultures have rules & recommendations & concerns about these outlier traits which some people are either sucked into, or born into?

We don't want to see people go off a cliff.

Discounting the rules & prescriptions & suggestions of the religious, just because their god may not exist, is far far too simplistic - and is usually a completely wrong evaluation of what is actually happening.

So, honoring our history. Honoring & supporting life. Remembering that it may be dangerous to stray too far from our natural path. And remembering that, damn it, even the fucking right is "right" on some things. Damn, that's hard to admit, but it's true.

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

Further response received on 5-29:
Seculars against same sex marriage. That is pretty ironic. I don't think they actually have any good arguments... but that is just me.

I doubt they have that big of a group.... most secular people are for equal rights of gays.

This idea that children deserve a biological mother and father to best succeed is not proven.

If it were, you would still have to deal with single parents, grandparents, foster parents, etc....

So if you oppose gay marriage, do you oppose these OTHER things as well?
My response:
Points raised & my responses:

Point 1: Most people believe in X.

Response:

Argumentum ad populum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

"...In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it."

2. Ironic.

Response:

There's many ironies to life.

Explore some: http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/

3. What about equal rights?

Response:

Equal rights should be given when equality is deserved, warranted, healthy, safe, valuable, and applicable.


The right to civilly unite? Ok. Whatever.

The right to use the "marriage" term, which implies access to children, not so sure.

Doesn't matter how many naive judges are convinced, or the number of naive liberals jumping on board like lemmings.

I've acquired enough experiential knowledge & expertise on the subject at hand to change my position - change from the oh-so-predictable position of the naive left, to one more in the center or right, on this issue.

Leftists are naive about many things.

Leftists run the Salt Lake City Library.

Muslim Journeys:
http://www.slcpl.org/events/view/2945/
and this fool:
http://www.slcpl.lib.ut.us/events/view/1965/
A response to the leftist love of Tariq Ramadan:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2007/09/islamism_goes_mainstream.html

The primary Muslim journey that comes to my mind is when several adherents flew planes into buildings on 9/11. That is the preeminent "Muslim Journey" of our age.

Also, Mohamed was not an advocate for social justice.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-new-creed-of-unitarian-universalism.html

Come to find out liberals are naive about gays as well.

Knee jerk liberals. Yes, Mr. & Mrs. Conservative, I'm starting to understand now. And I say that as a guy who's for single payer and who fully maintains that Ayn Rand was a complete & utter fool.

From Jesse Bering: "...Even in societies where homosexuality was tolerated, such as in Ancient Greece, men tended to engage in pederasty with adolescent boys while maintaining wives and families at home..."

from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/08/01/the-end-of-gays-gay-marriage-and-the-decline-of-the-homosexual-population/

Yet another connection between homosexuality & pedophilia. My goodness. Not so good of an environment for kids.

Are Mormonism & Catholicism homosexual & pedophile generators? | Connections between homosexuality & pedophilia
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/are-mormonism-catholicism-homosexual_24.html

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/pedophilia
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/homosexuality

Also Bering has written the book "Perv: The Sexual Deviant in All of Us."

I guess he'd know, as per even his direct stated connection between homos and pedos (my apologies to liberal sensibility for using the short word homo, but it seemed apt given what's being discussed) listed above - and since he's a homosexual.

Don't fuck animals. Hey, the Bible was right! Don't put your dick in an asshole! Damn, how'd they figure that one out?

Even non-Biblical cultures have figured these key truths out. Why is your average liberal in denial?

4. Noted annoyance at discovering that there are "seculars against same sex marriage."

Response:


Bursting the bubble of the liberal meme set is unpleasant also, for the liberal.

"There's people who disagree." Hmmm. Honest scientists may not be surprised. But "skeptics," no, they should never be presented with evidence counter to their suppositions.

5. Children deserve a mother & father, ideally is not proven.

Response:

The left cannot be trusted to provide an unbiased response on the matter.

Hey, maybe a kid ideally needs a mommy & a daddy. Damn, that's a hard one. We need to go to the lab to study that one.

Lame retrograde denialism.

The simplest, & most healthy, ideas from religion, discounted too soon & too quickly by your average secularist.

Do we need to prove that children need air? Water? Food?

How departed from our natural history, examining what all cultures do & advocate for, and what all people think on the matter, do we have to be?

I'm skeptical of anything but the default position: male & female raising children, for several reasons. One reason is what the child may need. Another reason is what I've observed first hand - observed things which most secularists / liberals have not observed.

Even if we want to test: It is unethical to "test," even though de facto tests are going on right now. I have a cousin lesbian conducting such a test right now. The daughter of my uncle from Manti who died of AIDS. Of course she turned gay. No problem there.

updated religious and political views... an atheist moderate / conservative
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/updated-religious-and-political-views.html

We can gather relevant evidence by a.) examining our own long standing natural history, and b.) examining what all cultures do in this regard - not just the ones that happen to agree with the leftist relativist hippie position, and c.) examining what other animals do, and d.) asking the children of gays what they think, and e.) making note of the probably-inherantly-abusive nature of "gay" culture.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/not-all-children-raised-by-gay-parents-support-gay-marriage-i-should-know-i/

A very high level of skepticism regarding anything but the default natural position. Gathering evidence from all sides & all tribes. Personal experiential evidence. All this has led me to conclude that children need a mommy & a daddy, and should not be placed in gay, nor single parent, households, period.

6. Single parents.

Less than ideal situation. Most everyone agrees with this.

Grandparents. At least it's usually a male & female, and they're grandparents after all.

Foster parents. Male & female.

7. If you oppose gay marriage, do you oppose these OTHER things as well?

Response: I'm highly skeptical of gay "marriage," based on first hand experiential knowledge of gay culture, plus what I've learned from others about the issue, plus what I know about biology & evolutionary history.

I oppose any use of sperm banks, except for male & female couples.

I believe abortion after viability should be illegal, and before viability discouraged.

I believe birth control should be legal, but discouraged.

I believe that the entirety of liberalism is, in part, a death cult - engaging in advocacy for slow motion suicide for everyone.

I have observed that liberals are denialists about human nature & natural history just as much as conservatives have been.

8. Do you also oppose people that cannot have children getting married? Why not?

Response: Adoption is ok, with a male & female adopting.

I oppose single female, lesbian couple, and gay male couple, use of the sperm bank or adoption.

The courts have decided trivially that tomatoes are vegetables.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/12/26/256586055/when-the-supreme-court-decided-tomatoes-were-vegetables

Putting on robes and being a pompous know-it-all doesn't mean you know anything.

The destructive memetic infection has reached conservatives & libertarians, passed on to them from persistent liberals.

Denial of human nature. Ignoring our natural history. Toying with the lives of children. Ignoring huge problems with gay "culture."

What are the facts? What do people observe? Do you listen to what they say? What do cultures do who don't agree with your suppositions? Do we want to toy with the lives of children?

It's not my fault that atheism does not imply skepticism, and that skepticism does not imply free thought, and that free thought does not imply honesty - when it comes to groups who use these words as part of their names.

I'm not a libertarian, but Shermer has a point:

Michael Shermer on confirmation bias, on the left:
http://www.michaelshermer.com/tag/confirmation-bias/

The Political Brain
A recent brain-imaging study shows that our political predilections are a product of unconscious confirmation bias
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/

People are born dumbshits. That's why god invented Christopher Hitchens, Steven Pinker, and Daniel Dennett. All of those dudes may be more accepting of so-called gay, butt fuck, marriage than I am. But I've gathered more direct data than probably ALL of them combined  -  except for Hitchens possibly.

In any case I'm satisfied & generally happy with my transition to the skeptical-of-gay-marriage-and-adoption meme set / camp. And I have one advantage that many others do not: I've already been through the pain of leaving an abusive meme set (eg: Mormonism). Thus social cajoling, pressure, and attacks are far less able to affect me.

I'm interested in the truth and in honesty, even if that means that my previous liberal suppositions are overturned in part.