The religion of the "non-religious" left: anti-free-speech, anti-science, anti-Enlightenment

Islam v. Free Speech: Twitter Surrenders
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429190/islam-twitter-and-free-speech

Why ‘Draw Mohammed’? The Artist Explains
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429175/draw-mohammed-cartoonist-speaks-out-why-i-entered-garland-contest

[Bernie Sanders:] Global warming a worse threat than terrorism, "...climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism..."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427094/sanders-absolutely-global-warming-worse-threat-terrorism-tom-s-elliott

The main arguments supporting Sanders' assertion seem to revolve around resource availability:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/sanders-on-climate-link-to-terrorism/

However what's missing from Sanders' equation is the impact of the Islamic meme set itself upon the stability and viability of societies.

Mark Steyn's response:
http://www.steynonline.com/7299/the-leader-of-the-free-world-and-his-universal

(that the Western political leadership is largely in denial about the real root causes of terrorism)

Obama's statement about what, according to him, the future "must" not belong to:
https://reason.com/blog/2012/09/25/president-obama-says-we-must-condemn-tho
(never talking smack about Mohamed)

Sam Harris and Maajid Nawaz collaborating discussions:
https://www.samharris.org/blog

Maajid is an unfortunately-singular truly-liberal voice within "Islam."
Cartoon posted by Maajid:
https://twitter.com/maajidnawaz/status/422342223460855809
more on Maajid:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz
https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz
https://www.facebook.com/MaajidNawazFanPage/

Sam Harris debates Cenk Uygur (an example of the new regressive left vs those few lefties who're willing to be honest regarding Islam)
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-young-turks-interview

Sam Harris chats w/gay neocon Douglas Murray:
http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/on-the-maintenance-of-civilization

Re climate change, Mark Steyn is engaged in a legal battle with Michael Mann.
http://www.steynonline.com/6234/the-silencing-of-science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bARjABDqok

Judith Curry & Mark Steyn at the Senate: 

excerpt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh6zDbWMuP0

full hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KVTmo2Vxnk

Anyway I've come to conclude that, as per Daniel Dennett's "dangerous" idea regarding religion being a natural phenomenon, religion is so damn natural that two or more atheists gathered in the name of their favorite social or political agenda cannot help but form a de facto one.

Charismatic charlatans come in all shapes and sizes. When our favorite "prophet" is on our side of the political spectrum we're more ready to dismiss their flaws. For example when Clinton was in office I personally wrote to the White House expressing my support during their trials & tribulations. However I now see that I was hoodwinked, just like I was hoodwinked about Joseph Smith.

Why are the rape crimes of Bill Clinton given a pass while the probably-natural activities of Catholic Priests & other pedophiles are not? Just because something is 'natural' doesn't mean it should be valued. Sociopathy and psychopathy are natural too, natural abusive outlier activities that is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Recoverers from religion have a hard time seeing value in fully natural & fully evolved human morality which says "no" to certain activities. Why did fully natural religions/cultures evolve moral codes of conduct? For fully natural reasons.

So how "conservative" should we be? It's a balancing act. An evolution if you will. And we aren't the first people to deal with the tension between letting it all hang out, and hanging people for doing so. Somewhere in between those two extremes lies human happiness & human thriving.

Islam & Mormonism are too conservative.

60s/70s SanFran-Glory-Hole-style liberalism is probably too permissive.

Humans aren't Bonobos. Shame regarding certain otherwise destructive activities exists for some reasonable evolutionary reasons. Moral codes of conduct evolved as counterweights to proclivities which can be destructive.

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.