Here is some general advise for the religious & social right & middle:
1. Put more of your energy into searching for secular arguments to back up the otherwise good & valuable human morality that exists with your cultures.
3. Admit that on the "god" front (including on evolution), the intellectual argument has mostly gone to the side of the left.
4. Many of the moral arguments you make do have value - when made a bit less harsh.
Daniel Dennett's dangerous idea: Religion is a natural phenomenon. This fact cuts both ways. Fully natural, normal, valuable, and useful human morality can and does exist within religious frameworks. A damn hard thing for a liberal to admit! In fact many liberals are in active denial.
It's no wonder that Steven Pinker has commented about the modern denial of human nature, in his book The Blank Slate.
The left IS in denial, just as the right has been about god & evolution.
Yes we ARE animals, with BUILT IN morals, AND some damn good reasons for ascribing shame (yes shame!) to certain otherwise descructive human behaviors.
I remember when Christopher Hitchens made not of how the left was in denial about Islam and both the right & left about Mother Theressa.
I remember when Daniel Dennett stated "Dennett's Dangerous Idea" (thanks go to me for coining this if no one else has to date!), that: Religion is a natural phoenomenon. Again, this apparent fact cuts both ways. Very inconventient for the social agenda of assholes like P.Z. Myers and the like. The fundie left.
Why all the gay stuff? Because the left worships homosexuality as the pinnacle of liberal sex. No kids. "Cha-ching" they say - "we're helping the environment!" Automatic birth control. Perfect liberal sex. Also perfect liberal marriage.
People trying to "recover" from conservative religion can be and are easily sucked into the abusive fundamentalism of the left.
For example: Atheists of Utah - in my view a fundamentalist religion of the left. Doctrines. Dogmas. Unquestionable paradigms. An ultra-leftist social agenda. Voted by Q Salt Lake as the best religion, and a runner up to being the best social group.
But where's the regular straight families? Where's the children? Where's the people who value good old fashioned healthy happy useful family values? They're actively excluded. They MUST be, because politically correct leftist dogmatism is their core religion.
Boozer parties where high alchohol content liquor is raffled off.
Not only does the conservative emperor have no clothes (eg: Joseph Smith), the liberal emperer has none also (eg: "gay culture"). The latter group are happy about that though, with their constant posting of near-naked photos of themselves on facebook.
Hey, I've seen it all first hand. I've seen the ultra-right AND the ultra-left. Unlike your average muff mouthed muff brained liberal, I've done in depth research into BOTH "ultra" sides. And here's what I've found: BOTH SIDES are nearly equally abusive!
It's sad that scientists claim they're being objective when they're not - on social issues.
They're ok with being mostly-objective when it comes to far off things like planets, or far distant in history things like dinosaurs. BUT, question their ultra-leftist social agenda on things like marriage & family, and by fuck they will revert to the new-ultra-dogmatic-religion-of-the-left as quick as a bat out of hell. Two seconds. Maybe one
"Yes, here on the high pillars of academia, we poo poo and laugh at the poor middle & right leaning religionists, with their views on the existence of god & evolution. BUT, question our social views and we'll quickly show you just how religious WE ARE as scientists - so-called scientists who refuse to be scientists when it comes to social issues."
So, yes, Mr. & Mrs. Conservative, you ARE right to conclude that groups of scientists, AND atheist groups, AND secular groups, most such groups are religions - dogmatic religions of the left.
----------
Both sides, right & left, poison of the well of reasonable discussion regarding natural normal good valuable useful human morality.
Jumping from one extreme to the other is no solution.
Honesty is the answer! Both to dogmatism on the right & the left.
Thoughts on recovery from Atheists of Utah, and similar "secular," "humanist," and "naturalist" groups.
A new religion is born, and as with all religion there are de facto elders, priests, doctrines, dogmas, belief maintenance, heresy trials, and excommunications. With the new religion of atheism things are a bit more subtle, but not by much.
The common stance of your membership falls along similar lines to the STFU-Parents-woman who'd prefer that normal families just shut up about the joys of having children.
In response to my expression of appreciation for Duck Dynasty, your group has given religious responses thus far, straight from the latest human religion.
The
founder of your church hooked up with a pro-life atheist and had a kid
with her. But she was never welcome at SLVA (Salt Lake Valley Atheists) because of her views. SLVA
was decidedly pro-ultra-left.
The
fruit of the founder's outreach work has resulted in an ultra-Stonewall
focus for your group. That's just the way it is. But it's a bit ironic
that the founder of A of U ended up having a kid with a woman forcibly excluded
from SLVA because of her social conservative views.
Hmmm. As the world (or
stomach) turns. I would have expected better, but it's all rather par
for the course in the long history of human religion.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled mirrored echo chamber of unquestioned newly dominant paradigms.
Is the judgement of the church court in now? Sounds like it may be.
Yes I like Duck Dynasty.
Heresy for A of U.
If
you want to have a discussion that's one thing. But if you're just a
priest of a church, who pulls every tool out for discounting an argument
other than possibly reasonable ones, then I'm not particularly obliged
to respond - any more than I am to the leader of any other religion.
---
Atheists of Utah was recently named the "best Religious Group" and a runner up for the Best Social Group,
as awarded by Q Salt Lake. Apt & appropriate awards. But being at
the pinnacle of appreciation for the ultra-left is not all it's cracked up to be. An ultra-leftist cult. That's what Atheists of Utah has become in my
view - and so I don't wish to be a member.
Were a group to be founded to help people recover from this new destructive cult of the left, here's draft short & long descriptions for such a hopeful recovery group:
Short description:
At Recovery from Atheists of Utah we help you recover from recovery from religion, particularly the religion known as Atheists of Utah.
Long description:
Did you leave one cult just to find you'd jumped right into another? Atheists claim their beliefs are falsifiable - unless you question the social-agenda aspects of their views. THEN the de facto heresy & excommunication trials begin.
Here at Recovery from Atheists of Utah we recover from the ultra-leftist side of atheism. The extreme-cultist left. Yes the right has their problems, but the left can be just as dogmatic and abusive.
Our in group morality is expanding, and that's a good thing.
But human nature DOES naturally include shaming for certain activities which are otherwise destructive. A damn hard thing for an ex-conservative religionist to realize is that SOME of that shaming actually is a damn good thing for the future of humanity.
We didn't leave one religion just to join another.
Atheists of Utah, in the view of the author of this description, has become a leftist cult. Just as abusive as cults on the right.
But it's worse in my view: It's a part of the LDC - the Liberal Death Cult, a cult which does not value life & survival - again in the view of the author.
Does this description go too far? Maybe. My beliefs may be falsifiable. I'm willing to listen to evidence. They however, apparently, are not.
Recover from the dogmatism of the left. Avoid politically correct destructive whirlpools of consensus, mirrored echo chambers, and unquestioned newly-dominant paradigms.
Does the right have a point, at least on some issues? It's heresy amongst liberals to say: YES!
But again, we didn't leave one fucking cult just to join another.
Recover, from Atheists of Utah, and similar destructive leftist cults. How? Through honesty, and avoiding affiliation with all de-facto ultra-leftist new-cults. Cults & religions, on the left & the right. We need to find a new way to be human than these petty shallow infantile first-attempts: Through science, honesty, honest history, and being willing to listen to ALL sides.
Does the other side have a point? For example, the guys on Duck Dynasty? What if they do? What if the right is right on at least some points? Heresy, heresy, heresy to admit this. But the LDC is stuck in their own narcissistic hole.
These are all the views of the author - after a lot of observation & seeing what happens on all sides - PLUS after taking a step back from America and seeing what happens in other countries. Come to find out social-conservatvism, aspects of it, DOES actually help humanity survive, thrive, and be happy. Whodathunkit?
The TBMs (True Believing Mormons) don't like my blog. AND the TBULAs (True Believing Ultra Liberal Atheists) don't like it either. Maybe that means I'm making progress!
It's also worth noting that we may need recovery from the Exmoron Foundation. That's another story.
All sides are right (& wrong), liberals, moderates, & conservatives.
All sides are right - all sides have valid points. And all sides are wrong also.
Attention atheist groups: I don't want to be in your religions. I left one religion already. I don't wish to join yours. I don't wish to kiss the ass of your de facto priests. I don't wish to join your chump chorus of ultra-liberalism.
It's been a long hard road. I've examined what goes on with "the left," and I've found it to be just as abusive as what goes on with "the right."
Key background:
1. Spending 26 years in the Mormon Church.
2. Went on a Mormon mission to Alaska.
3. Going to Rick College for a year (now BYU Idaho).
4. Being a temple worker in more than one Mormon temple.
5. Going to BYU in Provo, Utah for a year.
6. Leaving the Mormon Church.
7. Living in Texas.
8. Living in Oregon, checking out the wild Alice-in-Wonderland-style scene there & the fucking hippies.
9. Marrying a woman from China, where they've had pretty much zero exposure to Mormonism, Catholicism, & most other churches, and examining what their views are.
10. Hearing from people like Steven Pinker with his book The Blank Slate. Also from Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.
11. Daniel Dennett talking about how religion is a natural phenomenon.
12. Making note of how I had one uncle who grew up in Manti, Utah (ultra conservative Mormon small town). This uncle went to San Francisco to "let it all hang out," to apparently rebel against his ultra-conservative upbringing. He ended up dying of AIDS as a supposedly gay man, leaving his straight family with no father. WTF. A victim of BOTH Mormonism, and the gay freaks of San Francisco. Forced to jump from one side directly to the other. Abused by both!
13. Making note of the drunk bum aunt with no kids I knew as a child, the one who'd often phone my father while drunk. No kids of her own. A dead end largely meaningless life.
14. Making note of my gay nephew who leads an incredibly petty, shallow, and misguided life as an angle reader, and as a guy who readily accepts convicted pedophiles into his network of friends - I saw this first hand. Also making note of my many experiences going out with this nephew to gay bars & parties, and observing first hand the narcissistic messed-up people who tend to show up to such events (friends of my nephew). Truman Capote types. Shallow, sorry, messed up, narcissistic, people.
15. And yet (!) also making note of the service oriented gay people who help us & other people, and whose life work is centered around helping others. Also making note of the life work of people like Stephen Fry & Oscar Wilde.
16. Making note of how BOTH ultra conservatism and ultra liberalism are abusive to the progress of humanity.
Before viability (the closer to conception & the further away from viability), the more "choice" there is that can be reasonably allowed.
In the case of the average crack whore pregnancy, or rape, or incest: before viability, the "choice" is still there to help prevent the birth. But, once viability is reached, the point of "choice" has fully & completely passed.
On the whole gay thing:
It's true that a gay marriage is not the same as straight marriage. Gay sex is not the same as straight sex.
Straight sex & straight marriage is inherently more valuable, to humanity, and to the individual, and to human flourishing!
Gay sex is not as inherently valuable as straight sex. Gay sex is inherently a dead end.
Whatever the biological underpinnings are for being gay, because of the nature of how sex works in humans (& other animals), unless you work to avoid it you may end up having a dead end stunted life.
I was a liberal chump about this issue in the past. Now, as per taking a step back and examining what I observed first hand both with my gay nephew & gay uncle, I've changed by views.
And yet: There are service oriented gay people who spend their lives helping others. That's great! And I value the life work of people like Stephen Fry & Oscar Wilde!
It's true that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against regarding apartments or jobs! They should be able to have civil unions.
But on the other hand, when we talk about things like adoptions, or having children around, a straight kid growing up in a gay household will not have his or her straightness valued as much - by default. The abusive narcissistic petty dead end shit that goes on in gay culture could well easily mess up any otherwise-normal straight kid growing up around gay culture. So the right does have a point about this!
A certain level of concern regarding homosexuality is good, but on the other hand, the ultra-right goes way to far with their level of concern.
For example, in Mormonism they tell their children that masturbation can lead to homosexuality. Such a claim is child abuse. And of course the stance of Uganda on the issue is abusive. So the right goes way to far in their condemnation.
We shouldn't be as harsh as the right on the issue, nor as open as the left.
Children may NEED a mommy & a daddy, to be healthy, happy, well rounded, and thrive.
So like it or not, both sides are right, to a point, and with appropriate caveats.
On environmentalism, tree hugging, and overpopulation:
How are both sides right?
We do need to work to preserve & protect the garden. Yes that's quite true. Humans DO contribute to global warming. Also true. BUT, on the other hand, population control IS an abusive response!
Science & technology are the answers! Nothing else is! NOT forced population control on a personal or country level! That is an abusive response!
There's no such thing as overpopulation in first world countries - this is quite true. And humans DO come first above other animals and plants.
Liberal ideology, prompting you to be childless, may leave you a zero on the great mandala.
From what I've seen: Liberals hate children, normal families, and so on. STFU Parents is the tip of the iceburg. It seems to me that: liberals hate having children, and the normal family structure.
Your average college age kid will go to a liberal college or university & come away convinced that he or she should probably not have kids of his or her own because of concern over the environment. Abusive. Wrong headed. Brainwashing. Just as much braining washing by the left as what goes on with the right.
For the relativist liberal their ideal "family" is a childless one - because then the environment and the Earth is protected - supposedly. Stupid. Abusive. Such wrong headed evil ideology will lead them, and everyone sucked in by such ideology, to be pretty much a zero in the long term. Win or loose now you must choose now. Where will you be the tapestry of life?
To fully accept the equality of gay marriage the left must first assume that having children is not a valuable thing.
It's a good thing that we want to have kids - for many reasons. Not just because we're horny. Children are our future. And the liberal death cult is rather quite similar to the Shakers. The childfree life, and the homosexual lifestyle, is de facto celibacy.
Simply replace the word "god" with "14.5 billion years of evolution by natural selection." I know it's hard, but try to see though the Bible-centered language - through to our incredibly deep history as a species. DOES HAVING NO CHILDREN really honor your own personal billion-year history?
Being childfree is sad, petty, and ultimately a dead end. A death cult, by any other name, is still a death cult.
Leftist relativist brain washing. Leftist dogma that will stunt your life!
No, having a dog or cat around is not the same as a having human child! Not the same in the fucking least. Abused by liberalism, just as much as you may have been abused by conservatism!
Go to the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City. There you will find a congregation of grey haried liberals who don't really value having children, and normal families. Cultural relativists being abused by their own anti-children anti-family leftist ideology.
De facto religions of atheism & humanism are abusive.
Catholicism is also of course abusive when it comes to child raping priests. But, both Mormonism & Catholicism DO have valid points when it comes to abortion & birth control. Yes, you ARE abusing yourself if you exclude the possibility of children from your life!
It's a damn fucking hard truth to realize that very valuable & good elements of positive human morality can be fully rooted within otherwise abusive religion.
HOW can we realize this?
By examining what non-Catholic non-Mormon human cultures do and think!
Here's a hard question for the religion of Judaism:
Is your own promotion of separation from other groups, as part of your religion, in any way responsible for the past expression of fully natural human out-group morality, natural human out-group morality which was expressed in the past?
Forced genital rape of your own children.
Teaching your children that they are better than others.
Such actions naturally caused other groups of humans to more readily express natural human out-group morality in your case. Like it or not.
Examining what happened with Naziism and the Holocaust is rather like staring human out-group morality directly in the face.
The Nazis were fully human, humans expressing out-group morality.
And when your religion promotes separation between your group & others, you could well more easily fall victim to sociopathic nut jobs like Hitler who were able to effectively take advantage of this fully natural readily available negative side of built-in human morality.
Group think. Mob mentality. Survival morality. Nationalism. Provincialism. And even the Old Testament is completely filled with expressions of advocacy for out-group morality.
I don't accept your religion, left or right. Rather I want to be an advocate for science, helpful progress which promotes widespread happiness, well being & health, and survival.
Truth & honestly are required for healthy progress. That means staring our own history in the face and being willing to accept what we see. And to then try to work through what we see clearly.
Mormon Bishops DO abuse children in their care when they teach children that masturbation is evil & may lead to homosexaulity.
And yet, homosexual couples do PERHAPS abuse children by raising them in forcibly-relativist dogmatically politically correct households where straightness is not valued, nor honored, nor supported, nor promoted.
So BOTH sides are being abusive, ok?
The answer to conservatism is not liberalism. Instead it's honest science, observation, and tying into ALL of what it means to be human (including being willing to shame & blame & judge where appropriate & useful - !!!). A VERY VERY fucking hard thing for an ex-conservative-religionist to accept! Damn hard.
-----
Thank goodness the Internet is expanding our in-group morality.
There is hope though. In all religions people are becoming less abusive. It just takes time.
And, let me say there's aspects of ALL cultures & religions which I personally value.
I'm PRO-human. Pro-happy-human. Pro-true-and-honest-naturalism, in as much as being for those natural parts of us which can help us be happy. But, I'm also pro-honesty. Falling into naturalistic fallacies is also a consideration.
We have to be willing to look ourselves in the mirror, and to help promote what looks good, and remove the pimples which don't. That's all.
---
Did Jewish Circumcision help lead to the Holocaust? | Both sides are right: Liberals & Conservatives
Social conservatism. Social liberalism. Politics. Etc.
Q. Do you all see a difference between being an atheist and being anti religion?
A. Atheist / Humanist / Secular / Unitarian Univeralist groups all have the trappings of a religion. They are naturally & of course "anti" to other religions they disagree with, just as all religions are "anti" to other religions.
Not everything is equal. Some religions, including the religion of atheism, do make valid claims & contentions about the problems with other religions.
The UUs will admit their group is a religion, "but with no dogma." However that claim of theirs is basically a lie.
Most atheist & secular groups will & do have (unless great effort is made to avoid it) de facto or outwardly expressed dogmas, doctrines, tenants, heresy trials, excommunications, priests, elders, and prophets.
The trappings of religion appear to be part of human nature, and thus are VERY difficult to exclude from ANY social group formed by humans. Meme set (belief) maintenance. Heresy trials. Excommunication. And so on. These are a few of religion's favorite things.
The god thing is not so much an issue, really - when we consider how religious liberals use the term. The muff mouthed Templeton Foundation smoke generator Krista Tippett has shown us the way: for the liberal god can mean anything you want. She & her cohorts strongly want to continue to use the "g" term even if their definition essentially means nothing.
But in any case, like I say liberal religion (which includes most atheist groups) includes dogma, doctrines, tenants, heresy trials, excommunications, priests, elders, and prophets - and that's the main problem, and why they ARE religions in my view.
A "break" from the religious tradition would entail the following key principles:
1. Not being doctrinally tied to any one political AND social agenda.
2. Being willing to accept what honest science, honest experience, honest history, fully uncensored & open discussion, and fully open membership, may result in. A free & open exchange of ideas. A crucible. Science has shown as the way, as have people like Pinker & Hitchens.
3. Being willing to challenge our own suppositions, really challenge them & not just give lip service to such challenges. Are your beliefs falsifiable? From what I've seen many atheists do not maintain their beliefs are, not really. G term this G term that. It's not so much about the G term. It's about doctrines, dogmas, and ideologies, and agendas we ourselves are unwilling to question.
4. Not having de facto heresy trials for people who disagree with the group-leader's positions or beliefs.
5. Not having de facto excommunication trials for people who disagree with the group-leader's positions or beliefs.
6. God forbid, being willing to accept that some aspects of social conservatism may actually have some value to human happiness & well being. The fact that religion is a natural phenomenon (ref Daniel Dennett) cuts both ways.
7. However we have to be careful of the "naturalistic fallacy." Just because something is natural doesn't mean that activity is helpful to humanity. And yet, fully-naturally highly-valuable actions & activities can be fully couched within fully-natural religion. This is a hard pill for the recoverer from an abusive cult like Mormonism to accept. Mormonism by it's own actions is hurting the otherwise good causes they advocate for. Revisionist history. Harsh treatment of heretics. Child abuse. Their extreme abusive actions actually HURT the otherwise good things they may advocate for. Their way-over-the-top responses to things like masturbation, well, it pushes people WAY over to the other side - but the other side isn't any better. But it takes time for an exmo to learn this - via first hand experience, and taking a step back from ALL the craziness on ALL sides.
Additional related thoughts:
Humans are not a tabula rasa. Pinker showed this via his most excellent book.
Libertarians are "lightly" tolerated in atheist groups. Social conservatives are not. Such a state of affairs indicates a problematic naivete which is highly common among "liberals," speaking as a liberal myself perhaps for the most part.
Liberals don't know crap about what happens in conservative religions. They pretty much know nothing about Islam for example. AND they also know nothing about what happens within their own camp on the ultra-left side.
Conservatives have their problems. But the answer or solution to a given problem is not always the exact opposite view. Being willing to take a step back from our little realm & sphere of experience helps to see where the real truth may lie.
Ukraine has been in the news recently. In Portland I met a very nice family from Ukraine, an experience which led in part to a desire to seek about seeking a wife from there. That experience resulted in the following:
1. Several blind dates, with about 30% normal women, 50% women who wanted nothing more than a free meal from an American man, and 20% outright thieving women.
These dates were orchistrated via the following sites:
2. Tours of sites in Ukraine which normal tourists would never see. Swimming in a large river near Kiev. Touring cathedrals & seeing the circus. Visit to Soviet-era-looking towns and staying in similar style hotels. Visits to Odessa & the surrounding area. Odessa was known as a city of thieves. It still deserves that label, unfortunately.
A pretty face can bring ready cash. Pretend to be interested in real relationships with foreign men, and suddenly, cha-ching, the cash starts flowing in. Yes there are certainly honest hard working down to Earth people in Ukraine. It's just that most such people do not, in my view & experience, visit agencies to help them meet foriegn men to marry. It's something about the culture perhaps.
China is different. Chinese women. You will have better luck with women from China. Less likely to cheat & deceive. More hard working. A higher liklihood that you will be approached honestly & for the same purpose as you are out looking. Women not just looking for a free meal or a one night stand.
Anyway, so far I've created two video commentaries about Ukraine since they've been in the news recently.
Ukraine, freedom, dating scams, thieves, dating advise, & related thoughts - 2-20-2014
In Portland I met a very nice family from Ukraine. Before coming to my senses and marrying a nice woman from China, I went on some blind dates with some Ukraine women. Some were normal. Some were just wanted a free meal / date. And at least one or two were outright thieves.
Why does Moscow care so much about Kiev? Because that's where their ancestors came from. But if they want to all be Ukrainian at heart why did they move to Moscow?
Russians want Ukraine to essentially be & remain a de facto Russian state / province. But a lot of Ukrainians don't appreciate the boot of Putin.
In a bar in Odessa I remember one man telling me "we just want people outside of Ukraine to view it like it's a regular normal country."
If the protests succeed and if the place can be one where the former PM is not imprisoned by the current president and so on, then perhaps the man's dream can come true.
As for the dating scam women and all of the wallet dropping scam men, I rather hope they all move somewhere else. Maybe to Putin's neighborhood.
City of thieves indeed. There are normal down to Earth honest people in Ukraine, but they are unfortunately surrounded by a bunch of crooks. Maybe the normal people want to throw the crooks out.
2-20-2014 7:35am and afternoon
Commentary included with video 2:
Mr. Beeb and the Birdies; more thoughts on Ukraine; the naivete of liberal relativism.
To find, in my view & opinion, 30% normal women, 50% women who are interested in nothing more than a free meal from a foreigner (and a one night stand with a big spender), and 20% women who are outright thieves visit: http://www.kievconnections.com About the same odds later findable at: http://www.elenasmodels.com
Recommendations instead for dating & marriage: In the first instance first hand interaction & offline introductions. Online later, but only AFTER a real flesh & blood first hand introduction by a friend or college. This applies both to seeking someone here or abroad. And in my view and first hand experience, women from China will tend to be more honest with you regarding what exactly they're approaching you for than women from Ukraine, Russia, or similar countries. Yes there are honest down to Earth women in the former-USSR countries, but you have to do more sifting to find them. Does the woman want to go buy expensive shoes or clothing immediate after your first dinner date? Is she eager for you to meet her family? Does she call you at odd hours of the night to request emergency cash? All these are signs that you're simply being used.
Anyway I'm lucky to have found the woman I did, and that friends in the US were able to help coordinate our initial contact. A beautiful son has so far been the result.
Regarding politics, liberalism & conservatism: My preference is to now take the Hitchens approach. Question everything in the first instance, and then see where the evidence lies. Sometimes conservative or moderate ideals end up being correct, after examining sufficient evidence. A hard truth for a liberal to admit.
I can see why black atheists in Atlanta are inclined to be nationalistic. I don't agree with them that every aspect of European culture is inherently evil. However listening to their views helped me take a step back & realize that many atheist & humanist groups in America are dogmatically, politically, and socially ultra-left - and de facto religions themselves as a result. If you find yourself to be an atheist who's not socially ultra-left, you will be kicked out of such groups. So, the new atheist groups are now in my view religions in and of themselves.
Given enough education about Islam, and one may advocate for Islamofactia and Islamotruthia, rather than being guilty of "Islamophobia." The same can go for homosexuality. "Homophobia?" In my view it's more like homofactia and homotruthia - when given enough knowledge.
Political correctness & towing the party line IS a part of the atheist "movement," and thus we don't have rationalism or skepticism, - instead we've got just another religion.
Can you question your dogma? The atheist may well want to accept all of the "yes you can do that" precepts in all cultures, but they're rather loath & unfortunately wary to realize that sometimes there's also value in having stigmas associated with destructive human behaviors.
It's taken me a LONG time to realize this, after taking an Alice in Wonderland style journey through some "let it all hang out" type activities, and having a gay uncle who died of AIDS leaving his regular family with no father, and a gay nephew who spends his life in petty dead end pursuits (eg: posting near naked pictures of himself on facebook & near constant talk of sex with "boys," plus he & his friend's acceptance of a convicted pedophile back into the gay community after he was was released from prison).
So, given enough knowledge, even a liberal can wise up and realize that not everything is equal... Black Atheists of Atlanta helped me realize this, along with my wife who comes from another country - where they never heard of Mormonism and very very little of Christianity.
Daniel Dennett showed us that religion is a natural phenomenon - a realization that can cut both ways.
So, human nature & human morality can be expressed in religion. But just because a given religion says something is bad - that doesn't automatically mean they are wrong. They can merely be expressing a key part of human morality & human nature.
level of veiling; Breasts documentary; Neff's Canyon; Bill Maher & having children (octomom); atheists should have more children; Let's value life; on Margaret Sanger again; "don't judge me!" - why not?; Unitarianism, Mormonism; family values - the left should embrace those words again as well. July 10, 2013
on Daniel Pipes, Israel, and what happens in "democracies" when Islam is voted in.
When Islamists vote in a "democracy" they vote in sharia and literalist Islam (regular traditional Islam).
How much hair a woman gets to show in an Islamic country is an indication of how much freedom there is there. There is an inverse relationship between the level of veiling and the level of freedom in Islamic countries. So it IS all about the veil.
Human groups morph over time. Pet bird clubs. Atheist groups. Religion. Politics. Name any group on any topic and they will change, sprout, split, and morph over time. It's natural.
Welcome to the world of blue balls, prostate cancer, and inflamedepididymides& seminal vesicles.
And welcome once again to the world of sexual shaming, first brought to you by religious fucks, and now later by New Age nut jobs.
In Karezza they really really like orgasm avoidance, and fear about the natural hormonal & neurochemical cycles that come with sex.
One good example of all this bull is at the site reuniting.info.
Worrying about orgasming too soon is one thing. Yes, you should try to go longer. But not too long! Going days on end with painful blue balls, or having your partner "milk" your prostate so that you can avoid orgasm - that is wacky, strange, unnatural, and not healthy.
...karezza is a gentle, affectionate form of intercourse in which orgasm is not the goal, and ideally does not occur in either partner while making love...
Karezza is not gentle. Worrying about whether you can avoid orgasming AT ALL is not gentle nor loving. Karezza is not kind. Fearing orgasm, and having orgasm avoidance as the IDEAL situation, is not loving nor kind. Kerezza is dangerous claptrap bullshit.
"...Marnia admits that she and her husband are not religious, both enjoy orgasms, and feel no sexual guilt. They simply feel very convicted about this one idea: orgasm addiction is an undercover problem, creating chaos between our sheets!..."
...misleading doubletalk. And being fearful of sex the same way one fears cocaine really is abusive. Sex is about life. Sex is about love. Sex is love. And so is orgasm. "Chaos between the sheets" - yes, that is part of sex. Don't be afraid of the wonderful chaos. Don't be afraid of the cycles of life. The ups and downs of life that come through sex - yes, you should learn to deal with them & embrace them, not be afraid of them.
Teaching people to avoid orgasm, as the ideal situation, really is abusive. That's the bottom line.
"...if someone said lets have sex but you won’t
have an orgasm, I think most of us would rather go to bed...So on that note, I
call Bullshit on Karezza, because sex without an orgasm is like hunger with no
food"
reuniting.info and lds.org - the same shit just in different clothes, one from fucking hippies, and the other from fucking squares. Don't be sucked in by shame based quakery, from any side or source.
To recap:
Orgasm is good. Orgasms are good. Orgasms help your marriage! Orgasms help you be happy! Orgasms are healthy! Orgasms SHOULD be part of sex, most every time! Oh, and masturbation with orgasms is good also!
Yes, delaying orgasm can be fun and very useful - up to a point. Eventually you, your body, and your partner need an orgasm, and you should not be afraid of that either!
The Salt Lake Valley Atheists group held their monthly Utah Atheist Bunch, on Sunday February 3rd, 2013. Here's a clip from that meeting,
and then subsequent commentary added on from the 5th and 6th:
The talk at the meeting regarded whether atheism is a religion. At the front of his talk the speaker stated that "evangelical atheism" is just as bad as other forms of evangelical religion, and he said that atheists should not be "moral busybodies."
After his talk the speaker took a more conciliatory tone to some extent and said that he was mainly concerned about tactics. Also during his talk he said that it may be appropriate to respond to other religionists if they were procreatory.
Is atheism a religion? Not in the traditional sense. In religions usually there's leaders who cannot be questioned. Atheists tend to value science & try to reject dogma. Scientists get ahead in science by actually disproving, overturning, or adding to previous theories. Usually religious organizations reject and resist change and challenges to their core leaders & doctrines.
There is a lot of provocation going on from regligionists. Mormons send out their missionaries, they interrogate children and adults about masturbation,necking,petting,sex outside of marriage, and even oralsex in marriage. Catholic priests rape children en masse, and Catholics & conservative Anglicans have thrown their pretty women and women who had sex outside of marriage into asylums. Islamic people require that their women live in the prison of the burqa, niqab, and hijab.
Ok, so this is turning out to be a long standing issue. Examine the history of science & religion. In the past scientists got locked up for doing science, because their work challenged the contemporary views of the world. And even today, atheists are being sent to prison for speaking their mind.
Galileo was found to be "...vehemently suspect of heresy," and later sentenced to prison. A relevant excerpt from his sentence - but read the whole thing when you get a chance:
We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you,
the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial
and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this
Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and
believed a doctine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy
Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from
east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world,
and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been
declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. Consequently you
have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated by
the sacred canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents.
We are willing to absolve you from them provided that first, with a sincere
heart and unfeigned faith, in front of us you abjure, curse, and detest
the above-mentioned errors and heresies, and every other error and heresy
contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the manner and form
we will prescribe to you.
Furthermore, so that this serious and pernicious error
and transgression of yours does not remain completely unpunished, and
so that you will be more cautious in the future and an example for others
to abstain from similar crimes, we order that the book Dialogue
by Galileo Galilei be prohibited by public edict.
We condemn you to formal imprisonment in this Holy
Office at our pleasure. As a salutary penance we impose on you to
recite the seven penitential Psalms once a week for the next three years.
And we reserve the authority to moderate, change, or condone wholly or
in part the above-mentioned penalties and penances.
And then later we have the Scopes Trial, where teaching evolution was illegal in Tennessee.
No conflict between science & religion? That's what the Templeton Foundation would have us believe.
It almost goes without saying that creation "science" (which is not a science) is a direct response from religionists who see science as a threat.
The approach of the creationist religionists is as follows:
We don't like the answers science gives, they disprove our literalist interpretation of scripture. Therefore we shall simply redefine what science is and what science means, and we'll blow as much smoke as possible and muddy the waters with half and partial truths regarding what the true state of scientific discovery is.
This is precisely the approach taken by the "creation scientists:" blow smoke, change definitions, and lie when you have to.
And, the exact same approach is taken by the Mormon Church in the following articles, as they pathetically attempt to respond to DNA evidence refuting key claims in their founding religious documents on the origins of the American Indians. Check out:
A talk by Dr. Southerton to at an Exmormon Foundation conference: http://exmormonfoundation.org/audio2006.html
...look under the text on that page that says
"Simon Southerton, Ph.D.: 'Losing a Lost Race: From Radishes to DNA and Outer Darkness'"
Mormon scriptures that directly tie American Indians with Israel:
2 Nephi 26:19
19 And it shall come to pass, that those who have dwindled in unbelief shall be smitten by the hand of the Gentiles.
Enos 1:16
And I had faith, and I did cry unto God that he would preserve the records; and he covenanted with me that he would bring them forth unto the Lamanites in his own due time.
D&C 3:18
18 And this testimony shall come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, and the Lemuelites, and the Ishmaelites, who dwindled in unbelief because of the iniquity of their fathers, whom the Lord has suffered to destroy their brethren the Nephites, because of their iniquities and their abominations.
D&C 3:19
19 And for this very purpose are these plates preserved, which contain these records---that the promises of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he made to his people;
D&C 3:20
20 And that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord, and that they may believe the gospel and rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ, and be glorified through faith in his name, and that through their repentance they might be saved. Amen.
D&C 19:27
27 Which is my word to the Gentile, that soon it may go to the Jew, of whom the Lamanites are a remnant, that they may believe the gospel, and look not for a Messiah to come who has already come.
D&C 28:8
8 And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them; and inasmuch as they receive thy teachings thou shalt cause my church to be established among them; and thou shalt have revelations, but write them not by way of commandment.
D&C 32:2
2 And that which I have appointed unto him is that he shall go with my servants, Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, Jun., into the wilderness among the Lamanites.
D&C 54:8
8 And thus you shall take your journey into the regions westward, unto the land of Missouri, unto the borders of the Lamanites.
D&C Section 57 Introduction - 1986 Edition
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, in Zion, Jackson County, Missouri, July 20, 1831. HC 1: 189-190. In compliance with the Lord's command (Section 52), the elders had journeyed from Kirtland to Missouri with many varied experiences and some opposition. In contemplating the state of the Lamanites and the lack of civilization, refinement, and religion among the people generally, the Prophet exclaimed in yearning prayer: "When will the wilderness blossom as the rose? When will Zion be built up in her glory, and where will they Temple stand, unto which all nations shall come in the last days?" Subsequently he received this revelation.
D&C 57:4
4 Wherefore, it is wisdom that the land should be purchased by the saints, and also every tract lying westward, even into the line running directly between Jew and Gentile.
[Footnote on the bottom of page 103 of the 1986 D&C:]
4b IE by metonymy "Jew" here refers to the Lamanites, and "Gentile" to the white settlers.
But notice, in the Doctrine & Covenants sections referenced above, we have The Mormon God, Elohim, speaking directly to Joseph Smith, right? Hey, Mormon Church, and FARMS, can you get around that?
The Mormon Brain Software, which was running in my own brain for several years, was a set of memes that operated rather like a virus or a biological system that put up defenses.
...and they do in all religions. If you have a doubt, that's from Satan. So, this is the last resort of all religionists. A newer tactic is to try to redefine what science means and what science is. That's the tactic of creation "scientists" and Templeton Chumps alike. And another longer standing tactic is to blow smoke. And then, if all else fails, just threaten people with the fear that any doubt comes to them via an evil spirit. How perverse, but it's par for the course in cult-type religions.
Silverman doesn't speak for all atheists. Atheism is not a religion per se, and we aren't required to join hands with everyone who may be classified as an atheist.
Merry Christmas. Happy Solstice. Merry Festivus. Whatever. I don't have a problem with any of these unlike Silverman.
And Singer's past comments are disturbing, wrong, and amoral. Religion is a natural phenomenon. Whatever good comes from religion still is natural, not supernatural. So Dinesh should make note of that, if he can. And at the same time, being an atheist doesn't have to mean being a zero population growth ultra-leftie.
I don't have a problem with American Atheists as a group per se, but I'm not into leader-worship though. So Silverman is just plain wrong on the specific point of Singer's morality or lack thereof. Since atheism is not a religion per se we're not obliged to kowtow to arguments from authority.
There is a theme of relativistic amorality in the ivory tower. I agree with the assessment of Steven Pinker and Sam Harris about the state of higher education in America, with their belief in the blank slate, and advocacy for cultural & moral relativism so anally retentive that it's no problem for these people if religions oppress their own people. Who are we to say what's moral? We are. And not everything is relative...
''...the authors argue that what we
call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a
newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is,
including cases
where the newborn is not disabled..."
While I agree that abortion in the first two trimesters should remain legal, I think there's good arguments to be made for highly discouraging the practice at the very least during that time, and good reason to bar it legally after the first two trimesters:
So, I do differ with Singer. I'd rather see all the dogs and pigs on this planet destroyed than to see one innocent human child killed. So, how's that for atheist morality?
It's not the atheism or theism that's the issue here. Most people have built in morals, except for psychopaths and sociopaths, and people who've spent far too much time in the morally & culturally relativistic sewer of academia.
“For nearly a century, the moral relativism of science has given faith-based religion--that great engine of ignorance and bigotry--a nearly uncontested claim to being the only universal framework for moral wisdom. As a result, the most powerful societies on early spend their time debating issues like gay marriage when they should be focused on problems like nuclear proliferation, genocide, energy security, climate change, poverty, and failing schools.”
"...the consequences of moral relativism have been disastrous. And science's failure to address the most important questions in human life has made it seem like little more than an incubator for technology. It has also given faith-based religion -- that great engine of ignorance and bigotry -- a nearly uncontested claim to being the only source of moral wisdom. This has been bad for everyone. What is more, it has been unnecessary -- because we can speak about the well-being of conscious creatures rationally, and in the context of science. I think it is time we tried."
-------------------------
1-8-12 addendum:
Video commentary added:
And another blog post:
atheist morality: response to Peter Singer, Moshe Averick: after birth abortions, infanticide, and human rights http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/atheist-morality-response-to-peter.html
