Religion is a natural phenomenon - it cuts both ways
The dogmas of a religion can actually be natural
Concern about non-reproductive sex can be natural
Maybe a children need a mommy & a daddy
Maybe if you spend your life in a non-reproductive hole you'll be unhappy as a result
Why I've become more socially conservative: several years of observation of the gay community.
Thanks black atheists of Atlanta, for introducing some much needed skepticism into the "atheist movement."
Bad ideas & dogma can come from anywhere, including the left.
On the left we have dogma, elders, inquisitions, heresy trials, and witch hunts.
Go question liberal dogma in a group of liberals and see what happens.
Excommunication trials - only in Mormonism? No, liberals will happily do these as well.
The only real immortality we can ever experience comes via having children. I'm for questioning liberal dogma that draws us away from that. True & honest & enlightened naturalism, atheism, and humanism means this to me.
Can we open a "Friends of the Black Atheists of Atlanta" branch here?
Maybe if you work to be an ex-gay, maybe that's a good thing. Since I spend several years closely observing gay culture, I feel the need to mention this. Also ready heresy trials will quickly happen if you question this key liberal dogma point.
http://narth.com
http://pfox.org/default.html
Without god is everything permitted? If you listen to the liberals you might think so. But no, we're talking about humans. Humans have built in morality. Without god not everything is permitted - even if the liberals might think so, or act like this is true.
If you force yourself to believe a certain thing - a more deep part of human nature, that can make you unhappy. And being in a dead-end non-reproductive loop can, indeed, make you and everyone unhappy.
Tying into 14 billion years of evolution, directly, by having children is of value. Immortality - great value. More valuable than chasing your tail all your life, and trying to force others to state that your "choice" is just as valuable as any other choice.
Not all things are equal. Not all choices are worthy of respect.
Family values atheism - thanks black Atheists of Atlanta for reminding us that it's possible to have these words exist together. And, we can also thank the people in other countries who aren't members of the American-liberal-dogmatic church - people who may value family over forced relativism. How's that for naturalism & humanism? Examining what people *actually do* and making note that sometimes there's damn good reasons for stigma to be assigned to certain activities. A very hard thing for an ex-religionist to realize.
If you're not careful, a liberal-dogma-questioning epiphany may cause you, Mr. & Mrs. Leftie, to be subjected to a liberal heresy trial. But, you jumped out of one church, you may as well be prepared to jump out of another.
Free speech. Free thought. Freedom from religion, on the right and on the left. And thankfully we're human, so without god not everything is permitted - even if the lefties may de facto act like it is.
Here's an update on my religious and political views:
Religion: Atheist
The only gods worth worshiping are love, sex, life, and children.
Make a difference. Do something useful. Think about legacy. Don't be a drunk bum who stares at your own belly button all your life. Find someone else's to stare at instead.
Straight pride is life affirming, and worth valuing and supporting. You wouldn't be here if it weren't for straight pride and dare I say straight sex.
I've observed first hand:
1. A gay uncle who died of AIDS and left his hetero family without a father.
2. A gay nephew who lives and incredibly childish, petty, and stunted life.
3. Homosexual culture at many gay parties and bars.
4. The acceptance of one pedophile (abused 12-16 year olds) into the gay community after being released from prison. Constant talk in gay groups using the term "boy," and an apparent desire on their part to lower the age of consent.
5. A sister who has been sucked into the liberal death cult, where she believes she should have no children because of overpopulation. She's also living a petty and stunted life.
So several years of first hand observation & exploration has yielded this result.
Questioning all dogmas, at first. Initially take a step back. Examining all cultures. Seeing what is at the heart of human nature. Don't take the liberal view or side just by default. Questioning that side also.
Then, here's the hard part: Realize that:
Religion is a natural phenomenon. So not every tenant of a religion is necessarily bad. Some tenants ARE fully natural and rather good, both for the individual, and for the community.
The ONLY PATH to true flesh & blood immortality is reproduction. A mommy. A daddy. Good old fashioned straight sex and marriage. Damn right!
Not everything is equal. Make a difference. Share your memes if you can, but, if in the end you fail to also share your genes, that is too bad for you and for humanity.
Do what you can while you can to not live a stunted life. Ok? If doing so requires taking drastic action (like looking far and wide for a compatible mate - DO IT!). Don't let the liberal meme set leave you as a virtual zero on the great mandala.
Political views: moderate
Socially moderate to conservative.
After several years of first hand observation of "gay culture" I've come to conclude that it's one which is stunted, petty, childish, sad, and a dead end. The ex-gay movement is something worth checking out, if you find that you're either attracted to people of the same sex, or if you've been sucked into that culture.
Economically liberal, with the admission that too many people are on the dole (visit your average social security office on any day to see the status of things). But, the state sponsored dole is better than the Church or the street.
Remember that park they wanted to save in Turkey? Come to find out it's built on top of an old Armenian cemetery.
"..The Pangaltı cemetery was demolished in the 1930s and in 1939 its marble tombstones were sold and used to build the Gezi Park's fountains and stairs..."
Families can be together forever... through evolution and natural selection. Marriage. Sex. Children. This is the path to the only real flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience.
Thoughts on related topics:
Masturbation: Ok if it doesn't detract one from reproductive sex. For most people it won't. It doesn't need to be encouraged nor discouraged. And it won't in and of itself lead to homosexuality.
Sex before marriage: As an addendum to the comments I made in the video, on top of education and disease prevention, if we could have a system of verifiable virginity before a person enters into a long term committed relationship (eg: marriage) that would still be nice & preferable. Of course it's not 100% possible as per what people actually do. But I am just saying that 16, 17, and 18 year olds should find some other way of "playing around" that rules out a.) disease transmission, and b.) hey, may even a loss of virginity.
Abortion: Should be discouraged but legal before viability, and illegal after. As the viability timeline is reduced via science, then the legal line should follow it downward. People who engage in abortion before viability are not murderers per se. Not 100% free from ridicule perhaps, if the procedure is just used so that "you can be you" and for fully selfish reasons. But on the other hand people like Peter Singer who advocate for after birth abortions have been infected by the liberal meme set.
Homosexuality: Justified by the liberal meme set. . Living the childfree life: People who're hurt & abused by the liberal meme set. People who cut themselves off from the only immortality we will ever experience. Chumps & fools.
Overpopulation: Not a concern, and certainly even if it were you should still have children!
Religion is a natural phenomenon: A hard concept for the ex-religionist to accept also.
Family Values Atheism
Questioning liberal dogma
the Gay Flag: Freaks Welcome Here
questioning gay marriage
secular reparative therapy (choosing to live straight)
Examples of liberal dogma:
1. Everything is equal.
2. Gay marriage is as useful, helpful, healthy, and productive as regular heterosexual marriage.
3. Gay couples are as useful, helpful, healthy, and productive as regular heterosexual couples.
4. Gay sex is as useful, helpful, healthy, and productive as regular heterosexual sex.
5. For the individual, living the gay or homosexual lifestyle is just as useful, helpful, healthy, and productive as living a heterosexual life.
6. For groups of humans, it's important to be "accepting" of a much wider range of expressions of human sexuality.
7. Being gay is just "who you are," and whatever happens to pop into your head is "what's right for you."
8. If you find out you like men sexually, it's ok to cheat on your wife, get AIDS, die, and leave your family with no father (as happened with an uncle of mine).
9. Being around gay lifestyle living parents doesn't impact children to be gay. If you're the daughter of a gay man who otherwise cheated on your mother, got AIDS, and died as a result - it's no problem for you to learn from your father that being gay is ok and therefore to live as a lesbian.
The gay flag essentially means: "Freaks Welcome Here." I first saw such a flag being flown over the entrance to a Unitarian Univeralist church, a church which for several years was headed up by a transgendered woman/man/it (woman to man). "We won't judge you." Well, after several years of being exposed to gay culture via a nephew of mine I can safely say this: Yes, we need to "judge" the gay lifestyle. Yes we need to judge whether gay marriage is equivalent to regular true straight marriage. Yes we need to judge whether inherently non-reproductive sex is as useful to humanity as regular sex is.
There are some gay people who spend there lives in service & helping others - being part of the social fabric in a good way. But, there's also hordes of homosexuals who spend their lives selfishly chasing their own & other people's tails - to no useful end. A permanent stunted petty vain childhood state.
In cultures which are less accepting of the state of being homosexual, there are less homosexuals. Socialization plays a much larger role in what happens than the gay rights advocates will admit. And "just being born that way" doesn't mean your brain is 100% blocked from life as a more normal, healthy, productive, and happy person - living a life which isn't stunted.
So, if you've found that you like people of the same sex sexually, I would submit that you can choose to open yourself up to happy sexual marital long term family type relations with a person of the opposite sex. And what will be the benefit of such an action? Immortality.
I agree with the Black Atheists of Atlanta where they state that the only true flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience is through having children.
An animal which doesn't wish to reproduce for whatever reason is damaged. As an advocate for naturalism, I'm for examining ALL human cultures to see what may lie at the heart of human nature. And many cultures discourage homosexuality. Is that a bad thing? No! I support them. And in as much as I can join hands with the rebels who are in the Black Atheists of Atlanta, I'll do so - as a guy with lighter skin. But I'll join them in spirit and with the brave concept that as an atheist we can rebel against, and take a step back from, liberal dogma too!
Not everything that comes from religion is necessarily bad. What they advocate for CAN be part of human nature. And reproduction is a damn important part of human nature. If you find the liberal dogmas you're being taught draw you away from this key fact, you're being abused. So work to free yourself...
Raising children in a household which is accepting of the homosexual agenda can lead to children who won't reproduce. That IS a problem. Liberal dogmatists will try and tell you otherwise. But such people are essentially part of a new death cult. That's my view.
So, do I think homosexuality should be illegal & punished? Maybe not. But I do question the value of legalizing gay marriage, and of assuming that a gay couple can raise a child just as well as a regular straight family. A gay could will introduce the gay agenda meme set to the child as being acceptable, and that may well open up the child to being sucked into a dead-end, petty, stunted life path.
For the gay people who do live service oriented lives, I feel empathy and sympathy for them, and I feel sad for them as well. I also feel sad for the heterosexual liberal who also chooses to not have kids because they've been lied to and sucked into the liberal death cult that teaches, among other things, that overpopulation is a concern, and that overpopulation in third world countries means you shouldn't have any kids.
What a crazy and destructive idea: "Your right to be a zero." Ok, you've got that right, but I don't have to respect it. And being gay is another way to be a zero. Yes we have certain artists who we remember, but even they could have hooked up with a woman and had kids - if they would have opened their minds to the possibility. The possibility and option for immortality. Some of them did.
So, from a secular perspective, there's no shame in living a "reparative" life, that is a life where you choose to live "straight" even if you're inclined to varying degrees to be "gay."
It's heresy in liberal & gay groups to state that choosing a straight life is a.) possible, and b.) preferable. They'll go on angry witch hunts against such ideas. Remember the Spanish Inquisition? Today we have the Gay Inquisition. Watch how angry your average "gay" person gets online when they encounter such ideas.
Hey, it's not about god my friend. It's about tying into true & honest human nature, and that nature may well discourage people from engaging in inherently non-reproductive sex in the long term. That nature may well also discourage other destructive behaviors, such as sex which leads to deadly diseases and so on.
Human morals have some rather key foundational reasons behind them. Discouragement of homosexuality and encouragement of being a normal, healthy, productive, and dare I say, reproductive person, is a good thing. There, I said it. And if you're an atheist group who is ready to excommunicate people for having this view, or if you fly the gay flag to show how "accepting" you are, well, you're really no different than the religions you claim to be against.You've got your dogmas, and you're ready to back them up. But, I would argue, you're not really true humanists nor a true naturalists.
Religious & atheist groups are essentially meme set advocacy groups. Atheists groups DO advocate for a set of memes. So do religions. All these meme sets operate in human brains, and on the framework known as the human body. It's all natural, like it or not atheist & religionist. So that's what a liberal today has to come to terms with: examining which parts of religion, the parts that actually ascribe stigma to certain human behaviors - which stigma-advocating parts are actually valuable & worth advocating for? Oh my god, that's a super hard one for an ex-religionist to do.
The ex-religionist may well spend years of "letting it all hang out," and exploring Alice in Wonderland style all the hippie shit out there. But in the end maybe you'll then come around and find that some of the stuff they taught you as a kid, in your religion, may actually be, at least in part, correct. How can this be so? Because even in your religion it was humans talking to humans. A natural occurrence.
Liberals claim to be able to be more introspective - willing to do self examinations. But are you introspective enough to examine whether certain activities actually DO deserve to be shamed for (eg: discouraged)?
Many atheist groups have been similarly hijacked. The Unitarian Universalists were already hijacked and have been for some time. The creep of the gay freak flag has now moved on to "main line" atheist groups. But, the black atheists are thankfully pushing back.
Is Homosexuality Destructive For The Black Family?
In the video they're critical of "cracker culture." If by cracker culture they mean ultra-left liberal culture that assumes that everything is equal - I agree.
Homosexuality occurs in nature? So what. Can I be a "black atheist" too?
From the Black Atheists of Atlanta: "The homosexual community is co-opting the whole atheist movement." And they present the view that there's a difference between "black" and "white" science.
I can very much see their point on the first item. Gay flags are popping up as the front face for several atheist groups.
Also I can agree with them that when hard natural science attempts to address issues which are also in the "social sciences," scientist's own presuppositions & biases can and do affect both the options they're willing to explore, and the outcomes of their research.
Their videos:
Greek Culture - Black Atheist Of Atlanta - 05-23-11:
Ok, so when I left the Mormon Church, I rejected as much as I could of everything they said. That was the first starting point. But, as per Daniel Dennett, religion is a natural phenomenon. Not everything that comes from a religion is there because of the religion itself. Some of the ideas in a religion are natural, and those ideas are there for good naturalistic reason. Take away the religion, and the apparently built-in morals tend to remain - given time.
Religions can also warp a person's built in morality, but, and here's the key point, so can other ideologies.
Here's a picture of when I protested in front of the Mormon Temple Square in 1999:
...(oh my goodness, what a fat bastard I was in those days. It took a lot of work to loose 100 pounds and those thick glasses. Also I now consider Unitarian Universalism to be advocates for belief in and apology for bullshit. So that's been my evolution and Enlightenment process.)
So, when I was a Mormon they taught us that masturbation would lead to homosexuality and that it must be confessed to a Mormon bishop. So they taught me & others to fear thoughts of sex, and of what happens when you come of age. Being a normal "straight person who sometimes masturbates" was who I was. And the whole gay movement had a similarly themed agenda. "I'm gay and that's who I am, so you have to respect me."
But, now, after being out of Mormonism for several years, and after learning more about science & history & hearing from all sides including those who question liberal dogma, I've come to conclude that not everything is equal. Homosexuality is natural! - they say. So what. So is pedophilia. Oh, heresy, heresy, I've spoken heresy to an ultra-leftie liberal. But, hey, I've discovered the value of taking a step back, even from the presuppositions of the left!
Here's quotes of some one and two star reviews from Amazon.com of Bagemihl's book which I now largely agree with. See the original pages for author names:
Half-baked theory, July 28, 2004
The book's extensive documentation of homosexuality in animals may be valuable, but the book's style doesn't leave me with much confidence that its interpretations of the research are sufficiently unbiased to be relied upon.
The book's discussions of why it is hard to provide an evolutionary explanation of homosexuality are mostly reasonable, but the alternative to evolution that the book proposes isn't sufficiently well thought out to qualify as a testable scientific hypothesis. Evolutionary theory has a good enough track record at explaining things that appear at first glance to be counterproductive that people shouldn't reject it without finding an alternative with a good deal of explanatory power. But exuberance is an idea which explains very little. And anyone who has made impartial observations of typical natural ecosystems should see that the extravagance and waste that the book worships are sufficiently uncommon as to be hard to reconcile with the book's characterization.
So Much Written, So Little Conveyed..., December 27, 2004 Bagemihl belongs to the genre of writers who write a great deal but convey very little. His huge book is divided into two parts; the second part describes case studies of homosexual behaviors among several animal species, and the first part provides what could-with great difficulty-be called an analysis of these reports.
Bagemihl groups sexual behavior in terms of five broad categories: courtship, affection, interactions involving mounting and genital contact, pair-bonding, and parenting activities. Such broad categorization risks confounding social interactions with sexual behavior, possibly leading one to mistakenly assume that a preference for specific social partners is a sexual preference for these partners.
Bagemihl alleges same-sex sexual partner preference in at least some individuals in over 50 bird and mammalian species, based on five types of interactions: intersexual competition for same-sex sexual partners, sexual interactions between the object of intersexual competition and a same-sex competitor, repeated pair-bonding with same-sex individuals or repeated selection of same-sex sexual partners, reuniting with same-sex partners following prolonged separations with opposite-sex individuals, and engaging in sexual activity with same-sex individuals in the presence of opposite-sex individuals. Whereas these criteria are consistent with a same-sex sexual partner preference, none of them definitively prove a same-sex sexual partner preference, and an examination of the examples presented by Bagemihl reveals that the majority of the cases of same-sex courtship, mounting, and genital contact can be explained without assuming a same-sex sexual partner preference [see P. L. Vasey, Ann Rev Sex Res 13, 141 (2002)]. Besides, the large number of case studies cited by Bagemihl notwithstanding, his book cannot be used to claim that homosexual behavior is widespread in the animal kingdom because Bagemihl's case studies are drawn from a less than miniscule non-random fraction of the millions of animal species out there.
Bagemihl, failing to find themes behind homosexual behaviors among animals, offers a concept of biological exuberance, whereby homosexual behavior is pursued for pleasure and is a goal by itself that need not serve any purpose other than pleasure. Whereas this may be true, it is difficult to believe that this could be the result of normal developmental processes. Even among humans where much heterosexual behavior is non-conceptive, non-conceptive heterosexual behaviors typically occur as a prelude to or in conjunction with conceptive sexual behaviors. Additionally, the pleasure that accompanies orgasm not only prompts heterosexuals to repeatedly indulge in conceptive intercourse but also facilitates pair-bonding, which would come in handy if an offspring results from the union. Bagemihl's thesis on homosexuality, within a paradigm that he calls non-Darwinian biology, is meaningless for species that are capable of sexual reproduction only.
On the other hand, whereas Bagemihl fails to provide evidence for a same-sex sexual partner preference among the animal studies he cites, it has been proven that homosexual behaviors and a same-sex sexual partner preference are natural (i.e., occur irrespective of human intervention) in some individuals in some breeds of some animal species. However, nobody, let alone Bagemihl, has shown that homosexual behaviors are normal in some animals, i.e., result from development in accordance with design. Whereas the question of the normality of homosexual behaviors among some individuals of various animal species remains unanswered, a considerable amount of information shows that human homosexuality results from abnormal development, specifically prenatal developmental disturbances. See a newly published book in this regard: "The Nature of Homosexuality: Vindication for Homosexual Activists and the Religious Right."
Biological Exuberance or Scientific Burlesque?, June 15, 1999 This review is from: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Hardcover) I must admit that I find some satisfaction in being a thorn in the side of the homosexual fantasy, but I do apologize to all the honest readers of Bagemihl's work for exposing this "manual of gay opinion" for what it is. Although the second half of the book might serve as an excellent reference for students of ethology (and as a sidebar to one reviewer, there are many, many texts about animal sexual behavior on the shelves of the libraries I frequent; I suspect many from before the reviewer was born), the first half of this text is nothing more than opinion, or what would be termed "observational science." Most unfortunate is the fact the Bagemihl's opinion is actually a second-hand opinion, dependent on the first-person opinions of original observers. I do see that such an extensive volume could be a labor of love, since the homosexual fantasy does not separate sex from love or vice versa. As to whether or not homosexual behavior occurs elsewhere in nature, is there a true biologist, especially wildlife biologist, that believes otherwise? Every American farmboy can tell stories of observed homosexual behavior. Although it may seem a small step for Bagemihl to jump from adaptive homosexual behavior to homosexual orientation and lifestyle, this is truly a "giant leap for mankind." If one accepts Darwinian evolutionary theory, then at the species level all behavior serves one purpose: survival. Survival of the species depends on reproduction--asexual or sexual, and sexual reproduction exhibits a myriad of sexual behaviors all designed to enhance survival, specifically survival of the fittest. Most of the behaviors Bagemihl references have been described as enhancing reproductive success, e.g. female bonobo copulation prepares females for future mating and increase fertilization success (and may even stimulate male bonobos, thus enhancing copulatory success). I will admit that there is little hard core, or "conclusive" science to support these interpretations, but the point is that all Bagemihl does in this voluminous text is offer a different interpretation based on his opinion (or a minority opinion if you will). Other interpretations are based on far more knowledge, experience, and collective reasoning. Proposing consideration of modifications to traditional evolutionary theory based on his interpretation of other workers observations is a real travesty. If we were to modify our assumtions, hypotheses, and conclusions regarding evolution every time someone had an alternative perspection, evolutionary theory would be about as valuable as the theory of genetic predispostion to sexual orientation. We cannot construct science to fit any particular "perspective", such as the homosexual perspective, or it is no longer science, but politics, which is where the argument for homosexual equality should remain. At least in the political realm it is a valid argument. In the scientific realm, it has no ground on which to stand. Because of the very unscientific nature of Bagemihl's interpretation, I strongly suspect this work will go the way of the early 90's so-called genetic research on the origins of homosexuality--quickly and quietly discredited. It is unfortunate that the discrediting of such works in the scientific community does not receive anywhere near the media attention and fanfare that the original release of such garbage receives. To sum up, let me say that Bagemihl's work proves absolutely nothing and is more a product of a fertile imagination that of scientific rigor. Bagemihl does present a convincing argument, but he DOES NOT present any conclusive proof of anything. He is much more the marketer than the scientist. Homosexual behavior may (I emphasize "behavior" and "may") have adaptive significance as far as survival of the species. Most ethologists accept that humans do have bisexual behavior tendencies. However, sexual orientation or sexual lifestyle are human choices and deserve psychological interpretation, not biological. Rather than psychoanalyzing wildlife biologists and ethologists, Bagemihl should consider the psychology of the homosexual lifestyle, which in humans includes an emotional element not present in other species, because it is this choice, not homosexual behavior, that flies in the face of evolutionary theory, reproductive strategies, and ultimately, species survival.
Don't put any stock in this book, September 1, 2008 This review is from: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (Stonewall Inn Editions) (Paperback) Interesting how "scientists" can prove anything they want. State a hypothesis, then go about collecting information, categorizing it to suit your purpose, then use it as "proof" of your claim. The reason this book is dismissed by virtually every true biological scientist isn't because of "homophobic academia," (like the book's advertising claims)-it's because true scientific academia can see right through his preposterous claims. Come on, use real science and we'll all get on board with you.
Damn right. "There's gay animals?" So what. There's also ducks who rape. Lions who kill. And humans who are "naturally born" pedophiles, sociopaths, psychopaths, and so on. The "machinery" of biology & evolution may result in some outliers, but just because outliers exist naturally that doesn't mean they should always be fully respected in all cases.
I rather think homosexuality comes from two sources: a.) an artifact (natural byproduct) of the sexual "machinery" built into humanity and of the ways sex gets "set up" in growing infants in the womb, and b.) social acceptance & ultra-left liberal education. Not all a choice, but not all born in. Exposure to hormones in the womb can have an influence. But socialization has a huge influence, much larger than the politically correct left says.
There is something to be said for examining how homosexuality is expressed, or not, in other cultures, so as to question ALL dogmas on the issue, including those on the left. And of course to not go the way of Uganda and have the death penalty for such things. But I have observed my gay nephew & his friends at many gay parties and some gay bars. I have learned that not everything is equal.
Being "gay" for many is this: a near permanent petty & vain childhood state. No opportunity to have their own children, really. Selfishness. Sex which is non-reproductive, and thus they're left in this state for the rest of their lives - unless I suppose they adopt. Sometimes unless biology & nature forces responsibility upon us, we may get sucked into the trap of an otherwise stunted life.
So, THIS is the type of discussion which should be able to take place in atheist groups and in society as a whole, without demonizing or attempting to shout down the person who surfaces the idea!
I can hypothesize what it may feel like to be a gay man who currently dislikes or is fearful of the idea of sex with a woman. But like it or not, from a biological naturalistic perspective, such a person is damaged. An animal that chooses to not reproduce of it's own accord is damaged. Can you choose to work to become less damaged? Yes you can. Not by kissing the bum of some god. Not by joining some church. But rather by opening up your mind to the idea that sex with a person of the opposite sex may not only be valuable, it may be fun.
Look, a lot of sex is in the brain. Maybe your brain was exposed to too little testosterone. Maybe some quirk, accident, or artifact of nature allowed you to consider the possibility of sex with someone of your same sex. But, so what. Consider the costs of just assuming that everything is equal: a.) a largely selfish & permanently-childish life, b.) no real biological flesh & blood children of your own, c.) having to associate yourself with ultra-left demonizing dogmatists who have their own core list of dogmas and heresies, d.) being a perpetual outsider, and e.) having to waste a lot of your life in a wrong-headed "crusade for justice" - just so that you can try and force others to justify what was, in the first instance, an unfortunate choice on your part.
Maybe you cannot "choose" if you happen to like people of the same sex, but I argue that in a lot of cases you CAN choose to open your mind up to enjoyable sex (& therefore reproduction & true marriage) with someone of the opposite sex.
If you're a man who at present is reluctant to have sex with American women, maybe the thing you really oppose is the omnipresent ultra-feminist easy-divorce disposable-relationship culture present in America. If so, there's hope: go overseas if you must, or search harder for a down to Earth woman here. But don't let the hateful ultra-feminists get you down. There are down to Earth real women out there who will value family and children over other considerations.
So, no, you aren't going to hell. No you don't need to be kicked out of your family. But yes, relationships which include the option of real reproduction are superior! That's my view, as a naturalist, "humanist," atheist, and Enlightenment advocate. But, I know these words are heresy to some atheist groups, and that they'd happily go on witch hunts against such views. In that way they ARE rather like controlling religions. Atheism Plus is one such new religion of the ultra-left. And there's others. But those of us who took a step back from one religion don't wish to be sucked into another de facto one.
A gay flag flying on the front page of your "secular advocacy" group means you're not for really for reason, fully honest science, or truly open debates about all issues. Rather, it means your group has been hijacked by people who have naive & foolish assumptions, and by people who will demonize & call out "heresy!" to people who disagree with their assumptions.
I am a human who took a step back from a cult, took a while to explore, and to find that what remains inside us, our desire to reproduce, is something good & worth valuing. It's core to who we are and who we should be. Survival. Life. And true & fully honest science will back this up.
STFU (shut the fuck up). Strong words aren't they. This whole "child free" thing and being annoyed by children is something I have observed for some time.
If on facebook (FB) you or anyone are friends with someone with kids, if you think they're "oversharing" or if the letters or words associated with STFU pop into your mind, you don't deserve to be their friends or associated in any way with them.
With the recent changes by NPR, the turn over, and the changes they've made - all of that translates into dropping them being less of a problem. May I suggest further that you consider dropping "To The Best of Our Knowledge." When I review their schedule at http://www.ttbook.org/shows-by-year ...if you dig a little deeper you'll find that they select for and push for interviewing what are essentially "Templeton chumps" who portray the real world as essentially ineffable, so as to leave room for Templeton's God (the god of a rich man with enough money to get a camel's nose under the secular tent of "public radio" and science education). More info: http://goo.gl/DEpuXT
The key agenda of "To The Best of Our Knowledge" is to blow smoke, softly, smoothly, so that the naive secular advocate doesn't know what's happening. The woo passes slowly over the nose of the science advocate, leading him slowly to Gould's non-overlapping magisteria and rich man Templeton's God.
Oh, and KUER already has this one, and they love the show. So why duplicate, right?
KCPW was first on MANY fronts, and KUER is the moocher. But they've been a successful moocher and copycat. Show after show, year after year. "Just copy KCPW" is what they've done. Is there some way you can block all their staff from listening to KCPW? Seriously.
A for having "Q" front and center, and so prominent, there's problems with that also: http://goo.gl/Jd3DOm
Maybe you can find better stuff out there than Jian.
So, the suggestions are, drop "To The Best of Our Knowledge" and lessen your reliance on Jian's Q. And somehow block KUER from copying your stuff moving forward.
for my own records a copy of a post I just put on the CBC's website, here in it's uncensored form:
STFU - strong words aren't they. This whole "child free" thing and being annoyed by children is something I have observed for some time.
If on facebook (FB) you or anyone are friends with someone with kids, if you think they're "oversharing" or if the letters or words associated with STFU pop into your mind, you don't deserve to be their friends or associated in any way with them.
Parents should not STFU. If you don't like being reminded about your lack-of-children state by a passive-aggressive attack on them via STFU-ing them, then de-friend.
Maybe it's a New York thing, but STFU isn't a particularly funny phrase. An attack on parenthood, even an attack *supposedly* couched in humor, is still an attack. Basically the STFU site is transmitting a message to all parents that they should not share the joys & pains of being a parent.
Parents shouldn't STFU. Just the opposite.
Y-E-S, to your question "Should those who don't want to see parental posts filter or unfriend instead of passing judgement?"
If your some childless leftie who's annoyed by parental updates, unfriend the people, instead of complaining about them. Or STFU. The site owner used the acronym first, and Jian fawningly interviewed them. But let's remember what those letters mean. Jarring, & shocking really. Not funny Jian.
Crass, narcissistic, & mean spirited. A de facto "lack of life" cult - brought to you by the same cultural hole that bought us overpopulation hysteria, & ultra-lefties having no children as a result.
Story in "Q Salt Lake:"
Porn site claims attack by LDS Church servers
"The owner of the pornographic site, MormonBoyz.com, says their site was under a denial of service attack late Sunday night and that the IP addresses of the servers being used to implement the attack were traced to being housed in a ZIP code that only contains the blocks of Temple Square, the LDS Church Office Building and the LDS Conference Center."
...as from http://gaysaltlake.com/news/2013/08/05/porn-site-claims-attack-by-lds-church-servers
Taking a step back, the verbiage reportedly used on the site in question is a bit disconcerting.
"These guys are every bit as sexual as other boys their age, but are also wonderfully innocent and wholesome. And actually, you might even say that because of their deprivation, these boys are pent up and starved for release, and that makes them even more sexual...”
...Sounds like 11 or 12 year olds to me. What do you think?
The use of the term "boys" may be popular in homosexual culture & circles, but I wonder if it's really appropriate or useful - or telling? I have a homosexual nephew and have been to homosexual bars and parties. So I'm quite familiar with what goes on.
I have no special allegiance, and I don't particularly care about being "blacklisted" by fellow homosexuals since I'm not one. So, let me say that while it's a bit strange that they received a denial of service attack possibly from Mormon HQ, the use of the term "boys" is also strange. How about sexymormonmen, or mormonmen. But the use of the boy term tempts me to assume that sex with underage children is more associated with homosexual culture than some would otherwise like to admit.
Try to excommunicate me for saying so, but there is a crappy creepy underside to "gay culture" which is not politically correct (in "progressive" circles) to talk about.
For example, the man referenced in the following page was readily accepted back into the "gay community" after serving prison time for child rape (I was a first hand witness to this acceptance):
The propensity for my own nephew to constantly post near naked pictures of himself in his underwear on facebook, while at the same time being supposedly "involved" or somewhat committed relationship to another man is telling, don't you think? And the use of the term "boy" this and "boy" that as homosexual men ogle other "men," or dare we say, "boys," in gay bars & parties is also telling.
Maybe there is biological exuberance in the human form of sexual expression known as homosexuality. But on the other hand just because something is "natural" doesn't mean we have to accept 100% of all that goes on. We don't. There's all sorts of human activities which we could be described as natural but which should nevertheless be curtailed. It's a balancing act and everyone draws the line somewhere. I would just like to suggest that people who engage or advocate for, explicitly, or implicitly, sex with underage children, deserved to be called out for what they are: child rapists & apologists for such.
Are Catholic priests who rape young boys "straight?" Doesn't sound like it to me, not according to the verbiage used by the owners of MormonBoyz.com, and not according to verbiage frequently used in gay bars and parties.
I know there's men who are rather highly genetically predisposed to be homosexual. Perhaps the shallow and childish nature of my own nephew was a misnomer? I imagine there are some "family values" homosexuals out there who don't spend 100% of their free time ogling "the boys" at bars & parties, and parading around in front of each other near naked on forums like facebook. Certainly there's slutty crazy straight people who're also selfish & largely a bunch of wastrels (particularly those who choose to not have kids & be "child free").
But again, one thing about straight sex is that it naturally leads to responsibility and growing up. Gay sex doesn't, and the results are sometimes a near permanent petty childhood state. I've observed this state first hand, and I believe it deserves to be commented on, particularly when convicted child rapists are not directly ostracized and confronted in the "gay community" when they get out of prison.
As an atheist I've heard some of my fellows complain about people who have too many kids. And my own sister has "chosen" to not have them. I think this is a memetic disease of the left. Here's my response, to atheists, and to anyone who "chooses" to not have children:
Atheism & having kids: the right to choose to be a zero
I would answer a strong yes. Here's quotes from another blogger who also agrees:
"...Having children consciously, in full awareness of the insanity of the leap you are taking is a revolutionary act. It can be compared to picking up a weapon and walking on to a battle field. Sure, there are far more idiots that are willing to become soldiers, but when an educated individual chooses to take a stand it is very different. One who chooses to fight in full understanding is not a soldier but rather a warrior..." "...Intelligence is a virtue but is it worthless without bravery. If you have brains and have a sense of what this world needs, then have children. Otherwise you have no one to blame but yourself when you find yourself old and infirm, surrounded by blithering morons."
Relative to overpopulation: There will be a natural curve limiting to exponential growth, and those limits will occur more on the uneducated ends of the curve, not so much in places where highly educated atheists tends to live. Science, technology, and education about both can help to save things.
Relative to whether it's stupid for someone to have 8 or 11 kids: Was it stupid for them to pass on their genes & memes more easily to a wide group of people? Transmitting memes is of value, but there's something about a living breathing human that doesn't quite compare to a book or computer. Their right to choose is the mirror of your right to choose not to. The drunk bums in my own family who were in the end zeros both genetically & memetically - their wasted lives show that sometimes there really is value in doing what comes natural.
There's a certain anti-having-kids ideology from the 1960s and 70s which continues today, and it goes something like this: Because there's overpopulation in third world countries that means I should have no kids myself. It's a false analogy, and it's about the same type of thing as saying that one should eat one's peas because of starving children elsewhere. This ideology robs people of a key part of life: reproduction! Yes that's right, having kids. It's not all about you. Biology & evolution will have the last laugh.
Just because resources are scarce in third world countries doesn't mean you shouldn't have kids. Have them, have as many as you want (!), but teach your kids the value of science and the value of continuing The Enlightenment.
After my mother died I gave a talk at her funeral, at a Mormon (LDS) meeting house, while still being an atheist (whodathunkit). Here's a relevant excerpt:
---quote begins
As far as I can tell, relative to our position in the Universe, we're rather like some moss growing on the top of a mountain.
As moss we're very intelligent. And maybe some day, being the smart green moss that we are, maybe we'll find a way to extract ourselves from the mountain top.
In a few years our lone peak which is the only place we can live is going to get scorched. And we happen to be so smart in fact that we have predicted the future scorching.
So if we are very lucky & very smart indeed, our science & technology may save us.
Or perhaps we'll fade away to dust like most life has on the mountain.
It's either the sky god or the volcano god, or the real truth about our rather humble state
Noble & beautiful, yes, but if we're going to make it in the long term at least a few of us have to take a longer view.
There is no Christian Armageddon waiting. But in about 500 million years our Sun will be 10% brighter thereby causing the oceans boil off. So our descendants either need to re-engineer the Sun by then, or get us off of this rock. And we've only known about this for ten or so years. And there are other huge risks to our survival.
What we teach our children about science may save humanity.
There's no heaven or hell. But that means we have an added responsibility to care for what we have here. To make this life here & now into a heaven or a hell.
We are related to other animals. We are animals, and our morals come from a combination of genetics and socialization. Whether such a fact is good or bad, it doesn't matter. That's simply the way it is.
Being concerned about legacy is an issue. Who will care that you lived in 100 years? Make a contribution. Be a great artist or a great scientist or have kids. And if you have kids, teach them the value cutting edge art and science, and of the value of taking the proverbial red pill as from the film The Matrix.
---quote ends
So yes, as either an atheist or an ultra-leftie, you do have the right to "choose to be a zero," but that doesn't mean you deserve more respect. You rather deserve a lot less. And in the end, you'll get what you want - death, and a lack of access to the only real flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience.
The sex slave women can be "...naked from the waist up..." Ok, so not that I'm not already for all women being in such a state (naked from the waist up at all times - not a so-called "sex slave"), it's clear that lust finds it's way into the brains of the muftis in Mecca and into the woman in the following video. Too bad they're so fucked up that they cover themselves & their kin in bags. But sex sneaks out, albeit in incredibly dysfunctional ways. And because they're so repressed they engage in incredible acts of misdirected anger AKA 9/11.
Social moderate, economically moderate to liberal (depending on the issue). Would prefer single payer healthcare, but agree there's too many people on the dole. The alternatives to the state sponsored dole are worse though - the Church or the street. Not sure gay marriage and the gay agenda are all that helpful to humanity generally. Try to take a step back from all sides, left & right. Take a naturalistic approach. Avoid cults of personality. But 100% naturalism doesn't mean we have to accept all of what people do. Everyone draws the line somewhere.
Since religion is natural (ref. Daniel Dennett) that means we cannot dismiss every idea that comes from religion. I'm not an Ayn Rand fan, nor a corporation personhood fan.
European (French) style economic socialism (which encourages regulated capitalism) seems useful. Libertarianism seems to be a fundie religion in and of itself to me. But on the other hand America-haters like Noam Chomsky and Amy Goodman have huge problems also.
The key is just taking a step back from all sides.
After having a kid I am developing more conservative views, especially with regard to social issues. The stuff people do when single is largely a waste of time, and often wrong headed. I don't agree with Bill Maher on the issue of children & think he's not only childish but foolish. But I am with him, Salman Rushdie, and Hitchens in being a "9/11 liberal" or maybe now more of a 9/11 moderate.
I don't believe everything is equal, and so for me "atheism plus" is really atheism triple minus. Atheists who jump right into ultra-feminism or ulta-leftism are really not doing justice to what science shows: we need to have open discussions and open debates. A crucible. Maybe, for example, science will show that two parent homes really *are* better than single parent ones. Maybe the liberal politically correct status quo *will* be challenged by honest science. Let's see. Don't be afraid to ask questions, even of the fanatic nuts on your own side.
Pinker did a good job of dispelling the noble savage myth. Anyone born in America is a "native American." And the term "aboriginal" is racist in and of itself. All humans came out of Africa not too long ago. All humans are descendants of about 10,000 individuals. So as to who's "original" or "native" where & when is largely an exercise in tribal-based revenge-seeking in-group morality which seeks to foist the sins of past humans onto humans alive today who had zero to do with what happened in the past.
To the Mormon wife whose husband is "addicted to porn:" 12 *real* steps that will help!
In response to: "Doug Robinson: One woman's crusade against the evils of porn" in the Deseret News. http://goo.gl/e0m9SL
The Mormon position on porn is basically this: Let us fit porn and human sexuality into our addiction paradigm so that we can exercise control over you.
Here's 12 steps for you, if your husband is viewing too much porn in your view:
Step 1: Stop assuming that the act of viewing human sexuality online is, in an of itself, something bad.
Step 2: Stop threatening your man with divorce over the issue.
Step 3: Stop wearing your Mormon underwear at night, and especially during sex. Go nude, 100% nude, at night, in bed, with your man, and during sex. Period.
Step 4: Engage in oral sex, and encourage your man to do the same.
Step 5: Don't be afraid to touch your man's genitals at night in bed.
Step 6: Be sexual with your man, all the time. Give him cues during the day, and be affectionate at night.
Step 7: Find types of porn which are more a.) educational, b.) produced by amateurs, and c.) does not require payment, and d.) may be produced by regular people as opposed to "porn stars." Watch these videos with your husband, and see if what you're seeing can give you some ideas of fun things to try.
Step 8: Stop asking that your children confess to some Mormon bishop regarding masturbation.
Step 9: Set boundaries for leaders in your religion. Do not let them pry into your private life, and especially not into your sexual life or the sexual lives of your children who're coming of age.
Step 10: Stop teaching your children, your husband, and yourself to be afraid of sexual thoughts & feelings - of *lust* - of being *an animal*. We ARE animals. Get used to it. Live with it. Learn to love it.
Step 11: If your man is engaging in video sex chats with other women online, ask him to stop. Tell him you love him and want him to be happy. Tell him that you're ok with watching some types of porn online, but that video sex chats with other women go too far.
Step 12: Reject 12 step programs which assume you can "give something away" to some fanciful god. You're it baby. You're god. I'm god. He's god. She's god. Sex is god. Love is god. And the only immortality you will ever experience is through having children via sex. So, sex is good, and it's there for very good reason. It's there to be enjoyed, for good reason. The Internet has brought new opportunities and new challenges to what it means and is to be human. We all agree that we need to keep away from the thieves while embracing the good. The same goes with porn online. Get an ad blocker plugin for your web browser. Block your kids viewing as you feel appropriate. But, realize also that some value can be had from exposure to more full details about human sexuality, with less shame, fear, ultimatums, and threats. Move forward in love.
On
the facebook page for American Atheists they don't allow links to other
sites to be posted. Science and human progress generally requires
having a free and open exchange of ideas. American Atheists' main focus
seems to be acting as props on Fox News, suing people over 10
commandment monuments, promoting the ultra-left social agenda, and not
much else. Is this "atheism plus," or atheism minus?
Pedantic motto of American Atheists: "I'm an atheist and I fight for equality."
Just because a human activity is natural doesn't mean we should embrace it 100%.
Maybe homosexual married couples should be required to adopt. How about that?
Just
because a person becomes an atheist after leaving a cult or an
ultra-conservative religion, doesn't mean they automatically become an
ultra-leftie.
Be careful of people who want to control
you after you leave a religion. Atheist plus people want to control your
speech, just as much as any ultra-leftie might.
A secular case against gay marriage:
http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/a-secular-case-against-gay-marriage/
I'm
still somewhat undecided in general about gay marriage, but I'm not
just 100% "for it" just automatically by default. The inherently
non-reproductive nature of gay sex IS an issue, as are built in human
nature that may feel some amount of concern over gay sex. That's natural
too. Not everything is equal. Let's take a step back and not just jump
wholeheartedly into the arms of the ultra-left. Maybe, just maybe,
conservatives have something useful to contribute, even if at first
glance their motives are motivated by "religion." Since, religion is a
natural phenomenon, we cannot just fully dismiss out of hand every
single thing they're concerned about.
A brain can be
trained by genetics, socialization, and a combination of the two. During
the following talk Warren Farrell talks about how in ancient societies
homosexual sex which didn't include reproduction was discouraged: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4
I
don't wish to see anyone harmed by the ideas people like past Mormon
prophet Spencer Kimball, who equated masturbation and sex before
marriage as sins akin to murder. That goes too far. And yet, even the
happily free exmoron draws the line somewhere, between acceptable and
unacceptable human behavior, regardless of the naturalistic status of
that behavior. Of course it's all natural, and to some extent, so what. A
better question may be: what do most people do, and what helps the
species survive? Does this mean I advocate that gay couples separate?
Not necessarily. But men who're in hetero relationships should not jump
ship just because they find out they're gay. And already-gay couples
maybe should adopt, or find other ways to have kids. And gay men, and
rather self-centered straight no-children men & women, should find
ways to not spend their whole lives in highly childish games chasing
their own & other people's incredibly vain and shallow tails
forever. Eventually we all have to grow up. Sex usually, even today,
forces that upon hetero couples. It doesn't, automatically, do so for
gay ones - and maybe that's the point.
I'm a social moderate, and an economic liberal.
Here's for an open discussion, and being free from censors.
Well, on face value I'm happy with the sign. But there are some deeper issues at hand
also. The crazies who called her vulgar names acted inappropriately.
The people who advocate for *no abortions* are largely motivated by,
what is essentially in my view, conservative religion warping otherwise
normal built in human morality. Their religion forces them to take their
moral views to the extreme.
Religion is a natural phenomenon,
and so religious views can be "natural." So, if it's possible to take a
middle view on abortion, can we state that, yes, before viability, women
should have a right to choose? Can we also say that abortion should be
discouraged, but nevertheless available? Can we also say that
post-viability it's ok to have it banned?
Everyone draws the
line somewhere. Peter Singer and Margaret Sanger may well dray the line
at, or even shortly after birth. I think their views are/were wacky and
immoral, speaking as an atheist/humanist/naturalist &
Enlightenment-advocate myself.
The zero-tolerance for abortion people who view all abortion as murder are also wrong.
It's also wrong to assume that all anti-abortion views just come from religion, and therefore can be dismissed out of hand.
So, I'm just saying there is a more middle & moderate &
reasonable ground here which really isn't addressed by the media all
that often.
Yes, in my view, a view I advocate for, women do
have a right to choose before viability. Yes, abortion should be
discouraged but available. Yes, we should value life.
One key reason the people in Pakistan are so upset is because they are sexually repressed. Here's for promoting American culture. Noam Chomsky (more) & Amy Goodman are idiots. 9/11 was the result of misdirected anger.
In Pakistan, Afghanistan, and parts of Iraq women are kept in bags. People cannot date. Men & women both are taught to be afraid of sexual thoughts. Hide the hair because it might activate the sexual part of your brain. Hide everything as much as possible of the female body, because you're afraid of having a sexual thought. That is evil - and it creates angry people. Angry men who have been abused. Freedom can come through *more* exposure to Western culture AKA boisterous rambunctious western music.
"These things" aren't behind him. They're right in front of him.
Taking a step back, it's interesting how worked up people get about penises.
I don't agree with the cheating aspect of his actions. On the other hand I am pro-nudist pro-naturalist anti-sexual-shaming, and I don't think nudist events ever have been nor ever will be "not about sex."
Anyway, as long as his own wife can deal his actions I don't have a huge problem with his actions. Get on with it. We've got bigger things to tackle than Anthony's weener.
Happy Birthday Utah, Pale Blue Dot, Hope for the future, instead of Kraussian nihilism
Utah's birthday is not just for Mormons.
Thoughts on the pale blue dot and having hope for the future over Kraussian defeatist style de facto nihilism. Humans are a different type of animal. Space travel. Calculus. Knowing why we're really here, for the first time. Yes, a special type of star stuff indeed. A part of the universe who can understand itself for the first time.
"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it
everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of … every
saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote
of dust suspended in a sunbeam... There is perhaps no better
demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of
our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more
kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot,
the only home we've ever known." Carl Sagan, from "Pale Blue Dot."
“I'm suggesting we call sex something else, and it should include
everything from kissing to sitting close together” "Where there is
lasting love, there is a family." Shere Hite.
"…Most religions
offer no valid mechanism by which their core beliefs can be tested and
revised, each new generation of believers is condemned to inherit the
superstitions and tribal hatreds of its predecessors." Sam Harris
"Not a single one of the cells that compose you knows who you are, or cares...”
“If you can approach the world's complexities, both its glories and its
horrors, with an attitude of humble curiosity, acknowledging that
however deeply you have seen, you have only scratched the surface, you
will find worlds within worlds, beauties you could not heretofore
imagine... The earth has grown a nervous system, and it's us..." both by Daniel Dennett
"The mind is a neural computer..." "Sex and excretion are reminders
that anyone's claim to round-the-clock dignity is tenuous. The so-called
rational animal has a desperate drive to pair up and moan and writhe." -
both by Steven Pinker
