1. Tiny Robots Can Become Humping Lesbians Dreaming of Parthenogenesis
2. Old Fart Liberal Atheists sometimes can create life - Whodathunkit
3. Thanks to those who help us.
4. Speaking the truth.
-------------
Currently obtaining the newer Battlestar Galactica. My wife is very tired of Star Trek TNG. She liked Enterprise better. And DS9 may be way too boring I think though.
We need something much more sexy!
She also likes the Henson's Dinosaurs tv series. Thanks to me the S.L. library has copies in stock again of the latter item.
Hmmm. Farscape was another good one by the general Henson family. But it's a bit too, well, visceral for my wife's taste.
As for BSG, it's worth noting that we're also comprised of little robots of a sort - with apparently emergent properties once you get enough of them together.
Will machines eventually create robots that're more human like?
At present machines called humans naturally & rather easily produce more machines called humans. A uniquely fun, rewarding, & very challenging experience I recommend to those lucky enough to push forward with such an endeavor. Had to go to China to get mine - with the help of a man I met through a now defunct atheist group here who also has a Chinese wife. Worth it though.
Thanks long-time-atheists-in-Utah for that one, the old farts in the atheist community here who have zero to do with the new crowd. I wouldn't have a wife & kid if it weren't for you.
Sometimes the work of liberals does produce a baby. Amazing! Hmmm, I'll have to remember that. Oh, and there's the very nice gay man who helps us when we go on vacation. Yes, by hell that's true. A service oriented guy who spends his life helping others. Ok, thinking of him softens my view a bit perhaps.
Anyway, when the robots realize they're robots in fiction & stories, it's quite an experience for them.
What happens when humans realize the same?
The debate between Sam Harris & Daniel Dennett is one example:
Hey I like Harris when he does debates with theists. BUT on the issue of free will, I'm with Dennett.
IF you know you're made of tiny robots, and you think an MRI machine shows you DON'T have free will, will you be less, well moral? Yes, you will be less moral.
However if you know you're made of tiny robots, BUT you ALSO believe you have a reasonable amount of free will, you will be more moral.
Hmmm.
By extension, belief in the Bible may make you more moral. Quite true. It may also make you less moral, especially during the time of the Spanish Inquisition.
Black Atheism has nothing to do with the support or promotion of homosexuality, but White atheism does. Why do White atheists promote and support homosexuality? The answer lies in their European myths (Google Gay Zeus and Ganymede).
Homosexuality was routinely practiced by the Greeks. Their high god Zeus routinely had sexual contact with the mortal called Ganymede the Water Bearer proving that homosexuality and pedophilia was the highest standard of their culture. The ideas, concepts, customs and traditions that went into the making of the deity is a reflection of the culture of the people. Simply put, if you have no problem with homosexuality then you have no problem with deifying that concept into your ideal god.
Africans clearly had a problem with homosexuality because they never based a god around that idea and concept. They never based their culture or gods around that behavior. Another difference between Black Atheism and White Atheism —-White Atheism is based around Darwin and European science and culture. But, Black Atheism is based around the African symbol Khepera (Dung Beatle) and African science and culture. We follow the signs and symbols of African original culture, which clearly understood reproduction and evolution that is verified in the symbol of Khepera in the Nile Valley as early as 56,000 B.C. or earlier (reference Dr. Ben Jochannan and Dr. John Henrick Clarke).
Khepera is one of Africa’s oldest symbols of evolution and reproduction, which predates Darwin by thousands of years. Therefore, we don’t recognize Darwin as being the origin of the theory of evolution. To add, the law of reproduction clearly played out in the fertility figurines of the Black goddesses that you find first in Africa and then all over the world. White Atheists , however, do not acknowledge the law of reproduction. This is due to European science failure to officially recognize that the law of reproduction is the mechanism that causes evolution (gene mutation). Finally, the biggest distinction between Black atheists and White atheists is that we recognize racism and White supremacy.
----quote ends
Fascinating. I wonder how much of their views come from the fact that their ancestors were forced to come to America as slaves? Maybe some. Doesn't mean they aren't right on some points. Oh well, and they're made of tiny robots too.
Hey, if you're made of tiny robots, I suggest you try to make a new collection of tiny robots based on yourself and a friend. And, when our sun becomes 10% hotter causing the oceans to boil off, may I suggest that our distant children either re-engineer the sun or find another place to live.
We don't need to be defeatist narcissists like Lawrence Krauss. Or anally retentive a-holes like P.Z. Myers to represent the "atheist community" or the "atheist movement." But as with any movement you sometimes need a whole bunch of laxative to clear out the turds.
Thanks, Pinker, Dennett, and Hitchens, and the liberal atheist guy who helped introduce me to my wife. Also thanks to the gay guy who helps us go on vacations. Thanks, the Internet, for letting me speak even though some people want me to shut up.
Oh, and thanks Deseret News, you ARE good for something once in a while. Exposing the pedo that my gay nephew was friends with. Hey, if I'm ever friends with my gay nephew again, I'll be sure to tell him about how it was pretty stupid of him to befriend such a man. Live & learn. That's what I say. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Hey, it's human nature. Emergent activities of tiny robots. Whodathunkit.
Ok so anyway, speaking with less of my usual bone dry humor:
Yes I admit it's valuable to hear reactions to my suppositions.
More broadly I'm aware of the suicides directly caused by the Mormon Church with regard to the gay issue, and also at least one suicide connected with masturbation shaming.
So on first glance it's easy for me to be part of the Pride parade.
Damn. If it weren't for my uncle & nephew, I'd be there cheering maybe with my shirt off also, showing off my sexy man boobs to all the participants.
Oh well. Regardless of the opinions of one guy in bass ackward Utardia, humanity will move forward.
More kids. Have more kids. Attention, atheists: the religious are having many more kids than you. The Bible Beaters. The Mormons. The Islam people.
Can China inherit the Earth?
Not so bad of a proposition - in the long term. Communism will hopefully drop away more in the long term. The one child thing will probably eventually drop off.
No Mormonism. No Utah. No Catholicism. No Islam (not much). Light Buddhism. Not so bad. Good old fashioned family values (children first, elder respect, etc).
I'm trying not to step in the shit of Mormonism while also calling attention to a bit of poop I've seen on the other side. Difficult...
In response to hearing that a gay director is going to put his gay dick right into the faces of American families who watch his otherwise quite popular cartoon show "How to Train your Dragon," here's quotes from my thoughts on the issues at hand - as posted in an online forum dealing with exchanges idea & info between Mormons & non/ex-Mormons:
Which otherwise sinking political/cultural boat can I jump to? Seems like both the leftie and rightie boats have some issues.
Maybe my own boat will float better. We'll see.
----quote begins of posting 2:
In response to someone who claimed we need to view everything as equal, I then wrote:
Hetero kissing leads to life.
Non-hetero leads to the opposite, in many ways, and by default.
Q. Do we need to make gay marriage & sex equal?
A. No. It will never be equal. Not so long as two men and/or two women cannot >naturally< make babies.
The whole concept of pushing for forced equality is incredibly abusive & wrong headed, and indicative of a greater problem with the liberal left.
Why is it harmful to expose children to the "strong possibility" of being gay? Because gayness is far less set in stone than the left will admit. Perhaps a bit more biological in *some* cases than the right will admit. But still, having children sucked into what is essentially a death cult (speaking frankly) is abusive.
Cartoons? Books for 2-9 year olds? Are you (ie: that is, the advocates that gayness be presented as "equal" to children) serious?
What if the presentation of gayness-as-equal to a kid robs them of a life in a normal marriage with kids? What if?
That ain't so bad - so says the liberal. The planet already has too many people already. Hey, the more people that become gay the better.
Now, you have to realize that my observations & views come after a LOT of observations of my own, at MANY liberal leftist social meetings, plus gay bars, plus gay parties, from perhaps 1995 through 2012.
Is exposure to the Stonewall agenda inherently abusive & damaging to children? I maintain it is. And I ain't a Mormon, nor a Catholic.
Rather, I'm a naturalist & science advocate who happens to maintain that 14.5 billion years of evolution, and the development of sexual reproduction with males & females being present counts for something - as it should.
Children sucked into the gay lifestyle may well be robbed of a life which could be more happy & productive.
Liberal heresy.
Oh, I'm just latching on to the beliefs I had in the past. I don't think so. It's not that simple.
Can I channel at least a bit of my wife's views on this issue, and work to intellectually stand up for how humans think who had ZERO exposure to Mormonism, Catholicism, and so on?
Anyway, yes there's gay people & there will continue to be.
I just advocate for the position that gay "marriage," or whatever you want to call it will NEVER be as valuable to humanity as normal straight marriage. That's it.
And comparisons to the banning of interracial marriage is not only a complete and utter non-sequitur, it's abusive and inane to even make such a comparison.
"...Without the state’s cooperation and enforcement, there would have been no anti-miscegenation laws and there would be no same-sex marriage. The reason for this, writes libertarian economist Jennifer Roback Morse, is that 'marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government.' Hence, this explains its standing as an uncontroversial common law liberty. 'By contrast,' Morse goes on to write, 'same-sex 'marriage' is completely a creation of the state. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple...'"
"Seriously? Putting this in a children's movie?" eb wrote on the
EOnline blog. "I have absolutely no problem with any homosexual people
but the way [it's] pushed down everyone's throats now [it's] getting out
of hand."
"My very young kids love this franchise. However, this
is not a conversation my wife and I are prepared to have yet. It's
immensely frustrating that Hollywood feels complete autonomy to force
these issues on our kids," another user agreed.
God doesn't hate fags. But evolution by natural selection may have a few concerns about such activities, like it or not.
Liberals do have their heads right up their asses when it comes to equating gay marriage with normal regular long standing 14.5 billion year history marriage.
Right up their fucking asses. So, that's it.
Whoever the hell black atheists are?
Rich gay crackers w/no children commitments (of course!) are invading their neighborhoods & making the housing prices go up. No wonder they're more than a little upset.
Also, and here's the kicker for any liberal dumbshit:
Fully natural human morality exists in religion. In the Bible.
Now, as per my own ref. to the naturalistic fallacy, we do have to be careful. But on the other hand, the highly useful shaming (in some cases) that exists in human CULTURES, the shaming that helps us thrive and survive, some of that shaming IS valuable.
Not everything is equal. The LDC maintains it is.
Good job. In 100 years you may not have left any speck on the Great Mandala. But, in the de facto apparent dreams of all liberals, at least NAMBLA group members and Zoophiles will be able to marry, along with the LGBT crowd.
13.8 - 4.54 = 9.26 billion just to get our Earth going, with the more rare elements coming from exploded stars.
Another 2 to 3 billion to get sexual reproduction.
60 MYBP (million years before present) for primates
20 MYBP for great apes
2.5 MYBP for the homo genus
200,000 years before present for the first anatomically modern humans
And 10 to 40 years ago for the assumption that gay "marriage" is equal to straight normal regular marriage.
We may as well consider this *assumption* to be a side-effect of how human neural networks can go "right off the rails," as with any religion.
Maybe some day, two vaginas, or two dicks, will produce children.
Hey it happens in other animals, moving back, and speaking generally about asexual reproduction.
Crafty lesbians are finding a way to get sperm into their hoohaws, by hook or by crook. I suppose one can admit that such an action is also "natural," since all actions by humans are by default natural.
Whatever.
I just think there's value in advocacy for honoring long standing history, and with taking a step back.
Completely discounting the shaming propensities that exist in ALL human cultures is a wrong headed & destructive response.
Can liberals accept that children may, ideally, need a mommy & a daddy?
Marry if you want (as a gay). But, don't so easily discount what evolution by natural selection may have instilled into the brain of a child some naive judge may have allowed into your home.
Why society accepts pornography but not littering?
1. Free speech beatch. This is fucking America. Get used to it!
2. Because you're a dumbshit.
3. Because you have a dick or clitty.
4. You're complaining about porn? WTF! Your founding prophet slept with a 14 year old and with the wives of other men. Then the second prophet with a 15 year old, and with the wives of other men. Then your god gets to have real sex with Mary the mother of Jesus. Hey, sounds like fuckin' porn to me. Hey, how many orgasms does it take in a million years to equal 100 billion spirit babies? 11 orgasms per hour. All sounds like fuckin' porn to me.
A. Yes highly commercialized porn is of less value.
B. Yes children should be protected from porn.
C. Porn has it's uses, even in marriage. Suggest searching out less commercial less-professional more down-home types. It's quite true that whores & pimps can & do inappropriately make money of off this key built in human trait. On the other hand, in the era of web 2.0 and so on, more real down to Earth "porn" can be found with appropriate research. Maybe you don't need to find any. But on occasion it can be useful, as an educational tool, and to help get things "going" in your marriage.
----
The sexual act is not inherently evil, nor should it be inherently censored. It's life. It's how life is created. Like it or not (you brainwashed TBM's usually HATE it), that's just the way it is.
TAKE YOUR G'S OFF FOR SEX, MY TBM FRIENDS!
Lighten up about porn. It's a free country & a largely free world. You don't like it? Fuckin' tough. Your prophet did FAR WORSE to REAL LIVE CHILDREN!!!
Also, having your children grilled about masturbation IS child abuse! How about that Mr. & Mrs. TBM!
What a bunch of hypocritical fucks - Mormons are on this issue.
Please transmit this message to your TBM associates. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
...former Mormon missionary, Sunday school president, temple worker, and fucking long time chump - also a human who thankfully finally wised up.
Please rewrite the above in "nice" language for your TBM friends. Thank you.
Last night I had a bathroom dream about a Mormon Temple. The temple I dreamt of had a special Anglican cathedral looking wing, where a bookstore was & where anyone could visit. In the basement where the ceremonies happen the staff let me use the restroom.
I remember as a little chumplet 12 year old dreaming of going to the temple so that I could do baptisms for the dead. Then when I was 21 at Ricks College I was a temple worker at the Idaho Falls Temple, and then later while back in Salt Lake at the Jordan River temple. So temples do creep into my dreams sometimes. But often my dreams will make some modifications. Bigger, or with a gothic wing added. Hmmm.
[Above photo from a Jerry's sandwich shop near the D.C. Temple. Notice the Wizard of Oz theme appropriately and aptly added. Click on the photo to see a larger version.]
Why do Mormons build temples so close to freeways? The D.C. & Portland temples are right there next to the freeways. Huge buildings with bright lights - easily causing traffic accidents. And yet they won't let you go inside.
To go inside you must agree to:
1. Have no coffee.
2. Have no black tea.
3. Support & sustain past & present leaders, including Joseph Smith, Spencer Kimball, and Thomas Monson.
4. Not engage in oral sex.
5. Not engage in pre-marital sex.
6. Not engage in masturbation.
What an abusive requirements list. No wonder the people who do go inside are often so very anally-retentive.
Pay Lae Ell can go to hell. That's what I decided.
Hey, I remember as a kid in Mormon Sunday School learning John Birch Society conspiratorial stuff, such as:
A. Some day the U.S. Constitution will be hanging by a thread.
B. The Elders of Israel (ie: Mormons) will come to save it.
C. Some day we'll all have to move back to Missouri.
D. When that happens non-Mormons will be able to enter the Salt Lake Temple.
But in any case: Would that be so bad to letting people who aren't anally retentive bass ackward Mormons into the temples?
Hey, oral sex, masturbation, coffee, and cabernet sauvignon wine loving atheist exmormons do get to walk around the Salt Lake Temple, and check out the pretty little door knobs:
Brigham Young came up with the beehive symbol supposedly, the symbol for Utah.
It takes a big beehive to house all the wives of Brigham Young. He had to have TWO houses to house all his wives, the Lion & Beehive house. Hmmm. Plus some of his wives were still married to other men.
Anyway, not everyone who lives in Utah is a fucking Mormon. Attention, this is true!
Yes, some people in Utah like wine, coffee, tea, masturbation, and oral sex! It's true my friend...
Atheist groups and members of those groups ARE being brainwashed by the homosexual agenda, as taught inside the Stonewall Centers. Inside each Stonewall center is a set of dogmas, and books there to back up those dogmas. If you question their dogmas they'll boot you out. You're not allowed to question their core dogmas. Just another Church. Atheists are being chumps and fools - just like any person brain washed by any other religion.
Secular positions against gay marriage - some links found...
In these articles when they say "the state" I would replace that with "the community." "The state" is a bit too strong of a term for me. Humans exist in communities, and they do get to set their own community rules.
This whole deal has been an incredible eye opener.
Step back far enough from a position and you may well find yourself in the weeds of a Stonewall Center. This is exactly what's happened with atheist groups. And by "atheist group" we may as well call many of them "Leftist" groups, because it's very difficult to distinguish between their agendas and that of the social left in America: the assumption that everything is equal, and that everyone and all "lifestyles" are deserving of "equal rights" and equal respect. These are their dogmas. Question them, and they'll boot you - like any church would.
If your kids get sucked into a homosexual brain washing center AKA a Stonewall Center, or the gay culture generally, here is what they'll be exposed to: a.) a petty stunted life, and one which inherently leads to no children, no future - just petty vain childish play for all of their life; b.) exposure either directly to pedophilia (sex with underage people), or apology for such; c.) drugs (drug use is higher among gays); d.) deadly diseases (AIDS, other deadly STDs, etc.), and again e.) no ready opportunity to have real flesh & blood children of your own - to reproduce in a normal healthy natural way. YES, THIS MEANS SOMETHING AND IS IMPORTANT!
So we have underage sex & sex abuse. Drugs. AIDS. No naturally born children of your own. A stunted petty childish life. Brainwashing type teaching that being "gay" should be "equal." Well, it ain't. It never was, and by hell it never will be.
Atheists are, sadly, and en masse, jumping out of one church straight into the hands of another - but perhaps into a WORSE one, one which is far more damaging.
American Atheists - this group has done this.
Center For Inquiry - this group also.
Atheist Community of Austin - yep.
Several atheists go to Unitarian Universalist meetings, and such meetings are brain washing centers for the liberal death cult (eg; Having children is of less value, and acceptance of the homosexual agenda via rainbow flag flying & worse).
The liberal deal cult (LDC) meme set infects all these groups. Samples of ideas from this meme set: 1.) Overpopulation & concerns about the environment means you should not have any kids of your own. 2.) Single parents raise kids just as good as two parent homes. 3.) Homosexual couples raise kids just as good. 4.) Human reproduction is now of little value, and if a person "chooses" to be a virtual zero on the Great Mandala, that's no problem. It's their choice.
Not all choices are of equal value, nor should all choices be supported equally by the community. That's one bottom line. And dare I say, advocacy for real flesh & blood reproduction is by f another - a good one, a worthwhile one, one worth advocating for and fighting for. YOU wouldn't be here without straight sex, straight pride, straight relationships (eg: normal human relationships) - even if your current views are rather traitorous in response.
And, this uncle who grew up in ultra-conservative Manti, Utah - dying of AIDS leaving his straight family with no father. A victim BOTH of Mormonism, and of the opposite side he jumped to in response.
Examples of the dark side of "social justice" advocacy in the atheist (bowel) movement:
Atheism Plus Social Justice Update Pt. 1: The Lulz
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.
All the other points are either purposefully wrong, stupid, or lies.
Hey, whomever created that image with collections of mostly outrageously untrue & abusive quotes, seeing stuff like that pushes people like me ever more into the pro-gay-marriage camp.
I have examined both sides, or is it three sides?
A gay uncle who died of AIDS leaving his straight family with no father.
A gay nephew who leads an incredibly petty & shallow life.
On the other hand I very much appreciate the work of people like Stephen Fry and Oscar Wilde. I also have seen first hand how some gay people are much more service oriented, and who appear to have their heads screwed on much more than my Angel Reading Boy Chasing Convicted Pedophile Friend Accepting gay nephew.
There are atheists who agree with concerns about homosexuality:
Black Atheists of Atlanta
Greek Culture - Black Atheist Of Atlanta - 05-23-11:
However I don't believe they'd agree with too many more points than point three on your photo.
Serial killers? That is destructive abusive bullshit, no question.
"Consider the source." This phrase is pushing me more & more toward the pro-gay camp. Now, I do still believe ALL sides need to be questioned. Unlike some I AM willing to at least listen to the few seculars who are either socially moderate or conservative.
As we know, it's not the number of people who believe in something, it's whether the ideas are actually valid or not.
What you'll find on my blog is the playing out of a tension between several forces. The ultra-pro-gay-everything-else-be-damned position within the secular community, and the built-in desire to be more, well, pro-reproduction & pro-family.
Having gone to China & having a Chinese wife has given me a wider perspective.
Again my experiences with my own gay nephew have influenced my views (and having a gay uncle who died of AIDS leaving his straight family with no father). But, on the other hand, there's this very nice man who helps keep our birds while we go on vacation. A service oriented guy who spends his life helping others. He's not a petty kook like my nephew. The guy is softening my view. So I'm perhaps somewhere in between the Black Atheists of Atlanta and the left at this point - on that issue. And the image you posted is pushing me further left still.
Children may really NEED both a mommy & a daddy. You ARE selling yourself short if you don't have kids. These two points may be true, regardless of how much hand wringing the left may do. But, on the other hand, the right is completely unhinged (as per what's in that fucking image you posted). So the right is completely wrong & lying about the issue also. The bottom line is that I'm not going to be tied to either side, not until more evidence is in. And if the evidence shows that children DO need a mommy & a daddy, then we should accept that evidence, period.
