Email Response

On Sat, 27 Jul 2013 21:49:23 -0000 “christiankc13” <deleted> writes:

“ I am not ready to lose my faith and i refuse to. That would be giving up my best friend, real or imagined. Who wants to loose a friend that has promised you eternal life? If there was no God, then I would die and that’s it, no afterlife, so technically I’d never really know that i was wrong or right.”                                       _____________________________________________________

How egocentric. That is true, you will die and know nothing, god named God or not. You will die, your god (the one named God) will fade from your brain, and its existence will cease. That leaves nothing open to discussion. Your imaginary friend will disappear and your fantasies will end. You will not know nor care what truths you avoided for your whole wasted lifetime in the name of that pretended friend while you serve those who created it for you, and enrich them while you suffer the stress that comes from living a lie. You will, of course, deny that and insist you feel quite happy. You have made your choice and will stand by it. That leaves nothing the rest of us can do for you.

Because you made a choice, you assume in error that atheism is an alternative choice. We who are apostates know atheism as a simple absence of goddish belief, with which some of us struggled for years to avoid acknowledgement. Unreinforced belief ebbs when life gets overwhelming, dedication goes unrequited, prayers go without response, you are blamed for your own illness and debt, and recognition of cognitive dissonance begins. It is not that belief gets rejected; it erodes away till nothing of it remains. The choice it leaves behind is between honesty and insanity. To become an apostate involves only a choice between apostasy and hypocrisy. Atheism arrives on its own, and rides in on the failure of God’s messengers to be believable.

Atheism involves an open acceptance of falsifiable facts and principles of logic learned as we go. That no god exists can be rendered false by the verified presence of a god. Any god will do. That is true of all the multiple thousands of them, including those effigies represented by idols. It remains true of those same multiple thousands that not one of them can make that claim. For your claim that “a god does exist” to be falsified requires the complete disappearance of something that has never been present.

That is illogical and absurd, even were you willing to proclaim, “That is exactly what has happened,” that your claim of immaterialism amounts to. Where would you find witnesses from that time whose signed documents attest to that as fact? In your bible? I see a god of several names in there, ordering genocides and abortions, but no signatures witnessed by others of those ancient times, and only the words of apologists making their excuses.

People never exposed to reasons to question their beliefs are innocent of wrongdoing except for their criminal acts. People who chose honesty over insanity and hypocrisy feel no need to apologize for that. We may need to find excuses for whatever else we’ve become, but never for a god’s absence. That is for you to do. Yet, you insist upon its presence by gas-lighting, the opposite of a correct approach. The god named God awaits in abeyance for you to draw it forth. What I don’t believe in is not mine to demonstrate; what you profess to exist is yours to demonstrate. If you show nothing, that is the same as my belief. I did not choose that. When I looked for a god, that’s what I found. If I cannot trust my own senses, I surely can’t trust yours.

We have equal rights by law. By that same law we can judge each other only for criminal acts and not for our beliefs, as some would have it. We will not be arrested for our beliefs unless they incite a criminal act. The right to state our beliefs and speak out in their defense is a matter of good stewardship honored in our laws. As  awareness of cognitive dissonance increases, the number of people forced to make that choice between honesty, insanity and hypocrisy will increase. Keep up the good work.

Advertisements

Polygamy

Sounds like a fun idea, right? In a truly free country, multiple mates ought to be common practice, it would seem. It was, after all, common practice in history. Polygyny (many women), one male with multiple wives, has been the commonest form and likely contributed to humanity’s survival. Polyandry (many men), a female with multiple husbands, is the least common in history. Polyamory (many lovers) is a mix that takes many forms, including incorporated marriage and, maybe, no marriage. Polygamy (multiple spouses) serves as an umbrella term with which we refer to all of them. We have no way to know how a decentralized polygamy would function in a truly democratic setting.

Polygyny, the picture that forms in most minds upon any mention of polygamy, has been mainly practiced in patriarchal religious settings dominated by a strong authority, although some unattached groups can be found in Midwest USA, but still religion-based. That I have found no example of a democratic system from which to learn stands to reason due to the nature of polygyny as being patriarchal from the ground up, built around a male at the center. The fictional book, Plygs, based on the cult at Little Creek, well describes the patriarchal religious setup and the ills inherent to it.

Love Times Three, with input from all the adults involved, describes a politically more moderate, still religious (Mormon), setup of a lone male with three women. The setup still centers on the male but, when the females organize to resist his too-demanding desires, he has no backing of a central authority to enforce any overbearing wishes onto them. This family’s structure seems healthy and grounded in ethics, based on input from various family members as presented in this more interesting than expected book.

While thoughtless fantasies about polygyny might seem desirable to men, consider life where you can find no woman to marry. The main gripe against polygamy comes from evolution, wherein women seek to attach themselves to men able to provide the best care and security for themselves and their children (King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines in 1st Kings 11:3). Given unlimited freedom, such men will gather up as many women as they can, and deplete the pool. The cult at Little Creek was accused of banishing teenage boys and leaving them to fend for themselves or die in the desert. The purpose given for banishment was to rebalance the gender populations, the elders having considered the young males expendable.

I write this as a dedicated monogamist after more than half a century of marriage with the same beloved woman. I realize monogamy comes with its own set of problems, but I do not want government agents surrounding my home and scaring my neighbors just because only two of us live here. Still, the concept of freedom to engage in polygamy gives rise to serious questions regarding potential eventual depletion of a pool of potential partners for men, accompanied by increased temptation to engage in rape and cuckoldry.

My own thoughts on polygyny, if they matter, is that it seems selfish on the part of the man until you realize the tremendous effort required of him just to keep it from falling apart. To think that no lone woman can meet his every need may have some truth, but it must be as true for her as for him; and she deserves fulfillment the same as he. On the other hand, women who seek the comfort and security of close relationships with other women should not be thwarted from finding and attaining that by busybody governments acting on behalf of offended religious prejudice when no other real harm can be shown AND none of the actual participants has issued a warrant of complaint. A person’s religion is sacred to him and her, and the government must stay on its own side of the constitutional wall, even despite offended judges.

Still, I find it impossible, considering the women in my life, to picture any of them as willing to allow ‘her man’ introduce a new wife into their relationship, no matter how much legalized it became. Not without coercion from religious belief, not without coercion on his part. In all the information I could gather, religion planted the idea, and the acceptance of it, at an early age. I could find no secular examples. For me, the idea of coercion does not jibe with the ideas that support freedom of choice, nor does governmental interference jibe with freedom of choice nor religion. The happiest and healthiest people will be those with the freedom to choose, who do their homework, and choose well.

Polyamory takes many forms, the most widely known apparently being incorporated, or corporate, marriage. Polyamorous relationships can be long-lasting, but most seem to get set up as temporary (as in, “We’ll hook up until graduation, and then decide whether to marry or split.”)

None of these forms of marriage have been tested in a scientifically controlled experiment such as my own fictional The Utopia Experiment describes regarding a failed attempt to develop a completely natural society using modern knowledge.

More about polygamy:

Escape [Carolyn Jessop and Laura Palmer] 0767927567 True first person account of Carolyn’s life growing up in a polygamous fundamentalist environment and her escape with eight children.

Becoming Sister Wives Four wives, one husband, as they told their story on TV.