Why are atheists (like me, specifically) arrogant?

This is what I’ve been told recently. OK, it is not the first time this has been leveled against me, but nonetheless…

So, why was I called arrogant? Well, essentially I come across as being too sure about my views. Generally, this is a charge that is leveled when I talk about religion, especially about atheism and my views on religion from that perspective. So allow me to propose a theory (and I hope you will not find it arrogant). When talking about issues that pertain to personal beliefs, any tone will appear more aggressive, obnoxious, and arrogant to the listener. That is, when someone talks about things like atheism, no matter the actual tone it will seem more aggressive than it would seem if they were to talk about baseball or even politics.

But before I expand upon this, allow me to postulate something else. I know quite a bit about religion. I know quite a bit about the various positions and arguments concerning atheism, agnosticism, etc, and so when I speak about them I do so with whatever authority comes with having debated, discussed, and generally considered the opinions I have on the subject for many years.

And as I talk with various people, most of whom have not thought about these things as much as I have. Therefore when I make statements, it is the two factors above that work together to make my comments seem arrogant. People simply are not used to hearing such things, and when they do it looks like some half-baked idea from some angry and intolerant malcontent. And quite often, I’ll admit, this is the case with many people.

I think that when many of us find our views challenged our emotional reactions will flare up, causing us to become defensive. People are naturally resistant to change. To think thoughts that don’t already jibe with our world views is quite literally painful, as the ideas that we don’t agree with don’t find an easy neural pathway in hostile territory, and so they are rejected by the mind and tossed aside. This is one of the major factors in what makes cultural progress so slow. It is why liberals and conservatives talk past one-another, why atheists and theists tend to think the other is crazy for not seeing the truth, etc.

And yet there seems to be another factor here; there are some people that think that not only do these things not really matter, but that these things aren’t the kind of things that we can be certain about anyway, so to make any confident claim on the subject is simple unwarranted arrogance. This idea comes from the incorrect idea that atheism is the claim that there is no god, which I then have to correct as being the lack of belief which is actually quite common. But since they think this position is called ‘agnosticism,’ when people are asked about their views about god they say that they are ‘agnostic’. And when I explain all of this I will come across looking arrogant because how am I to speak with such certainty for all atheists?

The bottom line is I cannot speak for all atheists. But despite this, I have thought about these issues and have concluded that the only definition of the term ‘atheist’ that can apply to anyone who might call themselves an ‘atheist’ and not completely misuse the term is to say that it is the mere lack of belief in any gods. And so when I can tell someone whom is used to being referring to as an agnostic that they are actually an atheist, it looks arrogant because who am I to say what they are?

Well, I have considered what these terms mean and if they say that they are an agnostic because they are unwilling to say that a god does not exist, my clarifying the definition implies that they (assuming their agnosticism is a way of saying that they are not sure but don’t believe) are in fact an atheist just like I am. This is not arrogance, this is making sure that someone else knows what I mean when I say I’m an atheist, pointing out that it is a very similar position as compared to the one that they hold. In a way, it’s trying to have people understand that my position is not one of extremities, it’s very similar to theirs.

And that comes across as arrogant.

So what is an atheist to do?

I suppose that I could not say anything. Or I could say it with less certitude in my tone. Perhaps I could try a more subtle approach. Perhaps….

But this won’t work, and you should already know why. These are subjects that people don’t want to talk about, and so in order to be heard at all I must be more forceful. They think that either these things are not worth thinking about, that they are inappropriate to talk about in ‘polite company,’ or they already know who I am and they think that my position is extreme or intolerant, and want no part of the discussion. And yet they don’t realize what my position is, because they know I’m an atheist and atheism is an arrogant position to hold, especially if you actually challenge people. We can’t have that, now can we?

Many of my long-standing friends fall into that last description, and so most of them simply will not talk to me about these things. Much of it has to do with the fact that they went to the same Quaker school I went to, and the Quakers teach tolerance, diversity, and all of that shit. What this really amounts to is a dislike of challenging others. It boils down to a well-intended respect for the beliefs of others which only results in people not talking about these fundamental differences in world views. They say that there are more important things to think about.

From the outside it looks like people are afraid to challenge others because they are often afraid to challenge their own views. From the outside it looks like cowardice masked in tolerance and dressed in apathy.

Is that arrogant of me to say?

Probably. But no matter what I do, people like this will find people like me to be arrogant. So, I might as well play the part, right?

Perhaps I should tell them that they are arrogant when they talk with certitude about whatever they have spent years thinking about. Of course, that would be obnoxious.

Thoughts on Religion

Religion. This strange behavior of humans was always a bit of a fascination for me. It’s not that I was raised in a society bereft of such things; it’s just that, even from the inside, it felt like a rather strange bird.

I had no clear conception of god as a child. I have a distinct memory of one Easter at a gathering of family when there was a thunderstorm rolling towards us. I, being quite young, did not have any understanding of what the nature of a storm was, and so I asked my aunt what the rumbling sound was. She said, with a wry smile, that it was god bowling. This struck me as odd, and so I asked what the lightning was, and she replied that it was the angels taking pictures.

Now, being quite young I have a vague recollection of quasi-acceptance of this claim. I remember imagining a large bowling alley in the sky and some large, bearded man, wearing some sort of white toga, rolling massive bowling balls at, well, giant pins with angels looking on with their cameras flashing. This is one of the earliest memories I have of what religion is. And while I don’t think I ever literally believed this claim, in some child-like innocence that allows the blending of truth with fantasy, I accepted this as at least an acceptable idea.

Much later on in my life, I began to understand that as children we accept rather strange things that adults tell us. This is, perhaps, necessary because children have a need to become acculturated, socialized, and otherwise trained as to how to navigate the world. We accept what we are told, and so long as what we are told does not obviously conflict with the possible, it will be accepted.

God bowling in the clouds is obviously absurd to me. But as I began to investigate the genuine claims of religion, they became absurd to me as well. Virgin births, Jesus being god, resurrection, heaven, hell, and papal infallibility all, eventually, became as laughable and silly as lightning being the flashes of angelic cameras. How, I wondered, could intelligent people accept these things?

The problem exacerbated as I began to learn about other religions. So many strange beliefs, so much conflict, so little reason to accept any of them. They could not all be true, and yet at least one might be right.

The concept of god was at least understandable. And while I never actually believed in god—I had no idea what it was supposed to be, after all—I was at least able to understand that despite the silliness of specific theologies, I could not find it so obviously ridiculous the idea of a supernatural being responsible for the existence of the universe. And this seemed to be the prevailing opinion of many that I talked to. It still seems to be a common point of view today.

Imagine my surprise when, in more recent years, I find a sort of beauty and sublimity to religious traditions, but found that the idea of a god to be absurd. I eventually found that I was an atheist who understood why people are religious. I became, in effect, non-spiritual but understanding of the religious.

I do not think that religions are true in any sense, but I see that it is an expression of human desires and hopes and a reflection of human creativity and our ability to abstract the best of ourselves onto the universe. Through our creativity, one powerful aspect of humanity, we are able to transcend mere existence and generate stories about ourselves, but told them about the world. Religion, for me, is when we take the brute fact of our existence and project the beauty we find onto the world and say that it is there, and not within us, that creativity exists.

And in this sense religion is a travesty of our humanity. It takes the wonder out of ourselves and thrusts it, unnaturally, onto the universe. Because we see meaning, intention, and consciousness within ourselves, we feel the impulse to project it onto the world, creating intelligences and intentions in the world and calling them gods or spirits. And when, upon finding that these forces of nature appear blind, we push god back to the farthest depths of reality, to the point beyond our understandings, and the gods become God (the one and only God, of course) and we place the attributes of humanity, all of the best that we may be capable of abstracted into an impossible superlative being which is ultimately a reflection of ourselves seen through lenses made out of omni—omniscience, omnipotence, omni benevolence, omnipresence, and on and on….

And this is how religion can exist without deities, because it is an expression of our humanity that, in our ignorance, we thrust gods into unnecessarily. And now we find these ‘spiritual but not religious’ people who have reversed reality. This belief in some god or gods, but rejection of religion, is ultimately a rejection of our natural humanity. God is the pinnacle of anti-natural (we usually call it super-natural, but they are really the same thing). ‘God’ is the ultimate abstraction of our projection of our humanity in a universe that is unconscious, blind, and without intelligence. It is the ultimate reversal of the value of humanity.

I cannot imagine that the world really needs gods for any explanation, source of hope, or morality. And while religions are not necessary either, they at least have given us a canvass for our expression as creators. We are creators. There is a great and complex universe to spread this creativity upon, and this is the best aspect of what religion has been for us.

And yet, despite this, I still feel no need for religion. It is because I recognize that most of the expressions of humanity are purely fantastic, even while often beautiful, that religion must be outgrown. Myths, legends, and other stories have a central part to play in our existence, but they have a limitation that many of us have reached. I am content to appreciate the beauty of our creations, but would rather find awe and beauty in the mysteries of nature—of reality. There is enough in the world without imaginary beings, rituals, and theologies littering our creativity.

For me, religion has had its day, and while it was a beautiful day in some respects, the day is over. Let us express ourselves without the need for such things. Let’s enjoy this wonderful stupid little meaningless existence together, and stop projecting ourselves onto the universe.

What happens when an atheist dates a theist?

Hilarity ensues?

Not exactly….

For most of my life I’ve dated non-religious women. The reason is that I’ve always been non-religious, and I tend to get along better with non-religious people. Further, I’ve tended, especially in the past few years, to date atheist women. Why? Well, there are a number of reasons, but mostly it has to do with the fact that atheist women tend to be more experienced sexually as they don’t usually have reasons to not be sexually open and free. But other factors, like atheist women don’t often think I’m going to hell and am a minion of Satan (although some may think some secular equivalent) come into play as well.

Now, I do know about those naughty Catholic school girls (although I tend to date them after they are done high school…), but the fact is that religions often tend to have a repressive role in sexuality. For many, guilt is a factor. Guilt at having certain urges, guilt at giving into them, guilt about having urges for people that they think god finds it sinful to have urges for…you get the point. Then there is the idea that sex is supposed to be reserved for marriage. Fucking ridiculous! I mean this truly in the sense of this being an idea worthy of merciless ridicule.

Sex is a beautiful and tremendously fun aspect of life. In fact, I’ll highly recommend this set of articles by Hambydammit on the subject of myth, sexuality and culture. In my opinion any religion of spiritual belief that associates sex with guilt, repression, or anything similar is highly problematic.

Now, I have never been particularly promiscuous, although to some people I would be considered a down-right slut. And for other sluts out there, I have a book to recommend. Most of my sexual experiences have actually come in the last several years. In fact, I graduated high school a virgin. Of course, I was embarrassed by this at the time, especially since, being insecure as I was, I told some people otherwise…but never mind that now! I waited until the time felt right, I suppose, and only in retrospect do I think that maybe some earlier opportunities should have been seized. And it was not until after college that I really became a sexual dynamo, having somewhat limited experience in college (although I did discover polyamory at that point).

So, I now realize I’ve digressed too much. So, what happens when an atheist slut, like myself, meets a nice Christian girl? Well, in most cases I would probably go the other way, fast. But what happens when I have already found that I like said girl even before knowing that she is a Christian? Well, now that’s more complicated. If I like her enough to look past the imaginary friend, then the question becomes what I do about it.

I must point out that someone believing in god is not an automatic turn-off. I have to judge a person by more than this one criterion. I am willing to look at the person’s personality as a whole and overlook a very obvious difference in worldview in order to see a person’s worth beyond this silly question about gods. And if, upon looking deeper, I find a person who is willing to challenge their beliefs, is interested in what others believe, and has other attributes worthy of attention (and no, I don’t just mean that they have to be hot…although that helps too…), then I let nature take its course. Of course, she’ll likely think it’s god’s course or something, but never mind that.

And then what happens when she learns that on top of me being an atheist I am polyamorous? Well now, that depends on how truly open-minded she is, right? And then I’m reminded that Jesus loves everyone, and this must be some kind of polyamory, right? I mean, he is married to thousands of nuns, right? Talk about a harem…. And then, on top of that, Jesus has millions of adoring fans, both male and female, who love him more than anything else and have these really close relationships. Well, Jesus might be alright with me, if he’s open enough to not only be bisexual but also polyamorous to such a degree. And no, this is not some April Fool’s Day attempt to act like I’ve accepted Jesus. I still am not convinced that the guy ever existed, and I’m still an atheist. It’s just that the idea has a kind of appeal, in some ways.

So, what of it then? What does happen when an atheist guy meets a Christian girl. Of course, this is a completely hypothetical situation (crap, I forgot the html code for sarcasm again…). I must say that so far, this purely hypothetical situation of mine is working out just fine.

Natural Selection and the Newspaper Industry

Evolution is a fact. We have seen it happen, so it is certain insofar as we can be certain of anything. Evolution is the basis for modern biology, and is as solidly supported by scientific evidence as gravity. The evidence is so overwhelming in support of the fact that over millions of years processes have caused species to come into being through natural means.

The central process that is responsible for this evolution, natural selection, is rather simple. And yet it is commonly misunderstood, even by intelligent people, in a number of different ways. Thus, I have decided to write about an example, analogous to natural selection in another place than biology; journalism.

In this case, the environment of this process is the media. And in this case I will talk about the newspaper industry, and use its demise as an example of how the change in an environment can cause a species to die out, leaving behind a mutation of itself behind. Thus, in the future, there could be some journalist that might say that there career was not the descendant of a newspaper, because if that were true why are there still newspapers? (as a few newspapers might still exist even then)…and we might recognize this as familiar to us.

The recording of information is a rather old convention of human culture. The very definition of history is intimately tied to this convention, in fact. At some point we became technologically advanced enough to produce pieces of paper in large enough quantities, and quickly enough, in order to have hundreds, thousands, and eventually millions of copies sold a day. Thus the newspaper industry was born.

As technology advanced, information was able to be disseminated by other means. Television was one effective change on this industry, but the internet, especially paired with mobile devices, is the most effective of these technologies. This is a change in the environment. It’s the analogy of a climatic change for information. As more people started to read news on the internet, newspapers started to sell less copies. Now we have come to the point where major segments of the newspaper industry are closing down.

Now the analogy is not precise. It is, in fact, largely very different. Nonetheless I think its an interesting analogy to compare the information that is transmitted through news media and the genetic information passed down through sexual reproduction in looking at the ways that the environment will select certain carriers of the news. In a similar way that the genetic information carried in a smarter, stronger, or better hidden biological life form will tend to pass down more offspring, the technology we have will select the vehicles of information that will reach human readers in better ways.

Newspapers are a species that are having less and less offspring. At some time in the last few decades a mutation of this form of media came about and, at first, was odd looking and not well adapted to the culture. But over time,, as the environment changed as the internet spread in usage by more people, this mutation began to transform and be shaped into a wonderful tool that we use today.

Now, there is one major difference between my analogy and the processes involved in evolution. While the transmission of information through various media (like blogs) is the result of intelligent choice (although some choices may not be particularly intelligent), the process of natural selection is not based on any intelligence at all. For the vast majority of evolutionary history, there was no such thing as intelligence, as intelligence is one by-product of this process. That is, while we choose where we read our news with self-awareness, the universe (or the Earth, in this case) does not choose which species survive with any self-awareness. The process is blind, in biology, but it is not blind in terms of where we read our news.

It is this that creates the fundamental misunderstanding about natural selection. It is not a selection in the sense of a choice. It is not a process that has life choose its path and certain choices work better in nature. It is a random mutation that has either no effect or a change in the offspring, having a detrimental effect, positive effect, or no noticeable effect on that offspring’s ability to reproduce itself.

And as these mutated offspring either have no offspring (mutation is not passed on), more offspring (Spreading the mutation at a increased rate) or has little to no effect (mutation becomes moderately spread in the species), then we will see a change in the species as a whole.

This is a natural process, not one driven by intelligence or intentional design. It does not need a god to explain it, and it has nothing to do with the ultimate origin of life. This only deals with what happens when life already exists, and so retreating behind the question of “ok, well how does life get there in the first place” is not a challenge to evolution at all.

The reason, by the way, that there are still monkeys is because we didn’t evolve from them. Other primates and ourselves evolved from a common ancestor. Thus, the monkeys, apes, etc are as evolved as we are. Evolution is not a ladder, nor does it have a goal. We are not more evolved than an ape, a cat, or bacteria. We just have the perhaps unique quality of self-awareness that allows us to actually try to make sense of a senseless process, and thus to add gods to it unnecessarily.

Irreducible Complexity; a conversation with God

He sat for a while considering this argument. It had a subtle, yet undeniable truth that his mind wanted to reject, but couldn’t. It was a good argument, and he didn’t know how to reconcile it in his mind quite yet. He had thought that this was all there was, that no greater world existed, that this was the only reality. And on top of that, this was supposed to be his day off and he was supposed to be resting. Instead, he found that his mind was as busy as he had been with the rest of himself for the previous six days. It had been a long week, and and he wished that he could just rest, but rest would not come.

“So, what you are saying is that things in this world are too complex, and that no amount of time or normal processes could be enough to have these things come about by chance. They have to have a designer?”

The question had already been answered, but he just had wanted to make sure he could package it altogether nicely. Rather than answer him, his visitor just sat there, smiling.

He suddenly felt very presumptuous. He tried to remember how important he had felt as he built and created all week. He tried to recapture that feeling of pride in having done good work, but suddenly he thought that it had all been part of a greater plan. Because if this visitor of his was right, it would seem to indicate a need for there to be something larger, more powerful, and more intelligent than he–greater than this whole world that he thought he knew.

The argument of this visitor seemed air-tight. How could this world with all of its complexity and beauty have been brought about by simple chance? It must be the design of some greater force. He suddenly felt very humble, and the feeling of some presence, some power, some beneficence that surrounded him suddenly became overwhelming. It felt as if it had always been there, but that some pride or refusal to feel it had been present too but was now too weak to maintain itself. And as that pride began to crumble, he allowed it to wash over him, and he felt reborn.

Tears flowed, thoughts and muttered words of gratefulness, love, and overwhelming joy filled him as he felt this presence flow through him. As his visitor watched, he walked over to him and put a hand upon his shoulder, and they both stayed that way for some time.

“I thought that I was somehow in control. I thought that I was only answerable to me. I thought….”

“It’s OK; you didn’t know. But now that you do know, what will you do about it?”

He thought about this, and in that moment of deep feeling and passion for this new understanding, he rose to his feet and proclaimed to all that could hear him that….

“I will submit myself to this greater force. I will heed its commandments, share its love, and I will hope to one day make myself worthy of it. I will make sure that I spend my days in worship of this new found presence, and I thank you for showing it to me.”

The visitor smiled a little and looked into his eyes.

“I did nothing. I merely helped you open a door that you had closed through your own pride. You have denied the presence of its power too long, and you are now on the path to being righteous.

And as Yahweh looked at the visitor he fully appreciated, for the first time, that he, the great Yahweh, must have been the creation of an intelligent designer, for anything that is complex needs a maker. And to think, he had thought that it had been all about him, just because he created a universe. These superficial things, these false points of pride, were as nothing to this greater force. He tried to imagine what this greater power must have been like. It was probably beyond his ability to know.

So he stopped thinking about it.

And that is how God found super god.

—

Super god sat for a while considering this argument. It had a subtle, yet undeniable truth that his mind wanted to reject, but couldn’t….

A Message for ‘Agnostics’

I’ve met, in my travels, a number of people who call themselves ‘agnostic.’ In many cases, they contrast this position against my being an atheist, saying that they are not willing to say that there is no god, they just don’t know. They aren’t religious and they just don’t understand why we atheists can think that we know there isn’t a god. Well, I have a message for people who hold this point of view.

Agnostics, you are atheists too.

OK, allow me to clarify. When a person tells me that they don’t know whether a god exists, thus calling themselves an agnostic, they are trying to contrast their perspective with what they think mine–an atheist’s–is. What they do not understand is that in most cases, when someone calls themselves an agnostic, they mean exactly the same thing that I do when I call myself an atheist.

I call myself an agnostic-atheist in these conversations. This usually causes the self-identified ‘agnostic’ to look at me with some confusion. “How can you be both?” they ask, and I say that the terms ‘agnostic’ and ‘atheist’ address different questions and are not mutually exclusive.

Let me break it down for you:

Theist: One who holds a belief in some god or gods.

Atheist: One who lacks belief in any gods (a- = negation or lack)

gnostic: this is a Greek word for knowledge. Not to be confused with the ancient religious traditions generally referred to as the Gnostics. This term simply means knowledge, and in this context it implies that to be a ‘gnostic’ is to know whether or not there is a god.

agnostic: to either claim to not know whether there is a god or not or to believe it to be impossible to know whether there is a god or not.

Thus, if I am an agnostic-atheist, it means that while I do not know with certainty that there is no god of any kind, I do not currently believe there is one. That is, I am not convinced in the existence of a god. I do not claim to know that there are no gods of any kind.

Also, an agnostic-theist is someone who, while not having certainty, believes that a god exists. And while they may claim certainty, I believe that this is impossible. While one cannot deny the experiences they have, they can be skeptical about the interpretation of those experiences. Thus, a person’s ‘experience of god,’ while it may be a real experience, may have another explanation and thus cannot be used as certain knowledge of god, just of some experience that they interpret as god.

So, what would a gnostic-atheist or a gnostic-theist look like? This would be a person who was certain that they knew whether or not there was a god. Does anybody fit this criteria? I don’t think so.

And while an atheist might say that a particular god does not exist, whether due to logical impossibility or for any other reason, this does not address that larger question of whether any gods exist. Thus, ‘gnostic’ seems to be an impossible position to hold, for me, and thus agnostic actually becomes redundant, since everyone is an agnostic.

Agnosticism is not some fence position between atheism and theism. It is not some place where you can sit and feel superior to atheists because you aren’t being judgmental towards belief in god. Rather, it is what you call yourself when you don’t know what an atheist means when they say they don’t believe in god. It is a way to weasel out of answering the question of whether you believe in god or not. The answer “I’m agnostic” is answering a different question, not fence-sitting.

You either believe in some god or you do not. There is no possible middle ground on this issue.

If you are not sure or you are still thinking about it, it means that you don’t currently actually hold a belief in a god, and are, technically, an atheist. Similarly, if you believe but are still questioning, you are a theist. I’m sure that some people waver between being an atheist and a theist many times, perhaps depending on mood, the last argument for or against, and maybe even how their day is going.

But for you ‘agnostics’ who think that calling yourself an ‘agnostic’ because you have bought this BS about atheism being the absurd position of certainty that no god exists have swallowed it whole. You are likely atheists.

My SO has an OSO

What the hell does that mean?

This is poly lingo. It means that my significant other (SO) has another significant other (OSO). It means that my girlfriend has another boyfriend. As a song does, My girlfriend’s boyfriend isn’t me…or something.

How does this make me feel? Well, at first I felt a little bit threatened and jealous. But then I thought about it. See, I don’t get to spend enough time with…crap, this is the point which I wonder how identifying the specific people might be a problem. OK, I’m calling her Susan. In any case, she tells me that she’s met a guy that she likes, and has been seeing him for a little while. The thing is that I don’t see her enough to satisfy her. She wants more, and I cannot blame her. She deserves to be happy, and I can’t see her enough to keep her happy enough, and so I’m OK with her dating someone else. Bottom line, I love being with her, and I want it to continue. So, what could go wrong?

Well, despite the fact that they are both bisexual, they don’t get along. They did for a short while, but that time has passed. Now, my primary (I’ll call her Natalie) is not sure about this situation, and wishes that things had not turned out this way. She will not be happy knowing that I am having sex with a woman who is having sex with another man, mostly because it can be risky in terms of STI’s. It is a valid concern. But I trust ‘Susan’s’ judgment, and I will make sure that my caution is satisfied before this goes too far. My concern now is the fact that if ‘Natalie’ wants more than I can give, and her reluctance to pursue this.

Details are not necessary. All that matters is that both of them have needs I cannot fulfill myself, just as each of them cannot fulfill my needs themselves. I want them to be happy, but love them both, yet in different ways. I will feel a little jealous at times, but I recognize that I am able to share myself and feel joy and love for both, so can they both as well.

We, as a culture, need to stop worshiping the need to own our loved ones. Think how many love songs talk of the ones we are with belonging to us, or whatever. This is a drug that is based on our own fears and insecurities. We need to love the people we are with, including their desires as they really are, otherwise we are mostly pretending to love them rather than the mutual dependence that our culture calls monogamy.

I’m happy that ‘Susan’ may find another to care about. I feel genuine compersion (look up this term, it may be of interest to you out there).

The assumption of monogamy; being polyamorous at a party

So, I’ve noticed that when people are at parties, meeting people, flirting, etc, there is a time in the conversation when it becomes clear that the person you are talking to is involved in a relationship. At this point, I have noticed that the flirting dies down, and often the physical distance increases. You suddenly see the person going into “respectful distance” mode or something.

Now, it isn’t that I’m looking for hookups, or that I’m interested n another relationship or anything, just notice that in almost every situation (except polyamory meetups, of course), someone being in a relationship somehow automatically throws out the possibility of continued flirting. And if it doesn’t stop, the tone of it always ends up as being playful, at most. I wonder if this is an indication of how many people still may harbor desires that would be compatible with polyamory. I also wonder if this is a way to test the possible waters of an affair or to see if, just maybe, they may not be particularly happy with their relationship and may be thinking about establishing some chemistry in case things don’t work out. The next time they see the same person at a party both flirting interlocutors may be single; then, well, nature takes its course.

I bring this up because of a particular situation. I was at a party with one of my lovely ladies last night when I noticed that a guy was apparently flirting with her. He may have just been friendly, but she’s an attractive woman, and I wouldn’t blame him for being interested. Now, at some point, he asked about the nature of our knowing one-another, and asked if we were together. When he found that we were, his demeanor changed slightly, probably not enough for her to notice, but I did. Now, I appreciate the respect that is most-likely intended here, but I could not help but think that it was based upon the assumption, shared by most people for fair reasons, that we were monogamous. I suppose I’d rather live in a world where the next question would move towards figuring out if we were monogamous or not, rather than assume it.

I don’t know if it’s ever happened to me in particular, but what happens if two polyamorous couples (or two swinging couples) meet at a party (just a regular party, not at a swinger’s club) and they both just assume the others are, well, “normal?” Well, what happens is that everyone may be thinking about something that won’t come up. Oh wait, that’s why there is alcohol and the “swapping” jokes that lots of couples say with one another, sometimes to test the waters or just because it tickles them the right way.

I just wish people could be more direct. Yes, I now that this will intimidate people who have not found comfort in these non-normal ways of life, and that some who may be interested will become defensive and react as such, but that’s their problem, right?

…

In any case, I just sort of wish that monogamy was not assumed. Hell, if my lovely lady and this gentlemen liked one-another, and both wanted to pursue a possible relationship, I might have been OK with that. He seemed lie a nice guy and (while I’m not bi) he was attractive, so it may not have been necessary to discontinue the flirtation. But, in the end, nothing came of it. And what’s worse, for me, is that I was unable to even educate people about this lifestyle of mine. I think that there are more potential poly people out there who just don’t think that anyone else thinks about things like this, thus they remain monotonous…sorry, I meant monogamous.

And then there was this girl there that I thought was interesting…but, like I said, I’m not looking….

😉

Theists; it is time to put away childish things

Seriously, enough already. It’s time to put away the childish mythologies and join reality. It’s time to stop holding onto bronze-age myths and superstitions. It’s time to challenge yourself to either seriously look at your beliefs with an honest desire for reality.

You want to believe in god, fine. But for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, stop with the silly virgin births, reincarnations, prayer, and sin already. These things are silly and absurd, and we must, as a species, move past them if we are to move forward to make this world better fir all of us.

Prayer does not work, virgin meant “young woman,” and the mind is the product of the brain, and when it dies so do you.

Please, enough already.

“luke warm” atheists

I have atheist friends that think I’m a bad atheist.

No, really. I do actually have friends. I also have acquaintances and perhaps an enemy or two. I’ll keep you up to date if any legendary battles ensue that involves any kung fu or car chases.

Now, most of my friends are atheists. OK, I would define them as such, but perhaps they would not self-identify as such; most of them are generally non-religious, at very least. I am close to a few people that are religious and theists as well, and I do get along with them quite well. But what I have come to realize is that people have personalities independent of an opinion about gods or religions. I mean this in the sense that there are certain dispositions towards certain types of issues that have some determination on how they will behave. Now, before I cause your vague-o-meter to explode, allow me to be a bit more specific, if I may.

One’s opinion considering the existence of god is one thing. Another is what one does with this conclusion, assuming they really care at all. Within some Christian circles you will hear criticism about those that are “luke warm” (and I don’t think they mean that they left the New Testament on the radiator), rather than being “on fire for Christ,” or whatever the kids are saying these days. Similarly, there are people who are “luke warm” about their position in our society as atheists, rather than active, outspoken, etc.

I get this. No, really, I do! For them, this activity to criticize and battle against the minority that are trying to maintain some theocratic type of control are wasting our time or, as some have said to me, doing more harm than good. They live in a world, a real world, where progress has moved on. They ignore or are willing to live along side those that they disagree with because they don’t see what people like me are doing as helpful, but rather harmful or merely setting back progress. They have other priorities.

I want to be them, I want to live in the world that they live in. But, frankly, I think that their world has a little bit of fantasy in it as well. I think this because they forget that it was the efforts of people like us, the people “on fire for the lack of god,” (lol) in cooperation with the work of scientists, engineers, inventors, and so forth that we have progressed. They also fail to see what we are really doing. They tend to think that we are creating the problem by putting people on the defensive, when in fact we are generally only responding to the problems we see.

Now, I will grant that there are some that do provoke people, and this may cause defensiveness. I also believe that this is sometimes the only way you will get through to some people. There have been a number of comments sent, for example, to the Rational Response Squad that have said that without their aggressive tactics, they would have never realized their own delusions and moved past their religious convictions. And then there will be some people simply put off by such tactics. Their insecurity about their beliefs are the real issue for those people, I think, the faith itself being a symptom. Criticism of your beliefs should be either shrugged off or taken as a personal challenge, and not be met with defensiveness.

There are many out there that are still swayed by the proclamations of the minority fundamentalists. There are families being torn apart as people discover their lack of belief in some god, people swindled out of their money by televangelists, and there are people that believe that scientists are involved in an evil conspiracy to promote the lie of evolution. In my opinion, there must be a front line in this set of circumstances; their must be people that engage the people that promote and are insidiously duped by these promoters. To do otherwise would be to leave the misinformed, ignorant, and swindled on their own.

And the more people willing to stand up for good science standards in our schools, good sex education, and the freedom to criticize will help ensure that the future will be one that these people already think they are living in. And if they don’t already think we are living in that world, then what harm are we doing? And if we aren’t doing it right, then, by all means, show us how.

Because right now, you (and you know who you are…) are not doing anything but ignoring the undesirable effects of continued religious influence on society except to tell us we are doing it wrong.

So put up or shut up, haters.