Ep #228 Does poly cause atheism?

[Jacob from Texas]

Alight I’ll ask since I’ve just finished listening to this episode and no one else has started this thread yet? If, the myth of monogamy is true, shouldn’t the question be.

Doesn’t Christianity create Monogamy?

I am looking forward to hearing your responses to this question being restated?

And for the record three cheers for Joreth, for being rational and objective, spare the titles…loved the show

[vrimj]

I am glad you enjoyed it.  Personally this episode it what finally led me to unsubscribe from the podcast.

I think monogamy is more likely cause by economic circumstances and demographic pressures.

[Catichka]

Which podcast did you unsubscribe to vrimj?

[vrimj]

The polyweekly podcast.

I loved the "non-expert" just trying stuff out approach, but it has lost a lot of its charm and I have lost a lot of my patiance with it with the coming of the experts  and activists.   Maybe I am just being cranky (it has been a tough week at work and for my team) or maybe just that prothsying athesits get on my last nerve.

[Jacob from Texas]

Sorry, to hear that work sucked last week.

Dogmatic pressure, exactly but Dogmatic pressure from whom?
Other that the FLDS I’m unfamiliar with another Christian sect which doesn’t preach monogamy, and while I think we can all agree that polygamy is sexist, but polygamy is not monogamy.
Mohammedan’s teach polygamy, as far as I am aware.
That covers the ideology of the two major religions currently being practiced.
Now someone may have to clue me in on Eastern ideology, because I’m just not that familiar with them. 
However, without starting a religious war, I think in this context Christianity is sufficiently narrow. If, I’m just rationalizing please feel free to let me know.

[Catichka]

i think its the concept that the guest (crap i cant remember her name but remember her voice) was talking about using a rational approach to her relationships and behold at the end was poly, and when she used this rational approach to her religion, behold there was atheism.

I think minx did some justice in talking about different perspectives giving different things for different times, and that concept of religion and what you need and your view on the world being in flux, but the speaker was rather blunt on the whole issue.. although she didn’t come right out and say it its pretty clear that she feels there is little excuse for not treating all things in life with a hard rational approach (well, its usually a more arrogant stance then that, more along the lines of 'of course its ok for you not to use a rational approach to your religion....... your poly maybe that’s a good start though')

Not saying that’s how she feels but it does come across as a little arrogant. I’ve been rather desensitized to a lot of this as my husband is an evangelical atheist himself, and another friend of mine is the president of the atheist society here in Sydney. I’ve put a general ban on them talking to me about religion as I feel that every time they even try to talk to me about anything to do with spirituality its just too aggressive for me, even as a philosopher, heh.

It just one of those topics that are very emotionally connected and very difficult to talk about when you have strong views on the topic. One thing that does seem to help this lot to talk to other people is to drop the 'i know something you have not come to yet' arrogance and just talk about how you feel and how you have put the world together, but I’ve seen this approach taken very very rarely amongst the harder atheist crowd. Can make it difficult to have a proper conversation without feeling patronized.

[vrimj]

It just one of those topics that are very emotionally connected and very difficult to talk about when you have strong views on the topic. One thing that does seem to help this lot to talk to other people is to drop the 'i know something you have not come to yet' arrogance and just talk about how you feel and how you have put the world together,

That is probably a good idea in general when dealing with other people.  I am the expert in how to make my life work, but goodness knows I would be useless in making anyone else's life work.

[christy in seattle]

Sorry, to hear that work sucked last week.

Dogmatic pressure, exactly but Dogmatic pressure from whom?
Other that the FLDS I’m unfamiliar with another Christian sect which doesn’t preach monogamy, and while I think we can all agree that polygamy is sexist, but polygamy is not monogamy.
Mohammedan’s teach polygamy, as far as I am aware.
That covers the ideology of the two major religions currently being practiced.
Now someone may have to clue me in on Eastern ideology, because I’m just not that familiar with them. 
However, without starting a religious war, I think in this context Christianity is sufficiently narrow. If, I’m just rationalizing please feel free to let me know.

There have been Christian sects which preach non-monogamy, including the famous Oneida (yes, the silverware people!) utopian community in the 1800s. Their rationale for the non-monogamy was that Christ has already returned, with the effect that they could live perfectly and without sin here on earth. There was communal love, and their goods were held communally, as well.

Each person within the community was prohibited from falling in love with one person in particular. They were always to stay in constant circulation (except during a time of experimentation with eugenics, in which certain people were mated together). Post-menopausal women "broke in" teenage boys, teaching them about sex.

In the modern day, there are many "pockets" of polyamorous or polygamous Christians throughout the world, including, here in the States, the "Liberated Christians" group.

Islam doesn't encourage polygyny, but it doesn't explicitly forbid it, either. The verses dealing with it encourage men to take additional wives from the "widows with children" group, in order to provide care for them. Any sort of polygyny in Islam is thus limited by relative wealth and is not meant to provide sexual variety as such. Every Muslim I know holds monogamy as the ideal, while recognizing that there is a way, within their belief system, to be non-monogamous and still righteous. Again, most Muslims would say that those men who have wantonly taken additional wives are not the ideal.

There is a really fascinating paper on historical monogamy that I found here http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/scheidel/060807.pdf, which claims a much older origin for monogamy than with Christianity, saying that monogamy as an ideal (with exceptions for nobility) appears even in Egypt and Babylon.

[spectre]

There are way too many "Does X cause Y" discussions... Sexuality is complex, religion (or lack thereof) is complex. There is no simple causal relationship.

The guest host answered the only reasonable answer, "No, but similar thought processes lead to both". I did see some parallels between my loss of faith and my realization that poly was an option, but one didn't lead to another. An open mind caused both.

It's kind of interesting that some folks were turned off by the "prostletyzing" of atheism in the show. It seemed to me that it was pretty well disrespected and dismissed by Minx. She DID stop short of calling atheism "just another religion", but just barely. I know that the mention of the concept is offensive to some... I would only suggest that you consider that the opposite is often true as well.

Funnily enough, most of the poly folk I know are atheist, except my deist girlfriend. Apparently, we missed the pagan memo

[Catichka]

its fine to come to the conclusion that you should be poly through whatever means got you there.

but saying that logic made you choose your life style, then saying that some logic made you discard faith / become atheist / etc can be offensive through its implications.

essentially you are saying that you do not think their belief is logical and that if only they applied their already seen logic of relationships to their beliefs then its only logical that they should also be atheists. this is what i meant by it being quite condescending. its a 'aww, your not there yet darling but you will be' implication that hurts that kind of statement.

i know many poly people of many religious and non religious mindsets, who all came to poly in different ways. Just don’t use poly as a reason, or even a logic set that you should then use on faith and say the logical response is atheism.

I don’t see why that’s so unfair.

[spectre]

essentially you are saying that you do not think their belief is logical and that if only they applied their already seen logic of relationships to their beliefs then its only logical that they should also be atheists. this is what i meant by it being quite condescending. its a 'aww, your not there yet darling but you will be' implication that hurts that kind of statement.

Perhaps it would be best to forgo subjective implication? Personally, MY beliefs weren't logical, when I applied logic to some beliefs, they changed. I think people assume they are being condescended to when they are not.

[Catichka]

if we could forgo subjective implication then the world might be a better place. but its just not the case.

yes, its subjective implication. and one that *many* atheists are usually trying to imply. not you, neccesarily. but when you get a self confessed evangelical athiest on the show who then starts talking about logical implication, thats the message its going to send.

[spectre]

if we could forgo subjective implication then the world might be a better place. but its just not the case.

yes, its subjective implication. and one that *many* atheists are usually trying to imply. not you, neccesarily. but when you get a self confessed evangelical athiest on the show who then starts talking about logical implication, thats the message its going to send.

So, you're objecting to someone else's conclusion? Well, people disagree. That's how it works.

[Catichka]

No, I’m not objecting to her conclusion.

People are allowed to come to whatever conclusions they wish.

I’m simply stating that when people put their conclusions in certain ways, that it can create an implication.

I do think that the guest’s implication was clear, in how she thinks about people with belief. People were upset about this implication. Like I’ve said in previous posts: I don’t think this has anything to do with the fact the topic of belief was brought up. It’s the manner in which it was spoken of that has caused offence.

When talking about these highly emotional and highly sensitive topics, people generally don’t feel like being patronized, and there was a high feel of that going on in this talk.

Pick another approach, talk about the same issue, and I highly suspect there would not have been so much discussion about this.

[spectre]

Huh. I thought she was pretty easy going. I wonder if people would be so upset if she'd discussed how she didn't believe in Santa, either.

Skeptical and rational people often have a problem with faith. That is why we don't usually have any. Taking offense at that is somewhat like being upset at water because it is wet.