Anyone can see the strong correlation that exists between the desert environment
and theocratic ideology (we ultimately have the atmospheric hadley cells to thank for
this prevalent theocratic ideology). The question is 'why'.
One principle of evolutionary psychology may be called 'the musical chairs effect'.
It is the principle that, in areas where food and water are undependable and sporadic,
nature selects for people who are self-centered- people who hog resources for themselves
at the expense of others. The musical chairs effect causes dominant/egotistical character,
but that alone can not explain theocratic ideology. Theocratic ideology is based on the
psychological trait of paternalism- the desire to make others dependent upon oneself or some
other entity, thus simultaneously dominating people and providing for them. The god is seen
as 'the heavenly father'- a dominant being whose accepting leads to eternal reward and whose
absence leads to eternal punishment -the sort of position that a paternalist desires to be in.
So, how can deserts select for the psychological trait of paternalism? The answer is in
the few oases, wadis (streams that are flowing only part of the year), and rivers in the desert.
With water concentrated in such limited areas, it is easy for a gang of people to dominate them,
and make the other people subject to their will. The gang that dominates the water sources can
use the other people for labor and defense, so it would not want to simply take all the water for
themselves and let the other people die; rather, it would manipulate the other people as it pleases,
in exchange for water. Such a social arrangement is called 'hydraulic despotism'.
The people that see the water-dominators as gods who are their masters and providers,
and consequently blindly serve said dominators, are rewarded with plentiful water, and the
plentiful food that they use the water to grow (aka heaven), whereas those people who reject the
water-dominators suffer the absence of water, and consequent dehydration, starvation, and death
The Nile river and it's kingdom of Egypt is the clearest case of such theocratic hydraulic despotism.
Note that in ancient Egypt, it is well known that the pharaoh was seen as a god of sorts. So great
was the symbolic servitude of the Nile's water-dominators that the great pyramids were constructed-
giant masses of carefully-cut quarried stones which took countless hours of hard labor to build, and
which serve no practical function, but only serve as monuments to the dead human 'gods'.
I vaguely recalled seeing the phrase 'free hugs' on a sign or an article of clothing somewhere on television, so recently I put the term into a search engine.
It turns out that there is a widespread 'free hugs campaign', though it is still getting off the ground. It started with one man from Sydney, Australia, who created and wore a 'free hugs' poster and stood around in a public place, offering free hugs to passerbys. After a while, the corrupt police banned him, because he didn't submit to their liability insurance scam. After strong public opposition to this move by the police, the police reversed their decision. Over time, other people imitated this man, and then 'free hugs' got mentioned by a band called 'sick puppies', which made it well-known. It was in 2006 that the free hugs campaign became relatively widespread.
Free hugs is a type of polyamory, which is why I post this here. We can participate in this campaign. The free hugs campaign has a website, where they sell T-shirts that say 'free hugs' in huge capital letters that take up the whole front of the shirt. I have a better idea in mind: Rather than taking a chunk out of one's day and conspicuously loitering with a huge sign on one's chest, one can have the phrase 'free hugs' on one's shirt/sweater/jacket/dress/suit, in comparatively small letters so as not to be too conspicuous, and go about one's usual business. Promoting that method would certainly recruit more people to the cause, since it requires far less ballsiness. There is also the gender factor though. A woman could probably get away with wearing a huge 'free hugs' sign and standing around in public, whereas a man, especially a middle-aged man, would probably get jailed and be accused of being a pervert.
I had conducted an anonymous poll in a group of self-described 'loners' (there were 46 respondents), which showed that about 70 percent of them are either atheist or agnostic.
A poll in a group of so-called 'schizoid' people (non-social, non-expressive people) yielded percentages nearly the same as in my loner poll.
There is a personality trait classification system called the myers-briggs temperament indicator (mbti). The system is rather arbitrary, but nonetheless useful enough to have at least some meaning. An mbti personality type is indicated by a combination of 4 letters, with each letter representing a character trait. An mbti poll in a mensa atheist group showed that most of them are either 'intj' or 'intp'. The letters 'i', 'n', and 't', respectively stand for 'introverted', 'intuitive', and 'thinking'.
Of all of the mbti types, I myself most closely match the description of intj. I created a poll in a group for intjs. About 80 percent of the respondents were atheists or agnostics, with 45 percent being atheists.
Richard Dawkins initiated something that he called 'the out campaign'. The 'out campaign' is an initiative to make closet atheists tell everyone else that they are atheists.
I only bring this up because of the t-shirts with the large scarlet letter A on them in the post below. The A stands for atheist. The italic scarlet A symbol was invented by Richard Dawkins to signify that one is an atheist. Dawkins even wore a scarlet A lapel pin to signify that he is an atheist, but it made no difference to him, because everyone already knows that he is an atheist. Funny that the symbol also suggests polyamory (this being a polyamorist atheist group), since a scarlet capital A was branded upon adulterers in puritan New England.
A better name for 'the out campaign' would be 'the suicide campaign'. If an atheist is a closet atheist, it is usually for a good reason, that is, because they know that they would get persecuted for it (e.g. loss of job (under a pretense, of course), loss of inheritance, minors getting cut-off by parents at age 18, etcetera). I wonder if Richard Dawkins, being a believer in natural selection, initiated the out campaign to weed out from the gene pool the atheists that were dumb enough to go along with it and suffer the consequences, such that the atheist gene pool would become more intelligent, though much smaller.
Even christians don't go walking around with a giant cross on their t-shirt, and only a few christians wear a small cross necklace or have an ichthus attached to the rear of their vehicle. Wearing such a scarlet A t-shirt would make such an atheist much more religiously provocative in public than most christians, and we should not seek to be worse than they are.
'Love' encompasses a wide range of emotions. Any variant of love is characterized by a feeling of 'softness'. There are 2 component emotions, which can act either alone or in combination, to produce love. Those component emotions are oneness and humility.
In a love relationship, the emotion of oneness, if it is present, causes the behaviors of telling eachother everything about oneself and one's recent events, always telling the truth, not keeping secrets, and doing everything together or otherwise always keeping in contact. The emotion of oneness can also be detected in the tone of voice when in the company of eachother.
In a love relationship, the emotion of humility, if it is present, causes a gentle weakness in one's regard to eachother, and this can be expressed both in one's demeanor toward eachother and in one's manner of affection. One behavior that humility is conducive to is bowing, though this of course is not a behavior that is associated with love relationships, though there is the antiquated behavior of bowing while kissing a woman on the back of the hand.
Exclusive monoamory is based upon egotistical dominant-territorialism, which is the opposite of humility. Therefore, people whose love is of the exclusive monoamorous sort can not incorporate humility into their love, but only oneness. Non-exclusive people, on the other hand, are not bound by this restriction. Not only can non-exclusive people use humility as a component of their love, but they can also use love that is purely humility-derived, such that it does not incorporate oneness at all.
I googled "atheist swinger poly" and found this group. I'm in my second marriage and have a nearly 4 year old son. We live in the greater Orlando area of Florida. I honestly don't recall selecting this screen name but it was associated with my email address so... Anyway, I was hoping to "meet" members of this group to keep in touch for as long as I/we am/are stuck in this part of the country. Thanks!