QuoteSo says our Halloween litany. For Witches, for those who practice the renewal of the ancient, pre-Christian Goddess religions of Europe and the Middle East, Halloween is our most sacred holiday, our New Year. In Celtic Ireland, Wales and Scotland, Samhain, pronounced 'sau-in', was the time when the sheep and cattle were brought down from the summer fields, when the harvest was gathered in and the dark time of year began. The fruits of the harvest, the blessing of the year's abundance, was shared with the ancestors in the form of offerings which have come down to us in modern times as the candy we give to children-who are the ancestors returning.
Harvest is a time of ending, but also a time of beginning, for the Goddess stands for the great regenerative powers of nature. Out of darkness, light will be born anew. Out of the time of cold and dormancy, new life will return. Death is part of a cycle that brings about rebirth.
In Mexico and Latin America, Halloween converged with indigenous traditions to give us Dia de los Muertos, the Day of the Dead. Families visit the graves of their loved ones to clean them, offer marigolds and libations, and picnic. They set up altars in remembrance. Here in San Francisco, where immigrants are far from their family graves, we set out public altars in the park and hold a huge procession with dancing Calaveras-skulls and skeletons-and thousands of candles. People of all ethnic backgrounds love this tradition!
Today, Halloween, is probably our most celebrated popular holiday, combining as it does the pleasures of sugar, costumes, fantasy and remnants of magic. It's the one night in the year when everyone is out in the street, meeting their neighbors, feeding the children, admiring the little ghosts and princesses and pirates.
While carving the pumpkin or hanging up the decorations, you might stop for a moment and reflect on Halloween's deeper meaning. Whatever your religion or spiritual persuasion, even if the answer is "none at all," take a moment to honor your ancestors, to think about their struggles, the gifts they have given us, the challenges they faced. And take another moment to think about the children and the generations to come. What world are we leaving for them?
Right now, our future may look dark and uncertain. The economy reels like a wavering top, the institutions we've trusted seem to be falling apart or are revealed to be riddled with corruption. The very climate is uncertain, and we can no longer feel sure whether the lives of our children and grandchildren will be better than ours, or far more bleak.
In times like these, it's good to remember what Halloween teaches us: that death is part of the circle of life, that decay gives rise to fertile soil, that endings are followed by new beginnings. One wave must collapse for a new wave to form. Dried stalks fall so that later, green shoots will rise. Ossified ideas, brittle systems give way to new visions. The process may be messy, loud and scary-like any birth. Breathe into it. Release the fear,and trust in the great regenerative powers of nature. Form your own vision of the world you want to bring to birth, and let it gestate in the dark. Then labor to bring it into being. The ancestors will aid you: the generations to come will bless you.
By Starhawk | 09:38 AM ET, 10/31/2011
At least Israel and the Roman Empire were real. This is a religion based upon the misunderstanding of terrible 19th Century Archaeology. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/halloweens-deeper-promise/2011/10/30/gIQABS3BZM_blog.html?wprss=guest-voices)
But YHWH wasn't real. Why do you begrudge fools their choice of foolishness?
Israel and the Roman empire were real, but Judaism today is not the same religion as King Solomon practiced(if he was real) and Christianity of today is not the Christianity of Imperial Rome and neither of them are the Christianity that Christ taught. Religions change with the perceptions and sensibilities of the people that practice them. To hold one up as more authentic than another is just silly.
Few people worship Israel or the Roman Empire.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 01, 2011, 12:25:36 AM
Why do you begrudge fools their choice of foolishness?
This.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 01, 2011, 01:10:00 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 01, 2011, 12:25:36 AM
Why do you begrudge fools their choice of foolishness?
This.
Well for one thing, they've promoted really screwy anthropology and archeology that's seeped into the mainstream. Like the idea of the Old European Matriarchy. Or that the witch hunts of the early modern period killed more people then the Holocaust.
To be authentic they need more cred than other religions. I suggest "baptising" members naked in the winter snow and making all "priests" learn ancient Celtic.
Bring back the wicker man.
Since HispsterSpellus started the thread, i might as well get this off my chest.
I hate wiccans. Especially the suburban housewife in their 30-40's with their Earthmother crap.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2011, 07:31:22 AM
Since HispsterSpellus started the thread, i might as well get this off my chest.
I hate wiccans. Especially the suburban housewife in their 30-40's with their Earthmother crap.
That reminds me. My dad and I brought some money up form my brother (since he's unemployed), and we took him out to eat. He picked the trendiest place in town some local brewery/pub. Place was Hipster central. Bleh. I ordered a steak and got more veggies then meat. There was also a 25 min wait to get into the damned place.
Oh, and I made a wiccan angry in college when I laughed at her claim that 20 million witches were burned at the stake during the medieval period. She did come on to me though, but she was a serious uglo. She managed combine morbidly obese with with flat chested. Raz has low standards, but not that fucking low.
All wiccans are uggos. Always.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2011, 07:54:10 AM
All wiccans are uggos. Always.
That's my experiences. They seem to be unusually hirsute bunch.
Hairy as well as obese and flat chested? Must have been a bloke.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 01, 2011, 08:15:43 AM
Hairy as well as obese and flat chested? Must have been a bloke.
I didn't check the undercarriage to be sure.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 08:17:27 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 01, 2011, 08:15:43 AM
Hairy as well as obese and flat chested? Must have been a bloke.
I didn't check the undercarriage to be sure.
Sounds like a lucky escape, a good job your aesthetic sensibilities kicked in :P
I'm not sure what I was supposed to take from that hot mess of formatting in the opening post.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2011, 07:31:22 AM
Since HispsterSpellus started the thread, i might as well get this off my chest.
I hate wiccans. Especially the suburban housewife in their 30-40's with their Earthmother crap.
Any particular religion/lack of religion you do not hate?
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 08:46:56 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2011, 07:31:22 AM
Since HispsterSpellus started the thread, i might as well get this off my chest.
I hate wiccans. Especially the suburban housewife in their 30-40's with their Earthmother crap.
Any particular religion/lack of religion you do not hate?
Baptists.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 01, 2011, 08:53:56 AM
Baptists.
He is sort of a grumpy version of Ned Flanders eh?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 01, 2011, 12:25:36 AM
But YHWH wasn't real. Why do you begrudge fools their choice of foolishness?
Spells has been judging religions for us since time immemorial (I.e. 2003). :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on November 01, 2011, 11:14:52 AM
Spells has been judging religions for us since time immemorial (I.e. 2003). :cool:
He taught us all to hate the Gnostics didn't he? Dirty Gnostics.
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2011, 08:38:26 AM
I'm not sure what I was supposed to take from that hot mess of formatting in the opening post.
Fixed. Sorry about that.
His real hate boner is for the Mormons though. :bowler:
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2011, 11:18:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2011, 08:38:26 AM
I'm not sure what I was supposed to take from that hot mess of formatting in the opening post.
Fixed. Sorry about that.
I still don't see the issue though. If people want to infuse some sort of significance into Halloween - why does that matter to you?
*fixed - I'm not sure why my sentence structure was so bad!
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2011, 11:19:39 AM
I still don't see the issue though. If people want to infused some sort of significant into Halloween - why does that matter to you?
More importantly, how is it the worst of them all? I mean, that particular article is fairly benign. No psuedo-anthropology/archeology. No truly "out there" language about the stars, gods, alternate worlds, etc. I mean seriously, if you feel that way, fine, but find something a bit more obtrusive to be hateful about if you're trying to convince others to feel the same.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2011, 07:31:22 AM
Since HispsterSpellus started the thread, i might as well get this off my chest.
I hate wiccans. Especially the suburban housewife in their 30-40's with their Earthmother crap.
Just Wiccans, or any of the Neo-Pagan type religions out there? I mean, I'd figure you to be all over the naked druidic types that dance around a fire in their all-together.
QuoteNo psuedo-anthropology/archeology.
Women where at the forefront of the rise of Christianity, because Paganism throughout the entirety of the ancient world was pretty strictly patriarchal, especially those derived from early Semitic and Indo-European Faiths (read: everywhere outside of the Basque country). There never were "Goddess religions" anywhere in Europe after the Neolithic, and even that is debatable.
It's total and complete bullshit, a massive misrepresentation of history. And it really pisses me off.
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2011, 11:19:39 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2011, 11:18:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2011, 08:38:26 AM
I'm not sure what I was supposed to take from that hot mess of formatting in the opening post.
Fixed. Sorry about that.
I still don't see the issue though. If people want to infuse some sort of significance into Halloween - why does that matter to you?
*fixed - I'm not sure why my sentence structure was so bad!
That's not the issue. Halloween is neat. The issue is this Goddess bullshit.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2011, 11:28:50 AM
Women where at the forefront of the rise of Christianity, because Paganism throughout the entirety of the ancient world was pretty strictly patriarchal, especially those derived from early Semitic and Indo-European Faiths (read: everywhere outside of the Basque country). There never were "Goddess religions" anywhere in Europe after the Neolithic, and even that is debatable.
It's total and complete bullshit, a massive misrepresentation of history. And it really pisses me off.
Well it is not that simple, that women were leaders of Christianity because paganism (whatever that may be) was so very patriarchal, they do sorta go overboard about how Christianity did evil stuff to the ladies.
But that is minor compared to the somewhat hilarious presentation of the 17th century witch trials being persecutions of actual witches. As if there really was a massive female witch movement going on.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2011, 11:32:25 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2011, 11:19:39 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2011, 11:18:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2011, 08:38:26 AM
I'm not sure what I was supposed to take from that hot mess of formatting in the opening post.
Fixed. Sorry about that.
I still don't see the issue though. If people want to infuse some sort of significance into Halloween - why does that matter to you?
*fixed - I'm not sure why my sentence structure was so bad!
That's not the issue. Halloween is neat. The issue is this Goddess bullshit.
I know that you liked to get worked up over stuff but this really seems like you are making a mountain out of a molehill. As long as they aren't hurting people, who cares about such awful prose?
Quotene wave must collapse for a new wave to form. Dried stalks fall so that later, green shoots will rise. Ossified ideas, brittle systems give way to new visions. The process may be messy, loud and scary-like any birth. Breathe into it. Release the fear,and trust in the great regenerative powers of nature. Form your own vision of the world you want to bring to birth, and let it gestate in the dark. Then labor to bring it into being. The ancestors will aid you: the generations to come will bless you.
Quote
I know that you liked to get worked up over stuff but this really seems like you are making a mountain out of a molehill. As long as they aren't hurting people, who cares about such awful prose?
I'm actually not angry so much as annoyed that this kind of bullshit is getting published in a well respected newspaper. The quality of the writing alone would seem to disqualify it.
Quote
Well it is not that simple, that women were leaders of Christianity because paganism (whatever that may be) was so very patriarchal, they do sorta go overboard about how Christianity did evil stuff to the ladies.
There's another thing. Paganism was extremely diffuse-different towns a few hours away would have slightly different pantheons, or at least hold certain Gods or heroes in respect more than others. The idea that an Irish town and, say, Utica in modern Tunisia practiced the same "Goddess" focused religion is, well, not so much bad archaeology as Book of Mormon style fantasy.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2011, 11:28:50 AM
Women where at the forefront of the rise of Christianity, because Paganism throughout the entirety of the ancient world was pretty strictly patriarchal, especially those derived from early Semitic and Indo-European Faiths (read: everywhere outside of the Basque country). There never were "Goddess religions" anywhere in Europe after the Neolithic, and even that is debatable.
It's total and complete bullshit, a massive misrepresentation of history. And it really pisses me off.
All religions have their founding myths that misrepresent history(and prehistory).
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2011, 11:41:15 AM
There's another thing. Paganism was extremely diffuse-different towns a few hours away would have slightly different pantheons, or at least hold certain Gods or heroes in respect more than others. The idea that an Irish town and, say, Utica in modern Tunisia practiced the same "Goddess" focused religion is, well, not so much bad archaeology as Book of Mormon style fantasy.
My own related irk is the similar treatment of native spirituality - how it gets treated as some continent-wide commune with "the Creator", when in fact each community, each band had not only its own distinct language, but its own distinct (and complex) mythology.
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 11:41:21 AM
All religions have their founding myths that misrepresent history(and prehistory).
Yes. To be fair, not all misrepresentations are equally misrepresentative. Having said that, the groups Psellus is talking about have absolutely zero clout. Zero. Christianity and Islam have had such force of political power over the centuries that their misrepresentations no longer seem "wacky", because they have become the default misrepresentations.
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2011, 12:15:09 PM
My own related irk is the similar treatment of native spirituality - how it gets treated as some continent-wide commune with "the Creator", when in fact each community, each band had not only its own distinct language, but its own distinct (and complex) mythology.
Odd most native sprituality stuff in my neck of the woods is driven by native Americans teaching their own culture's particular flavor. Is there some sort of pan-American native religion drive going on out there?
So much of what might have been understood about Pagan beliefs was destroyed or lost that it is no wonder that people may have an inaccurate view of what those beliefs might have been.
But before one becomes to critical of that you might want to reflect on the lack of knowledge the average North American Protestant Christian has regarding their own religion and the odd ways in which it is used.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2011, 12:30:24 PM
But before one becomes to critical of that you might want to reflect on the lack of knowledge the average North American Protestant Christian has regarding their own religion and the odd ways in which it is used.
Boy ain't that the truth.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2011, 12:30:24 PM
But before one becomes to critical of that you might want to reflect on the lack of knowledge the average North American Protestant Christian has regarding their own religion and the odd ways in which it is used.
But that's different!!!*
*warning: may not be different
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 12:25:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2011, 12:15:09 PM
My own related irk is the similar treatment of native spirituality - how it gets treated as some continent-wide commune with "the Creator", when in fact each community, each band had not only its own distinct language, but its own distinct (and complex) mythology.
Odd most native sprituality stuff in my neck of the woods is driven by native Americans teaching their own culture's particular flavor. Is there some sort of pan-American native religion drive going on out there?
I am worshipped as Quetzlcoatl in certain circles.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 01, 2011, 12:47:16 PM
I am worshipped as Quetzlcoatl in certain circles.
Are the "certain circles" in question of the Jerk variety?
Stop projecting.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 01, 2011, 12:52:19 PM
Stop projecting.
I bet that's what they said at the last circle jerk!
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2011, 11:28:50 AM
QuoteNo psuedo-anthropology/archeology.
Women where at the forefront of the rise of Christianity, because Paganism throughout the entirety of the ancient world was pretty strictly patriarchal, especially those derived from early Semitic and Indo-European Faiths (read: everywhere outside of the Basque country). There never were "Goddess religions" anywhere in Europe after the Neolithic, and even that is debatable.
It's total and complete bullshit, a massive misrepresentation of history. And it really pisses me off.
The whole universal neolithic Goddess thing is absurd. There's not really much evidence of that.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 01:14:16 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2011, 11:28:50 AM
QuoteNo psuedo-anthropology/archeology.
Women where at the forefront of the rise of Christianity, because Paganism throughout the entirety of the ancient world was pretty strictly patriarchal, especially those derived from early Semitic and Indo-European Faiths (read: everywhere outside of the Basque country). There never were "Goddess religions" anywhere in Europe after the Neolithic, and even that is debatable.
It's total and complete bullshit, a massive misrepresentation of history. And it really pisses me off.
The whole universal neolithic Goddess thing is absurd. There's not really much evidence of that.
I think there's some evidence that the pantheon of pre/early Indo-European Europe was focused a bit more on the worship of female deities, and that the society was a bit more matriarchal. The Basques seem to have very different attitudes towards the rights of women than most traditional European societies.
Still agree though. There is no evidence for a unified cult of a Goddess in 8,000 BC, let alone in Celtic Europe.
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 12:28:50 AM
Judaism today is not the same religion as King Solomon practiced(if he was real)
Judaism is reasonable close to the religion practiced by Hillel (around the time of the birth of Jesus), not that antiquity in itself is proof of legitimacy.
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2011, 11:25:29 AM
More importantly, how is it the worst of them all? I mean, that particular article is fairly benign. No psuedo-anthropology/archeology. No truly "out there" language about the stars, gods, alternate worlds, etc. I mean seriously, if you feel that way, fine, but find something a bit more obtrusive to be hateful about if you're trying to convince others to feel the same.
There is something to that. But then again Christianity for all its faults did give us the Sistine Chapel and helped preserve some modicum of classical learning, and Judaism had Maimonides. The best you can say about neopaganism is that it is "mostly harmless".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 01, 2011, 01:26:47 PMThere is something to that. But then again Christianity for all its faults did give us the Sistine Chapel and helped preserve some modicum of classical learning, and Judaism had Maimonides. The best you can say about neopaganism is that it is "mostly harmless".
Hell even Mormonism's more legitimate for giving us the Twilight Saga. Scientology's contribution of Battlefield Earth probably rates higher than the gaping black hole of inane bullshit that is neopaganism.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 01, 2011, 01:24:08 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 12:28:50 AM
Judaism today is not the same religion as King Solomon practiced(if he was real)
Judaism is reasonable close to the religion practiced by Hillel (around the time of the birth of Jesus), not that antiquity in itself is proof of legitimacy.
For Judaism, the time of the birth of Jesus isn't antique. ;)
In any event, rabbinical Judaism was somewhat similar, but the priestly cult still existed in Jesus' day. Now, it exists only in the form of the Vulcan "live long and prosper" gesture. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2011, 01:31:15 PM
In any event, rabbinical Judaism was somewhat similar, but the priestly cult still existed in Jesus' day. Now, it exists only in the form of the Vulcan "live long and prosper" gesture. ;)
Which is itself a significant contribution compared to neopaganism.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 01:28:53 PM
Hell even Mormonism's more legitimate for giving us the Twilight Saga. Scientology's contribution of Battlefield Earth probably rates higher than the gaping black hole of inane bullshit that is neopaganism.
You know those two examples have gotta be worth
negative points ... :hmm:
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2011, 01:33:15 PM
Which is itself a significant contribution compared to neopaganism.
:lol:
But seriously - the main problem with neopaganism is not the religion in and of itself, but that it stereotypically correlates with belief in a whole raft of
other bits of nonsense that membership in longer-established (if equally inane on their own merits) religions does not.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 01:28:53 PM
Hell even Mormonism's more legitimate for giving us the Twilight Saga. Scientology's contribution of Battlefield Earth probably rates higher than the gaping black hole of inane bullshit that is neopaganism.
Um Scientology is not "mostly harmless" but just the opposite.
I also fail to see what "Twilight" has to do with LDS.
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2011, 01:39:05 PM
But seriously - the main problem with neopaganism is not the religion in and of itself, but that it stereotypically correlates with belief in a whole raft of other bits of nonsense that membership in longer-established (if equally inane on their own merits) religions does not.
I dont know, Christianity has some pretty wierd bits too - eg talking in tongues
Unlike Spellus I don't have a problem with religion. If people want to believe some retard BS so what?
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 01:41:40 PMUm Scientology is not "mostly harmless" but just the opposite.
I also fail to see what "Twilight" has to do with LDS.
Agreed on Scientology, it's actively dangerous. I think it should be persecuted as it is in parts of Continental Europe :wub:
Twilight's influenced by the author's Mormonism. I just think the artistic accomplishments of those faiths/cults makes them more worthwhile than this nonsense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2011, 01:43:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2011, 01:39:05 PM
But seriously - the main problem with neopaganism is not the religion in and of itself, but that it stereotypically correlates with belief in a whole raft of other bits of nonsense that membership in longer-established (if equally inane on their own merits) religions does not.
I dont know, Christianity has some pretty wierd bits too - eg talking in tongues
Absolutely. The difference is that if you hear so-and-so is a Christian, chances are they are not likely to start speaking in tounges or snake-handling. If you hear so-and-so is a neopagan, chances are rather better that they believe in a bunch of other new-agey type silliness.
This is purely a function of the newness of the religion, I think.
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2011, 01:53:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2011, 01:43:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 01, 2011, 01:39:05 PM
But seriously - the main problem with neopaganism is not the religion in and of itself, but that it stereotypically correlates with belief in a whole raft of other bits of nonsense that membership in longer-established (if equally inane on their own merits) religions does not.
I dont know, Christianity has some pretty wierd bits too - eg talking in tongues
Absolutely. The difference is that if you hear so-and-so is a Christian, chances are they are not likely to start speaking in tounges or snake-handling. If you hear so-and-so is a neopagan, chances are rather better that they believe in a bunch of other new-agey type silliness.
This is purely a function of the newness of the religion, I think.
I see your point.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 01:46:56 PM
Twilight's influenced by the author's Mormonism. I just think the artistic accomplishments of those faiths/cults makes them more worthwhile than this nonsense.
Heh. It shouldn't be too hard to find some piece of art influenced by earth mother stuff.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 01, 2011, 01:23:51 PM
I think there's some evidence that the pantheon of pre/early Indo-European Europe was focused a bit more on the worship of female deities, and that the society was a bit more matriarchal. The Basques seem to have very different attitudes towards the rights of women than most traditional European societies.
Still agree though. There is no evidence for a unified cult of a Goddess in 8,000 BC, let alone in Celtic Europe.
Since there is no written records from the time all anyone can do is speculate. Imagine if we knew nothing of Greek or ancient Greece and someone unearth the Athenian acropolis. The highest point in the city has a temple dominated by female forms. The pillars are sculpted to look like women and at place of honor in the largest building in the complex is huge statue of a woman, with a helmet and holding a shield and in the other hand a smaller woman with wings. Obviously a sign of the Matriarchy! Except we know it's not. Athens was not only a matriarchy, women had less right in Athens then in most Greek Cities. The lives of respectable women in Athens was fairly close to Saudi Arabia. They wore veils and had to be escorted by male family members in public. So coming up with theories of a proto-socialist, pacifistic matriarchy based on some old votive figures is really very silly.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 01, 2011, 01:26:47 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2011, 11:25:29 AM
More importantly, how is it the worst of them all? I mean, that particular article is fairly benign. No psuedo-anthropology/archeology. No truly "out there" language about the stars, gods, alternate worlds, etc. I mean seriously, if you feel that way, fine, but find something a bit more obtrusive to be hateful about if you're trying to convince others to feel the same.
There is something to that. But then again Christianity for all its faults did give us the Sistine Chapel and helped preserve some modicum of classical learning, and Judaism had Maimonides. The best you can say about neopaganism is that it is "mostly harmless".
Well, the Nazi ones weren't that harmless. It is curious that in the 19th century and early 20th several some European intellectuals promoted the ideas of neopaganism as it was in their eyes more authentically European and a robust replacement for the "weak and flabby" Christianity. Today, it's usually promoted as softer and more understanding then the cruel Christianity.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 01, 2011, 01:24:08 PM
Judaism is reasonable close to the religion practiced by Hillel (around the time of the birth of Jesus), not that antiquity in itself is proof of legitimacy.
But that's my point. What makes a religion useful is faith, not historical accuracy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 01, 2011, 01:26:47 PM
There is something to that. But then again Christianity for all its faults did give us the Sistine Chapel and helped preserve some modicum of classical learning, and Judaism had Maimonides. The best you can say about neopaganism is that it is "mostly harmless".
Is that what religion is supposed to provide? Architecture and classical learning?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 02:32:07 PM
Well, the Nazi ones weren't that harmless. It is curious that in the 19th century and early 20th several some European intellectuals promoted the ideas of neopaganism as it was in their eyes more authentically European and a robust replacement for the "weak and flabby" Christianity. Today, it's usually promoted as softer and more understanding then the cruel Christianity.
It's not that curious. People "find" the religion they need, even if it takes some interpretation to get there.
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 01:56:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 01:46:56 PM
Twilight's influenced by the author's Mormonism. I just think the artistic accomplishments of those faiths/cults makes them more worthwhile than this nonsense.
Heh. It shouldn't be too hard to find some piece of art influenced by earth mother stuff.
Clan of the Cave Bear and its sequels.
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 02:35:04 PM
Is that what religion is supposed to provide? Architecture and classical learning?
It's a nice side effect.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 01, 2011, 02:50:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 01:56:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 01:46:56 PM
Twilight's influenced by the author's Mormonism. I just think the artistic accomplishments of those faiths/cults makes them more worthwhile than this nonsense.
Heh. It shouldn't be too hard to find some piece of art influenced by earth mother stuff.
Clan of the Cave Bear and its sequels.
Ugh.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 01, 2011, 02:50:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 01:56:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 01:46:56 PM
Twilight's influenced by the author's Mormonism. I just think the artistic accomplishments of those faiths/cults makes them more worthwhile than this nonsense.
Heh. It shouldn't be too hard to find some piece of art influenced by earth mother stuff.
Clan of the Cave Bear and its sequels.
Ugh.
Indeed!
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 02:56:29 PM
Ugh.
Well keep in mind that it's competition is Twilight and Battlefield: Earth.
Narnia wins.
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 02:58:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 02:56:29 PM
Ugh.
Well keep in mind that it's competition is Twilight and Battlefield: Earth.
What do you get when you combine them all together? A prehistoric, sparkly alien and around $1 billion in royalties? :D
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 08:46:56 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2011, 07:31:22 AM
Since HispsterSpellus started the thread, i might as well get this off my chest.
I hate wiccans. Especially the suburban housewife in their 30-40's with their Earthmother crap.
Any particular religion/lack of religion you do not hate?
I pretty much dislike everybody.
I love how all of neo-paganism is lumped together as one belief system when in truth there are hundreds if not thousands of interpretations of the concept. It's like saying that every Christian is a fundy. No, only the loud ones are. I would guess that the same is true of neopagans. The loud ones are the oddballs, while the quiet ones just sort of go about their business.
It's a new ideology based in questionable (and downright wrong) history. Does it make it any less important (therefore effective) to the people who practice it? The point of religion is, in my opinion, to give people answers, guidance, and something to believe in. This is one way for people to do it. For many, the fact that it isn't mainstream - the very thing that seems to offend some of you - is probably a huge selling point.
It just seems like a weird thing to freak out over.
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2011, 03:36:48 PM
It just seems like a weird thing to freak out over.
It's Spellus. He freaked out over Gnosticism.
I'd like all wiccans publicly whipped, have a cross burned into their forehead and then sent to a salt mine.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2011, 03:42:10 PM
I'd like all wiccans publicly whipped, have a cross burned into their forehead and then sent to a salt mine.
I've heard you say that before. I know a few Wiccans, and yes, they're pretty annoying in general, but your unbridled hatred is intriguing. I do wonder what's led to it... I sense a story here.... :shifty:
Story time is closed for the year.
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2011, 03:43:43 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2011, 03:42:10 PM
I'd like all wiccans publicly whipped, have a cross burned into their forehead and then sent to a salt mine.
I've heard you say that before. I know a few Wiccans, and yes, they're pretty annoying in general, but your unbridled hatred is intriguing. I do wonder what's led to it... I sense a story here.... :shifty:
Ed has posted about this in the past. It is a well known story. But it has nothing to do with his personal life. You see, he strongly believes the best salt is not that crap that is made from sea water but rather rock salt flavoured with the sweat of the labourer digging it from the ground. He firmly believes that salt mines should be brought back into production but because such a move would be cost prohibative slave labour is required and what better way to obtain slaves then from an out of favour religious group.
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2011, 03:36:48 PMIt's a new ideology based in questionable (and downright wrong) history. Does it make it any less important (therefore effective) to the people who practice it? The point of religion is, in my opinion, to give people answers, guidance, and something to believe in. This is one way for people to do it. For many, the fact that it isn't mainstream - the very thing that seems to offend some of you - is probably a huge selling point.
Religion's a rigorous moral and intellectual framework with which you can order your life or it's nothing more than a cuddly wank. Neo-paganism and general 'spirituality' tends to fall into the latter.
I knid of feel about this stuff like that Tim Minchin song 'Storm' :mellow:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 03:53:25 PM
Religion's a rigorous moral and intellectual framework with which you can order your life or it's nothing more than a cuddly wank. Neo-paganism and general 'spirituality' tends to fall into the latter.
That seems to describe a very small subset of religions today.
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 03:56:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 03:53:25 PM
Religion's a rigorous moral and intellectual framework with which you can order your life or it's nothing more than a cuddly wank. Neo-paganism and general 'spirituality' tends to fall into the latter.
That seems to describe a very small subset of religions today.
Which religions would you consider to be devoid of a rigorous moral and intellectual framework with which one can order their life.
Why again are we excited about people rigorously ordering their lives on complete fiction instead of reanalyzing their moral values - and thus behavior - each time they encounter a new moral dilemma?
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 03:56:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 03:53:25 PM
Religion's a rigorous moral and intellectual framework with which you can order your life or it's nothing more than a cuddly wank. Neo-paganism and general 'spirituality' tends to fall into the latter.
That seems to describe a very small subset of religions today.
What are these majority religions that lack moral and intellectual framework?
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 03:56:53 PM
That seems to describe a very small subset of religions today.
I think it accounts for the vast majority of religions.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 01, 2011, 04:00:37 PM
Why again are we excited about people rigorously ordering their lives on complete fiction instead of reanalyzing their moral values - and thus behavior - each time they encounter a new moral dilemma?
How far you have fallen. :( Moral relativism. Bleh.
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 03:38:56 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2011, 03:36:48 PM
It just seems like a weird thing to freak out over.
It's Spellus. He freaked out over Gnosticism.
Gnostics were the Scientologists of their day. You had to pay for each new level of enlightenment.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 04:02:50 PM
How far you have fallen. :( Moral relativism. Bleh.
Moral relativism is the notion that all moral judgments are equally valid. I don't subscribe to that notion one bit. Please describe to me how what I said constitutes moral relativism.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 04:00:42 PM
What are these majority religions that lack moral and intellectual framework?
I'll give you moral, that is after all their forte. Very few people base their religion in any sort of intellectual framework, however. Anecdotally I would say neopagans tend to be more intellectual about their religion than people from mainstream religions. YMMV however.
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2011, 03:36:48 PM
I love how all of neo-paganism is lumped together as one belief system when in truth there are hundreds if not thousands of interpretations of the concept. It's like saying that every Christian is a fundy. No, only the loud ones are. I would guess that the same is true of neopagans. The loud ones are the oddballs, while the quiet ones just sort of go about their business.
It's a new ideology based in questionable (and downright wrong) history. Does it make it any less important (therefore effective) to the people who practice it? The point of religion is, in my opinion, to give people answers, guidance, and something to believe in. This is one way for people to do it. For many, the fact that it isn't mainstream - the very thing that seems to offend some of you - is probably a huge selling point.
It just seems like a weird thing to freak out over.
The thing is, neopagans often promote this sort of nebulousness. Neopagan writing is often vague on details and thrives on blurred lines. Most religions have rigid guidelines, while neopaganism is sorta like jelly. They all get lumped together because metaphorically they are a lump.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 01, 2011, 04:05:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 04:02:50 PM
How far you have fallen. :( Moral relativism. Bleh.
Moral relativism is the notion that all moral judgments are equally valid. I don't subscribe to that notion one bit. Please describe to me how what I said constitutes moral relativism.
Your statement implies constant changing of a moral outlook. If I shoot someone, and feel good about it afterwords, do I redefine shooting people as "good"?
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 04:06:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 04:00:42 PM
What are these majority religions that lack moral and intellectual framework?
I'll give you moral, that is after all their forte. Very few people base their religion in any sort of intellectual framework, however. Anecdotally I would say neopagans tend to be more intellectual about their religion than people from mainstream religions. YMMV however.
Really? How are you defining "intellectual framework", here?
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 04:06:40 PMI'll give you moral, that is after all their forte. Very few people base their religion in any sort of intellectual framework, however. Anecdotally I would say neopagans tend to be more intellectual about their religion than people from mainstream religions. YMMV however.
What people base their religion on is irrelevant. My nan's virtually pagan in her very folk-ish Irish Catholicism, that doesn't diminish the intellectual underpinning and theology of the faith. I'm sure it's the same for most other Christians, Jews, Muslims and almost all other faiths. They may not know but there is a rich intellectual framework that coheres their beliefs, the structures of their faith, the nature of their worship and basis of their moral ideology.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 04:10:56 PM
Your statement implies constant changing of a moral outlook.
Not necessarily. Not unless one is growing and learning, certainly. Most of the time the change is a nuance rather than a rebuke of the previous moral position.
QuoteIf I shoot someone, and feel good about it afterwords, do I redefine shooting people as "good"?
I can virtually guarantee you that there are circumstances in which you'd shoot someone and feel "good" about it - if by "good" we mean that the positive aspects (you saved your family, you avoided being murdered, etc) outweigh the negative aspects of having ended that person's life - and circumstances in which you'd shoot someone and feel "bad" about it.
You're going to have to be more convincing if you would like me to believe that moral development equals moral relativism.
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2011, 03:43:43 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2011, 03:42:10 PM
I'd like all wiccans publicly whipped, have a cross burned into their forehead and then sent to a salt mine.
I've heard you say that before. I know a few Wiccans, and yes, they're pretty annoying in general, but your unbridled hatred is intriguing. I do wonder what's led to it... I sense a story here.... :shifty:
You know that remake of
The Wicker Man?
The lead was in fact based on Ed.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 04:14:07 PM
Really? How are you defining "intellectual framework", here?
Ability to answer the question "why do you believe what you do?" with something more than "because I was raised that way"
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 04:19:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 04:14:07 PM
Really? How are you defining "intellectual framework", here?
Ability to answer the question "why do you believe what you do?" with something more than "because I was raised that way"
You are confusing an individual's lack of understand of their religion with the intellectual underpinnings that individual fails to understand.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 01, 2011, 04:16:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 04:10:56 PM
Your statement implies constant changing of a moral outlook.
Not necessarily. Not unless one is growing and learning, certainly. Most of the time the change is a nuance rather than a rebuke of the previous moral position.
QuoteIf I shoot someone, and feel good about it afterwords, do I redefine shooting people as "good"?
I can virtually guarantee you that there are circumstances in which you'd shoot someone and feel "good" about it - if by "good" we mean that the positive aspects (you saved your family, you avoided being murdered, etc) outweigh the negative aspects of having ended that person's life - and circumstances in which you'd shoot someone and feel "bad" about it.
You're going to have to be more convincing if you would like me to believe that moral development equals moral relativism.
If you don't leave the door open for change, what's the point of reanalyzing? A person who is shifting moral viewpoint to meet the situation has in effect, no moral viewpoint. If you have none, then they are all the same.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 04:15:17 PM
What people base their religion on is irrelevant. My nan's virtually pagan in her very folk-ish Irish Catholicism, that doesn't diminish the intellectual underpinning and theology of the faith. I'm sure it's the same for most other Christians, Jews, Muslims and almost all other faiths. They may not know but there is a rich intellectual framework that coheres their beliefs, the structures of their faith, the nature of their worship and basis of their moral ideology.
If they don't know the intellectual framework exists or have an idea of what it entails then it might as well not exist for them.
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 04:21:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 04:15:17 PM
What people base their religion on is irrelevant. My nan's virtually pagan in her very folk-ish Irish Catholicism, that doesn't diminish the intellectual underpinning and theology of the faith. I'm sure it's the same for most other Christians, Jews, Muslims and almost all other faiths. They may not know but there is a rich intellectual framework that coheres their beliefs, the structures of their faith, the nature of their worship and basis of their moral ideology.
If they don't know the intellectual framework exists or have an idea of what it entails then it might as well not exist for them.
so if some idiot from hillbilly country doesnt understand the rich intellectual traditions of his religion that someone means they dont exist?
Could you rephrase that?
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 04:19:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 04:14:07 PM
Really? How are you defining "intellectual framework", here?
Ability to answer the question "why do you believe what you do?" with something more than "because I was raised that way"
Ah, okay. That's not really indicative of anything. People do lots of things for reasons they don't understand, it doesn't mean that someone planned out a logical system for why they do it. Law is a good example, of this. People follow laws, and laws are based on legal philosophy, but many people don't understand why the laws are the way they are or what they actually mean. That does not mean it lacks an intellectual framework.
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 04:23:02 PM
Could you rephrase that?
Your argument that most religions lack an intellectual underpinning is based on a proposition that some people within those religions dont understand the intellectual underpinning.
That is not an argument such an intellectual underpinning does not exist - simply that some do not understand it. But the failure to understand all the details does not prevent someone from ordering their life in a way that takes adantage the thinking others have already done.
I dont have to understand why all the gadgets I use work but I can still order my life around them...
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 04:23:02 PM
Could you rephrase that?
Just because some Souther Baptist hillbilly doesn't know about the Institutes of the Christian Religion doesn't mean they weren't written, or don't matter to their faith.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 04:20:47 PM
If you don't leave the door open for change, what's the point of reanalyzing? A person who is shifting moral viewpoint to meet the situation has in effect, no moral viewpoint.
You can't be serious.
What the candian, the brit, and the crazy guy said :P
*edit* the lawery canadian, not the expat canadian married to an apparent wiccan :D
Quote from: fahdiz on November 01, 2011, 04:31:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 04:20:47 PM
If you don't leave the door open for change, what's the point of reanalyzing? A person who is shifting moral viewpoint to meet the situation has in effect, no moral viewpoint.
You can't be serious.
How would you describe what you are doing?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 01, 2011, 04:26:25 PM
Your argument that most religions lack an intellectual underpinning is based on a proposition that some people within those religions dont understand the intellectual underpinning.
That is not an argument such an intellectual underpinning does not exist - simply that some do not understand it. But the failure to understand all the details does not prevent someone from ordering their life in a way that takes adantage the thinking others have already done.
I dont have to understand why all the gadgets I use work but I can still order my life around them...
But you can clearly tell that your gadgets do work and can compare them with other similar gadgets and make an informed decision about which you want to buy. That is an intellectual basis.
Without some understanding of the reasons why one believes a certain way, one cannot justify that belief, nor make an informed choice about whether it is, in fact, the best religion for them. Thus, while one could be benefiting from said beliefs, one could also be harmed by them, and it is probably as easy to find examples of the latter as the former.
I think we're talking about different things though. You're discussing an intellectual and moral 'basis' for faith. Whereas I'm talking and I think CC is about the intellectual and moral 'framework' of faith. I'd argue it's the latter that distinguishes a religion, regardless of why or how people believe.
Ok, it's a distinguished religion, so what?
Back to the original discussion, it doesn't make it a superior religion to have an intellectual framework if that's not what the individual is looking for.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 04:38:03 PM
How would you describe what you are doing?
Holding a particular moral position (however you arrived at it, though hopefully through a process that involved at least *some* amount of reasoning?) until you encounter a moral dilemma your current framework is unable to satisfyingly answer, then attempting to figure out whether the problem is that your framework is insufficient or that your framework is incorrect.
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 04:57:20 PM
Ok, it's a distinguished religion, so what?
Back to the original discussion, it doesn't make it a superior religion to have an intellectual framework if that's not what the individual is looking for.
My argument was that the intellectual and moral framework's what makes it a religion and what makes neo-paganism and the like a mental hug, at best, not a religion.
I guess I don't see the distinction. I'd say a mental hug is pretty much the definition of a religion.
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 05:06:20 PM
I guess I don't see the distinction. I'd say a mental hug is pretty much the definition of a religion.
Religion based on dead white males = good and proper
Religion based on other folks = mental hug
It's all in the memo.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 01, 2011, 04:59:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 04:38:03 PM
How would you describe what you are doing?
Holding a particular moral position (however you arrived at it, though hopefully through a process that involved at least *some* amount of reasoning?) until you encounter a moral dilemma your current framework is unable to satisfyingly answer, then attempting to figure out whether the problem is that your framework is insufficient or that your framework is incorrect.
What happens when you arrive a moral dilemma that you just don't like the answer your moral position give you? Like you just really want to steal something but your moral position says, "no that's wrong". Is that not an unsatisfying answer?
Quote from: The Brain on November 01, 2011, 05:10:29 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 05:06:20 PM
I guess I don't see the distinction. I'd say a mental hug is pretty much the definition of a religion.
Religion based on dead white males = good and proper
Religion based on other folks = mental hug
It's all in the memo.
So Paganism is good and proper?
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2011, 03:43:43 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2011, 03:42:10 PM
I'd like all wiccans publicly whipped, have a cross burned into their forehead and then sent to a salt mine.
I've heard you say that before. I know a few Wiccans, and yes, they're pretty annoying in general, but your unbridled hatred is intriguing. I do wonder what's led to it... I sense a story here.... :shifty:
Are you kidding? He says that or something similar about everything.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 05:19:26 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 01, 2011, 05:10:29 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 05:06:20 PM
I guess I don't see the distinction. I'd say a mental hug is pretty much the definition of a religion.
Religion based on dead white males = good and proper
Religion based on other folks = mental hug
It's all in the memo.
So Paganism is good and proper?
Paganism isn't on trial here. Neopaganism is.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 05:18:32 PM
What happens when you arrive a moral dilemma that you just don't like the answer your moral position give you? Like you just really want to steal something but your moral position says, "no that's wrong". Is that not an unsatisfying answer?
I guess I'm assuming the person we're talking about here has at least some capacity for reasoning beyond "me want gold brick" and "Great Zog in sky say NO". Maybe that is too much to assume?
Additionally: I can think of a number of cases in which stealing something could be a morally neutral or even morally positive activity. Can't you? Doesn't the utility of "my family will starve unless I take this loaf of bread; I am all out of other options" make sense to you on some level?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 01, 2011, 02:50:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2011, 01:56:56 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 01:46:56 PM
Twilight's influenced by the author's Mormonism. I just think the artistic accomplishments of those faiths/cults makes them more worthwhile than this nonsense.
Heh. It shouldn't be too hard to find some piece of art influenced by earth mother stuff.
Clan of the Cave Bear and its sequels.
What is it with you and goddamned bears?
Quote from: The Brain on November 01, 2011, 05:10:29 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 05:06:20 PM
I guess I don't see the distinction. I'd say a mental hug is pretty much the definition of a religion.
Religion based on dead white males = good and proper
Religion based on other folks = mental hug
It's all in the memo.
Islam is a religion.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 01, 2011, 05:35:05 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 05:18:32 PM
What happens when you arrive a moral dilemma that you just don't like the answer your moral position give you? Like you just really want to steal something but your moral position says, "no that's wrong". Is that not an unsatisfying answer?
I guess I'm assuming the person we're talking about here has at least some capacity for reasoning beyond "me want gold brick" and "Great Zog in sky say NO". Maybe that is too much to assume?
Additionally: I can think of a number of cases in which stealing something could be a morally neutral or even morally positive activity. Can't you? Doesn't the utility of "my family will starve unless I take this loaf of bread; I am all out of other options" make sense to you on some level?
Well, reasoning is more about costs vs benefits. Not whether something is right or wrong. Would an act that you previously though morally wrong, but you would greatly benefit from with low chance of negative consequences (or no possible negative consequences), still be wrong?
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 05:06:20 PM
I guess I don't see the distinction. I'd say a mental hug is pretty much the definition of a religion.
Religion's not an individual thing. What marks a religion out is that it could have no believers and through the weight of its thought I could have a reasonable idea of what the religion is like. That's true of the major faiths like Christianity or Buddhism, they are above the individual. Neo-paganism and other 'spiritual' movements just seem very self-involved to me. I don't see how you can have a religion of one.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 08:32:02 PM
Religion's not an individual thing.
I guess we have a fundamental disagreement. I think religion is purely an individual thing.
Quote from: Neil on November 01, 2011, 06:03:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 01, 2011, 05:10:29 PM
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 05:06:20 PM
I guess I don't see the distinction. I'd say a mental hug is pretty much the definition of a religion.
Religion based on dead white males = good and proper
Religion based on other folks = mental hug
It's all in the memo.
Islam is a religion.
And Mormonism is a cult.
Quote from: HVC on November 01, 2011, 04:32:45 PM
What the candian, the brit, and the crazy guy said :P
*edit* the lawery canadian, not the expat canadian married to an apparent wiccan :D
:)
I have little love for Wiccans in general, and certainly do not subscribe to their philosophy of life nor religion. I do, however, believe that one religion shouldn't be shunted aside simply because it's new. Historically speaking, it seems to take a good two or three centuries for a religion to be considered "valid", and the neo-pagans are only about a century in. I'm just willing to give them some slack while they figure things out.
On top of all of that, I just don't see a reason to belittle another person's faith so long as that faith doesn't harm anyone else.
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 08:42:10 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 08:32:02 PM
Religion's not an individual thing.
I guess we have a fundamental disagreement. I think religion is purely an individual thing.
Same here. :hug:
Which is why I left the Catholic church. I didn't do lock-step well, and it was required by them.
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2011, 09:24:14 PM
I have little love for Wiccans in general, and certainly do not subscribe to their philosophy of life nor religion. I do, however, believe that one religion shouldn't be shunted aside simply because it's new. Historically speaking, it seems to take a good two or three centuries for a religion to be considered "valid", and the neo-pagans are only about a century in. I'm just willing to give them some slack while they figure things out.
On top of all of that, I just don't see a reason to belittle another person's faith so long as that faith doesn't harm anyone else.
The social utility in religion is to bind a society together and to keep people docile. New religions do none of these things. Their adherents are usually misfits and malcontents with a sense of grievance whose goal include damaging the social order. Only old, established religions can bind a nation. Since all religions are equally false, there is no reason to tolerate any new religions, nor to refrain from mocking anyone who espouses their flawed dogmas.
Quote from: Rabbi Shemp
The social utility in religion is to bind a society together and to keep people docile. New religions [like Christianity] do none of these things. Their adherents are usually misfits and malcontents with a sense of grievance whose goal include damaging the social order. Only old, established religions can bind a nation. Since all religions are equally false, there is no reason to tolerate any new religions, nor to refrain from mocking anyone who espouses their flawed dogmas. [circa 50AD]
Obviously Christianity is a scourge. What's your point?
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2011, 09:24:14 PM
I have little love for Wiccans in general, and certainly do not subscribe to their philosophy of life nor religion. I do, however, believe that one religion shouldn't be shunted aside simply because it's new. Historically speaking, it seems to take a good two or three centuries for a religion to be considered "valid", and the neo-pagans are only about a century in. I'm just willing to give them some slack while they figure things out.
I've no issue with young religions. I've an enormous amount of love for the Bahai for example. I find that syncretic Vietnamese faith interesting too. I've even a grudging respect for the Mormons :P
But they're all religions, they're all things you can believe in and subscribe to.
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2011, 09:57:01 PM
Quote from: Rabbi Shemp
The social utility in religion is to bind a society together and to keep people docile. New religions [like Christianity] do none of these things. Their adherents are usually misfits and malcontents with a sense of grievance whose goal include damaging the social order. Only old, established religions can bind a nation. Since all religions are equally false, there is no reason to tolerate any new religions, nor to refrain from mocking anyone who espouses their flawed dogmas. [circa 50AD]
And they were right in 50AD. How much social disruption did Christianity create?
I think we can agree that it is no longer 50AD. These days, we understand the world better and are thus better able to make more rational policy decisions based on the assuption that any religion is false.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 08:25:28 PM
Well, reasoning is more about costs vs benefits.
That's a pretty base definition of reasoning, wouldn't you say? I mean - yes; cost-benefit analysis is a type of reasoning, but I wouldn't say it's the only type by far. Actually I don't know of anyone who has even glanced at a philosophy textbook (even ones comprised solely of religious philosophers) who would suggest that cost-benefit analysis is the only thing meant when someone talks about "reasoning".
QuoteWould an act that you previously though morally wrong, but you would greatly benefit from with low chance of negative consequences (or no possible negative consequences), still be wrong?
As I said, it's not just about benefit. Is it your notion that in order to avoid being a moral relativist I must adhere to a system of morality which is supposedly handed down from a higher power? If not, what system of morality would be acceptable in its place? And is it seriously your contention that once one adopts a moral system one must never encounter a situation which cannot be crammed into that system? That once a morality is chosen that morality becomes immutable and incapable of growth?
I can't imagine you'd be arguing those things. And yet here you are, appearing to do that. I'm hoping you'll be able to explain your position with greater clarity.
Quote from: Neil on November 01, 2011, 10:15:54 PM
I think we can agree that it is no longer 50AD.
I extremely dispute your assertion with extreme prejudice.
Quote from: The Brain on November 01, 2011, 12:53:37 AM
Few people worship Israel
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
Quote from: fahdiz on November 01, 2011, 11:22:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 08:25:28 PM
Well, reasoning is more about costs vs benefits.
That's a pretty base definition of reasoning, wouldn't you say? I mean - yes; cost-benefit analysis is a type of reasoning, but I wouldn't say it's the only type by far. Actually I don't know of anyone who has even glanced at a philosophy textbook (even ones comprised solely of religious philosophers) who would suggest that cost-benefit analysis is the only thing meant when someone talks about "reasoning".
QuoteWould an act that you previously though morally wrong, but you would greatly benefit from with low chance of negative consequences (or no possible negative consequences), still be wrong?
As I said, it's not just about benefit. Is it your notion that in order to avoid being a moral relativist I must adhere to a system of morality which is supposedly handed down from a higher power? If not, what system of morality would be acceptable in its place? And is it seriously your contention that once one adopts a moral system one must never encounter a situation which cannot be crammed into that system? That once a morality is chosen that morality becomes immutable and incapable of growth?
I can't imagine you'd be arguing those things. And yet here you are, appearing to do that. I'm hoping you'll be able to explain your position with greater clarity.
What sort of growth are we talking about here, then? Most moral systems have some framework for dealing with new situations, but you really don't come across new moral systems very often in your daily life. Yours sounds a lot like "Making it up as you go", in which the temptation to do what is easy or simply beneficial well quickly be rationalized as right.
Quote from: Maximus on November 01, 2011, 08:42:10 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 08:32:02 PM
Religion's not an individual thing.
I guess we have a fundamental disagreement. I think religion is purely an individual thing.
How odd. Religion is a bit like law. You don't personally interpret the law. Well not if you intend to stay out of jail. Why would the divine law change person to person?
Religion is a communal activity. Mysticism can be individual but you need an organized system to make it a religion.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 08:25:28 PM
Would an act that you previously though morally wrong, but you would greatly benefit from with low chance of negative consequences (or no possible negative consequences), still be wrong?
That's a circular argument. There are different systems of morality. Some are based on the utilitarian principles, some aren't. The act is not immoral or not objectively, it is only immoral or not within a specific system.
Similarly, an act cannot be illegal without a legal system. There are commonalities between systems which may suggest that some acts are "universally" illegal, but that's not logically the case.
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2011, 04:53:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 08:25:28 PM
Would an act that you previously though morally wrong, but you would greatly benefit from with low chance of negative consequences (or no possible negative consequences), still be wrong?
That's a circular argument. There are different systems of morality. Some are based on the utilitarian principles, some aren't. The act is not immoral or not objectively, it is only immoral or not within a specific system.
Similarly, an act cannot be illegal without a legal system. There are commonalities between systems which may suggest that some acts are "universally" illegal, but that's not logically the case.
I was presuming Fahdiz had some form of morality. Or are you suggesting that on each moral problem you come across you flip through all moral systems and find the answer you like best?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 05:02:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2011, 04:53:37 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 08:25:28 PM
Would an act that you previously though morally wrong, but you would greatly benefit from with low chance of negative consequences (or no possible negative consequences), still be wrong?
That's a circular argument. There are different systems of morality. Some are based on the utilitarian principles, some aren't. The act is not immoral or not objectively, it is only immoral or not within a specific system.
Similarly, an act cannot be illegal without a legal system. There are commonalities between systems which may suggest that some acts are "universally" illegal, but that's not logically the case.
I was presuming Fahdiz had some form of morality. Or are you suggesting that on each moral problem you come across you flip through all moral systems and find the answer you like best?
Everyone has a system of morality, it's just that not everyone's system is internally consistent. People usually borrow from different systems.
So, that's a yes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 01:28:53 PM
Hell even Mormonism's more legitimate for giving us the Twilight Saga. Scientology's contribution of Battlefield Earth probably rates higher than the gaping black hole of inane bullshit that is neopaganism.
I know you are trying very hard, but to those of us outside the flock, these sheep look pretty much identical. From where I sit, this spitting on neopaganism by people who believe in other, equally-goofy-appearing concepts is nothing short of amusing.
Neopagans dancing naked around a fire is indistinguishable in silliness, to me, from Catholics in Sunday-best pretending to be cannibals.
Did you have something to add to this discussion?
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2011, 07:38:18 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2011, 01:28:53 PM
Hell even Mormonism's more legitimate for giving us the Twilight Saga. Scientology's contribution of Battlefield Earth probably rates higher than the gaping black hole of inane bullshit that is neopaganism.
I know you are trying very hard, but to those of us outside the flock, these sheep look pretty much identical. From where I sit, this spitting on neopaganism by people who believe in other, equally-goofy-appearing concepts is nothing short of amusing.
Neopagans dancing naked around a fire is indistinguishable in silliness, to me, from Catholics in Sunday-best pretending to be cannibals.
That's funny. I can tell the difference. Is it possible that you took a blow to the head and became retarded?
Quote from: fahdiz on November 01, 2011, 11:22:48 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2011, 08:25:28 PM
Well, reasoning is more about costs vs benefits.
That's a pretty base definition of reasoning, wouldn't you say? I mean - yes; cost-benefit analysis is a type of reasoning, but I wouldn't say it's the only type by far. Actually I don't know of anyone who has even glanced at a philosophy textbook (even ones comprised solely of religious philosophers) who would suggest that cost-benefit analysis is the only thing meant when someone talks about "reasoning".
QuoteWould an act that you previously though morally wrong, but you would greatly benefit from with low chance of negative consequences (or no possible negative consequences), still be wrong?
As I said, it's not just about benefit. Is it your notion that in order to avoid being a moral relativist I must adhere to a system of morality which is supposedly handed down from a higher power? If not, what system of morality would be acceptable in its place? And is it seriously your contention that once one adopts a moral system one must never encounter a situation which cannot be crammed into that system? That once a morality is chosen that morality becomes immutable and incapable of growth?
I can't imagine you'd be arguing those things. And yet here you are, appearing to do that. I'm hoping you'll be able to explain your position with greater clarity.
I think Raz may not be able to distinguish between intrinsic morality and relative morality. That is predicted by our old friend Kolhberg, so don't sweat it if that proves to be the case. Raz simply
will not be able to understand you until he achieves a stage of moral reasoning at most one stage or so lower than your own. It isn't a matter of smart, it is just a matter of cognitive development. If Kohlberg is right.
Quote from: Neil on November 02, 2011, 07:44:50 AM
That's funny. I can tell the difference. Is it possible that you took a blow to the head and became retarded?
No blow to the head, so I don't have your ability. :P
:yawn: Really, nobody asked for a drive by pissing Grumbler. Why don't you run a long and go back under your bridge.
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2011, 07:46:12 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 02, 2011, 07:44:50 AM
That's funny. I can tell the difference. Is it possible that you took a blow to the head and became retarded?
No blow to the head, so I don't have your ability. :P
What other abilities do you lack?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 07:52:19 AM
:yawn: Really, nobody asked for a drive by pissing Grumbler.
Who's driving? Because we know grumbler's not that limber at his age...
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 04:37:48 AM
What sort of growth are we talking about here, then? Most moral systems have some framework for dealing with new situations, but you really don't come across new moral systems very often in your daily life. Yours sounds a lot like "Making it up as you go", in which the temptation to do what is easy or simply beneficial well quickly be rationalized as right.
How is that different from existing moral frameworks? They are ever changing (although clearly at a glacial pace) as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 04:40:07 AM
How odd. Religion is a bit like law. You don't personally interpret the law. Well not if you intend to stay out of jail. Why would the divine law change person to person?
People don't interpret religion? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2011, 07:38:18 AMI know you are trying very hard, but to those of us outside the flock, these sheep look pretty much identical. From where I sit, this spitting on neopaganism by people who believe in other, equally-goofy-appearing concepts is nothing short of amusing.
Neopagans dancing naked around a fire is indistinguishable in silliness, to me, from Catholics in Sunday-best pretending to be cannibals.
I'm not in a flock :mellow:
But the entire point is neopagans don't have anything to believe in. Being religious means believing in something external that's greater than yourself. Neopagans don't have that. They feel good in a forest, which is fine, but it's not a religion. When they move beyond themselves then I'll think of them as a religion rather than self-involvement in a robe.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 09:17:03 AM
But the entire point is neopagans don't have anything to believe in. Being religious means believing in something external that's greater than yourself. Neopagans don't have that. They feel good in a forest, which is fine, but it's not a religion. When they move beyond themselves then I'll think of them as a religion rather than self-involvement in a robe.
How do you know? The author of the article in the first post seems to think about powers beyond her, namely nature and generations of ancestors.
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2011, 09:19:06 AMHow do you know? The author of the article in the first post seems to think about powers beyond her, namely nature and generations of ancestors.
I said earlier I think a religion has enough thinking that there could be no believers and we'd be able to have a strong idea of what the system was. That's the difference between a religion and inane, individualised beliefs about nature. One's a belief system, the other's just a belief.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 09:25:55 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2011, 09:19:06 AMHow do you know? The author of the article in the first post seems to think about powers beyond her, namely nature and generations of ancestors.
I said earlier I think a religion has enough thinking that there could be no believers and we'd be able to have a strong idea of what the system was. That's the difference between a religion and inane, individualised beliefs about nature. One's a belief system, the other's just a belief.
Isn't a belief system just multiple supporting beliefs?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 04:40:07 AM
How odd. Religion is a bit like law. You don't personally interpret the law. Well not if you intend to stay out of jail. Why would the divine law change person to person?
Religion is not at all like the law. There is a fairly transparent system by which laws are made and those that are made are clearly spelled out. When a god shows up in person and tells us what his law is then perhaps we can treat it like law. Perhaps a god has appeared to you. If so that's great. You don't have to interpret. The rest of the world is not so lucky and has to go on faith.
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2011, 04:49:43 AM
Religion is a communal activity. Mysticism can be individual but you need an organized system to make it a religion.
Some religions have a communal component and that's part of their appeal. Others specifically do not, and that's part of their appeal.
Quote from: Maximus on November 02, 2011, 09:43:30 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2011, 04:49:43 AM
Religion is a communal activity. Mysticism can be individual but you need an organized system to make it a religion.
Some religions have a communal component and that's part of their appeal. Others specifically do not, and that's part of their appeal.
I'd also argue that Marti's suggestion kinda of puts a damper on the notion of being a hermit.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 04:37:48 AM
Yours sounds a lot like "Making it up as you go", in which the temptation to do what is easy or simply beneficial well quickly be rationalized as right.
You're back to saying it is a cost-benefit analysis again. I think grumbler's right; if that's the way it sounds to you, I'm not going to have a lot of luck explaining it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 09:17:03 AM
I'm not in a flock :mellow:
I thought you were Catholic, Sheilbh?
Quote from: fahdiz on November 02, 2011, 10:00:11 AMI thought you were Catholic, Sheilbh?
Well I am, culturally. But I've not been to Church in years. I've not really been a believer in a long time, if ever, properly.
Last service was probably my niece's Anglican christening. But I've got a lot of respect and, I think, understanding for the Church and generally find most religions pretty interesting. But I'm not at all a spiritual person. I have no yearning towards God or the infinite or anything like that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 10:05:11 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 02, 2011, 10:00:11 AMI thought you were Catholic, Sheilbh?
Well I am, culturally. But I've not been to Church in years. I've not really been a believer in a long time, if ever, properly.
Last service was probably my niece's Anglican christening. But I've got a lot of respect and, I think, understanding for the Church and generally find most religions pretty interesting. But I'm not at all a spiritual person. I have no yearning towards God or the infinite or anything like that.
Oh I do as well. In fact I am listening to a great podcast by this Canadian professor on religion in the late Roman Empire here: http://www.archive.org/details/Religions_of_the_Ancient_Mediterranean if you are unfamiliar with it listen a bit it is pretty interesting.
But I also sort of like new agey bullshit because it is so wonderfully post-modern. Everybody involved usually knows it is bullshit but it fulfills them on some level they have a hard time vocalizing. I find it pretty interesting really.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 05:02:13 AM
I was presuming Fahdiz had some form of morality.
Your presumption is correct.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 02, 2011, 10:28:42 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 05:02:13 AM
I was presuming Fahdiz had some form of morality.
Your presumption is correct.
Is it: the Categorical Imperative? :kant:
Religion is for the weak. Just like a crutch, and equally useful.
Religious/superstitious people are biologically superior to beings of pure reason(if such existed) as they are able to cling to irrational things like the survival instinct.
Quote from: The Brain on November 02, 2011, 10:47:45 AM
Religion is for the weak. Just like a crutch, and equally useful.
A crutch for what would be my question.
That is the thing I cannot really get. What is religion supposed to be satisfying? I am not really sure. But people do seem to really get something from it.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2011, 10:59:09 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 02, 2011, 10:47:45 AM
Religion is for the weak. Just like a crutch, and equally useful.
A crutch for what would be my question.
That is the thing I cannot really get. What is religion supposed to be satisfying? I am not really sure. But people do seem to really get something from it.
Religion provides answers to questions that are otherwise not unanswered by science. Surely you can appreciate that the state of knowing the answers is superior to not knowing the answers. People have an immense ability to deceive themselves just for this feeling of security.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2011, 10:59:09 AM
A crutch for what would be my question.
That is the thing I cannot really get. What is religion supposed to be satisfying? I am not really sure. But people do seem to really get something from it.
That's what it is supposed to be satisfying. And if it's doing its job, I don't know how you can call it bullshit.
Quote from: Maximus on November 02, 2011, 11:06:18 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2011, 10:59:09 AM
A crutch for what would be my question.
That is the thing I cannot really get. What is religion supposed to be satisfying? I am not really sure. But people do seem to really get something from it.
That's what it is supposed to be satisfying. And if it's doing its job, I don't know how you can call it bullshit.
Well, that's the question - does a comforting lie hold a higher value than a disturbing truth - or vice versa? And this is not a rhetorical question, imo - if reality looked like Matrix, I bet most people would choose the virtual one created by the robots than the "real" bleak post-apocalyptic one.
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2011, 11:06:08 AM
Religion provides answers to questions that are otherwise not unanswered by science. Surely you can appreciate that the state of knowing the answers is superior to not knowing the answers. People have an immense ability to deceive themselves just for this feeling of security.
I fail to see that any modern religion really provides those things anymore. Only the truly idiotic thinks a god triggered the Tsunami of 2004 because he was really really mad at the people who live in the Indian Ocean. It provides something much more personal.
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2011, 11:08:38 AM
Well, that's the question - does a comforting lie hold a higher value than a disturbing truth - or vice versa? And this is not a rhetorical question, imo - if reality looked like Matrix, I bet most people would choose the virtual one created by the robots than the "real" bleak post-apocalyptic one.
So long as they are given a choice I don't see a problem with it.
On a purely practical, reason-based, non-emotional level, religious beliefs are harmful. If the efficiency of our reasoning was considered paramount, then our ability to reason succesfully would surely be hampered by bullshit views that are associated with religion, on the basis of the GIGO principle (Garbage In Garbage Out). E.g. a person who beliefs their god is against blood transfusions or stem cell research are unwilling to use these, very succesful, medical treatments, and are worse off, clearly.
However, religion provides an emotional satisfaction component. As such, it is on par with such prima facie irrational behaviours as drinking alcohol, taking drugs, engaging in non-reproductive sex, listening to music, watching theatre or playing computer games. I think the problem comes from the religious insisting that their irrational, pleasure-generating behaviours are somehow more worthy than any of these pasttimes I listed, or that they should guide national policies.
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2011, 11:13:35 AM
On a purely practical, reason-based, non-emotional level, religious beliefs are harmful. If the efficiency of our reasoning was considered paramount, then our ability to reason succesfully would surely be hampered by bullshit views that are associated with religion, on the basis of the GIGO principle (Garbage In Garbage Out). E.g. a person who beliefs their god is against blood transfusions or stem cell research are unwilling to use these, very succesful, medical treatments, and are worse off, clearly.
However, religion provides an emotional satisfaction component. As such, it is on par with such prima facie irrational behaviours as drinking alcohol, taking drugs, engaging in non-reproductive sex, listening to music, watching theatre or playing computer games. I think the problem comes from the religious insisting that their irrational, pleasure-generating behaviours are somehow more worthy than any of these pasttimes I listed, or that they should guide national policies.
No argument there.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2011, 11:11:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2011, 11:06:08 AM
Religion provides answers to questions that are otherwise not unanswered by science. Surely you can appreciate that the state of knowing the answers is superior to not knowing the answers. People have an immense ability to deceive themselves just for this feeling of security.
I fail to see that any modern religion really provides those things anymore. Only the truly idiotic thinks a god triggered the Tsunami of 2004 because he was really really mad at the people who live in the Indian Ocean. It provides something much more personal.
I don't think the answers that are provided by religion are of that nature anymore. That does not mean there are no unanswered questions out there, where you get comfort from getting the religious answers.
For example, will we able to meet our dead relatives again? Does our existence have meaning beyond death? Is there some sort of cosmic justice that goes beyond the faulty human one? Is there a reason for suffering?
The materialistic answer to all these questions, while most likely to be true, is also quite disturbing and could turn a lot of people into nihilists and suicides. So these weak people turn to religion as a crutch, as TheBrain has said.
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2011, 11:13:35 AM
I think the problem comes from the religious insisting that their irrational, pleasure-generating behaviours are somehow more worthy than any of these pasttimes I listed, or that they should guide national policies.
That is hardly a universal quality of the religious.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2011, 11:19:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2011, 11:13:35 AM
I think the problem comes from the religious insisting that their irrational, pleasure-generating behaviours are somehow more worthy than any of these pasttimes I listed, or that they should guide national policies.
That is hardly a universal quality of the religious.
Yes, but I think the religious are especially persistent in that. Perhaps in future, our presidential candidates will be losing votes because they play the Horde. Right now they lose votes because of their religious views.
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2011, 11:18:10 AM
The materialistic answer to all these questions, while most likely to be true, is also quite disturbing and could turn a lot of people into nihilists and suicides. So these weak people turn to religion as a crutch, as TheBrain has said.
On the contrary it all depends on how it is packaged. The fact that life is empty and meaningless is incredibly empowering because you can give yourself whatever meaning you wish. I, for one, am pretty happy I am not here trying to cleanse my soul because some dude ate an apple a few thousand years ago.
But that realization has nothing to do with my interest in religion. But I could just be an outlier.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 09:17:03 AM
I'm not in a flock :mellow:
But the entire point is neopagans don't have anything to believe in. Being religious means believing in something external that's greater than yourself. Neopagans don't have that. They feel good in a forest, which is fine, but it's not a religion. When they move beyond themselves then I'll think of them as a religion rather than self-involvement in a robe.
Your flock is the flock that believes that some beliefs (like "being religious means believing in something external that's greater than yourself" and "Neopagans ... feel good in a forest...but it's not a religion") are true as soon as asserted. :mellow:
I still don't see any inherent difference between believing in unevidenced things that are "external that's greater than yourself" and believing in unevidenced things that are
not "external that's greater than yourself." Members of your flock (not every one of which is religious) still look much alike to me, since I don't see the differences in what you believe in that separates you in your eyes.
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2011, 11:22:05 AM
Yes, but I think the religious are especially persistent in that. Perhaps in future, our presidential candidates will be losing votes because they play the Horde. Right now they lose votes because of their religious views.
They lose votes for all sorts of views. If a presidential candidate spent all his time playing World of Warcraft that would probably lose him votes also.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2011, 10:59:09 AM
That is the thing I cannot really get. What is religion supposed to be satisfying? I am not really sure. But people do seem to really get something from it.
I don't get it, either, nor do I get the distinctions people draw between religions, or between "real" religions and "things-that-look-like-religions-but-are-not."
But I don't think it is important. I know that my parents got a lot out of being religious, and I know that I appreciate all the support that the other members of my church give to my mother. Religion isn't good or bad. Religious people do good or bad things, just like irreligious people.
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2011, 09:16:31 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 04:40:07 AM
How odd. Religion is a bit like law. You don't personally interpret the law. Well not if you intend to stay out of jail. Why would the divine law change person to person?
People don't interpret religion? :huh:
Best left to professionals.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2011, 10:09:47 AMBut I also sort of like new agey bullshit because it is so wonderfully post-modern. Everybody involved usually knows it is bullshit but it fulfills them on some level they have a hard time vocalizing. I find it pretty interesting really.
I can see that. But I have a sort-of ascetic Commie attitude to this sort of thing. I find the new age stuff decadent, Western self-indulgence - which I don't think is true of, say, the Hare Krishna who have a real corpus of belief going on. It brings out a reaction <_< :P
For what it's worth I entirely disagree with Marty on this too :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 02, 2011, 10:56:58 AM
Religious/superstitious people are biologically superior to beings of pure reason(if such existed) as they are able to cling to irrational things like the survival instinct.
They also reproduce at a higher rate then secular people. If you have to aniamls who are identical except for one is far more fertile then the other, the less fertile species will be out competed by the more fertile one. In essence, secularism is an evolutionary dead end.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2011, 10:59:09 AMThat is the thing I cannot really get. What is religion supposed to be satisfying? I am not really sure. But people do seem to really get something from it.
Different people get different things out of it.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 11:35:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2011, 10:09:47 AMBut I also sort of like new agey bullshit because it is so wonderfully post-modern. Everybody involved usually knows it is bullshit but it fulfills them on some level they have a hard time vocalizing. I find it pretty interesting really.
I can see that. But I have a sort-of ascetic Commie attitude to this sort of thing. I find the new age stuff decadent, Western self-indulgence - which I don't think is true of, say, the Hare Krishna who have a real corpus of belief going on. It brings out a reaction <_< :P
For what it's worth I entirely disagree with Marty on this too :P
Marty only cares about himself, as evidence in his "why do heteros get so freaked out about cheating", thread. I think the idea of sacrificing for no personal gain, is totally alien to him.
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2011, 11:13:35 AM
If the efficiency of our reasoning was considered paramount,
Under that premise, we are basically screwed because there is quite a bit of evidence that as an empirical matter, human reasoning tends to be grossly inefficient and subject to all sorts of biases and systemic errors.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 11:48:25 AMMarty only cares about himself, as evidence in his "why do heteros get so freaked out about cheating", thread. I think the idea of sacrificing for no personal gain, is totally alien to him.
That's harsh. But I do think Marti's probably the poster I most often fundamentally disagree with. Thank God he's funny.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 09:17:03 AM
I'm not in a flock :mellow:
But the entire point is neopagans don't have anything to believe in. Being religious means believing in something external that's greater than yourself. Neopagans don't have that. They feel good in a forest, which is fine, but it's not a religion. When they move beyond themselves then I'll think of them as a religion rather than self-involvement in a robe.
I wonder how much you actually know about neo-pagan beliefs. From this comment, I'd argue not much. They do have a belief system with gods and morals and everything, or at least most do. (It's really hard to discuss this intelligently when you continue to lump all of neo-pagan religions into one lump category.)
Perhaps you should do a bit of research before espousing this kind of garbage.
Quote from: merithyn on November 02, 2011, 12:37:38 PM
I wonder how much you actually know about neo-pagan beliefs. From this comment, I'd argue not much. They do have a belief system with gods and morals and everything, or at least most do. (It's really hard to discuss this intelligently when you continue to lump all of neo-pagan religions into one lump category.)
My family live not far from Glastonbury or Stonehenge. I've spoken to a fair few neo-pagans and there's a lot in the area. Nothing I've come across so far's shaken me into tolerance.
Quote from: The Brain on November 02, 2011, 10:47:45 AM
Religion is for the weak. Just like a crutch, and equally useful.
I guess I just view all people as weak at some point in their lives, and if religion helps them keep going, I see no problem with it. In other words, if my twist my ankle, it helps to have a crutch to get on with things.
Quote from: grumbler on November 02, 2011, 11:32:00 AM
I don't get it, either, nor do I get the distinctions people draw between religions, or between "real" religions and "things-that-look-like-religions-but-are-not."
But I don't think it is important. I know that my parents got a lot out of being religious, and I know that I appreciate all the support that the other members of my church give to my mother. Religion isn't good or bad. Religious people do good or bad things, just like irreligious people.
Beautifully stated, Grumbler.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 12:42:48 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 02, 2011, 12:37:38 PM
I wonder how much you actually know about neo-pagan beliefs. From this comment, I'd argue not much. They do have a belief system with gods and morals and everything, or at least most do. (It's really hard to discuss this intelligently when you continue to lump all of neo-pagan religions into one lump category.)
My family live not far from Glastonbury or Stonehenge. I've spoken to a fair few neo-pagans and there's a lot in the area. Nothing I've come across so far's shaken me into tolerance.
And I live near a small community of Amish. It doesn't mean that I know all that they believe or why. My point is that you don't know what you're talking about, and yet you're judging a large group of people based on misconceptions you hold tightly to. I find that sad and very unworthy of you.
Quote from: merithyn on November 02, 2011, 12:48:53 PM
And I live near a small community of Amish. It doesn't mean that I know all that they believe or why. My point is that you don't know what you're talking about, and yet you're judging a large group of people based on misconceptions you hold tightly to. I find that sad and very unworthy of you.
Never trust an Anabaptist. :ph34r: Those horse-drawn carrages and country cooking are fronts. Secretly, they are are planning to restage the Münster Rebellion ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_Rebellion
They make damn fine pies.
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 12:52:49 PM
Never trust an Anabaptist. :ph34r:
:unsure:
I married one. Well, the descendent of one, anyway. :mellow:
Quote from: merithyn on November 02, 2011, 12:57:17 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 02, 2011, 12:52:49 PM
Never trust an Anabaptist. :ph34r:
:unsure:
I married one. Well, the descendent of one, anyway. :mellow:
There is one of these waiting for you as well ... :ph34r:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Muenster_Lamberti_Koerbe_6428.jpg
No respite for the Anabaptist scourge!
Quote from: merithyn on November 02, 2011, 12:37:38 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 02, 2011, 09:17:03 AM
I'm not in a flock :mellow:
But the entire point is neopagans don't have anything to believe in. Being religious means believing in something external that's greater than yourself. Neopagans don't have that. They feel good in a forest, which is fine, but it's not a religion. When they move beyond themselves then I'll think of them as a religion rather than self-involvement in a robe.
I wonder how much you actually know about neo-pagan beliefs. From this comment, I'd argue not much. They do have a belief system with gods and morals and everything, or at least most do. (It's really hard to discuss this intelligently when you continue to lump all of neo-pagan religions into one lump category.)
Perhaps you should do a bit of research before espousing this kind of garbage.
Okay, what do you think neo-pagan beliefs are?
Quote from: merithyn on November 02, 2011, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 02, 2011, 10:47:45 AM
Religion is for the weak. Just like a crutch, and equally useful.
I guess I just view all people as weak at some point in their lives, and if religion helps them keep going, I see no problem with it. In other words, if my twist my ankle, it helps to have a crutch to get on with things.
Mine was briefer.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 03:11:01 PM
Okay, what do you think neo-pagan beliefs are?
She already indicated. :mellow: She thinks they are diverse and depend on the particular tradition that particular neo-pagan is following.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 02, 2011, 03:45:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 03:11:01 PM
Okay, what do you think neo-pagan beliefs are?
She already indicated. :mellow: She thinks they are diverse and depend on the particular tradition that particular neo-pagan is following.
Well, do they have any common threads then? If someone asked "what do Christians believe", I could equally say "they are diverse". But there are some common things.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 09:45:53 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2011, 09:57:01 PM
Quote from: Rabbi Shemp
Who is Rabbi Shemp? :)
I was going to say-no idea who this is, as Rabbis don't date to this period, and the name "Shemp" sounds Ashkenazim.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 04:01:19 PM
Well, do they have any common threads then? If someone asked "what do Christians believe", I could equally say "they are diverse". But there are some common things.
I'm not sure. I think the most common thread would be that they believe in a higher power (or powers) that have a direct influence on their lives. Most would claim a connection with nature as well as a connection to their ancestors, though that isn't a requirement. Most often I've heard neo-paganism defined as an earth-based group of religions that believes in individual responsibility.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 02, 2011, 04:04:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 09:45:53 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2011, 09:57:01 PM
Quote from: Rabbi Shemp
Who is Rabbi Shemp? :)
I was going to say-no idea who this is, as Rabbis don't date to this period, and the name "Shemp" sounds Ashkenazim.
Was a joke. Don't strain yourselves over it.
Quote from: merithyn on November 02, 2011, 04:52:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 04:01:19 PM
Well, do they have any common threads then? If someone asked "what do Christians believe", I could equally say "they are diverse". But there are some common things.
I'm not sure. I think the most common thread would be that they believe in a higher power (or powers) that have a direct influence on their lives. Most would claim a connection with nature as well as a connection to their ancestors, though that isn't a requirement. Most often I've heard neo-paganism defined as an earth-based group of religions that believes in individual responsibility.
If you don't know for sure, how can you be sure that we are misinterpreting them?
Quote from: Queequeg on November 02, 2011, 04:04:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 02, 2011, 09:45:53 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2011, 09:57:01 PM
Quote from: Rabbi Shemp
Who is Rabbi Shemp? :)
I was going to say-no idea who this is, as Rabbis don't date to this period, and the name "Shemp" sounds Ashkenazim.
He worked with Rabbis Moe and Rabbis Curley.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 05:03:42 PM
If you don't know for sure, how can you be sure that we are misinterpreting them?
Because you're lumping all of them into one with no real understanding of any of them.
I understand all of them. They're disenchanted with conventional religion and want to make sure that everybody knows it, which means that they're also somewhat antisocial.
Quote from: Neil on November 02, 2011, 10:10:55 PM
They're disenchanted with conventional religion
I can't imagine why.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 04:01:19 PM
Well, do they have any common threads then? If someone asked "what do Christians believe", I could equally say "they are diverse". But there are some common things.
You could argue that most major religions contain some form of the Golden Rule.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 02, 2011, 10:25:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 02, 2011, 10:10:55 PM
They're disenchanted with conventional religion
I can't imagine why.
Oh, there's plenty to be disenchanted about. Nevertheless, if you don't feel like adhering to one of the real religions, there are only two choices available to you. You can either keep quiet in public or you can be an antisocial twat.
Quote from: Neil on November 02, 2011, 10:56:30 PM
Oh, there's plenty to be disenchanted about. Nevertheless, if you don't feel like adhering to one of the real religions, there are only two choices available to you. You can either keep quiet in public or you can be an antisocial twat.
I am not sure that neopagan equates to antisocial twat. In other respects I am in agreement.
Quote from: fahdiz on November 02, 2011, 11:04:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 02, 2011, 10:56:30 PM
Oh, there's plenty to be disenchanted about. Nevertheless, if you don't feel like adhering to one of the real religions, there are only two choices available to you. You can either keep quiet in public or you can be an antisocial twat.
I am not sure that neopagan equates to antisocial twat. In other respects I am in agreement.
Anyone who would admit to being one is an antisocial twat. They're saying 'I'm not part of your society, and I don't share any of your values.'
What about atheism? Antisocial twattishness?
Quote from: fahdiz on November 02, 2011, 10:49:12 PM
[You could argue that most major religions contain some form of the Golden Rule.
An eye for an eye?
Quote from: merithyn on November 02, 2011, 09:31:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 05:03:42 PM
If you don't know for sure, how can you be sure that we are misinterpreting them?
Because you're lumping all of them into one with no real understanding of any of them.
How do you know? You weren't even sure what common threads were between them. It sounds like the one with out any real understanding is you.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2011, 12:20:25 AM
What about atheism? Antisocial twattishness?
Annoying smugness.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2011, 12:20:25 AM
What about atheism? Antisocial twattishness?
Depends on how public you are about it. Atheism has the virtue of being true, to be sure, but it's also very socially damaging. It's not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves. Atheists who feel the need to preach, like Dawkins or Viking are just as bad as any mother-Earth wiccan weirdos.
Quote from: Neil on November 03, 2011, 07:24:16 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2011, 12:20:25 AM
What about atheism? Antisocial twattishness?
...... but one should keep it to themselves. Atheists who feel the need to preach, like Dawkins or Viking are just as bad as any mother-Earth wiccan weirdos.
:yes:
I still say we should persecute Anabaptists.
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2011, 07:56:39 AM
I still say we should persecute Anabaptists.
And steal their pies.
There are three main types of Athiests.
1. Those who don't care. They are just as often agnostics or nominal believers. Mostly just irreligious.
2. The smug know it all. They are the type of people who enjoy telling little kids there is not Santa Claus. Their main angle is the feeling of superiority that it Atheism gives them.
3. Bigots. Fanatically anti-religious. Mostly motivated by hate.
There are a few others, but these are the main ones.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 04:01:19 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on November 02, 2011, 03:45:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2011, 03:11:01 PM
Okay, what do you think neo-pagan beliefs are?
She already indicated. :mellow: She thinks they are diverse and depend on the particular tradition that particular neo-pagan is following.
Well, do they have any common threads then? If someone asked "what do Christians believe", I could equally say "they are diverse". But there are some common things.
Well, if you consider mormons to be christians for example, there are very little common threads in Christianity beyond feely-goody "Don't do unto others what you do not like to be done to you."
As for neopaganism/wicca, the key features are some form of pantheism, a belief in karma-like reciprocal nature of reality (if you cause harm, you get harm, etc.), and a belief in the need to live in accordance with one's nature. What pointedly differentiates it from Christianity is that divinity is not considered to be external but rather internal and permeates everything - hence good and bad deeds are less a matter of some supernatural justice, but more the case of emotional and psychological health (e.g. a Christian will refrain from abusing drugs because it's a sin for which he will be punished, a Wiccan will refrain from abusing drugs because it causes harm to himself).
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2011, 08:02:00 AM
There are three main types of Athiests.
1. Those who don't care. They are just as often agnostics or nominal believers. Mostly just irreligious.
2. The smug know it all. They are the type of people who enjoy telling little kids there is not Santa Claus. Their main angle is the feeling of superiority that it Atheism gives them.
3. Bigots. Fanatically anti-religious. Mostly motivated by hate.
There are a few others, but these are the main ones.
I don't think it is fair to divide atheists, specifically, by these criteria. They apply to pretty much anyone holding any worldview.
There could be fanatical vegetarians, smug Christians and indifferent pigeon fanciers.
Incidentally, you are number 2.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 03, 2011, 07:58:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2011, 07:56:39 AM
I still say we should persecute Anabaptists.
And steal their pies.
That goes without saying.
Also, their sturdy hand-made furniture.
Quote from: Neil on November 03, 2011, 07:24:16 AM
Depends on how public you are about it. Atheism has the virtue of being true, to be sure, but it's also very socially damaging. It's not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves. Atheists who feel the need to preach, like Dawkins or Viking are just as bad as any mother-Earth wiccan weirdos.
Agreed. Dawkins, Benedict II, Rowan Williams, the Mother-Earth wiccan weirdos, and all their ilk should restrict their preaching to their flock. Nobody else wants to hear it. Anglicanism is not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves. Buddhism is not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves. Etc.
I just wish Grumbler would keep what ever personal philosophy he has to himself, cause it is pretty bad.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2011, 08:06:08 AM
I don't think it is fair to divide atheists, specifically, by these criteria. They apply to pretty much anyone holding any worldview.
There could be fanatical vegetarians, smug Christians and indifferent pigeon fanciers.
This is Raz you are talking about. He is an expert on everything*, and so he can state definitively that there are three, no more and no less, kinds of Atheists*.
*in his basement.
What he says has no bearing on the world outside his basement, but let him pronounce about the world inside it.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2011, 08:17:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2011, 08:06:08 AM
I don't think it is fair to divide atheists, specifically, by these criteria. They apply to pretty much anyone holding any worldview.
There could be fanatical vegetarians, smug Christians and indifferent pigeon fanciers.
This is Raz you are talking about. He is an expert on everything*, and so he can state definitively that there are three, no more and no less, kinds of Atheists*.
*in his basement.
What he says has no bearing on the world outside his basement, but let him pronounce about the world inside it.
Your reading comprehension still manages to impress me.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2011, 08:12:53 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 03, 2011, 07:24:16 AM
Depends on how public you are about it. Atheism has the virtue of being true, to be sure, but it's also very socially damaging. It's not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves. Atheists who feel the need to preach, like Dawkins or Viking are just as bad as any mother-Earth wiccan weirdos.
Agreed. Dawkins, Benedict II, Rowan Williams, the Mother-Earth wiccan weirdos, and all their ilk should restrict their preaching to their flock. Nobody else wants to hear it. Anglicanism is not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves. Buddhism is not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves. Etc.
I'm not entirely sure that tribalism and the balkanization of society is a positive development. Personal freedom is a laudable goal, but social cohesion is extremely valuable.
Quote from: Malthus on November 03, 2011, 07:56:39 AM
I still say we should persecute Anabaptists.
Agreed. I agree with Raz on atheists.
QuoteWell, if you consider mormons to be christians for example, there are very little common threads in Christianity beyond feely-goody "Don't do unto others what you do not like to be done to you."
Mormons aren't Christians. They may not like admitting that because they're running for President but the fundamentals of their theology is so different from Christianity that I don't think you can group them together. Again I agree with Jeffrey Goldberg, they're to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism.
Quote from: Neil on November 03, 2011, 08:39:00 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2011, 08:12:53 AM
Quote from: Neil on November 03, 2011, 07:24:16 AM
Depends on how public you are about it. Atheism has the virtue of being true, to be sure, but it's also very socially damaging. It's not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves. Atheists who feel the need to preach, like Dawkins or Viking are just as bad as any mother-Earth wiccan weirdos.
Agreed. Dawkins, Benedict II, Rowan Williams, the Mother-Earth wiccan weirdos, and all their ilk should restrict their preaching to their flock. Nobody else wants to hear it. Anglicanism is not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves. Buddhism is not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves. Etc.
I'm not entirely sure that tribalism and the balkanization of society is a positive development. Personal freedom is a laudable goal, but social cohesion is extremely valuable.
You cannot keep polishing a turd, though. Social cohesion created by religion is a confidence game. Christianity has lost its ability to create social cohesion for the overwhelming majority of the society, and this is irreversible. You can lament this but you cannot do anything about it.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2011, 10:30:28 AM
Christianity has lost its ability to create social cohesion for the overwhelming majority of the society, and this is irreversible.
Probably won't be reversed but certainly *could* be, given the right set of circumstances.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 03, 2011, 10:45:25 AM
Probably won't be reversed but certainly *could* be, given the right set of circumstances.
Yes. Just because we are slouching inexorably toward secularism it would be a mistake to assume that there cannot be pockets of revivalism along the way.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2011, 08:12:53 AM
Agreed. Dawkins, Benedict II, Rowan Williams, the Mother-Earth wiccan weirdos, and all their ilk should restrict their preaching to their flock. Nobody else wants to hear it. Anglicanism is not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves. Buddhism is not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves. Etc.
That what Jews have been trying to explain for years. Yes our religion is a bit odd but it's ours and we mostly don't bother anyone else, except on Sukkot when the ultra-othodox importune passerbys to shake a lulav. But generally anyone who wants to join is told it's a bad idea.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 03, 2011, 12:04:08 PM
That what Jews have been trying to explain for years. Yes our religion is a bit odd but it's ours and we mostly don't bother anyone else, except on Sukkot when the ultra-othodox importune passerbys to shake a lulav. But generally anyone who wants to join is told it's a bad idea.
If you keep begging to join, you are eventually allowed to, though. Friend of mine converted to Judaism (he was raised Mormon, actually).
I've had people mistake for a Rabbi. People who already knew me, and knew that I was not a Rabbi.
I don't really know why he wanted to convert, and he actually had to go through circumcision to complete the process. :pinch:
I mean, I know what he told me ("I studied all religions and felt in my heart that this was the true one") but in an interesting coincidence, he happened to be dating a Jewish girl at the time, who he has since married. :hmm:
At one point before becoming a Jew he was also interested in neopaganism, ironically. He's been a Jew--an Orthodox Jew, no less*--since about 1999 though, so I'm guessing he will stick with it. He even has earlocks and shit now.
*which is odd since I think Orthodox Jews are less accepting of converts
Sometimes I get my heart and my dick confused too.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2011, 06:58:58 PM
Sometimes I get my heart and my dick confused too.
When you pass the bar you won't have this problem anymore. They remove one of those organs during the induction ceremony.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2011, 06:58:58 PM
Sometimes I get my heart and my dick confused too.
One's easily palpable.
[palp]
Eww!
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2011, 10:30:28 AM
You cannot keep polishing a turd, though. Social cohesion created by religion is a confidence game. Christianity has lost its ability to create social cohesion for the overwhelming majority of the society, and this is irreversible. You can lament this but you cannot do anything about it.
All social cohesion involves manipulation and lies. Something needs to be done to allow the masses to feel some level of contentment with their lives.
We'll see what happens after the attempt to create social cohesion through consumption fails. Christianity might make a comeback, or maybe Islam.