Where to start...
Perhaps Jeremy could start by saying what it is that you and I both 'believe', Owlswing.He did't specify that the beliefs had to be yours and Owlswing's.
He did't specify that the beliefs had to be yours and Owlswing's.
Paganism covers a multitude of beliefs. Many of them are clearly not true. I'd be pretty confident that none of the gods actually exist, for example.
What's more dangerous though, paganism or the simpering, sentimental self congratulation and self righteousness of secular humanism?
He did't specify that the beliefs had to be yours and Owlswing's.
Paganism covers a multitude of beliefs. Many of them are clearly not true. I'd be pretty confident that none of the gods actually exist, for example.
Me too!
Like religion, paganism is belief in the truth of what is nothing more than human romancing.
What's more dangerous though, paganism or the simpering, sentimental self congratulation and self righteousness of secular humanism?
He did't specify that the beliefs had to be yours and Owlswing's.
Paganism covers a multitude of beliefs. Many of them are clearly not true. I'd be pretty confident that none of the gods actually exist, for example.
Me too!
Like religion, paganism is belief in the truth of what is nothing more than human romancing.
Perhaps Jeremy could start by saying what it is that you and I both 'believe', Owlswing.
Perhaps Jeremy could start by saying what it is that you and I both 'believe', Owlswing.He did't specify that the beliefs had to be yours and Owlswing's.
Paganism covers a multitude of beliefs. Many of them are clearly not true. I'd be pretty confident that none of the gods actually exist, for example.
oh j
I thought you were talking about Christianity for a mo then ?!!?!? ;) :o
What's more dangerous though, paganism or the simpering, sentimental self congratulation and self righteousness of secular humanism?
He did't specify that the beliefs had to be yours and Owlswing's.
Paganism covers a multitude of beliefs. Many of them are clearly not true. I'd be pretty confident that none of the gods actually exist, for example.
Me too!
Like religion, paganism is belief in the truth of what is nothing more than human romancing.
Paganism strikes me it's like another one of those beliefs where is it really worth even a minute or twos worth of bother, I very much doubt it is.
ippy
I don't believe I ever claimed that it was.
OK - presuming that you are one of the many atheists on this Forum, you are not alone in that and it is a view that is hardly peculiar to the Pagan deities
we have both male and female - we are not patriarchal and are of the view that without both male and female there is no life in the higher forms of life upon this planet. I am not sure what the highest form of life that can procreate without both sexes is but it is not very high on the ladder, of that I AM sure.There's a belief that probably isn't true. The concept that some forms of life are "higher" than others is highly questionable. As humans we have a prejudiced point of view. However, on many objective criteria we lose. E. coli is far more successful than human kind in numerical terms and will probably outlast us.
I don't believe I ever claimed that it was.
OK - presuming that you are one of the many atheists on this Forum, you are not alone in that and it is a view that is hardly peculiar to the Pagan deities
I am correct in assuming that — at least some — pagans believe in a god or gods aren't I?[/quote}
Almost all Pagans believe in at least one god or goddess and more than a few believe in quite a few of both. Your point is?
And where does in male P{gan belief "in error"?Quotewe have both male and female - we are not patriarchal and are of the view that without both male and female there is no life in the higher forms of life upon this planet. I am not sure what the highest form of life that can procreate without both sexes is but it is not very high on the ladder, of that I AM sure.There's a belief that probably isn't true. The concept that some forms of life are "higher" than others is highly questionable. As humans we have a prejudiced point of view. However, on many objective criteria we lose. E. coli is far more successful than human kind in numerical terms and will probably outlast us.
Paganism strikes me it's like another one of those beliefs where is it really worth even a minute or twos worth of bother, I very much doubt it is.
ippy
I would have thought that you would have seen that I have posted more often than I can think of that I consider MY religious beliefs to be a matter of faith, not proven reality - I consider your LACK of belief to be equally a matter of faith!
I should have realised that I would not be able to get a straight answer to my OP question from just about anyone on this forum. They will denigrate and dismiss and diss my beliefs but not one of them can tell me why with any specifity!
Sassy, Hope, Censored, and all the rest of you hide-bound Christians - tell me in what way my beliefs are "in error". With the exception, of course, of the flat statement that "the bible says so"!
Paganism strikes me it's like another one of those beliefs where is it really worth even a minute or twos worth of bother, I very much doubt it is.
ippy
I would have thought that you would have seen that I have posted more often than I can think of that I consider MY religious beliefs to be a matter of faith, not proven reality - I consider your LACK of belief to be equally a matter of faith!
I should have realised that I would not be able to get a straight answer to my OP question from just about anyone on this forum. They will denigrate and dismiss and diss my beliefs but not one of them can tell me why with any specifity!
Sassy, Hope, Censored, and all the rest of you hide-bound Christians - tell me in what way my beliefs are "in error". With the exception, of course, of the flat statement that "the bible says so"!
It would be rational to take absolute proof of anything and accept it.
Everything I have seen and have heard points to man made, when anyone refers to these superstitious, magical and mythical beliefs such as the beliefs, the ones mentioned on this thread.
I've yet to see or hear anything convincing that would or could support any of these beliefs, all, any of them are able to do is assert the magical, mystical and superstition based parts, that without them, every one of them falls apart.
You could call me a man of faith, I do have faith that these rather dated beliefs will eventually go off in the same way as the beliefs or faiths in Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Cargo Cults etc, it's just a matter of time, mind you there'll allways be a few stubborn hangers on, apart from them.
ippy
Paganism strikes me it's like another one of those beliefs where is it really worth even a minute or twos worth of bother, I very much doubt it is.
ippy
I would have thought that you would have seen that I have posted more often than I can think of that I consider MY religious beliefs to be a matter of faith, not proven reality - I consider your LACK of belief to be equally a matter of faith!
This post shows you wouldn't know a sensible argument if it slapped you on your face.What's more dangerous though, paganism or the simpering, sentimental self congratulation and self righteousness of secular humanism?
He did't specify that the beliefs had to be yours and Owlswing's.
Paganism covers a multitude of beliefs. Many of them are clearly not true. I'd be pretty confident that none of the gods actually exist, for example.
Me too!
Like religion, paganism is belief in the truth of what is nothing more than human romancing.
Do me a favour, if you cannot post a sensible argument piss off with the -isms!
Wot? They all got A Levels now Jeremy?
There's a belief that probably isn't true. The concept that some forms of life are "higher" than others is highly questionable.
Paganism strikes me it's like another one of those beliefs where is it really worth even a minute or twos worth of bother, I very much doubt it is.
ippy
I would have thought that you would have seen that I have posted more often than I can think of that I consider MY religious beliefs to be a matter of faith, not proven reality - I consider your LACK of belief to be equally a matter of faith!
I should have realised that I would not be able to get a straight answer to my OP question from just about anyone on this forum. They will denigrate and dismiss and diss my beliefs but not one of them can tell me why with any specifity!
Sassy, Hope, Censored, and all the rest of you hide-bound Christians - tell me in what way my beliefs are "in error". With the exception, of course, of the flat statement that "the bible says so"!
It would be rational to take absolute proof of anything and accept it.
So give me absolute proof of the non-existence of the deities of my Pagan belief.Quote
Everything I have seen and have heard points to man made, when anyone refers to these superstitious, magical and mythical beliefs such as the beliefs, the ones mentioned on this thread.
I've yet to see or hear anything convincing that would or could support any of these beliefs, all, any of them are able to do is assert the magical, mystical and superstition based parts, that without them, every one of them falls apart.
What beliefs? What magical based parts? What mystical based parts/ What superstition based paarts?Quote
You could call me a man of faith, I do have faith that these rather dated beliefs will eventually go off in the same way as the beliefs or faiths in Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Cargo Cults etc, it's just a matter of time, mind you there'll allways be a few stubborn hangers on, apart from them.
ippy
Which, to any Pagan, demonstrates your abject ignorance.
There are Pagans today who follow the Greek Gods and Goddesses; there are Pagans who refer to their branch of Paganism as Asatru, to themselves as Heathens, and follow the entire pantheon of Norse Gods and Goddesses, including Wotan and Thor.
And I would doubt that anyone except a Christian Missionary would refer to the South Sea Islander's Cargo Cults as being pagan
Paganism strikes me it's like another one of those beliefs where is it really worth even a minute or twos worth of bother, I very much doubt it is.
ippy
I would have thought that you would have seen that I have posted more often than I can think of that I consider MY religious beliefs to be a matter of faith, not proven reality - I consider your LACK of belief to be equally a matter of faith!
I should have realised that I would not be able to get a straight answer to my OP question from just about anyone on this forum. They will denigrate and dismiss and diss my beliefs but not one of them can tell me why with any specifity!
Sassy, Hope, Censored, and all the rest of you hide-bound Christians - tell me in what way my beliefs are "in error". With the exception, of course, of the flat statement that "the bible says so"!
It would be rational to take absolute proof of anything and accept it.
So give me absolute proof of the non-existence of the deities of my Pagan belief.Quote
Everything I have seen and have heard points to man made, when anyone refers to these superstitious, magical and mythical beliefs such as the beliefs, the ones mentioned on this thread.
I've yet to see or hear anything convincing that would or could support any of these beliefs, all, any of them are able to do is assert the magical, mystical and superstition based parts, that without them, every one of them falls apart.
What beliefs? What magical based parts? What mystical based parts/ What superstition based paarts?Quote
You could call me a man of faith, I do have faith that these rather dated beliefs will eventually go off in the same way as the beliefs or faiths in Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Cargo Cults etc, it's just a matter of time, mind you there'll allways be a few stubborn hangers on, apart from them.
ippy
Which, to any Pagan, demonstrates your abject ignorance.
There are Pagans today who follow the Greek Gods and Goddesses; there are Pagans who refer to their branch of Paganism as Asatru, to themselves as Heathens, and follow the entire pantheon of Norse Gods and Goddesses, including Wotan and Thor.
And I would doubt that anyone except a Christian Missionary would refer to the South Sea Islander's Cargo Cults as being pagan
Owl it looks to me that you may have missed this part of my former post.
"You could call me a man of faith, I do have faith that these rather dated beliefs will eventually go off in the same way as the beliefs or faiths in Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Cargo Cults etc, it's just a matter of time, mind you there'll allways be a few stubborn hangers on, appart from them".
You then said:
"What beliefs? What magical based parts? What mystical based parts/ What superstition based parts"?
All of them, including the classic coming back from the dead myth.
Oh yes, I'm not making any magical, mystical or superstition based claims that need to have any proof to back them up Owl, as if I were making them, in the first place.
ippy
Paganism strikes me it's like another one of those beliefs where is it really worth even a minute or twos worth of bother, I very much doubt it is.
ippy
I would have thought that you would have seen that I have posted more often than I can think of that I consider MY religious beliefs to be a matter of faith, not proven reality - I consider your LACK of belief to be equally a matter of faith!
I should have realised that I would not be able to get a straight answer to my OP question from just about anyone on this forum. They will denigrate and dismiss and diss my beliefs but not one of them can tell me why with any specifity!
Sassy, Hope, Censored, and all the rest of you hide-bound Christians - tell me in what way my beliefs are "in error". With the exception, of course, of the flat statement that "the bible says so"!
It would be rational to take absolute proof of anything and accept it.
So give me absolute proof of the non-existence of the deities of my Pagan belief.Quote
Everything I have seen and have heard points to man made, when anyone refers to these superstitious, magical and mythical beliefs such as the beliefs, the ones mentioned on this thread.
I've yet to see or hear anything convincing that would or could support any of these beliefs, all, any of them are able to do is assert the magical, mystical and superstition based parts, that without them, every one of them falls apart.
What beliefs? What magical based parts? What mystical based parts/ What superstition based paarts?Quote
You could call me a man of faith, I do have faith that these rather dated beliefs will eventually go off in the same way as the beliefs or faiths in Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Cargo Cults etc, it's just a matter of time, mind you there'll allways be a few stubborn hangers on, apart from them.
ippy
Which, to any Pagan, demonstrates your abject ignorance.
There are Pagans today who follow the Greek Gods and Goddesses; there are Pagans who refer to their branch of Paganism as Asatru, to themselves as Heathens, and follow the entire pantheon of Norse Gods and Goddesses, including Wotan and Thor.
And I would doubt that anyone except a Christian Missionary would refer to the South Sea Islander's Cargo Cults as being pagan
Owl it looks to me that you may have missed this part of my former post.
"You could call me a man of faith, I do have faith that these rather dated beliefs will eventually go off in the same way as the beliefs or faiths in Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Cargo Cults etc, it's just a matter of time, mind you there'll allways be a few stubborn hangers on, appart from them".
You then said:
"What beliefs? What magical based parts? What mystical based parts/ What superstition based parts"?
All of them, including the classic coming back from the dead myth.
Oh yes, I'm not making any magical, mystical or superstition based claims that need to have any proof to back them up Owl, as if I were making them, in the first place.
ippy
We do not "come back from the dead"!
We are re-born! It is an entirely different thing - we do not come back as new version of ourselves, it is the spirit within us that returns.
Magic - this is the name given to the use of natiural forces that exist in the world by the power of the will to effect a change in the world, done with the aquiesence or the assistance of a deity - just as Christ was a witch/magician - he effected healing with the assistance of his deity, his magic is called miracles because Christians don't like the competition.
Good old Ippy, if something ain't popular in north London, it ain't popular anywhere.
Umptiddlyumpty ........an' now me gal's me wife.
Evidence; of things that don't even sound very likely in the first place.
"We are re-born"! How can you or anyone else possibly know this?
ippy
Evidence; of things that don't even sound very likely in the first place.
"We are re-born"! How can you or anyone else possibly know this?
ippy
You know as well as I that evidence cannot be produced for something that is a matter of faith yet you still keep demanding it!
Your atheism is as much a matter of faith as you can produce no verifiable evidence for the non-existence of the various religion's deities.
Provide me conclusive evidence, outside of my experience of you, that you exist, ippy? You are making a mistake about what Owlswing'sclaims are, and missing that evidence as you refer to it has built in assumptions.
Evidence; of things that don't even sound very likely in the first place.
"We are re-born"! How can you or anyone else possibly know this?
ippy
You know as well as I that evidence cannot be produced for something that is a matter of faith yet you still keep demanding it!
Your atheism is as much a matter of faith as you can produce no verifiable evidence for the non-existence of the various religion's deities.
It would appear to.be you given you aren't dealing with fairly basic questions about epistemologyProvide me conclusive evidence, outside of my experience of you, that you exist, ippy? You are making a mistake about what Owlswing'sclaims are, and missing that evidence as you refer to it has built in assumptions.
Now who's being silly?
Ippy
Evidence; of things that don't even sound very likely in the first place.
"We are re-born"! How can you or anyone else possibly know this?
ippy
You know as well as I that evidence cannot be produced for something that is a matter of faith yet you still keep demanding it!
Your atheism is as much a matter of faith as you can produce no verifiable evidence for the non-existence of the various religion's deities.
Doesn't work like that.
Do you have faith in the non existence of the Raven God of Kamchatka as a result of the absence of any evidence to support the belief ?
I think your head must be full to exploding with the number of things you have faith in the non existence of.
You know as well as I that evidence cannot be produced for something that is a matter of faith yet you still keep demanding it!
Your atheism is as much a matter of faith as you can produce no verifiable evidence for the non-existence of the various religion's deities.
Doesn't work like that.
Do you have faith in the non existence of the Raven God of Kamchatka as a result of the absence of any evidence to support the belief ?
I think your head must be full to exploding with the number of things you have faith in the non existence of.
It doesn't matter which god or gods you are talking about - whether it be a matter of belief in or non-belief in them - I can have faith in the existence of one god and faith in the non-existence of the others because I have no interest whatsoever in them.
If I were a follower of the Raven God of Kamchatka, (which I am not) then, yes, my belief would be a matter of faith.
And no, my head is not full to exploding with the number of things I have faith in the non existence of because I just don't bother to think of them.
I am amazed at the patronising way in which non-believers dismiss the believers yet throw a real hissy-fit if their disbelief is similarly dismissed by the believers.
As I have said before, although my wording may have been in error - the belief in no god is as much a matter of faith as belief in a god or gods.
You know as well as I that evidence cannot be produced for something that is a matter of faith yet you still keep demanding it!
Your atheism is as much a matter of faith as you can produce no verifiable evidence for the non-existence of the various religion's deities.
Doesn't work like that.
Do you have faith in the non existence of the Raven God of Kamchatka as a result of the absence of any evidence to support the belief ?
I think your head must be full to exploding with the number of things you have faith in the non existence of.
It doesn't matter which god or gods you are talking about - whether it be a matter of belief in or non-belief in them - I can have faith in the existence of one god and faith in the non-existence of the others because I have no interest whatsoever in them.
If I were a follower of the Raven God of Kamchatka, (which I am not) then, yes, my belief would be a matter of faith.
And no, my head is not full to exploding with the number of things I have faith in the non existence of because I just don't bother to think of them.
I am amazed at the patronising way in which non-believers dismiss the believers yet throw a real hissy-fit if their disbelief is similarly dismissed by the believers.
As I have said before, although my wording may have been in error - the belief in no god is as much a matter of faith as belief in a god or gods.
Logical fallacy.
A faith in the non-existence of something is not the same as having no interest. The word 'faith' implies some sort of trust, a following, a positive commitment perhaps. The absence of a faith in something does not imply a positive faith in the absence of it. We define ourselves by the things we believe in, not the (near infinite) set of things that we don't hold beliefs in.
...You may not believe in the existence or non-existence of God, gods or other metaphysics, but what is it you do believe? Imo, there are always some things that have to be taken "on trust", just to be able to function.
Logical fallacy.
A faith in the non-existence of something is not the same as having no interest. The word 'faith' implies some sort of trust, a following, a positive commitment perhaps. The absence of a faith in something does not imply a positive faith in the absence of it. We define ourselves by the things we believe in, not the (near infinite) set of things that we don't hold beliefs in.
As I have said before, although my wording may have been in error - the belief in no god is as much a matter of faith as belief in a god or gods.
Logical fallacy.
A faith in the non-existence of something is not the same as having no interest. The word 'faith' implies some sort of trust, a following, a positive commitment perhaps. The absence of a faith in something does not imply a positive faith in the absence of it. We define ourselves by the things we believe in, not the (near infinite) set of things that we don't hold beliefs in.
So what then is an atheist if they are not defined by what they do not believe in?
Logical fallacy.
A faith in the non-existence of something is not the same as having no interest. The word 'faith' implies some sort of trust, a following, a positive commitment perhaps. The absence of a faith in something does not imply a positive faith in the absence of it. We define ourselves by the things we believe in, not the (near infinite) set of things that we don't hold beliefs in.
So what then is an atheist if they are not defined by what they do not believe in?
It might be common, it might be widespread, to characterise atheists that way, casually. That just means it is a widespread, common, logical fallacy. When I fill in a job application, I don't list all the qualifications that I don't have. I don't stuff the 'hobbies and interests' section with the facts that I don't play ludo and I don't follow cricket. We define ourselves by the positive things that characterise us, and if we have a belief or follow a faith there has to be some reason for that; conversely there can never be any evidence of non-existence, by definition. If I am an atheist, it is not because I see compelling evidence for something that isn't there, rather it is that I am currently unpersuaded by the claims of theists; its just a default position.
Logical fallacy.
A faith in the non-existence of something is not the same as having no interest. The word 'faith' implies some sort of trust, a following, a positive commitment perhaps. The absence of a faith in something does not imply a positive faith in the absence of it. We define ourselves by the things we believe in, not the (near infinite) set of things that we don't hold beliefs in.
So what then is an atheist if they are not defined by what they do not believe in?
It might be common, it might be widespread, to characterise atheists that way, casually. That just means it is a widespread, common, logical fallacy. When I fill in a job application, I don't list all the qualifications that I don't have. I don't stuff the 'hobbies and interests' section with the facts that I don't play ludo and I don't follow cricket. We define ourselves by the positive things that characterise us, and if we have a belief or follow a faith there has to be some reason for that; conversely there can never be any evidence of non-existence, by definition. If I am an atheist, it is not because I see compelling evidence for something that isn't there, rather it is that I am currently unpersuaded by the claims of theists; its just a default position.
You can call it what you like, you will never convince me that atheism is not a matter of faith, any more than Sassy and Hope will convince me that my faith is "in error".
You can call it what you like, you will never convince me that atheism is not a matter of faith, any more than Sassy and Hope will convince me that my faith is "in error".
You can call it what you like, you will never convince me that atheism is not a matter of faith, any more than Sassy and Hope will convince me that my faith is "in error".
Why ?
So your lack of belief in four sided triangles is a faith? How about your lack of belief in gytihhvvd? Is that that a faith?
You can call it what you like, you will never convince me that atheism is not a matter of faith, any more than Sassy and Hope will convince me that my faith is "in error".
Define atheism.
And that's how I feel about the definition of gods i've been given, so how is that a faith?So your lack of belief in four sided triangles is a faith? How about your lack of belief in gytihhvvd? Is that that a faith?
How can anything with four of anything be tri-anything?
What would testable evidence for a god be? What is a god in the first place? As an atheist, I find the idea that you could have some form of testable evidence for something that appears to be defined in purely non testable terms bizarre.
You can call it what you like, you will never convince me that atheism is not a matter of faith, any more than Sassy and Hope will convince me that my faith is "in error".
Define atheism.
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (see OED)
What would testable evidence for a god be?
What is a god in the first place?
As an atheist, I find the idea that you could have some form of testable evidence for something that appears to be defined in purely non testable terms bizarre.
You can call it what you like, you will never convince me that atheism is not a matter of faith, any more than Sassy and Hope will convince me that my faith is "in error".
Define atheism.
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (see OED)
So not what you said earlier then where you referred to it as ' the belief in no god is as much a matter of faith as belief in a god or gods'.
A belief in no god is not the same as no belief in god.
You can call it what you like, you will never convince me that atheism is not a matter of faith, any more than Sassy and Hope will convince me that my faith is "in error".
Define atheism.
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (see OED)
So not what you said earlier then where you referred to it as ' the belief in no god is as much a matter of faith as belief in a god or gods'.
A belief in no god is not the same as no belief in god.
Not to me it isn't. You can believe what the Hell you like, you can, like a lot of people, make words means whatever you like, as can I, but it will not change the way I think about the subject, which strangely enough, is not what the OP asked
Not to me it isn't. You can believe what the Hell you like, you can, like a lot of people, make words means whatever you like, as can I, but it will not change the way I think about the subject, which strangely enough, is not what the OP asked.
Not one post on here has answered my question, or even attempted to answer my question, and I have no hope that anyone will answer my question and - as I have posted to a-o on another Topic, it will ever be thus.
Any thread on matters of belief will inevitably descend into the morass of belief/faith versus non-belief/non-faith bickering.
My Pagan beliefs work for me
no amount of arguing will change the views of any one of the adherents to any of these faiths, if it did, there would only be one faith, not the many that now exist.
Why, therefore, do I stay here?
I can very well imagine what it is like to be an atheist btw. I don't think I will ever lose my pantheistic belief but sometimes the concept of a personal god seems very distant.
... us theists find there's something else we need to make sense of.
Sometimes talking of answers seems a bit premature to me. It's not clear that we can frame sensible questions.
Sometimes talking of answers seems a bit premature to me. It's not clear that we can frame sensible questions.
Well, "How did the universe get here?" seems a perfectly sensible question to me. Equally sensible is the answer "We don't know yet."
What is NOT sensible is to invent gods to explain it.
Which is NOT part of my Pagan belief - my deities exist as part of the universe and not the creators of it.
Sometimes talking of answers seems a bit premature to me. It's not clear that we can frame sensible questions.
Well, "How did the universe get here?" seems a perfectly sensible question to me. Equally sensible is the answer "We don't know yet."
What is NOT sensible is to invent gods to explain it.
Sometimes talking of answers seems a bit premature to me. It's not clear that we can frame sensible questions.
Well, "How did the universe get here?" seems a perfectly sensible question to me. Equally sensible is the answer "We don't know yet."
What is NOT sensible is to invent gods to explain it.
Agreed, I wasn't clear here. I don't mean that there are no questions that can be asked but that sometimes the 'answers' that are sought seem to be from questions that we struggle to express. In the example above there is an assumption about naturalism since that is how we invetsigate it and is not really covering the question that might be framed as 'Why is the universe here?' where there is an assumption of purpose.
I think that a lot of the 'answers' we seek, are not to coherent questions but inchoate feelings that revolve around emotional needs to have a larger why, a coherent pupose, to break the yawning gap between us and the noumenal
Because otherwise life can seem pointless, and some people find that hard to accept.
where does the idea of purpose come from and should we now discard it.....at the risk of ending motivation for anything.Sometimes talking of answers seems a bit premature to me. It's not clear that we can frame sensible questions.
Well, "How did the universe get here?" seems a perfectly sensible question to me. Equally sensible is the answer "We don't know yet."
What is NOT sensible is to invent gods to explain it.
Agreed, I wasn't clear here. I don't mean that there are no questions that can be asked but that sometimes the 'answers' that are sought seem to be from questions that we struggle to express. In the example above there is an assumption about naturalism since that is how we invetsigate it and is not really covering the question that might be framed as 'Why is the universe here?' where there is an assumption of purpose.
I think that a lot of the 'answers' we seek, are not to coherent questions but inchoate feelings that revolve around emotional needs to have a larger why, a coherent pupose, to break the yawning gap between us and the noumenal
Why on earth should there be a "purpose" to an agglomeration of matter?
we have both male and female - we are not patriarchal and are of the view that without both male and female there is no life in the higher forms of life upon this planet. I am not sure what the highest form of life that can procreate without both sexes is but it is not very high on the ladder, of that I AM sure.There's a belief that probably isn't true. The concept that some forms of life are "higher" than others is highly questionable. As humans we have a prejudiced point of view. However, on many objective criteria we lose. E. coli is far more successful than human kind in numerical terms and will probably outlast us.
Where is the rror of pagan belief in having deities of bath sexes?
I am not sure the concept of absolute proof is rational.It is in maths, but is not rational when applied to any phenomenon of the real World.
We do not "come back from the dead"!
We are re-born! It is an entirely different thing - we do not come back as new version of ourselves, it is the spirit within us that returns.
Magic
If I seek anything it is a sense of connection. This woman certainly isn't an island but IME people are shit at connectedness - myself included - and religion can't be relied upon either. What I can rely on is the ground beneath me, the sky above me, clouds, trees, stars. They are ever with me.
Why on earth should there be a "purpose" to an agglomeration of matter?
Is it an "error" or more like an assumption, an axiom, around which symbolism etc is built. Owlswing has already said it is "faith" based, not something demonstrable or applying to what we normally view as the "real" world.
We do not "come back from the dead"!
We are re-born! It is an entirely different thing - we do not come back as new version of ourselves, it is the spirit within us that returns.
There's another in error pagan belief.QuoteMagic
And another.
If I seek anything it is a sense of connection. This woman certainly isn't an island but IME people are shit at connectedness - myself included - and religion can't be relied upon either. What I can rely on is the ground beneath me, the sky above me, clouds, trees, stars. They are ever with me.
That kind of suggests you might have underlying trust issues. Humans are tricksy, whereas trees and rocks are not. Maybe I can sympathise with that, but I never experience anything 'spooky' in Nature.
Is it an "error" or more like an assumption, an axiom, around which symbolism etc is built. Owlswing has already said it is "faith" based, not something demonstrable or applying to what we normally view as the "real" world.
We do not "come back from the dead"!
We are re-born! It is an entirely different thing - we do not come back as new version of ourselves, it is the spirit within us that returns.
There's another in error pagan belief.QuoteMagic
And another.
A sort of emotional maths, not necessarily rational.
I am not sure the concept of absolute proof is rational.It is in maths, but is not rational when applied to any phenomenon of the real World.
If I seek anything it is a sense of connection. This woman certainly isn't an island but IME people are shit at connectedness - myself included - and religion can't be relied upon either. What I can rely on is the ground beneath me, the sky above me, clouds, trees, stars. They are ever with me.
where does the idea of purpose come from and should we now discard it.....at the risk of ending motivation for anything.
Dear Leonard,QuoteWhy on earth should there be a "purpose" to an agglomeration of matter?
But WHY. 8)
Gonnagle.
I have an opinion that is based on evidence, not a faith based belief.
JeremyP appears to be fighting not the idea of deity, male, female, neutral, whatever or whatever number, but the idea of belief it self.
Yet he rejects the idea that his rejection of the deity is itself a belief.
But as has been said before and not only by me - there are none so blind as those who will not see.And you are so blind that you cannot see that your pagan beliefs are nothing more than a fantasy. You see, that little saying works both ways, or rather, it works neither way. Coming up with bullshit homilies like that does nothing to further debate and only antagonises your opponent.
Jeremy is as much of a "my way or the highway as Sassy or Hope or BA"
Tough, I find his reasons for rejecting my beliefs and my explanations for holding to be equally insulting.When I think about it, this whole thread is a shitty insult to all of the posters that disagree with you on the subject of paganism. You did not create it in good faith, but rather, it seems, as a trap to tell people that engage with you that we are blind and so that you can get all righteously angry at the inevitable imagined insults.
I am not sure the concept of absolute proof is rational.It is in maths, but is not rational when applied to any phenomenon of the real World.
I'm not sure even there. It seems to me that it still needs an assumption at the start that what works is universally true.
I mentioned hard solipsism in a different context on this thread, and I think it is that that haunts or lack of connectedness, but worse even than that is that we are not even really connected with ourselves. The past me dissolves away and the future me is a fiction. The current me is not even a name I can call myself but a crash of programs and bouillabaisse of emotion.
I can hear on every note of Mozart, the straining to breach the gap from the noumenal, the cry of solitude and it echoes the darkness of 4am in a strange bed in a strange land when memories feel like knives, and hope is a thuggish master.
I have an opinion that is based on evidence, not a faith based belief.
JeremyP appears to be fighting not the idea of deity, male, female, neutral, whatever or whatever number, but the idea of belief it self.
Yet he rejects the idea that his rejection of the deity is itself a belief.QuoteBut as has been said before and not only by me - there are none so blind as those who will not see.And you are so blind that you cannot see that your pagan beliefs are nothing more than a fantasy. You see, that little saying works both ways, or rather, it works neither way. Coming up with bullshit homilies like that does nothing to further debate and only antagonises your opponent.QuoteJeremy is as much of a "my way or the highway as Sassy or Hope or BA"
This is completely untrue. I have no problem with you believing your beliefs. However, if you make a thread called "Pagan beliefs are "in error". In what way in error and who says so?" you are going to get people like me telling you which of your beliefs are in error.QuoteTough, I find his reasons for rejecting my beliefs and my explanations for holding to be equally insulting.When I think about it, this whole thread is a shitty insult to all of the posters that disagree with you on the subject of paganism. You did not create it in good faith, but rather, it seems, as a trap to tell people that engage with you that we are blind and so that you can get all righteously angry at the inevitable imagined insults.
If you really want insulting, I can do insulting...
Let's be honest, the modern version of paganism has nothing much to do with the old religions from which it purports to stem. Thanks to the efforts of the Romans and Christians, we know next to nothing about those religions. Modern paganism is merely a chocolate box version of real paganism as imagined by the Victorians, leavened with a bit of new age hippy culture and touches of Fotherington-Thomas.
Your gods aren't real, your magic isn't real. You are just play acting a fantasy.
Is that insulting enough for you? Is that what you wanted? If all you really wanted was a "True For Me" wankfest with all the other pagans here, perhaps you should have post in FSA.
Let's be honest, the modern version of paganism has nothing much to do with the old religions from which it purports to stem. Thanks to the efforts of the Romans and Christians, we know next to nothing about those religions. Modern paganism is merely a chocolate box version of real paganism as imagined by the Victorians, leavened with a bit of new age hippy culture and touches of Fotherington-Thomas.
If I seek anything it is a sense of connection. This woman certainly isn't an island but IME people are shit at connectedness - myself included - and religion can't be relied upon either. What I can rely on is the ground beneath me, the sky above me, clouds, trees, stars. They are ever with me.
I mentioned hard solipsism in a different context on this thread, and I think it is that that haunts or lack of connectedness, but worse even than that is that we are not even really connected with ourselves. The past me dissolves away and the future me is a fiction. The current me is not even a name I can call myself but a crash of programs and bouillabaisse of emotion.
I can hear on every note of Mozart, the straining to breach the gap from the noumenal, the cry of solitude and it echoes the darkness of 4am in a strange bed in a strange land when memories feel like knives, and hope is a thuggish master.
If all you really wanted was a "True For Me" wankfest with all the other pagans here, perhaps you should have post in FSA.
You clearly have no idea of what "the modern version of paganism" is.
It was created, re-discovered, re-invented (take your choice), by a man named Gerald B Gardner, who created Wicca under the influence of Margaret A Murray's now discredited theory that the "witches" of the 14th to 17th centuries who were the target of the Inquisition and others during the witch-craze were the survivors of an underground pagan religiomn that had existed since pre-Christian times.
He, Alex and Maxine Sanders, popularised his ideas during the 50's and 60's after the repeal of the Witchcraft Acts.
Over the years his claims were debunked but he had sparked an interest in both paganism and the Craft.
My deities may well be not real any more than the gods of every other religion in the world may be.
As it happens your rant above tells me one thing loud and clear - I hit a nerve!
You clearly have no idea of what "the modern version of paganism" is.
It was created, re-discovered, re-invented (take your choice), by a man named Gerald B Gardner, who created Wicca under the influence of Margaret A Murray's now discredited theory that the "witches" of the 14th to 17th centuries who were the target of the Inquisition and others during the witch-craze were the survivors of an underground pagan religiomn that had existed since pre-Christian times.You're claiming that your faith is based on a discredited theory of witchcraft?
As it happens your rant above tells me one thing loud and clear - I hit a nerve!Only because by your behaviour in seemingly creating this thread just so as you can pretend that you are "misunderstood" and therefore all errors are not errors and aren't the rest of us bad for criticising an alleged straw man version of your religion.
Only those with no-one to interact with need take part in a wankfest
If I seek anything it is a sense of connection. This woman certainly isn't an island but IME people are shit at connectedness - myself included - and religion can't be relied upon either. What I can rely on is the ground beneath me, the sky above me, clouds, trees, stars. They are ever with me.
I mentioned hard solipsism in a different context on this thread, and I think it is that that haunts or lack of connectedness, but worse even than that is that we are not even really connected with ourselves. The past me dissolves away and the future me is a fiction. The current me is not even a name I can call myself but a crash of programs and bouillabaisse of emotion.
I can hear on every note of Mozart, the straining to breach the gap from the noumenal, the cry of solitude and it echoes the darkness of 4am in a strange bed in a strange land when memories feel like knives, and hope is a thuggish master.
You clearly have no idea of what "the modern version of paganism" is.
It was created, re-discovered, re-invented (take your choice), by a man named Gerald B Gardner, who created Wicca under the influence of Margaret A Murray's now discredited theory that the "witches" of the 14th to 17th centuries who were the target of the Inquisition and others during the witch-craze were the survivors of an underground pagan religiomn that had existed since pre-Christian times.
He, Alex and Maxine Sanders, popularised his ideas during the 50's and 60's after the repeal of the Witchcraft Acts.
Over the years his claims were debunked but he had sparked an interest in both paganism and the Craft.
My deities may well be not real any more than the gods of every other religion in the world may be.
As it happens your rant above tells me one thing loud and clear - I hit a nerve!
Whether Jeremy has any idea about the modern version of paganism - what about his assertion that we know (and can know) practically nothing about the ancient religions from which it is supposed to derive? I suppose the Christians did do a pretty good job in eradicating many strands of pagan belief and practice in Europe and many other parts of the world (the Spanish had almost miraculous success in wiping out Central and South American native beliefs, Carlos Castaneda's sham fabrications notwithstanding).
However, regarding how much can legitimately be traced to genuine historical origins - have you any thoughts on Robert Graves' "The White Goddess"? (Graves' book attempts to trace what he calls 'lunar knowledge' back to an ancient 'tree' alphabet, of which we certainly have a number of examples). I picked up a copy the other day - it's not my usual kind of reading these days, having abandoned any belief in the 'spiritual', whether it be of pagan, christian, buddhist or any other religious origin. I meant to read Graves' book decades ago when I first learned of it from Colin Wilson's 'The Occult', but never got round to it (I can hear Jeremy and Leonard shouting "Damn good thing you didn't" :) )
However, if anyone is familiar with Graves' book, and think it worth a look, if only from a scholarly point of view, then I might get round to reading it.
I have to laugh that Owl . . . THINK(s) that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.
What stands out is the words from God:-
Psalm 14:1 (KJV)
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL.
Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.
Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.
Sassy
Rose,
Yes, I agree with most of your post. Everything we have is "wrong" in one way or another. However the difference between Jeremy's universe and Owlswing's is that we are able to compare aspects of it between ourselves: If we agree on a ruler we can go around checking that we get the same results measuring a table say or, along similar lines, the distance to the Sun or the positions of the Planets. It is still a fallible model of the universe, but it is one that is usable day to day and continuously refined.
Actually, even to go along with Jeremy's version, we need to put aside NS's "hard solipsism" option.
With the other, faith based, universes it gets increasingly difficult to connect and communicate with each other about them - except where they overlap Jeremy's empirical universe. For example, people can debate the nature of god, love, divinity, soul, spirituality and so on all day and not be sure whether they are discussing things that mean anything, make sense, to each other or not. Ultimately it relies on recommending poetry, myths, music to each other and hoping there is some form of communication. As these worlds are so difficult to share, there is no way of saying if one is correct or not.
. . . hoping there is some form of communication.
There, Udayana, is the basis of the entire mess between the various religios and religons - there is no "form of communication" possible between the die-hards. I try to communicate my beliefs and explain why I disagree with theirs but I might just as well be talking to the walls of the Mersey Tunnel.
Dear Owlswing,QuoteThere, Udayana, is the basis of the entire mess between the various religios and religons - there is no "form of communication" possible between the die-hards. I try to communicate my beliefs and explain why I disagree with theirs but I might just as well be talking to the walls of the Mersey Tunnel.
Baby steps, or Rome was not built in a day, this thread is evidence that little steps are taken.
There is communication, Rhiannon and Sane, a pagan and an atheist, but then that could just be me as they are two of my favourite posters.
We all come to this forum with a certain mindset, I suppose what we need to remember is that behind a name, Owlswing, Gonnagle, Jeremyp, Floo, there is a real human being, flawed characters ( we all are ) but sometimes, not very often, little lights shine through, a classic example of this happened about a week ago, the pagans on this forum reaching out and touching our very own Shaker :o :o
Baby steps Owlswing. :) :)
Gonnagle.
Dear Owlswing,QuoteThere, Udayana, is the basis of the entire mess between the various religios and religons - there is no "form of communication" possible between the die-hards. I try to communicate my beliefs and explain why I disagree with theirs but I might just as well be talking to the walls of the Mersey Tunnel.
Baby steps, or Rome was not built in a day, this thread is evidence that little steps are taken.
There is communication, Rhiannon and Sane, a pagan and an atheist, but then that could just be me as they are two of my favourite posters.
We all come to this forum with a certain mindset, I suppose what we need to remember is that behind a name, Owlswing, Gonnagle, Jeremyp, Floo, there is a real human being, flawed characters ( we all are ) but sometimes, not very often, little lights shine through, a classic example of this happened about a week ago, the pagans on this forum reaching out and touching our very own Shaker :o :o
Baby steps Owlswing. :) :)
Gonnagle.
Good post. :) I am not a Pagan though, just a very flawed agnostic heathen.
Dear Owlswing,QuoteThere, Udayana, is the basis of the entire mess between the various religios and religons - there is no "form of communication" possible between the die-hards. I try to communicate my beliefs and explain why I disagree with theirs but I might just as well be talking to the walls of the Mersey Tunnel.
Baby steps, or Rome was not built in a day, this thread is evidence that little steps are taken.
There is communication, Rhiannon and Sane, a pagan and an atheist, but then that could just be me as they are two of my favourite posters.
We all come to this forum with a certain mindset, I suppose what we need to remember is that behind a name, Owlswing, Gonnagle, Jeremyp, Floo, there is a real human being, flawed characters ( we all are ) but sometimes, not very often, little lights shine through, a classic example of this happened about a week ago, the pagans on this forum reaching out and touching our very own Shaker :o :o
Baby steps Owlswing. :) :)
Gonnagle.
Good post. :) I am not a Pagan though, just a very flawed agnostic heathen.
If you are heathen - or, rather, Heathen, then you would be Pagan, a follower of Asatru, the Norse pantheon. OOOOODDDDDDDDDDDDDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WASSAIL! (Rough translation - Eyup lads let's get royally pissed! Where's the mead barrel?
Dear Owlswing,QuoteThere, Udayana, is the basis of the entire mess between the various religios and religons - there is no "form of communication" possible between the die-hards. I try to communicate my beliefs and explain why I disagree with theirs but I might just as well be talking to the walls of the Mersey Tunnel.
Baby steps, or Rome was not built in a day, this thread is evidence that little steps are taken.
There is communication, Rhiannon and Sane, a pagan and an atheist, but then that could just be me as they are two of my favourite posters.
We all come to this forum with a certain mindset, I suppose what we need to remember is that behind a name, Owlswing, Gonnagle, Jeremyp, Floo, there is a real human being, flawed characters ( we all are ) but sometimes, not very often, little lights shine through, a classic example of this happened about a week ago, the pagans on this forum reaching out and touching our very own Shaker :o :o
Baby steps Owlswing. :) :)
Gonnagle.
Good post. :) I am not a Pagan though, just a very flawed agnostic heathen.
If you are heathen - or, rather, Heathen, then you would be Pagan, a follower of Asatru, the Norse pantheon. OOOOODDDDDDDDDDDDDIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WASSAIL! (Rough translation - Eyup lads let's get royally pissed! Where's the mead barrel?
I drink in strict moderation, having had only one small glass of wine in three months!
Dear Owlswing,
Floo is not a heathen, Floo is a Floo, a very old religion, I think she worships the god Cantankerous. ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
Just picked up the mead for Saturday. Very useful having an English Heritage shop nearby, they stock four kinds.Is one of them Diet Mead?
Sadly no.
More fucking pagan threats.Sadly no.
True - they only make mead for adults - children who use diet drinks tend to grow up rather rapidly on mead! Hairy chests for men and an incredible accuracy with a throwing axe for the women!
It is never a good thing to piss off pagan women. Even Pagan men try not to do it too often, but then we treat our women, sorry, ladies, as equals.
More fucking pagan threats.Sadly no.
True - they only make mead for adults - children who use diet drinks tend to grow up rather rapidly on mead! Hairy chests for men and an incredible accuracy with a throwing axe for the women!
It is never a good thing to piss off pagan women. Even Pagan men try not to do it too often, but then we treat our women, sorry, ladies, as equals.
Don't worry, Vlad, axe throwing isn't my thing. I'd just knit you something humiliating.
More fucking pagan threats.Sadly no.
True - they only make mead for adults - children who use diet drinks tend to grow up rather rapidly on mead! Hairy chests for men and an incredible accuracy with a throwing axe for the women!
It is never a good thing to piss off pagan women. Even Pagan men try not to do it too often, but then we treat our women, sorry, ladies, as equals.
Who was talking to you?
Where are the threats!
I was commenting to Rhiannon, who being a Pagan Lady would understand what I was saying - being a Christian male you obviously would and do not.
I liked The White Goddess; though I am still not at all sure what was on about at times. It's more about response to myth by poetic means, and how myth is poetic at base than a study. It's easier reading than either The Golden Bough or The Hero With a Thousand Faces.
You clearly have no idea of what "the modern version of paganism" is.
It was created, re-discovered, re-invented (take your choice), by a man named Gerald B Gardner, who created Wicca under the influence of Margaret A Murray's now discredited theory that the "witches" of the 14th to 17th centuries who were the target of the Inquisition and others during the witch-craze were the survivors of an underground pagan religiomn that had existed since pre-Christian times.
He, Alex and Maxine Sanders, popularised his ideas during the 50's and 60's after the repeal of the Witchcraft Acts.
Over the years his claims were debunked but he had sparked an interest in both paganism and the Craft.
My deities may well be not real any more than the gods of every other religion in the world may be.
As it happens your rant above tells me one thing loud and clear - I hit a nerve!
Whether Jeremy has any idea about the modern version of paganism - what about his assertion that we know (and can know) practically nothing about the ancient religions from which it is supposed to derive? I suppose the Christians did do a pretty good job in eradicating many strands of pagan belief and practice in Europe and many other parts of the world (the Spanish had almost miraculous success in wiping out Central and South American native beliefs, Carlos Castaneda's sham fabrications notwithstanding).
However, regarding how much can legitimately be traced to genuine historical origins - have you any thoughts on Robert Graves' "The White Goddess"? (Graves' book attempts to trace what he calls 'lunar knowledge' back to an ancient 'tree' alphabet, of which we certainly have a number of examples). I picked up a copy the other day - it's not my usual kind of reading these days, having abandoned any belief in the 'spiritual', whether it be of pagan, christian, buddhist or any other religious origin. I meant to read Graves' book decades ago when I first learned of it from Colin Wilson's 'The Occult', but never got round to it (I can hear Jeremy and Leonard shouting "Damn good thing you didn't" :) )
However, if anyone is familiar with Graves' book, and think it worth a look, if only from a scholarly point of view, then I might get round to reading it.
Robert Graves was another disciple of Margaret A Murray. She was a highly respected Egyptologist and, when WW1 made excavations in Egypt more of less impossible, she transferred her interest to Sir James George Frazer's (a hero of hers) area of expertise, anthropology (see The Golden Bough) and began to formulate her theory that not only were the witches persecuted during the witch-hunts of the 14th to 17th centuries the followers of a Europe-wide underground Devil worshipping cult that had existed ever since the coming of Christianinty, but was, in 1921, still flourishing underground.
She published The Witch Cult in Western Europe that proclaimed this theory.
With the other, faith based, universes it gets increasingly difficult to connect and communicate with each other about them - except where they overlap Jeremy's empirical universe. For example, people can debate the nature of god, love, divinity, soul, spirituality and so on all day and not be sure whether they are discussing things that mean anything, make sense, to each other or not. Ultimately it relies on recommending poetry, myths, music to each other and hoping there is some form of communication. As these worlds are so difficult to share, there is no way of saying if one is correct or not.
The Hero with a Thousand Faces is interesting because it has been influential in mainstream culture. It's not that it is necessarily right but for a time it informed culture through all the followers of George Lucas.
You clearly have no idea of what "the modern version of paganism" is.
It was created, re-discovered, re-invented (take your choice), by a man named Gerald B Gardner, who created Wicca under the influence of Margaret A Murray's now discredited theory that the "witches" of the 14th to 17th centuries who were the target of the Inquisition and others during the witch-craze were the survivors of an underground pagan religiomn that had existed since pre-Christian times.
He, Alex and Maxine Sanders, popularised his ideas during the 50's and 60's after the repeal of the Witchcraft Acts.
Over the years his claims were debunked but he had sparked an interest in both paganism and the Craft.
My deities may well be not real any more than the gods of every other religion in the world may be.
As it happens your rant above tells me one thing loud and clear - I hit a nerve!
Whether Jeremy has any idea about the modern version of paganism - what about his assertion that we know (and can know) practically nothing about the ancient religions from which it is supposed to derive? I suppose the Christians did do a pretty good job in eradicating many strands of pagan belief and practice in Europe and many other parts of the world (the Spanish had almost miraculous success in wiping out Central and South American native beliefs, Carlos Castaneda's sham fabrications notwithstanding).
However, regarding how much can legitimately be traced to genuine historical origins - have you any thoughts on Robert Graves' "The White Goddess"? (Graves' book attempts to trace what he calls 'lunar knowledge' back to an ancient 'tree' alphabet, of which we certainly have a number of examples). I picked up a copy the other day - it's not my usual kind of reading these days, having abandoned any belief in the 'spiritual', whether it be of pagan, christian, buddhist or any other religious origin. I meant to read Graves' book decades ago when I first learned of it from Colin Wilson's 'The Occult', but never got round to it (I can hear Jeremy and Leonard shouting "Damn good thing you didn't" :) )
However, if anyone is familiar with Graves' book, and think it worth a look, if only from a scholarly point of view, then I might get round to reading it.
Robert Graves was another disciple of Margaret A Murray. She was a highly respected Egyptologist and, when WW1 made excavations in Egypt more of less impossible, she transferred her interest to Sir James George Frazer's (a hero of hers) area of expertise, anthropology (see The Golden Bough) and began to formulate her theory that not only were the witches persecuted during the witch-hunts of the 14th to 17th centuries the followers of a Europe-wide underground Devil worshipping cult that had existed ever since the coming of Christianinty, but was, in 1921, still flourishing underground.
She published The Witch Cult in Western Europe that proclaimed this theory.
That's all very interesting about Margaret A. Murray and how she misled many people about the origins and survival of witchcraft. What I'm interested in is if there are any more authentic studies about the origins of witchcraft and whether any authentic lineage can be traced to ancient times. Do we agree (as Jeremy suggested) that any definitive traces have been effectively wiped out by the Christians and the Romans?
How about Professor Ronald Hutton - is he a worthy repository of knowledge? Seems like a an interesting cove on telly - he used to come into the Oxfam shop where I worked in Clifton.
Just wondering if there is a role for Jung in the approach to paganism? It's not that it is handed down by correct texts, it is that it can continually be rediscovered by channelling into the collective unconscious? That the Hero with a Thousand Faces is are expression of the archetypes we all encounter.
Linking back to my previous post on mainstream culture, it is interesting how much of the religions portrayed in Game of Thrones map on to this, with a main religion based on archetypes, one of which is implicitly seen as mapping onto the monotheistic religions, and yet what is portrayed as purer is the wilder beliefs of the North and beyond the Wall.
Jung looked at the archetypes in Tarot, I believe.
Nice thread
I find Rhiannon's descriptions of her path quite appealing, as she knows. The rocks, trees, the sky, the stars... Yes, all of them, they all mean something to me, and that meaning is difficult or impossible to express. For now that is all it is for me. But one day... who knows. I'm happy to find out along the way.
I've long thought that any religious practice is simply a framework within which those felt but unarticulated and elusive meanings can be explored, Given form and expression, value and even authority. Ideas within stories, stories within ideas, a never ending spiral of questing for resolution of the mess of self and the dim awareness of our surroundings afforded to us as human merely beings*.
And it's all well and good to talk... But in the end we turn away from conversations to deal with reality in all the neccesary ways that our individual natures demand and make the best of a bad job. Beyond the labels we cling to a smidgen of compassion and humility towards our sisters and brothers is basically what it all comes down to.
*that 'human merely being' phrase is pinched from the poem i thank you God for this most amazing by e.e. Cummings... I really like it
Can I gather from the above that you are Pagan-Sympathetic rather than Pagan?
Perhaps everyone's beliefs ( including atheists beliefs) are in error.Yes, and in my experience most atheists and most pagans have no problem with accepting that they might be wrong. It's usually the Christians and Muslims that have a problem with accepting that they might be mistaken.
Everyone constructs their universe in a way that makes sense to them.I think we can be fairly confident that the assumption is correct given how successful science is at describing the World.
Even science itself assumes there is a pattern or that somehow the universe makes sense in regard to the relationship of one thing to another, and on the whole it does. ( except Quantum physics seems baffling ATM).
JeremyP's construct is just as much a construct as your average pagan.But it is based on our scientific understanding of the World, so I'm quite confident it is correct. On the other hand, no religious construct is based on anything so reliable as evidence.
Yes, and in my experience most atheists and most pagans have no problem with accepting that they might be wrong. It's usually the Christians and Muslims that have a problem with accepting that they might be mistaken.Quote
Wisely observed.
Nice thread
I find Rhiannon's descriptions of her path quite appealing, as she knows. The rocks, trees, the sky, the stars... Yes, all of them, they all mean something to me, and that meaning is difficult or impossible to express. For now that is all it is for me. But one day... who knows. I'm happy to find out along the way.
I've long thought that any religious practice is simply a framework within which those felt but unarticulated and elusive meanings can be explored, Given form and expression, value and even authority. Ideas within stories, stories within ideas, a never ending spiral of questing for resolution of the mess of self and the dim awareness of our surroundings afforded to us as human merely beings*.
And it's all well and good to talk... But in the end we turn away from conversations to deal with reality in all the neccesary ways that our individual natures demand and make the best of a bad job. Beyond the labels we cling to a smidgen of compassion and humility towards our sisters and brothers is basically what it all comes down to.
*that 'human merely being' phrase is pinched from the poem i thank you God for this most amazing by e.e. Cummings... I really like it
No don't agree with the last bit about your construct being based on science.
It's based on your understanding and interpretation of science as you understand it today, the correct answer might not be the one we have arrived at today.
Religion isn't about testafiable evidence, more about shared experience and an expression of creativity and inspiration. A sense of awe and place, religion gives it a shared framework.
Religion and science are different things, so science can never replace religion.
You expect us to buy that from a hedonist?
Religion and science are different things, so science can never replace religion.
Science is essential for us to live in and learn about the universe that spawned us.
Religion doesn't need replacing ... it simply needs to be seen for what it is, a human invention that some people use to evade facing the reality of life being nothing more than a bio-chemical process. :)
You expect us to buy that from a hedonist?
You expect us to buy that from a hedonist?
It states that life is more than just a biochemical process it means it'sYou expect us to buy that from a hedonist?
2 - what's wrong with hedonism?
It states that life is more than just a biochemical process it means it'sYou expect us to buy that from a hedonist?
2 - what's wrong with hedonism?
a total fuuucccckinggg Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaavvvvvvvvvvvvve! Yeeeeeeeaah!Big fish..........Little fish..........cardboard box! yeah![/size]
No, it just accepts that enjoying that biochemical process whilst it's happening is a perfectly valid lifestyle choice.
O.
Religion isn't about testafiable evidence, more about shared experience and an expression of creativity and inspiration. A sense of awe and place, religion gives it a shared framework.
What does a 'framework' consist of ? There is no escaping the fact that in most cases the framework involves certain underlying propositional claims about the world and those claims are either correct or incorrect. So we could commission a study to investigate those claims and base our faith on the study findings in the knowledge that with the objectivity brought by a more disciplined approach we would be less likely to be in error. But we don't do that do we; if we follow a faith, we are not really interested in objective truth, more we are interested in finding a way of life that suits us as individuals. In part, we have to do this because our minds are limited in capacity. From the moment we are born we are flooded with information, and to avoid overload we quickly start developing prejudices regarding which sorts of information are valid and which sorts of people are trustworthy. It is difficult keeping an open mind, life is much more manageable with narrower horizons, so we become smaller people. Instead of being a human being, we become a christian, or a muslim or a pagan. We become a banker, rather that just doing banking to make a living. We don't just enjoy a game of football, we become arsenal fans or chelsea supporters. A diehard lifelong labour voter has probably lost the ability to see any virtue in policies produced by rival parties. We are creatures born of tribalism and this shows up in religion just as much as in any other sphere of life, hence most debate here is more about people defending their position rather than seeking truer understanding through engagement.
A framework to me,is made up of shared things a group has in common, (or an individual has) that guides their life.
It's not so much a label I give, but one they define themselves.
They don't have to be religious, they could be an Athiest humanist.
A Muslim for example has the Quran and probably follows some of the five pillars.
It's marked by such things as shared holidays and experiences etc.
Even our British society is a framework of sorts and differs in some ways, to other countries.
A framework is something that is man made, it's how you live your life and how someone approaches life.
My J W relatives have a different one to me, theirs is dictated by the watchtower, they don't share the same holidays etc.
Their frame of reference is different to mine.
I'm not sure if there is a better word to use, than framework.
But these divisions are also found in other fields and between atheists and religionists or philosophical naturalists and the religious.
Religion isn't about testafiable evidence, more about shared experience and an expression of creativity and inspiration. A sense of awe and place, religion gives it a shared framework.
What does a 'framework' consist of ? There is no escaping the fact that in most cases the framework involves certain underlying propositional claims about the world and those claims are either correct or incorrect. So we could commission a study to investigate those claims and base our faith on the study findings in the knowledge that with the objectivity brought by a more disciplined approach we would be less likely to be in error. But we don't do that do we; if we follow a faith, we are not really interested in objective truth, more we are interested in finding a way of life that suits us as individuals. In part, we have to do this because our minds are limited in capacity. From the moment we are born we are flooded with information, and to avoid overload we quickly start developing prejudices regarding which sorts of information are valid and which sorts of people are trustworthy. It is difficult keeping an open mind, life is much more manageable with narrower horizons, so we become smaller people. Instead of being a human being, we become a christian, or a muslim or a pagan. We become a banker, rather that just doing banking to make a living. We don't just enjoy a game of football, we become arsenal fans or chelsea supporters. A diehard lifelong labour voter has probably lost the ability to see any virtue in policies produced by rival parties. We are creatures born of tribalism and this shows up in religion just as much as in any other sphere of life, hence most debate here is more about people defending their position rather than seeking truer understanding through engagement.
A framework to me,is made up of shared things a group has in common, (or an individual has) that guides their life.
It's not so much a label I give, but one they define themselves.
They don't have to be religious, they could be an Athiest humanist.
A Muslim for example has the Quran and probably follows some of the five pillars.
It's marked by such things as shared holidays and experiences etc.
Even our British society is a framework of sorts and differs in some ways, to other countries.
A framework is something that is man made, it's how you live your life and how someone approaches life.
My J W relatives have a different one to me, theirs is dictated by the watchtower, they don't share the same holidays etc.
Their frame of reference is different to mine.
I'm not sure if there is a better word to use, than framework.
None of that is really addressing the core dilemma for religions, namely that they largely derive from a set of propositional truth claims about the nature of reality and these truth claims are things which are either correct or they are not. Some of the core beliefs of a muslim flatly contradict the core beliefs of the christian and vice versa and so while the muslim may be happy within his belief world and the christian likewise they are destined to be forever separated, divided by an instinct that elevates loyalty to your personal faith above loyalty to your fellow human beings.
I think I said before that my path owes more to Richard Mabey and Geoff Hamilton than any 'pagan' writer.
Just wondering if there is a role for Jung in the approach to paganism? It's not that it is handed down by correct texts, it is that it can continually be rediscovered by channelling into the collective unconscious? That the Hero with a Thousand Faces is are expression of the archetypes we all encounter.
He is a expert on Paganism in Britain. All his books on te subject are well worth reading. Being, I think, a Druid himself he is extremely passionate about his siubject.
He is also one of those who helped, at the very least, to debunk Gardner's claims for the history of Wicca.
I think I said before that my path owes more to Richard Mabey and Geoff Hamilton than any 'pagan' writer.
Richard Mabey: his book "Nature Cure" was a fascinating and poignant memoir.
However, the 'Vis medicatrix naturae' appears not to have been able to prevent the premature death of the sadly missed, organically inclined Geoff Hamilton. In my allotment-renting days, I owed to the ingenious Mr. Hamilton the knowledge of the way to construct mini-polytunnels out of a few lengths of plastic hose and transparent polythene sheeting. Certainly helped my over-wintered broad beans.
He was certainly a more worthy figure than the celebrity arse-licking Alan Titchmarsh. However (judging by your remarks about Viggo Mortensen) you probably find Monty Don a suitable replacement in the TV gardener department. :)
He is a expert on Paganism in Britain. All his books on te subject are well worth reading. Being, I think, a Druid himself he is extremely passionate about his siubject.
He is also one of those who helped, at the very least, to debunk Gardner's claims for the history of Wicca.
Your saying Prof Hutton is a Druid kinda puts me off him a bit. Isn't Druidism itself one of those aspects of paganism about whose history and practice we know very little - apart from a few references in Caesar and Tacitus?
Nonetheless, I've always liked his style of presenting on television, as well as his ultra-refined speaking voice (sounds a bit like A.N. Wilson to me, but the latter is much more of an old fogey than Prof Hutton). And with his long hair and Norfolk jacket, our Ron looks a real cool dude.
No don't agree with the last bit about your construct being based on science.
It's based on your understanding and interpretation of science as you understand it today, the correct answer might not be the one we have arrived at today.
Here are some examples
http://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/
Who is to say some of our science today won't be laughed at as being as silly?I am. While it is true to say that nothing in science is completely certain, many of its current ideas are unlikely ever to be overthrown. I'm pretty sure that the Earth will be perceived to orbit the Sun pretty much for ever more. I doubt if the idea of oxygen will ever be overthrown.
But these divisions are also found in other fields and between atheists and religionists or philosophical naturalists and the religious.
None of that is really addressing the core dilemma for religions, namely that they largely derive from a set of propositional truth claims about the nature of reality and these truth claims are things which are either correct or they are not. Some of the core beliefs of a muslim flatly contradict the core beliefs of the christian and vice versa and so while the muslim may be happy within his belief world and the christian likewise they are destined to be forever separated, divided by an instinct that elevates loyalty to your personal faith above loyalty to your fellow human beings.
1: Science does not support your world view Jeremy. I have as much science in my life as you do and maybe more.
No don't agree with the last bit about your construct being based on science.
It's based on your understanding and interpretation of science as you understand it today, the correct answer might not be the one we have arrived at today.
There is a difference between basing your World view on science and every little bit of science being correct. I am confident that basing my World view on science is the right thing to do because it works. Science is unbelievably successful.QuoteHere are some examples
http://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/
All of those ideas were debunked by using science. Unlike with religion, science finds and corrects its mistakes.QuoteWho is to say some of our science today won't be laughed at as being as silly?I am. While it is true to say that nothing in science is completely certain, many of its current ideas are unlikely ever to be overthrown. I'm pretty sure that the Earth will be perceived to orbit the Sun pretty much for ever more. I doubt if the idea of oxygen will ever be overthrown.
2: Antitheism does not own science. it merely sits on top of it like a bloated, sweaty custard tart on a hot day.
1. Yes it does.
1: Science does not support your world view Jeremy. I have as much science in my life as you do and maybe more.
2: Antitheism does not own science. it merely sits on top of it like a bloated, sweaty custard tart on a hot day.Atheists don't claim that atheism does own science. How could it? Atheism is no more than a lack of belief in gods.
2: Antitheism does not own science. it merely sits on top of it like a bloated, sweaty custard tart on a hot day.
;D ;D
2: Antitheism does not own science. it merely sits on top of it like a bloated, sweaty custard tart on a hot day.
;D ;D
And Vlad sits on this forum like a bloated sweaty turd on a hot day, so please stop polishing him.
Mr Don is very nice but... I dunno, he's more useful background plant than attractive specimen.
Viggo is ''a good age'' and has been for sometime.
Mr Don is very nice but... I dunno, he's more useful background plant than attractive specimen.
Lifelong sufferer from depression, apparently. As you imply, gardening proved therapeutic for him. As for his sex appeal, I've heard a number of ladies refer to him as enthusiastically as they do to Viggo Mortensen. Speaking as a hetero bloke, I've no opinion except that in his most famous role, old Viggo looked as though he needed to stand by a razor for a while... good actor though, and at least tri-lingual, it seems.
Nurse! Leonard's colosmiley bag is overflowing again!
2: Antitheism does not own science. it merely sits on top of it like a bloated, sweaty custard tart on a hot day.
;D ;D
And Vlad sits on this forum like a bloated sweaty turd on a hot day, so please stop polishing him.
:) :) :) :)
Fucking plagiarist.
2: Antitheism does not own science. it merely sits on top of it like a bloated, sweaty custard tart on a hot day.
;D ;D
And Vlad sits on this forum like a bloated sweaty turd on a hot day, so please stop polishing him.
Fucking plagiarist.
2: Antitheism does not own science. it merely sits on top of it like a bloated, sweaty custard tart on a hot day.
;D ;D
And Vlad sits on this forum like a bloated sweaty turd on a hot day, so please stop polishing him.
Fucking plagiarist.
2: Antitheism does not own science. it merely sits on top of it like a bloated, sweaty custard tart on a hot day.
;D ;D
And Vlad sits on this forum like a bloated sweaty turd on a hot day, so please stop polishing him.
Fucking plagiarist.
2: Antitheism does not own science. it merely sits on top of it like a bloated, sweaty custard tart on a hot day.
;D ;D
And Vlad sits on this forum like a bloated sweaty turd on a hot day, so please stop polishing him.
There's a fine line between plagiarism and satire, in some instances. This isn't one of them :)
O.
Satire isn't an -ism so Vlad will not be able to understand what it is.Brilliant! ;D
What's more dangerous though, paganism or the simpering, sentimental self congratulation and self righteousness of secular humanism?
He did't specify that the beliefs had to be yours and Owlswing's.
Paganism covers a multitude of beliefs. Many of them are clearly not true. I'd be pretty confident that none of the gods actually exist, for example.
Me too!
Like religion, paganism is belief in the truth of what is nothing more than human romancing.
2: Antitheism does not own science. it merely sits on top of it like a bloated, sweaty custard tart on a hot day.
;D ;D
And Vlad sits on this forum like a bloated sweaty turd on a hot day, so please stop polishing him.
2: Antitheism does not own science. it merely sits on top of it like a bloated, sweaty custard tart on a hot day.
;D ;D
And Vlad sits on this forum like a bloated sweaty turd on a hot day, so please stop polishing him.
The original post was funny: to add a crudity to it just spoils it. Presumably you haven't the wit to think of a decent reply.