h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh, and I hope my last posting didn't sound cocky. I sincerely will provide other examples I can think of that I think demonstrate differences if I've not been clear enough yet, is what I meant. I didn't mean to sound like I was getting snippy.

Lord have mercy! What happened to my lst post? I must have hit the x before I'd published. Anyway...it gives me the chance to try and put my view a little more eloquently than I'd managed.

I think, PsychoC, that picking on the 'obvious' bad traits of the religious still leaves too much of an argument in religion's favour: 'I'm not like that! I'm a gay left-wing pacifist [insert superstition of your choice].' The basic problem with religion - and with religious tolerance - is that it lowers the bar for what constitutes a reasonable standard of argument. We might accept that the fluffy views are divinely inspired - but we have to take that entirely on trust. So then let's take someone slightly less fluffy - say your stereotypical mainstream CofE. That person might be kind and gentle and do good works and march against poverty etc. etc. but then come out with 'I've nothing at all against gays, but according to my religion, marriage is reserved as a sacred union between a man and a woman.' Do we have to tolerate that sincerely-held, religiously inspired view? After all - it's coming from the same place as all the other aspects of that person's religion. The only sensible arguments are secular. And we have to argue about effects, rather than beliefs.

btw - don't worry about being snippy. Similarly - I have no trouble at all with the description of 'fanatic'. This is a topic that deserves fanaticism. As Marx so eloquently put it Whatever it is, I'm against it!

(Groucho, that is. Not his brother in Highgate cemetery)

>I think, PsychoC, that picking on the 'obvious' bad traits of the religious still leaves too much of an argument in religion's favour: 'I'm not like that! I'm a gay left-wing pacifist [insert superstition of your choice].'<

I agree, Ed. IMO, this is especially true of one religion whose adherents I've been encountering with alarming frequency over the past couple of years: neo-paganism. Especially the fluffiest religion of the fluffy, Wicca.

Most of the neo-pagans I've known well and with whome I have had the chance to discuss religion at length, all seem to be former christians who have rejected christianity and embraced neo-paganism because christianity doesn't allow for whatever "alternative" lifestyle they are interested in pursuing. All that "I've finally found the path that suits me" or "the god(dess)/es spoke to/came in a vision/resonated with me". It's a lateral move, as far as I'm concerned.

Although at this point it's also fair for me to admit that I find Wiccans, neo-pagans, and other new-agey types to be extremely flaky. Some of them are as delusional as your average adherent of an Abrahamic faith. Some are even worse, IMO. (Sure, I'm Granola- I'm a vegetarian and an environmentalist. I use earth-friendly products, I recycle, and I generally use homeopathic remedies. I like listening to Indian chants and burning incense and think Kali is one bad-ass looking chick. But I don't have to go off on a vision quest and pray to a half dozen non-existent dieties in lieu of one to justify those things.)

Its true that listening at doors will let you find out hings you didn't want to know.

"Although at this point it's also fair for me to admit that I find Wiccans, neo-pagans, and other new-agey types to be extremely flaky."

Serves me right for lurking, especially when I know that I am paranoid as well. It is very difficult to qualify what is a pagan and what is a neo-pagan, when then tradition has no written records. Basically though, all pagans who are alive now, are referred to as neo-pagan purely because we do not have the historical documentation to know whether we are doing something similar to older pagans or not.

So flakey, over and out.

PS don't care if you do call me flakey! My faith is for me only, don't give a monkeys about anyone elses opinion.

See I am getting better at not caring so much about other peoples opinions of me!

I didn't call you flaky, per se. But I do find your faith flaky, yes. The fact that you don't feel threatened by that or feel the need to proselytize to me or try to "justify" your faith is something I can admire and respect about you.

And we did bring the discussion away from my journal, primarily at your request, because you'd said you didn't want to read anything that might make you feel bad. So, while you know I care enough about you to never deliberately hurt your feelings, I can't be expected not to speak my mind about how I feel about religions on a thread dedicated to exactly that!

And yes, you are getting better at not caring about other people's opinions of you. I do hope, however, you can differentiate between my feeling that neo-pagans, as a group, are flaky, and referring to you, specifically, as a flake?

But to prove my point about flakiness, have any of you ever visited a pagan-oriented web site? I have, and found numerous threads devoted to tarot readings, astrology, and other such highly scientific (NOT!!) forms of divination. What malarkey! (I probably should add that I have a huge collection of tarot- I collect then because I like the artwork and the history behind them, especially those of the Rosicrucians and the Golden Dawn. Fascinating stuff!)

There are lots of pagan websites, about paganism solely and not divination. I know as I write some of them. I also write a website about spells and magick.

Of course you will find flakiness if you mix all new age stuff with paganism. That means you put angel worshippers who are christian/new age in the same bracket as those who feel that the life-force around them is sacred. There are many people who do not call themselves any religion who believe in the sacredness of life (thats all life-forms not just humans) by your defination they are all flakey. Bizarre.

Anyway, as you have reminded me, you started this convo away from your journal because of me. So I shall leave you to it.

According to the Maerican Heritage Dictionary of the english Language, "sacred" is defined as follows:

sa·cred ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skrd)
adj.
Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
Worthy of respect; venerable.
Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

I would agree that all forms of life are equally important and valuable, and that each form of life deserves as much respect as the others. I don't feel that any form of life deserves any kind of veneration, though. We're just here, and to think that we deserve respect merely for existing is kind of arrogant, isn't it?

And unfortunately, spells and magick don't seem much more effective, IMO, than the prayers of any of the other major religions.

I wasn't implying that you should, as you say, "leave us to it". You asked me not to discuss *my own* beliefs on this matter on *my own* journal, and I deferred, because I didn't want you to unsub from my journal entirely. A lot of people wouldn't be willing to make that kind of concession. So I didn't think it unfair of me to ask you not to get p*ssed off with me for discussing it here. Is there anything I can discuss on h2 that will meet with your approval? Or should I just chuck out all of my opinions and beliefs and feelings so as not to rub you the wrong way yet again?

How about we agree to give each other space and not to get involved in each others journals anymore.

Please also forget my address and new phone number, just pretend you never received it.

If that will make you happy, sure. But I'd rather not ruin this thread by discussing it here and making other people feel uncomfortable.

Found this in this week's Onion (vol 41 issue 33), and found it not only hilarious, but also vaguely appropriate: http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2.



Although, sadly, there's probably some people out there delusional enough to think this way.

>>I would agree that all forms of life are equally important and valuable

I wouldn't. Fo instance, I feel entirely comfortable with the eradication of smallpox. I would *like* to do away with the dapple-winged mosquito and tsetse fly also, but I suspect we don't know enough about what implications this might have for the ecological chain. Apart from this naked, human self-interest...f**k 'em! Ditto snakes, rats, mosquitos, slugs...

Onto *my* beef with paganism etc. I fully accept that the personal faith of others is none of my damned business. I also accept that many of them are fluffy people who do good works and are concerned with the environment, etc. etc. Where I lose patience, though, is when I'm told that they have a personal awareness of the inerconnectedness of nature.

Sure, there *are* connections. These are scientifically apparent and can be understood by all. It does *not* require mystical insight. To pretend that the insight of pagans is somehow different or superior to that of non-pagans is simple self-glorification. It's up there with 'I'm a superior moral person because I'm a Catholic.'

>Where I lose patience, though, is when I'm told that they have a personal awareness of the inerconnectedness of nature.<

Ditto. Smacks of arrogance and self-absorption, to me.

>Apart from this naked, human self-interest...f**k 'em! Ditto snakes, rats, mosquitos, slugs...<

I didn't mean that all forms of life are equally important *to me*. I meant in the grand scheme of nature, blah blah. Smallpox is important in that it kept human populations lower and allowed others to evolve and reproduce freely. If that makes any sense? it's early still.

>>it's early still

Yup! As Zhou Enlai replied when asked to comment on the impact of the French Revolution.

<< I meant in the grand scheme of nature, blah blah>>

Ah, but there isn't a scheme. It evolved.

Humans and possibly other animals may make judgements of importance, but there is no grand judgement.

So...

a) is it reasonable/rational/necessary to hold that no life form should be as highly regarded as humanity?

b) Does Humanism follow on naturally from atheism?

><< I meant in the grand scheme of nature, blah blah>>

Ah, but there isn't a scheme. It evolved.

Humans and possibly other animals may make judgements of importance, but there is no grand judgement.<

I think, Extra Bold, that you have just made my point when I was having difficulty doing so. That there is no grand judgement. Thanks!

>a) is it reasonable/rational/necessary to hold that no life form should be as highly regarded as humanity?<

Following the same logic that there is no grand judgement, I would have to answer this one "no". I probably hold humanity in slightly higher value than others- in my own judgement- but excepting those people who matter to me, and myself, not much.

>b) Does Humanism follow on naturally from atheism?<

I'm no expert on humanism, or atheism. But I'd venture to say to a large degree, yes.

Thinking about my own progression, I'd say that in my case, atheism followed on naturally from humanism.

Hmm. But does Humanism follow naturally from Atheism?

One of the great moral criticisms of atheism from the religious is that it holds *nothing* to be sacred. Attempts at state-sponsored (Marxist-Leninist) atheism have delivered societies in which humanity is *not* valued.

Two comments:
1. Then surely that could be remedied by secular humanism?
2. M-L political systems started out as a sincere attempt to reshape the world as a human utopia. Where they went wrong was the mistaken belief that this would be achieved via the intervening stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Of course...'Atheism' can never sum up a whole set of views anyway. It's not a doctrine, fer chrissakes - its an absence of one.

Then, of course, there's nihilism. I really must get around to reading some Nietzsche and Sartre before I can comment intelligently.

I've got heaps of Nietsche and Sartre, maybe we should read some stuff simultaneously, and discuss here?

I misunderstood your question by misplacing the emphasis in the sentence. No, humanism doesn't necessarily follow from atheism. You're 100% correct that many atheistic societies place no value on human life. I kind of don't, either, in the sense that I don't particularly value *individual* lives (excepting my own, my friends and my loved ones) as much as humanity in general.

I wonder if the problem *could* be remedied by secular humanism? Think I'll wander off to read more on nihilism tonight. 'Twas reading Nietsche that initially opened my eyes to how useless religion actually was to me. "The Antichrist", "The Geneaology of Morals", and "The Will To Power" are amongst my favoritest books!