Atheist using rituals
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-04-2012, 07:46 PM
RE: Atheist using rituals
(11-04-2012 05:06 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(08-04-2012 01:59 PM)WindReader Wrote:  I am an Atheistic Pagan


?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
from Wikipedia's entry on Deep Ecology: "The central spiritual tenet of deep ecology is that the human species is a part of the Earth and not separate from it. Human life is dependent on the harmonious balance of interdependent relationships between organisms. In the words of Chief Seattle, "Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it".[8] A process of self-realisation or "re-earthing"[9] is used for an individual to intuitively gain an ecocentric perspective. The notion is based on the idea that the more we expand the self to identify with "others" (people, animals, ecosystems), the more we realize ourselves. Transpersonal psychology has been used by Warwick Fox to support this idea."



yeah - it is pretty subjective and fluffy - but other aspects of Deep Ecology are also grounded in science and empirical research. I hold absolutely no belief in "spirits" or deities but I do experience myself as a spiritual person for lack of a better term for describing my desireto connect to something larger than myself. sometimes that is community and sometimes that is sustainable living and ecology.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2012, 07:59 PM
RE: Atheist using rituals
We all have rituals. Most people have a ritual they follow when they get up in the morning.

Mine is making Latte for myself. It takes about 8 minutes to do from scratch. I do it every morning. It's a set sequence of actions, and it feels comforting and I love the latte that results.

Superstitions - I don't believe in any.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2012, 09:24 PM (This post was last modified: 11-04-2012 09:37 PM by Humakt.)
RE: Atheist using rituals
(11-04-2012 07:46 PM)WindReader Wrote:  from Wikipedia's entry on Deep Ecology: "The central spiritual tenet of deep ecology is that the human species is a part of the Earth and not separate from it. Human life is dependent on the harmonious balance of interdependent relationships between organisms. In the words of
a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions: a Muslim majority had to live in close proximity to large communities of Christians and pagans
[*]
dated, derogatory a non-Christian. [*]
a
member of a modern religious movement which seeks to incorporate
beliefs or practices from outside the main world religions, especially
nature worship.Perhaps, Im reading it wrong, but from the wiki it doesnt look like a religion - even the spiritual section to me doesnt seem to make this religious in nature. So you can call yourself a pagan, but only using the term in a pejorative and dated sense. The origin of the word listed below which if you take it back far enough means civilian which I suppose you could term as citizen of the earth, but that to me would suggest seperation from so probably isnt Kosher, but came to mean heathen, so in so far as you can self label as pagan given the only part of the definition that fits you insults and devalues you and you beliefs, Im not sure why'd youd want to.

Origin:
late Middle English: from Latin paganus 'villager, rustic', from pagus 'country district'. Latin paganus also meant 'civilian', becoming, in Christian Latin, 'heathen' (i.e. one not enrolled in the army of Christ)
To say that its a little subjective and fluffy, and Im not trying to insullt or belittle your I'll call them views as Im having trouble classifing what the collective term would be, seems to me to be while having read the wiki 3 times now an understatement I not really sure I can make anything more of it than to paraphrase Clinton "its the ecology, stupid".
Quote:
  1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth
    have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value).
    These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for
    human purposes.
  2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.
  3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.
  4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a
    substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of
    nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
  5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
  6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic
    economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state
    of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
  7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality
    (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an
    increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound
    awareness of the difference between big and great.
  8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.
This list is as close to as I get to understanding, and Im sure Im miles off the ball park, but I'll address them them point by point and if you want you can correct or educate me further.

1. Cant argue with that, values a subject evaluation of worth - so think it has value makes it so.
2. Again same as above.
3. OK, so if we're hungry and theres only Panda's to eat we can eat Panda.
4. What now. Seems like the ethical thing is reduce the human population, I'd be interested in the practical application of that, what exactly is the proposed method for that?
5. Again, a value judgement, but as a context isnt given Im a little unclear as to what exactly that means. If its excessive where is the cut off point where it is reasonable.
6. Again, meaningless, theirs no view expressed here except its wrong, to even a hint at what these these solutions may be, excepting the Bender approximus clause point 4 or the kill some humuns agenda - maybe *spoiler alert - cheap shot* this where the religious nature comes in.
7. Wow. Thats a linguistical doozy, as youve made inherent values synonyms with the well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth
have value in themselves accepting these values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for
human purposes. Im gonna have to hit the dictionary again on flourish:
So its saying the ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality
(dwelling in situations of well-being is developing rapidly and successfully wheer human and nonhuman life on Earth
have value in themselves.
verb
  • 1 [no object]
    (of a living organism) grow or develop in a healthy or vigorous way,
    especially as the result of a particularly congenial environment: wild plants flourish on the banks of the lake
OK so its not this one, as clause 3, nessecitates some of us die so congienial enviroments a non starter.
  • develop rapidly and successfully: the organization has continued to flourish
Develop is distinct from grow so we get better rapidly and succesfully
  • [with adverbial] be working or at the height of one’s career during a specified period: the caricaturist and wit who flourished in the early years of this century
  • 2 [with object] wave (something) about to attract attention: ‘Happy New Year!’ he yelled, flourishing a bottle of whisky
Not relevant.

noun
And none of this.
  • 1a bold or extravagant gesture or action, made especially to attract attention: with a flourish, she ushered them inside
  • an elaborate rhetorical or literary expression.
  • an ornamental flowing curve in handwriting or scrollwork: letters with an emphatic flourish beneath them[list]
  • 2an impressive and successful act or period: United produced a late second-half flourish[list]
  • 3 Music a fanfare played by brass instruments: a flourish of trumpets
  • an ornate musical passage.
  • an extemporized addition played especially at the beginning or end of a composition. So its saying the ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality
    (dwelling in situations of well-being is developing rapidly and successfully where human and nonhuman life on Earth
    have value in themselves. But this rapid and successful advance must be coupled with decreasing numbers of humans.

    OK, Ive spend 15 minutes on point 7 and Im more confused now that when I didnt understand it to start with, I'll move on.

    8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes. (Can I buy a conditional please).
    So if I agree with any of this I must try to act either directly or indirectly to implement the nessecary changes. Luckily that an inclusive, by either not agreeing with any or not understanding any of the above points I get to ignore them and still be ethical phew what a relief, I still get to torture squirrels yay, but if I did Id have to try to implement these nessecary changes, at no point is any solution given or suggested expecting of course our favorite clause, the Bender approximus clause or point 4.
    So in short, clause 8 is if you agree with the above try to kill some humans, its an ethical imperative. Of course, now I think of it that would breach point 2 Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves. You cant promote diversity if we're reducing it by killing some humans, but as it only contributes to the realization of the values and the values themselves, I guess its an ends justifies the means kinda deal.

    OK, enough of that. Im really not trying to make fun, but I honestly have no idea what any of this means, I thought by working through it I'd get there, but I was so so wrong.

    So if you'd care to explain it me as you would a child I'd be happy to listen, if not I'm probably just gonna forever think of you as the Benderites and hope my eyes and brain stop bleeding.

    I would proof read this, before posting, but if I do I think I will go insane, so I hope you'll forgive any speling issues, not that they'll matter as Im sure Ive no idea what any of the above means. If anyone has a clue what Im on about let me know.



    Heh funny, posts to long cut of the begining, so part 2 of my misery above is followed by the beginning of it below, you at the end.

    Part 1.

    http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pagan

    noun
    [list]
  • a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions: a Muslim majority had to live in close proximity to large communities of Christians and pagans

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: