Any other CPers Wiccan?

[Kipru]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

Well I'd have to fly to Alberta too as I am in South Florida..I'll have to PM you about what happened with him and the Florida Panthers

I am waiting for that.

But back to my original subject, I am sure when i'm 64 i will be pissing my pants and thinking " this was it?" , And hoping that some strange kind of monster would save me to live for another 200- [90(alt+ 0176) 8] (Infinty). Then I will probably will convert to some kind of religion. Not sure what that will be, but two things I am sure:

1.) The Wiccan haven't killed half as much people as the other "major" religion have done (So I really don't see the point of the laughs of the christian or the muslim people)

2.) I will be laughing or crying when I see these messages on the Internet archive. Just like watching CP in 9-11-2003(d-m-y)

[Howie_16]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Nice respectful answer. I think with that I am done talking about this topic.

Two overly sensitive people in a thread is two too many.

However, I am sympathetic to your plight. You shouldn't be approached that often. No one deserves to be harassed.

The next time my doorbell is rung by a Mormon, I think I may ask why he thinks he was sent to do missionary work in an area of the world were his church was already firmly established. I mean, isn't Cardston (smaller town about 90 minutes south of Calgary) the Salt Lake City of Canada?

Doesn't the Mormon Church already buy television advertising? Doesn't that suffice the need for them to be out spreading the word without wasting two years of a young follower's life that could be put to better use?

I mean, sending 100 or so young men to Calgary to build low income housing, teach the illiterate to read, and various other social projects might be much more effective in recruitment and lead to a much better reputation for their faith.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by Howie_16

Two overly sensitive people in a thread is two too many.

However, I am sympathetic to your plight. You shouldn't be approached that often. No one deserves to be harassed.

The next time my doorbell is rung by a Mormon, I think I may ask why he thinks he was sent to do missionary work in an area of the world were his church was already firmly established. I mean, isn't Cardston (smaller town about 90 minutes south of Calgary) the Salt Lake City of Canada?

Doesn't the Mormon Church already buy television advertising? Doesn't that suffice the need for them to be out spreading the word without wasting two years of a young follower's life that could be put to better use?

I mean, sending 100 or so young men to Calgary to build low income housing, teach the illiterate to read, and various other social projects might be much more effective in recruitment and lead to a much better reputation for their faith.

Aw gee Howie you tho thweet!!! I don't know of any links to post offhand but I actually feel pretty sorry for the JWs ..yeah I know who am I to say that..but if you study them you might understand . I actually went to meetings for about 4 months..and if they dont use brainwashing tactics I want you to tell me what YOU would call it. What they think is a religion is really a multibillion dollar publishing industry. When they come to your door and say "we are selling this Watchtower just to cover the publishing cost " well guess what most of them don't know there IS NO publishing cost..everything is donated by people who want to be young forever and live in Paradise on earth in a physical body.. dont ask how all the people are going to fit please...but that's what they teach. Not saying that's better or worse than anything else but..They love to prey on Catholics because Catholics are not really taught to read the Bible..as a kid I was always told only the pope and his gang could understand it. Seriously tho if you knew what it was about you might get a bit sensitive too, aside from the harrasment

[Howie_16]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

Aw gee Howie you tho thweet!!! I don't know of any links to post offhand but I actually feel pretty sorry for the JWs ..yeah I know who am I to say that..but if you study them you might understand . I actually went to meetings for about 4 months..and if they dont use brainwashing tactics I want you to tell me what YOU would call it. What they think is a religion is really a multibillion dollar publishing industry. When they come to your door and say "we are selling this Watchtower just to cover the publishing cost " well guess what most of them don't know there IS NO publishing cost..everything is donated by people who want to be young forever and live in Paradise on earth in a physical body.. dont ask how all the people are going to fit please...but that's what they teach. Not saying that's better or worse than anything else but..They love to prey on Catholics because Catholics are not really taught to read the Bible..as a kid I was always told only the pope and his gang could understand it. Seriously tho if you knew what it was about you might get a bit sensitive too, aside from the harrasment

That is very interesting...

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by Howie_16

That is very interesting...

Yeah. I'll try to get some links for you but I've been looking up links for the 35 hr work week thing

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by Howie_16

That is very interesting...

Hey..quickly here are 2 good ones.... http://www.postchronicle.com/comment...21215619.shtml and http://www.dianewilson.net/ Pretty mind-boggling and certainly not what most people would expect...

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Sorry for acting so sensitive but I don't think anyone should have their beliefs ridiculed.

I do.

I don't think belief (or non-belief for that matter) is immune from criticism, challenge, disrespect, and ridicule. Belief is an idea, and should be treated the same as every other idea. It should be open for discussion. Because some people are sensitive about it or because it's important to people doesn't make it untouchable (rules of CP withstanding). I never heard a good reason for this. There is no such thing as the right to not be offended.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by ikaris

those are actually not the three dominant religions in this planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

Anyways, one of my really good friends is a Wiccan. She's really down to earth and it's fun talking to her about her faith. I read the wiki on it and it sounds interesting.

That's interesting. Thanks for correcting me. I should have realized Hinduism is more dominant that Judaism, but I'm surprised about Buddhism.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Atheism on the other hand fails to embrace and incorporate spiritualism, morality and metaphysics.

I don't understand what you are getting at. Why would atheism incorporate those things? Isn't it like saying that religion should incorporate non-belief in god? Atheism is non-belief in god. Those things are tied in with the idea of god. How could one be an atheist and incorporate ideas that are without empirical evidence?

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I don't understand what you are getting at. Why would atheism incorporate those things? Isn't it like saying that religion should incorporate non-belief in god? Atheism is non-belief in god. Those things are tied in with the idea of god. How could one be an atheist and incorporate ideas that are without empirical evidence?

I guess what I was getting at is that atheism has become somewhat of a non-theist pseudo religion for its adherents. By religion I mean a belief system that one bases their life on and doesn't necessarily require belief in god(s). The reason I say atheism has become like a religion is because from my understanding many atheists seem to replace god with science and look to science to fulfill the role of god in their lives. In which case, it should also incorporate something to define morality at the very least, and also spirituality. For me, to deny spirituality is to deny many questions about life, questions that I want answers to. You may say atheism does not need to address spirituality because spirituality is not empirical. Does that mean it doesn't exist, and doesn't pose questions that need answers? I don't think spiritual questions need to be answered by the existence of or belief in god(s), but I think a belief system should address spiritual questions. To me atheism is not entirely empirical anyway. Atheists place their faith in science. I use the word "faith" because science is always progressing and old scientific "facts" are proven wrong. The way I see it therefore, atheists are placing their faith in science to discover the truth, but it's still a matter of faith just like any other religion. What I'm looking for in a religion, and haven't found, is a belief system that addresses and incorporates science, spirituality, metaphysics, morality and a sustainable system of living on this planet. Being torn somewhere between being agnostic and gnostic, I have no idea whether god(s) play a role in this or not.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I guess what I was getting at is that atheism has become somewhat of a non-theist pseudo religion for its adherents.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it ain't a religion for me. I don't have a religion.

I assume you don't believe in Zeus, but I'm sure you wouldn't classify your non-belief as a religious one. You just don't believe it. There's nothing religious about it. You don't believe it, case closed. Same here.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Say what you want about nature-based religions, at least you can prove nature exists...

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I don't understand what you are getting at. Why would atheism incorporate those things? Isn't it like saying that religion should incorporate non-belief in god? Atheism is non-belief in god. Those things are tied in with the idea of god. How could one be an atheist and incorporate ideas that are without empirical evidence?

I think that you can be a atheist but believe in ethics (in this case ethics=morality) and perhaps believe that certain things that are believed to be metaphysical are simply natural phenomena that are poorly scientifically understood for the moment...

Atheism, IMO, is a disbelief in an omnipresent, omnipotent, all-powerful 'God'...concepts like morality are completely independant..

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Atheism, IMO, is a disbelief in an omnipresent, omnipotent, all-powerful 'God'...

But even some religious people reject the idea of "God". Buddhist for example, follow a non-theist religion. There are several others that are less known.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I guess what I was getting at is that atheism has become somewhat of a non-theist pseudo religion for its adherents.

Maybe, though I don't think there are many of those... it may just seem that way because of some recent vocal atheists.

By religion I mean a belief system that one bases their life on and doesn't necessarily require belief in god(s).

I wouldn't say religion and a belief system are the same thing.. a religion may provide a belief system though.

The reason I say atheism has become like a religion is because from my understanding many atheists seem to replace god with science and look to science to fulfill the role of god in their lives.

I guess it depends on what specifically you're talking about. If you're talking about replacing God with science with respect to what keeps the planets orbiting, then yeah and that's probably a good thing.

Dawkins proposed four roles that religion has traditionally filled: Explanation, exhortation, consolation, and inspiration.

Atheism isn't a belief system to fill those roles; it simply labels someone who fills those roles with something other than a belief in God.

In which case, it should also incorporate something to define morality at the very least, and also spirituality.

Atheism doesn't propose to be a belief system so why would it incorporate a system of morality? An atheist simply derives their morals from other sources than a religious authority. And it's been argued that we all do that anyway as religions tend to change over time as the overall social morality changes.

For me, to deny spirituality is to deny many questions about life, questions that I want answers to. You may say atheism does not need to address spirituality because spirituality is not empirical. Does that mean it doesn't exist, and doesn't pose questions that need answers? I don't think spiritual questions need to be answered by the existence of or belief in god(s), but I think a belief system should address spiritual questions.

Again you're making atheism out to be a belief system when it isn't, it's just the lack of belief in a God. Different atheists will have wildly varying belief systems.

And I agree that there are big questions in life that one desires answers to, an atheist isn't going to be any less inclined to ask those questions. An atheist who is a skeptic might look to different places than an atheist who is a secular humanist, or a nihilist.

To me atheism is not entirely empirical anyway. Atheists place their faith in science. I use the word "faith" because science is always progressing and old scientific "facts" are proven wrong.

I think in general an atheist "trusts" science more than others might, and I think trust is a better word than faith. Faith in a religious context means belief without evidence. Science is the exact opposite, without evidence there is no belief.

And old scientific "facts" aren't proven wrong, they're proven inaccurate or incomplete. Fact is a bad word too as it implies something immutable or a complete description of something, when science claims nothing of the sort. All scientific knowledge is provisional. When some new discovery causes some old scientific knowledge to be discarded, the old knowledge is still valid given the conditions and constraints of the old knowledge.

Newton vs. Einstein is the perfect example. Newton was "proven wrong", but that doesn't mean Newton's contributions are invalid, they still hold for all cases as long as velocity, acceleration, gravity, etc are within some limits.. outside those limits Newton breaks down.

So I don't think it's fair to say that because science changes that it's faith that's involved.

I also don't think atheists put their faith in any scientific knowledge. Getting back to faith vs. trust: faith is knowledge without evidence, trust is seeing that something works and believing that it will continue to work. I don't have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, I trust that it will though because all data points to it. It might not, but there's a high probability it will, unless new data comes in.

If anything atheists have faith in the scientific method. And even then it's not faith, it's trust that the method has proven itself to be the most accurate way of describing reality.. they trust the scientific method works because it has proven itself to work. If a better method comes along then great, switch to that one.

The way I see it therefore, atheists are placing their faith in science to discover the truth, but it's still a matter of faith just like any other religion. What I'm looking for in a religion, and haven't found, is a belief system that addresses and incorporates science, spirituality, metaphysics, morality and a sustainable system of living on this planet. Being torn somewhere between being agnostic and gnostic, I have no idea whether god(s) play a role in this or not.

How is that any different than an atheist? An atheist would just admit to themselves that it will take different sets of belief systems to cover all those bases.

As an aside I think science can cover pretty much all those bases, except maybe metaphysics except I have no idea what you mean by that. Even spirituality, talk to any scientist and they'll say how spiritual their job is.. observing the depths of space or unlocking the mysteries of life, awe of the universe is very spiritual I think. Einstein was again a perfect example, he was an atheist but was very spiritual. Physicists often get in trouble because they employ spiritual and religious verbiage.

[Ford Prefect]

Photon ... excellent post. I certainly see your viewpoint and agree with alot of it, although my thoughts and opinions are a little different in some areas. I guess i was also thinking about some of the more extreme atheist authors I've read and discussed things with who, like all extremists, take things too far and don't reflect the majority. For the majority atheism merely means a disbelief in god, as Rouge has pointed out. Which is cool, if that works for a person.

[Howie_16]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I do.

I don't think belief (or non-belief for that matter) is immune from criticism, challenge, disrespect, and ridicule. Belief is an idea, and should be treated the same as every other idea. It should be open for discussion. Because some people are sensitive about it or because it's important to people doesn't make it untouchable (rules of CP withstanding). I never heard a good reason for this. There is no such thing as the right to not be offended.

In order to have a fair, open, two-way (or more) discussion, I think that it would be reasonable to avoid disrespect and ridicule.

Rightly or wrongly, when people are offended, they tend to avoid the discussion at hand and either stoop to disrespect and ridicule, or walk away.

Now I know I'm a hypocrite, as some of my posts can fall into the category of disrespect or ridicule, but I usually don't realize this until later on...

[Howie_16]

Yes, excellent post Photon.

I think I would say that I am more of a spiritual person than a religious person. I only started going to church services regularly in the past two years ago, and it's not because I'm 97 years old (yes, that's for you Kipru! ) or that I just started to believe that the Earth really was created over the course of six days.

While I cannot write as well as others who have posted in this particular thread, I can say that I feel better after a service. Maybe it is (after all those years of Sunday school) hearing a familiar message, or a really good sermon. It might just be a chance to reflect on the happenings of the previous week, to enjoy being with others, to maintain a regular activity with my wife, to be reminded that there is nothing that I can do that can't be forgiven, with a follow up reminder to forgive others and let go of grudges...

Maybe it's all of the above.

[BuzzardsWife]

This thread is a great example of the old saying: Religion divides us, spirituality unites us.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I do.

I don't think belief (or non-belief for that matter) is immune from criticism, challenge, disrespect, and ridicule. Belief is an idea, and should be treated the same as every other idea. It should be open for discussion. Because some people are sensitive about it or because it's important to people doesn't make it untouchable (rules of CP withstanding). I never heard a good reason for this. There is no such thing as the right to not be offended.

Showing disrespect or ridiculing an idea is a lot different than ridiculing a belief. There are people behind a belief.

I've been on other message boards where the subject of religon is banned. It always degenerates into disrespect and ridicule. People become offended and the insults start flying in both directions. If it weren't for the CP rules here i have no doubt it would happen here.