LadyXoc

It's not much of a selling point that I find his posts almost impossible to understand.

Sturmrabe

YAR!

4th Generation Atheist

I'd settle for a decent argument in its favor from any gender....if I believed such an argument existed.

All convincing arguments, whether historical or archaeological, seem to support the idea that the ancients worshipped and revered a wide variety of gods/spirits/ancestors/natural forces &c, which makes perfect sense when you realize that: a) a "global" culture of any degree of organization was not possible, and cultural similarities across even a sub-continent were due to commonalities in history and heritage rather than ongoing organization and contact; b) that people lived with basically similar challenges with regard to survival, cooperation and human nature but in a wide variety of natural environments; and c) that due to the fact that humans choose thier actions with a far greater degree of freedom than is evident in animals, responses to those challenges and to a given history will reflect a wide variety of individual choices, "banked up" over time differently in each observable culture. Hence, the "Goddess theory" of some universally accepted Great Nature Mother doesn't jive with me. That maybe some ancient cultures chose to put a female face on their religions and others chose male, neuter or variable (polytheistic) ones, does. It allows for the fact that while humans have some characteristics in common, with regard to the specifics individuals are remarkably different.

As far as worshipping "Nature", my opinions concerning Nature are mixed: I like forsets, seashores, campfires &c as much as most people, but I'm less happy with AIDS, mosquitoes, skin cancer and other evidence that if Nature "loves" us it does not do so unequivocally. I suspect that most ancients had ambivalent feelings about Nature also (possibly more so than I, since I at least can get repellent, medicine and air conditioning; when I choose to go without some modern convenience, I at least know in the back of my mind that---for the present---I don't necessarily have to). And, the ancient mythology of various cultures supports this, as does evidence that some ancient practices were aimed at worship and others at propitiation, and that some gods were viewed as friendly to humanity and others inimical. This is part of the reason I'd give the "reconstructionists" more credence than the "Goddess" folks; another reason is that when a reconstructionist runs across a practice that doesn't make sense in modern society (such as the occasional human sacrifice) he or she tends to acknowledge it and knowingly omit it or find a suitable modern substitute rather than gloss over it and pretend it never happened. There's no evident need for a pretended golden age; the mixed bag that is reality is acknowledged. With much of "Goddess" scholarship, OTOH, I see signs of deep emotional needs worn on the sleeve.

Heathen Dawn

I give it neither credence nor empathy. Not empathy, because Goddess theory advocates tend to be rabid feminists who commit the fallacy of messianism or utopianism and the bigotry of female chauvinism. Getting rid of male deities won’t bring world peace, nor can the wrong of male chauvinism be righted by its opposite, female chauvinism. It distresses me to see Wicca being hijacked by feminists.

I just ignore the bad things whenever I can.

There’s nothing wrong with emotional needs.

4th Generation Atheist

Seems that there's a lot of hijacking going on in the Wicca neck of the woods. I'm not sure I blame the participants in that subculture. It's slightly embattled. Right now it seems the most threatening "hijacking" going on is the Buffy/Charmed Teen-Witch phenomenon, because the mass media juggernaut is involved in that; it is then up to the Wicca subculture to absorb this without losing sight of itself, and find some way to turn at least some of these teen "converts" into healthy adult Wiccans. Then hopefully the rest will pass.

I sympathize with your concerns with regards to "feminists" (clarification: I usually use that word to refer to anyone, male or female, who believes in treating women with equal respect and dignity to men, and who advocates equal rights under law and custom, a group I believe to be the majority of human beings. However, that is not the sense in which you are using it, from what I can tell. I'm kind of thinking you mean radical separationists and actual misandrists---women who hate men. Am I correct?). You are correct concerning all these points, that kicking the male deities out of your pantheon won't fix anything, in Wicca or in the world in general. And two wrongs don't make a right, as they say ("two wrongs are only the beginning"...)
A reasonable approach....though I suspect you mean "I cope with the bad things when I have to, and revere the good". Eminently rational.
No, not on a personal level, and not on the level one addresses in most people's idea of spiritual practice. I only have an issue with emotional needs that cloud one's perception of truth, and then only in scholarship or policy-making. When selecting a kitten or a used car, one tries to distance oneself from emotional needs where one has to, to bring home a healthy animal or a vehicle that runs, and count in needs when one has to, like when opting to have a cute kitty or greater weekend freedom in the first place. There's a place where these needs belong, and a place where they don't, and where they don't is in the realm of fact. In contrast, in personal areas like love or selection of personal religious customs, they are paramount.

Nothing wrong with, say, mixing traditions for your ritual---but wouldn't you prefer to know that that is what you're doing, and do it deliberately? And I would expect that those who choose the "Goddess"-Pagan path would also be in a better position if they were making informed decisions.

Heathen Dawn

Actually that’s the thing I’m less worried about. As I say in anti-anti-fluffbunny article, such fad-Wiccans need no treatment, as after a few years at most they invariably defluff (become more serious) or leave the religion altogether (like truthie).

I did use the word “feminists” with a qualification. I have no problem with feminism, though I would call it equalism. I do have a problem with man-hating bitches.

No, nothing rational here, just listening to my feelings. My thoughts are as follows: I’m not a masochist, so why should I contend with things that make me feel bad? The only exceptions are the necessary evils, such as college assignments, which I don’t like but I would be in a worse situation if I avoided them.

A used car, yes, but a kitten? When kittens are concerned, it’s emotions all the way for me!

As with the computing world, I prefer that markup should be used (I’m a markup languages freak). That is, mixing traditions is OK, but it must be marked up as such, not misleadingly advertising as a pure, pristine, unmixed form of paganism from the dawn of mankind. I state my own sources for my religious system: Wicca for the ritual (orthopraxis), Hinduism for the theology and Spiritualism for the afterlife beliefs. No-one who reads my website has misconceptions about my system and its sources, it’s all marked up explicitly.

4th Generation Atheist

The concern here is that otherwise serious people will be driven off by the constant squabbling...either dropping out (like me) or being turned-off from participating in the first place.

I know from countless personal discussions that there's a network of solitary people out there who are serious about their scholarship and their practice and who would like to do something for the Pagan/Heathen community, but who are turned off by the vitriolic politics. This is a waste of resources.

This affects even a drop-out: such people are also turned-off from taking on the Xns in defense of secular society.

To make myself clear, when it comes to the really aggressive anti-fluffbunnies (such as that WiccansSuck site) I tend to agree with you, but I also think that there is some legitimacy to the milder anti-fl. views: the mass media stuff is not an especially happy development. Tho it's not a new one either, really.
I have the same problem. I have a dislike of haters in general, and a personal dislike of those who hate me, since I'm kind of human.
I'm in the same situation here about work---specifically looking for it---as it's gotten hard to keep my spirit up. Taking breaks and coming here helps, which is why you see posts from me interspersed over a whole day.
I was referring to the need to keep one's heartstrings in check when actually selecting a pet, especially in a place like a shelter. Every time I see one of those sick, dying animals my heart goes out to it, and I so much wanna run over and rescue!....but one must remember, if poor Kitty is going to die anyway, maybe the more merciful thing to do is let the shelter take care of it, and pick a healthier beastie. Funny how you have to harden your heart and soften it at the same time.
That's rather the method I'm talking about. Many of the books that have been complained about in the threads on this forum do not "mark up". Rather, they commit a number of "sloppy scholarship" errors---putting Western Ceremonial rituals into books on "Norse Magic", for instance. Or claiming that a particular practice is "ancient Celtic" when there is no consistency between it and what is known about ancient Celtic culture, and the main place one sees it is in the modern NeoPagan movement.

Nothing wrong with saying "many NeoPagans like to add" a given thing to their "Celtic" or "Norse" practice, but mark it as you say so that if a reader is feeling "purist" they can omit the addition. There are, especially among those for whom "belief" (I think here I am stretching this word beyond its limits, it's not exactly what I mean. I just haven't yet found a better one) is not as important as historical interest, some readers who will care.

I think at one time there was less need to do this, as almost anyone who "added" a practice from a tradition not their own had to hunt it up themselves and hence knew perfectly well where it came from. But since the dawn of the "cottage industry" <cough>Llewellyn<cough> days this has been less so.

truthie

4th Generation Atheist

Regarding sub-cultures.
The way I see it, a sub-culture rises and then goes to a period of decadance. Period.
It is similar for religions, new and old, the difference is that a religion may arise again after a while, well, maybe only in Anglo-Saxon countries.

Now, do you know how long it takes for a sub-culture to die out?
For example, in the US, where generally speaking Wicca has become quite fad-like, what do you think it will happen to the religion in a future?
And also, what would prevent atheism from becoming a victim of fad-isation (sp?) or popular/sub-culture/corrupt American mass-media?

T.

4th Generation Atheist

Hmph.
I'd say it varies.
That's (those are) (a) very good question(s). (Yes I'm too picky. Long story.) One of the places where Wicca "recruits" around here is the environmentalist movement, which is a hodge-podge of genuine concerns and crackpot theories. But as we all know, the genuine concerns are getting more and more urgent, and as more and more of these appear in the news (and more and more people feel they are being crowded into soulless, dirty bunkers in the city or stuck in inconvenient and unimaginitive suburban wastelands) more and more people will look for a way to express environmental concern. Or they will get political on the topic and end up meeting Wiccans. Whether this will increase the fad-like character, the political character, or the traditional character of Wicca remains to be seen. Whether the current fad-character of much of Wicca will lead soon to its demise, or whether Wicca will stabilize and hang around for a few more decades or centuries, there's really no way to tell. Heck, people can't even agree on whether or not we're seeing the imminent death of the Atkins diet! With a religion? No telling.

What's to prevent atheism from being subjected to that? Nothing really, but there are some factors that make it less likely at least in the near future. The "window dressing" isn't all that attractive, for instance---it ranges from the O'Hairs to the Darwin fish. Not much in the way of attractive rituals or fad items. There's no agreement even on what sort of fashion-show symbol to wear around your neck, a seeming requirement for religion in America, fad or no. (And I've seen threads on just that topic right here on this very board.)

Also, as has been pointed out in other contexts, atheism is constantly under the strain of having to define itself negatively: a/theism=no/god-belief. It's like trying to say you're asexual. People on the whole tend to prefer positive definitions, things they can point to and say "this is me". They want a clear category, as well as something that can easily be explained. You've seen how much bandwidth is used here trying to explain atheism to others; that tends to scare "faddish" types away. This isn't a preventive by any means, and there have been times in various societies when there were "waves" of atheism or it became the party line, but not quite in the same way the Wicca fad's going. I don't see it happening right away, though I'd "never say never".

Vajradhara

Namaste all,

interesting topic.. though not all that much related to "nature" per se.

i should like to point out a few, relevant, bits of information if i may be so bold.

first and foremost, there is a huge and wide variety in the types of psychedelics that a being could ingest and to paint them as having the same qualities is inaccurate at best and misleading at worse.

that being said, there is also a vast difference in the experience that one would have depending on the varying dosages of the particular psychedelic. LSD, for instance, can produce a hallucogenic effect at approx 20mgs. however, this is not a full blown "hallucination". the term given to low dosages of these types of substances is called a "museum" dose.

for a full blown hallucination, with LSD, you are talking somewhere above the 250mg level.

the point of this bit is to emphasize that in the world of psychedelics, there are wide ranges of experience and effects depending on the substance and the dosage used.

is anyone famliar with Terrence McKenna? he wrote a book that asserted that the evolution of consciousness in primitive man was driven by the consumption of mushrooms laden with psychedelic properties. you'd have to read the text for all the proofs... mostly, they are from the archeoloigcal record of villages in Africa. he posits the the early plains were teeming with these mushrooms and the natives would regularly gather and prepare them.. it's an interesting book, even if one does not agree with his conclusions.

the use of psychedelic substances has been part of most shamanistic cultures from time immemorial. however, we should not mistakenly beleive that it is the substance that allows for the experience. this is not so. generally speaking, the only members of the tribe that were able to consume the "sacred" plant were the shamans. to become a shaman was not an easy task, depending on the group, it would require personal journeys that were dangerous and other activities that the general populance would not be privy to or subject to.

these were not recreational substances. these were, literally, mana, ambrosia, the flesh of the Gods, etc.. these substances were not for everyday use or use by untrained people.

quite often, in the modern psychedelic culture, there is a complete lack of understanding of the history of these substances and the roles that they played in traditional socieites. they are viewed as "short cuts" to enlightenment, yet, this view couldn't be farther from the truth.

there is no "short cut", per se, to enlightenment or awakening, if that is the goal.

the most common usage of these substances in the modern world is for escape, not for exploring the inner reaches of the psyche in the true context of the "psychonaught".

of course, this is simply my opinion on these subjects so i could be mistaken.