why thank you, Mad Mordigan!

Actually, that is one reason a bunch of non-believers are pagan---

Pagans believe worship should include food, drink, sex and humor. Especially bad puns.

I believe life should include food, drink, sex and humor. Especially bad puns.

Why save all the good stuff for worship?

"Oh Please. I have a degree in physics. The attempt to apply non-intuitve principles
found in QM to some sort of consciousness theory is a failure. Once you get a
deeper understanding of QM, then these sort of "theories" evaporate into the air."


You have a degree in Physics..well that's your problem right there.
Seriously, why do you think Qm and consciousness are contradictory? Is our brain not subject to the laws of physics and QM?
Have you read Bohm on implicate and explicate order? Please explain your viewpoint....

namaste,

'The more you know the less you understand.'
Tao te Ching

Dear dear...


Breathing is worship in some pagan traditions. There is nothing you can do short of suicide that does not connect you with life (even suicide connects you with life in a way...)--- and life is the main form of worship we have--- the main form and the main reason and the main worshippie.


The idea is that everything in this life--- the feel of the wind on your skin, the thrill of orgasm, a good meal, a bad joke--- is the reason for this life. there is no grand plan. Just to enjoy it as it comes.


So my use of 'worship' was not the best choice. 'celebrate' or 'enjoy' may have been better.


So, go 'worship'.

[This message has been edited by jess (edited May 23, 2001).]

I am not a Pagan and don't always agree with their views. But my Pagan and "New Age" friends, in issues such as QM, E.S.P., etc., are IMO, advocating a more expanded and "holistic" view of knowledge than what much of contemporary science advocates.
If this is what they are indeed advocating, then adopting their view could result in both good and bad consequences.
One good consequence would be that
there would be a "new" perspective from which new questions could arise, while a bad consequence would be the establishment of another "oppressive" orthodoxy that would stifle other lines of inquiry, (including those of contemporary science).

I don't bring this issue up to my Pagan and "New Age" friends very often, but one thing that puzzles me about their position is that if they are such advocates of "holism", why isn't there more of an effort to "synthesize" "left hand path" Pagan philosophies, (such as Satanism), with "right hand path" Pagan philosophies, (such as Wicca)? Perhaps this can't be done. But, if not, then it would appear to be a counter-example that argues against "holism" as a view.




[This message has been edited by jpbrooks (edited May 24, 2001).]

WQUOTE]Originally posted by jpbrooks:

"left hand path" Pagan philosophies, (such as Satanism), with "right hand path" Pagan philosophies, (such as Wicca)? [/QUOTE]

JP, I'm going to be really pedantic and possibly annoying here and point out firstly that Satanism is not pagan but Christian. Satan-as-devil was invented by Christianity and the Black Mass is a parody of the Catholic Mass. This is hardly pagan.

Perhaps I'm being narrow as well as pedantic now, but I would suggest that perhaps the philosophy does not apply to either Wicca or Satanism. With Wicca, they certainly have a set of beliefs but does a set of beliefs and sanctified platitudes (the law of threefold return for example) actually constitute philosophy? Same questions goes for Satanism, LaVey style and other forms.

Regarding the paganism of Wicca, yes, it is a new and modern form of paganism with some old symbols and old deities. There is however, quite a little photo of Alex Sanders and his wife/priestess (self styled King of the Witches - I don't know how well they got along with Gardner if at all) doing a "pagan"/"wiccan" ritual whilst standing in a magic circle from the Solomonic Grimoires.

In other words....pagans doing Judaeo-Christian magic.

There isn't as much of a 'left' or 'right' hand path in paganism. There is a large force of 'fluffie bunnies' (technical term ) who believe that wicca(tm) is 'good' and can't be used for 'bad'(harm), but the belief system itself does not support this 'disneyfied' version of the religion.

Satanism is more atheistic than Christian--- the use of 'satan' was more of a joke/ way-to-piss-off-Christians than a true belief in it. It is not a 'left hand path', it is just more cynical and selfish than wicca(tm). Wiccans(tm) don't like that. They want life to be bubbly and happy all the time. Other wiccans are violently against to this concept, holding the 'rede' as a guidline not a 'rule' and quoting wiccans like Z. Budapest: a witch who cannot hurt cannot heal.

Other than the FBW(tm), the religions are fairly well integrated with dark and light.

Yes. One could argue that 'magic is magic', and if it works ( ) then use anything you want. Or you could argue that AS had no imagination. Many witches use Christian symbols. Many Christian symbols were not just Christian.

ANSIMC

No. Its called being accurate and precise. If we don't want ideas to mean what they mean then lets call apples "oranges" and automobiles "bicycles."

If they don't understand it then why are they going around making significant statements with regards to its implications. Lack of understanding is not justification to misuse an idea.

<sigh> Straw men will get you nowhere.

Many of the various skeptics books and magazines show how various groups and doctrines take bits and pieces of quotes here and there to forward their ideology without first trying to understand the science the allegedly quote. Simply see the Evolution/Creation section here for lots of great examples.

Secondly, the general principle has nothing to do with science. It can be applied to any intellectual endeavor.. History for example. If a statement is made one expects that those who wish to interpret or infer from that statement would do so with regard with what the speaker had in mind. The New Agers and Pagans I refer to take the meanings of these statements out of context or without understanding its meaning and use it to their ideological ends.

I do not believe that you can provide evidence to sufficiently justify this statement.

"Blast the entire faith" Uh.. Well I think Pagans and Wiccans are jsut as superstitious as Christians. My conclusions is only in small part based upon their views of science.

Learning without understanding is good?? Uh.. If you say so...

DC

[This message has been edited by DChicken (edited May 24, 2001).]

Noooo.... I didn't mean that. We were talkinmg about this fuzzy notion of a cosmic or universal consciousness which is bantered about in New Age books.

DC

Although I understand your point about consequences, if they don't start off understanding these principles they claim to infer from then its likely they will be wrong.

Science is not holistic. Specific scientific statements only cover a limited domain and they certainly cannot be expanded to cover topics such as Experience, Meaning and Aesthetics.

DC