| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"fluffwikkun" |
| Date: |
26 Jun 2005 08:10:31 PM |
| Object: |
Religious and Atheist Amicability |
50050626 ix (9th Year of the New AEon) om
Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com>:
I've never been to any sort of atheist meeting, but I'd be
delighted to invoke Wotan, Thor, the Invisible Pink Unicorn,
Vishnu, YHWH, Coyote, Kali, and the Tooth Fairy if I ever make it
to one.
you're talking about Chaos Magick, not atheism meetings.
It'd be a gas! If the group were silly enough, I have no
trouble imagining everybody dressing up as his or her favorite
deity. Costumes for some of them, of course, would present quite
the challenge....
my impression is that playfully giving attention to deities
is the last thing which atheists are interested in doing.
while it may have deleterious effects upon those who regard
the phenomenon of god-relations with too great a sobriety,
it might also convert some die-hard atheists toward more
rational evaluations of religious dedications.
Seriously, though, I *do* get the feeling that there should be
a natural amicability between pagans and atheists.
depends on the 'hardness' of the atheism. there is sufficient
dispute *amongst Neopagans ourselves*, splintering into tribes
and rejecting neuvoreligious which are 'too Christian' (i.e.
Neopagan antagonism against their nightmares of Satanists) to
explain why there may be dissonance between them and atheists.
too often atheists are hung up on notions of theism which
are promoted by Christian institutions, which are extravagant
and universal in some fashion, and displacing in sociopolitics.
carrying this baggage into relationships with *all* religious,
these former-theists can't always see the common ground.
Indeed, it
seems--from my perspective, at least--that many pagans fit the
definition of atheism;
not strictly, at least not amongst the Neopagans identifying
as 'Pagans' that I've known. they worship gods in a variety of
forms, and this is not what atheists do excepting the 'soft'
variety who merely reject certain forms of cosmocrater that
are promoted by Christian institutions.
the main difference is that pagans seem to have a tendency
to think that science is too conservative in classifying
the paranormal as such.
* by and large, atheists have little use for
rituals, magic, or the panoply of rites
(sabbats, etc.) which Neopagans find desirable,
* atheists don't tend to personalize the cosmos
in the way that Neopagans prefer to relate
to the 'living natural world' (regarding
astronomical and biospheric bodies in a
*personal immanent fashion*, what I'd call
a 'shamanic consciousness'), though some do
find common ecological sociopolitical values,
* Neopagans are at a variety of removes from
Christian theism; some are completely at ease
with Christians, some vigorously anti-Christian
en par with Satanists (who are often atheistic,
and who should probably be directly associated)
as comparable neuvoreligious.
blessed beast!
fluffwikkun
nagasiva@luckymojo.com
.
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
27 Jun 2005 02:20:03 AM |
|
|
"fluffwikkun" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
news:XYDve.2098$p%3.15061@typhoon.sonic.net...
50050626 ix (9th Year of the New AEon) om
Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com>:
<snip>
Seriously, though, I *do* get the feeling that there should be
a natural amicability between pagans and atheists.
<snip>.
too often atheists are hung up on notions of theism which
are promoted by Christian institutions, which are extravagant
and universal in some fashion, and displacing in sociopolitics.
carrying this baggage into relationships with *all* religious,
these former-theists can't always see the common ground.
You're right! I, for one, am admittedly too hard on religionists at times.
I realize I have a serious problem with them and should "cool my jets"
more often. The problem, as I see it, lies in perception. It maddens me to
see people like the KKK "Christians" or the ultra-fantical evangelicals
espousing their venom under the banner of Christianity. It makes you want
to go out and kick their butts! But then a reasonable Christian will
argue, "Oh, they're not *really* Christian." I can understand that
sentiment, but what are those clowns then? Buddhists? Hardly. So when I go
on the offensive and rip and tear at fundies for their lack of reason or
distorted logic I know I am hurting the feelings of people, some of whom
are *very* sensitive. I know I should bite my toungue a bit more often.
The "common ground" here, then, is that the believer and non-believer strive
to be more respectful of our mutual differences. I personally don't care if
a person believes in something as silly as, say, "they're cows grazing on
the moon". You can have a lot of good-natured fun with that. And I can see a
lot of exchanges in this forum that are just that: good-natured ribbing.
Unfortunately for me, a lot of the people in my neck of the woods aren't as
light-hearted when it comes to atheists and that shows in a lot of my
comments.
Greywolf.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lazarhat" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
27 Jun 2005 03:01:05 AM |
|
|
Greywolf typed news:11buojuqlrp3q65@corp.supernews.com on Mon, 27 Jun
2005 02:20:03 GMT in alt.buddha.short.fat.guy:
[]
--
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. -Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Lime harrylime at harrylime dot teevee" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
27 Jun 2005 02:58:48 AM |
|
|
Dear Fluffwikkun:
Please see inside text:
"fluffwikkun" <yronwode.com@nagasiva> wrote in message
news:XYDve.2098$p%3.15061@typhoon.sonic.net...
50050626 ix (9th Year of the New AEon) om
Ben Goren <ben@trumpetpower.com>:
I've never been to any sort of atheist meeting, but I'd be
delighted to invoke Wotan, Thor, the Invisible Pink Unicorn,
Vishnu, YHWH, Coyote, Kali, and the Tooth Fairy if I ever make it
to one.
you're talking about Chaos Magick, not atheism meetings.
It'd be a gas! If the group were silly enough, I have no
trouble imagining everybody dressing up as his or her favorite
deity. Costumes for some of them, of course, would present quite
the challenge....
my impression is that playfully giving attention to deities
is the last thing which atheists are interested in doing.
while it may have deleterious effects upon those who regard
the phenomenon of god-relations with too great a sobriety,
it might also convert some die-hard atheists toward more
rational evaluations of religious dedications.
I've been to Winter and Summer Solstice parties where this was done. Mostly,
it's the "bad" gods (Kali, Wotan, Lucifer) strictly for amusement's sake.
You really haven't spent much time with atheists apparently. Atheists are
mostly concerned with the net affect religion has on our right of freedom
*from* religion not the potential for conversion of atheists toward what you
term "rational evaluations of religious dedications." Simply, atheists don't
worry too much about what others believe as long as they don't try to tread
on our rights. While a few may be more doctrinaire than others, we don't
spend our time fuming over eeeviiill Xians, Muslims, and/or Buddhists --
this is time best spent for Fundies of various creeds. What does generally
concern us mostly is how religion is promoted by government and how it can
potentially shunt our constitutional rights.
Recently in Oregon a local atheist mother, Nancy Powell, was involved in a
years-long fight regarding the illegal recruiting that the homophobic Boy
Scouts of America (funny considering that the founder of this organization
was probably gay -- another thread). Here's a link:
http://www.unitedstatesatheists.com/client_content/pdf/ci_0073.pdf Every
member of an alternative religion from Falun Gong to the Wiccans and
Satanists should take every opportunity to kiss the petard of every atheist
that has fought to guarantee the rights of those who don't subscribe to the
traditional Judeo/Christian schema. Sorry, but I don't often see any "merry
meaters" or 'Thele'mites' do much other than complain about how Fundies in
the U.S. are out to "get" them. Atheists litigate, others just whine and
indulge in casting silly spells that don't work -- not that there's anything
wrong with that --LOL!
Seriously, though, I *do* get the feeling that there should be
a natural amicability between pagans and atheists.
depends on the 'hardness' of the atheism. there is sufficient
dispute *amongst Neopagans ourselves*, splintering into tribes
and rejecting neuvoreligious which are 'too Christian' (i.e.
Neopagan antagonism against their nightmares of Satanists) to
explain why there may be dissonance between them and atheists.
too often atheists are hung up on notions of theism which
are promoted by Christian institutions, which are extravagant
and universal in some fashion, and displacing in sociopolitics.
carrying this baggage into relationships with *all* religious,
these former-theists can't always see the common ground.
Writing that atheists are too "hung up" on ideas promoted by Christian
institutions ignores the fact that the dominate U.S. religion that seeks to
promote it's agenda is Christian. If the U.S. majority religion were
Hinduism, I'd expect to see atheists protesting the visage of Ganesh on
public buildings or verses from the Upanishads hanging in courts. Your last
sentence demonstrates your bias against atheists. The only common ground is
that atheists have is that they are an alternative belief system like Wicca,
Satanism, or Buddhism. Again, I rarely see Wiccans, Neopagans, and Satanists
bringing court cases, atheists do quite often.
Indeed, it
seems--from my perspective, at least--that many pagans fit the
definition of atheism;
not strictly, at least not amongst the Neopagans identifying
as 'Pagans' that I've known. they worship gods in a variety of
forms, and this is not what atheists do excepting the 'soft'
variety who merely reject certain forms of cosmocrater that
are promoted by Christian institutions.
the main difference is that pagans seem to have a tendency
to think that science is too conservative in classifying
the paranormal as such.
* by and large, atheists have little use for
rituals, magic, or the panoply of rites
(sabbats, etc.) which Neopagans find desirable,
Disagree. There are some atheists that see value in psychodrama (which is a
form of ritual). While they don't believe in the efficacy of spells or hoo
doo, there's always fun making fun of dietary rules (no cheeseburgers) and
having fun doing a parody of one religious figure or another (Mother Theresa
and Mahatma Ghandi come to mind).
* atheists don't tend to personalize the cosmos
in the way that Neopagans prefer to relate
to the 'living natural world' (regarding
astronomical and biospheric bodies in a
*personal immanent fashion*, what I'd call
a 'shamanic consciousness'), though some do
find common ecological sociopolitical values,
Agree. I'll keep my other comments for a more appropriate thread. LOL.
* Neopagans are at a variety of removes from
Christian theism; some are completely at ease
with Christians, some vigorously anti-Christian
en par with Satanists (who are often atheistic,
and who should probably be directly associated)
as comparable neuvoreligious.
Gotta watch those eevviiill Satanists, there almost as bad as atheists.
blessed beast!
Uh huh. Hail Me!
Regards,
Harry Lime
www.harrylime.biz
fluffwikkun
nagasiva@luckymojo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
27 Jun 2005 03:20:38 AM |
|
|
"Harry Lime" <harrylime (at) harrylime (dot) teevee> wrote in message
news:f5ednd1N-pz09iLfRVn->
There are some atheists that see value in psychodrama (which is a form of
ritual).
'A form of ritual'?!? With respect, I don't believe that to be a fair
characterisation of this psychotherapeutic technique -- not least because
one of its effects might actually be to facilitate a participant's
*abandonment* of (obsessional) ritual...!
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychodrama
I will explain further if necessary.
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Lime harrylime at harrylime dot teevee" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
27 Jun 2005 04:11:01 AM |
|
|
Dear Katt:
Please see inside text:
"Katt" <workcomputer@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:agKve.8193$%O1.5623@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
"Harry Lime" <harrylime (at) harrylime (dot) teevee> wrote in message
news:f5ednd1N-pz09iLfRVn->
There are some atheists that see value in psychodrama (which is a form of
ritual).
'A form of ritual'?!? With respect, I don't believe that to be a fair
characterisation of this psychotherapeutic technique -- not least because
one of its effects might actually be to facilitate a participant's
*abandonment* of (obsessional) ritual...!
My apologies if you've been offended, but I'm sticking to my guns in the
sense that I'm using this as a metaphor. Yes "a form of ritual." (I'm not
referring to "ritualized" behavior in OCD patients, by the way.) Every time
a Catholic goes to Mass I'd argue that they are participating in a erstatz
"psychodrama" in that they are granted absolution for "sins" they've
committed. Perhaps it isn't a reaction formation that's being treated, but
maybe it might be. While the priest usually there isn't a licensed
therapist, he certainly fulfills that role.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychodrama
I will explain further if necessary.
From the Wikipedia definition: " It attempts to create an internal
restructuring of dysfunctional mindsets with other people, and it challenges
the participants to discover new answers to some situations and become more
spontaneous and independent.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychodrama"
Hope that explains this to you -- and I'll "explain further if necessary"
too. LOL.
Regards,
Harry Lime
www.harrylime.biz
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lazarhat" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
27 Jun 2005 06:54:17 AM |
|
|
Harry Lime typed news:r9mdnWLGx_3L4SLfRVn-sg@comcast.com on Mon, 27 Jun
2005 04:11:01 GMT in alt.buddha.short.fat.guy:
[]
--
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. -Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tani Jantsang ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
02 Jul 2005 02:08:27 AM |
|
|
Please see inside text.
"Harry Lime" <harrylime (at) harrylime (dot) teevee> wrote in message
news:r9mdnWLGx_3L4SLfRVn-sg@comcast.com...
"Katt" <workcomputer@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:agKve.8193$%O1.5623@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
"Harry Lime" <harrylime (at) harrylime (dot) teevee> wrote in message
news:f5ednd1N-pz09iLfRVn->
There are some atheists that see value in psychodrama (which is a form
of ritual).
'A form of ritual'?!? With respect, I don't believe that to be a fair
characterisation of this psychotherapeutic technique -- not least because
one of its effects might actually be to facilitate a participant's
*abandonment* of (obsessional) ritual...!
I have never run into a real atheist that thought that any kind of ritual,
for any reason, was anything other than derangement. Of course, you could
redefine the process of brushing your teeth properly as a "ritual," but
nobody means that. You accept "psychodrama" as a self-proclaimed atheist
because Anton promoted psychodrama. Bottom line, I assume. Point being,
Anton didn't define psychodrama in any Church of Atheism. It was in the
context of his church - and the church is of satan. Most of the
ritualization is Catholicism inverted, Hollywood style.
My apologies if you've been offended, but I'm sticking to my guns in the
sense that I'm using this as a metaphor. Yes "a form of ritual." (I'm not
referring to "ritualized" behavior in OCD patients, by the way.)
You mean a ritual, like the ones Anton (LaVey) defines. That is defined by
him as psychodrama. Nope. It's deranged behavior.
Every time
a Catholic goes to Mass I'd argue that they are participating in a erstatz
"psychodrama" in that they are granted absolution for "sins" they've
committed.
Every time a Catholic goes to CONFESSION they go thru some kind of thing in
a small room with a priest hidden behind a screen so that neither can
clearly see who the other person is. Even if the person confesses murder,
the priest CAN NOT tell the police or testify against the murderer. That's
not the priest's job. It is most definitely a RITUAL with prayers and all
of that involved. Next, the priest forgives the sins (as the spokespriest
of god) and they have to pray or do something else inside the church right
there. When they go to mass after they did that confession, usually the
next day - it is mostly definitely ritualistic. I saw a Catholic Mass once,
a long time ago when they did them in Latin. It looked to me like a
Hollywood movie Black Mass. Literally - everything in it - literally.
Perhaps it isn't a reaction formation that's being treated, but
maybe it might be. While the priest usually there isn't a licensed
therapist, he certainly fulfills that role.
Wrong. That is not what goes on at all. I asked. They state their sins -
they do NOT talk to the priest about anything other than that in there.
They are given a "penance" and have to say prayers. If they want to talk to
a priest about psychological stuff, they can go to talk to one at another
time, elsewhere, but not in a confessional. Often, the priest will suggest
that the person SEEK therapy or medical help since the priest's job is only
to give spiritual advice, not anything else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Delila" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
02 Jul 2005 07:39:02 PM |
|
|
"Tani Jantsang ©" <tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote in message
news:vGmxe.2207$aY6.240@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Wrong. That is not what goes on at all. I asked. They state their
sins -
they do NOT talk to the priest about anything other than that in there.
They are given a "penance" and have to say prayers. If they want to
talk to
a priest about psychological stuff, they can go to talk to one at
another
time, elsewhere, but not in a confessional.
I've heard that many RC churches have done away with the confessional
stall altogether and meet with the priest face-to-face in a room to confess
and also to talk about problems, etc. The old-fashioned confessional was too
intimidating to many people. I did it only three times in my life, the last
time when I was 12 years old, just before confirmation, which I had to go
through with. After that, never again...
D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tani Jantsang ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
07 Jul 2005 05:24:31 PM |
|
|
"Delila" <WATERTIGER9NO@SPAMpeoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:q3Cxe.16345$eM6.11657@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Tani Jantsang ©" <tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote in message
news:vGmxe.2207$aY6.240@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Wrong. That is not what goes on at all. I asked. They state their
sins -
they do NOT talk to the priest about anything other than that in there.
They are given a "penance" and have to say prayers. If they want to
talk to
a priest about psychological stuff, they can go to talk to one at
another
time, elsewhere, but not in a confessional.
I've heard that many RC churches have done away with the confessional
stall altogether and meet with the priest face-to-face in a room to
confess and also to talk about problems, etc. The old-fashioned
confessional was too intimidating to many people.
Not according to anyone I asked about it awhile back (last summer). If
anything, NOT being able to be seen by the priest would be LESS
intimidating.
I did it only three times in my life, the last
time when I was 12 years old, just before confirmation, which I had to go
through with. After that, never again...
D.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Lime harrylime at harrylime dot teevee" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
02 Jul 2005 03:22:10 PM |
|
|
Dear Tani:
Please see inside text:
"Tani Jantsang ©" <tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote in message
news:vGmxe.2207$aY6.240@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Please see inside text.
"Harry Lime" <harrylime (at) harrylime (dot) teevee> wrote in message
news:r9mdnWLGx_3L4SLfRVn-sg@comcast.com...
"Katt" <workcomputer@dfhu.net> wrote in message
news:agKve.8193$%O1.5623@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
"Harry Lime" <harrylime (at) harrylime (dot) teevee> wrote in message
news:f5ednd1N-pz09iLfRVn->
There are some atheists that see value in psychodrama (which is a form
of ritual).
'A form of ritual'?!? With respect, I don't believe that to be a fair
characterisation of this psychotherapeutic technique -- not least
because >> one of its effects might actually be to facilitate a
participant's *abandonment* of (obsessional) ritual...!
I have never run into a real atheist that thought that any kind of ritual,
for any reason, was anything other than derangement.
Really? As I stated earlier in the thread, I'm using this as metaphor. You
may be right in that atheists generally see religious ritual as not of much
value, but that doesn't mean they don't engage in such behavior. Key word
here is "metaphor."
Of course, you could redefine the process of brushing your teeth properly
as a "ritual," but nobody means that. You accept "psychodrama" as a
self-proclaimed atheist because Anton promoted psychodrama.
Seems your fixation is running at full steam. You go girlfriend.
Bottom line, I assume. Point being, Anton didn't define psychodrama in
any Church of Atheism. It was in the context of his church - and the
church is of satan. Most of the ritualization is Catholicism inverted,
Hollywood style.
Your point?
My apologies if you've been offended, but I'm sticking to my guns in the
sense that I'm using this as a metaphor. Yes "a form of ritual." (I'm not
referring to "ritualized" behavior in OCD patients, by the way.)
You mean a ritual, like the ones Anton (LaVey) defines. That is defined
by him as psychodrama. Nope. It's deranged behavior.
Not really, but I don't feel like giving you a detailed explanation that
you'll either ignore, misunderstand, or hyperbolize.
Every time
a Catholic goes to Mass I'd argue that they are participating in a
erstatz "psychodrama" in that they are granted absolution for "sins"
they've committed.
Every time a Catholic goes to CONFESSION they go thru some kind of thing
in a small room with a priest hidden behind a screen so that neither can
clearly see who the other person is. Even if the person confesses murder,
the priest CAN NOT tell the police or testify against the murderer.
That's not the priest's job. It is most definitely a RITUAL with prayers
and all of that involved. Next, the priest forgives the sins (as the
spokespriest of god) and they have to pray or do something else inside the
church right there. When they go to mass after they did that confession,
usually the next day - it is mostly definitely ritualistic. I saw a
Catholic Mass once, a long time ago when they did them in Latin. It
looked to me like a Hollywood movie Black Mass. Literally - everything in
it - literally.
Guess you know more about this since you've admitted being baptized
Catholic. LOL.
Perhaps it isn't a reaction formation that's being treated, but
maybe it might be. While the priest usually there isn't a licensed
therapist, he certainly fulfills that role.
Wrong. That is not what goes on at all. I asked.
You asked? LOL. I can hear the phone ring and the local Reverend S.J.
Pre-Teen Love Shack answering, "Hello." "Yeah, Faddah. This is Ms. Jensen
from Joisey and I was wonnerin' if yous guys is, er, kinda like shrinks when
yous do Confession an' Mass? " "Well, not exactly. Just what do you mean?"
Dial tone... LOL!
They state their sins - they do NOT talk to the priest about anything
other than that in there.
Metaphor... Sorry, but I don't feel compelled to discuss this with you,
Tani.
They are given a "penance" and have to say prayers. If they want to talk
to a priest about psychological stuff, they can go to talk to one at
another time, elsewhere, but not in a confessional. Often, the priest
will suggest that the person SEEK therapy or medical help since the
priest's job is only to give spiritual advice, not anything else.
Uh huh.
Regards,
Harry Lime
www.harrylime.biz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raven" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
06 Jul 2005 07:56:37 AM |
|
|
Tani Jantsang <tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote:
I have never run into a real atheist that thought that any kind
of ritual, for any reason, was anything other than derangement.
Not even for marriage, funeral / memorial service, baby-naming,
and other "rites of passage"? Consider Ethical Culture, an
atheist group which does conduct these rituals for its members.
See <http://www.aeu.org/cere1.html>.
--
Raven | Rule #29: no rational discourse
@ | can happen in a thread
solaria. | cross-posted to more
sol.net | than two newsgroups.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tani Jantsang ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
07 Jul 2005 05:24:31 PM |
|
|
"Raven" <raven@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
news:1120636597.747165.221640@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tani Jantsang <tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote:
I have never run into a real atheist that thought that any kind
of ritual, for any reason, was anything other than derangement.
Not even for marriage, funeral / memorial service, baby-naming,
and other "rites of passage"? Consider Ethical Culture, an
atheist group which does conduct these rituals for its members.
See <http://www.aeu.org/cere1.html>.
And birthday parties, and graduation and etc. Sure. IF you want to call
that a ritual. These are not religious in nature at all.
--
Raven | Rule #29: no rational discourse
@ | can happen in a thread
solaria. | cross-posted to more
sol.net | than two newsgroups.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
08 Jul 2005 05:47:42 AM |
|
|
"Tani Jantsang" <tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote in message
<news:jzdze.5949$aY6.2202@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"Raven" <raven@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
<news:1120636597.747165.221640@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Tani Jantsang <tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote:
I have never run into a real atheist that thought that any kind
of ritual, for any reason, was anything other than derangement.
Not even for marriage, funeral / memorial service, baby-naming,
and other "rites of passage"? Consider Ethical Culture, an
atheist group which does conduct these rituals for its members.
See <http://www.aeu.org/cere1.html>.
And birthday parties, and graduation and etc. Sure.
IF you want to call that a ritual.
I would say that graduation ceremonies, with robes and diplomas,
are indeed rituals. Ceremony = Ritual. Likewise for weddings,
memorial services, and baby-namings. These are all rites of passage.
Rite = Ritual. And as for birthday parties, gathering together to
sing the same song upon each occasion, and have the celebrant blow
out the candles on a cake, is just as ritualistic as gathering to
chant the same chant upon a set occasion, and *light* candles on an
altar. This also is a rite of passage, the passage from one age to
another -- of special significance on the 18th birthday, for instance.
These are not religious in nature at all.
They may not be *theistic* in nature, but why not religious?
The Ethical Culture website discusses that very question, at
<http://www.aeu.org/religion.html> ("Religion?")
Religion is that set of beliefs and/or institutions, behaviors
and emotions which binds human beings to something beyond their
individual selves and fosters in its adherents a sense of humility
and gratitude that, in turn, sets the tone of one's world-view and
requires certain behavioral dispositions relative to that which
transcends personal interests. In other words, religion connects a
person with a larger world and creates a loyalty that extends to
the past, the present and the future. This loyalty not only makes
demands upon the person but -- and this is the part that makes it
distinctively spiritual -- it creates a sense of humility. So
religion provides a story about one's place in the larger scheme of
things, creates a sense of connection and it makes one feel grateful.
This, from a NON-theistic organization. Well, gathering to celebrate
the passages (birth, graduation, marriage, death) of each individual,
sharing their joys and sorrows, that *is* a way of connecting, binding,
people together as a community. It's symbolic of their mutual loyalty.
There's nothing "supernatural" about it, but it's still religious.
"Religious" doesn't mean "Theistic".
"Atheistic" doesn't mean "Irreligious".
Besides Ethical Culture, I could have mentioned another example, the
Society for Humanistic Judaism, i.e. atheistic Jews who keep the old
traditional customs and holidays, minus any worship of a deity. See
<http://www.shj.org> or <http://www.teleport.com/~hellman>. Want to
argue *they* don't have rituals or religion, due to being atheistic?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tani Jantsang ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
08 Jul 2005 07:41:20 AM |
|
|
None of that is the same as "psychodrama." (nothing inside your text).
<raven@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
news:1120801662.611030.270520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
"Tani Jantsang" <tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote in message
<news:jzdze.5949$aY6.2202@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"Raven" <raven@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
<news:1120636597.747165.221640@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Tani Jantsang <tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote:
I have never run into a real atheist that thought that any kind
of ritual, for any reason, was anything other than derangement.
Not even for marriage, funeral / memorial service, baby-naming,
and other "rites of passage"? Consider Ethical Culture, an
atheist group which does conduct these rituals for its members.
See <http://www.aeu.org/cere1.html>.
And birthday parties, and graduation and etc. Sure.
IF you want to call that a ritual.
I would say that graduation ceremonies, with robes and diplomas,
are indeed rituals. Ceremony = Ritual. Likewise for weddings,
memorial services, and baby-namings. These are all rites of passage.
Rite = Ritual. And as for birthday parties, gathering together to
sing the same song upon each occasion, and have the celebrant blow
out the candles on a cake, is just as ritualistic as gathering to
chant the same chant upon a set occasion, and *light* candles on an
altar. This also is a rite of passage, the passage from one age to
another -- of special significance on the 18th birthday, for instance.
These are not religious in nature at all.
They may not be *theistic* in nature, but why not religious?
The Ethical Culture website discusses that very question, at
<http://www.aeu.org/religion.html> ("Religion?")
Religion is that set of beliefs and/or institutions, behaviors
and emotions which binds human beings to something beyond their
individual selves and fosters in its adherents a sense of humility
and gratitude that, in turn, sets the tone of one's world-view and
requires certain behavioral dispositions relative to that which
transcends personal interests. In other words, religion connects a
person with a larger world and creates a loyalty that extends to
the past, the present and the future. This loyalty not only makes
demands upon the person but -- and this is the part that makes it
distinctively spiritual -- it creates a sense of humility. So
religion provides a story about one's place in the larger scheme of
things, creates a sense of connection and it makes one feel grateful.
This, from a NON-theistic organization. Well, gathering to celebrate
the passages (birth, graduation, marriage, death) of each individual,
sharing their joys and sorrows, that *is* a way of connecting, binding,
people together as a community. It's symbolic of their mutual loyalty.
There's nothing "supernatural" about it, but it's still religious.
"Religious" doesn't mean "Theistic".
"Atheistic" doesn't mean "Irreligious".
Besides Ethical Culture, I could have mentioned another example, the
Society for Humanistic Judaism, i.e. atheistic Jews who keep the old
traditional customs and holidays, minus any worship of a deity. See
<http://www.shj.org> or <http://www.teleport.com/~hellman>. Want to
argue *they* don't have rituals or religion, due to being atheistic?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raven" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
08 Jul 2005 01:54:02 PM |
|
|
Tani Jantsang =A9 wrote:
None of that is the same as "psychodrama." (nothing inside your text).
Earlier psychodrama was referred to as a *form* of ritual -- which I
take to mean a *subset* of ritual -- not as what all ritual must be.
Now, are you saying that if it isn't psychodrama, it isn't ritual?
I'd made no claim about psychodrama. I was responding to your
"I have never run into a real atheist that thought that any kind
of ritual, for any reason, was anything other than derangement."
Doesn't "any kind of ritual, for any reason" open the door to
discuss kinds of ritual that may or may not also be psychodrama?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tani Jantsang ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
08 Jul 2005 04:55:45 PM |
|
|
"Raven" <raven@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
news:1120830842.863567.110270@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tani Jantsang © wrote:
None of that is the same as "psychodrama." (nothing inside your text).
Earlier psychodrama was referred to as a *form* of ritual -- which I
take to mean a *subset* of ritual -- not as what all ritual must be.
Now, are you saying that if it isn't psychodrama, it isn't ritual?
TJ: - no, ah, I was hoping to avoid having to explain it and taking up more
space (I figured everyone knows the meanings) OK, I also said that brushing
your teeth might be seen as a ritual, if you choose to see it that way. In
a broad sence, "ritual" having a meaning other than the one associated with
religion, brushig your teeth IS a ritual - first you do this, then that,
then that, then that, etc. When you are having a birthday party,
graduation, marriage, etc - the words spoken, ritual style or not (it
varies) are literal words having literal meaning. You are graduating. The
next steps in your life are very real, you are no longer in school. A real,
literal change is going to happen (whether you want this or not). Or, it's
your party, your birthdate, it's a party (an excuse for one:). Or, you and
a mate are getting married and that's a legal thing with legal rights
attached to it (IRS, insurance, etc.). The ritual of brushing your teeth is
wordless, but the actions have literal real meaning. Teeth are real.
Brushing them is a good idea. However, Omine omine omine omini dooo waaaa
has no literal or real meaning - it's religious - it's faith. Birthdays,
graduations, marriages, etc have nothing to do with faith. They are
literally real. Some people set their bills aside in a compartment. Then
The Day comes - they sit down, take out a pen, take out the checkbook and
commence to write the checks. They usually do it in the same order, more or
less, each time. Therefore, it's ritualistic in a broad sense. If a person
has to wash his hands 10 times before doing that, and then click the pen 5
times before using it, and has to make sure that everything is in the exact
"right" place on the desk he writes checks on - then it's OCD behavior.
Where does one draw a line? And some people compulsively brush their teeth
every hour, exactly one hour later. Fact is, a line is drawn where normal
is no longer normal - it's OCD.
I'd made no claim about psychodrama. I was responding to your
"I have never run into a real atheist that thought that any kind
of ritual, for any reason, was anything other than derangement."
TJ: I mean religious ritual. When a person says "I do rituals" it usually
is understood by the general public. When a person says "Ach, I have to go
thru that ritual again" and they are referring to spring cleaning, or
something like a chore - again, generally it's understood.
TJ: Doesn't "any kind of ritual, for any reason" open the door to
discuss kinds of ritual that may or may not also be psychodrama?
TJ: I meant religious. My fault for being too brief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raven" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
09 Jul 2005 07:31:39 AM |
|
|
"Tani Jantsang ©" <tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote in message <news:leyze.6538$aY6.886@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"Raven" <raven@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
<news:1120830842.863567.110270@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Tani Jantsang © wrote:
None of that is the same as "psychodrama." (nothing inside your text).
Earlier psychodrama was referred to as a *form* of ritual -- which I
take to mean a *subset* of ritual -- not as what all ritual must be.
Now, are you saying that if it isn't psychodrama, it isn't ritual?
TJ: - no, ah, I was hoping to avoid having to explain it and taking
up more space (I figured everyone knows the meanings) OK,
I've had my own moments of uh, ah, so I sympathize. ;)
I also said that brushing your teeth might be seen as a ritual,
if you choose to see it that way.
It might indeed, and on some occasions more than others.
Preparing for a first date, as one example; "ritual cleanliness".
In a broad sence, "ritual" having a meaning other than the one
associated with religion, brushing your teeth IS a ritual - first
you do this, then that, then that, then that, etc.
Or airplane pilot and copilot going over the checklist before taking off.
Or guards changing shifts at the Tower of London.
Or the inauguration of a President of the United States.
But notice that brushing one's teeth can also be done in a slapdash and
haphazard way, in a hurry, when one remembers, and not necessarily as
thoroughly or in the same sequence each time; it can be simply an action,
just to get the gunk off, without having any symbolic meaning to it.
While an inauguration is not needed to accomplish any physical goal;
it is another type of "rite of passage", marking a non-physical change.
When you are having a birthday party, graduation, marriage, etc -
the words spoken, ritual style or not (it varies) are literal words
having literal meaning.
Yet they likewise are not accomplishing a physical goal, but marking a
non-physical change. Physically you are the same person before and after
your party, graduation, or wedding -- unless things got really wild --
but the ritual marks or celebrates a change in your social status.
You are graduating. The next steps in your life are very real, you are
no longer in school. A real, literal change is going to happen (whether
you want this or not).
The same would be true if one simply dropped out, so why is there a ritual
for one and not the other, if all it marks is being no longer in school?
In fact, a graduate student may still *be* in school afterward, even the
*same* school, through one's bachelor's, master's, and doctor's degrees --
yet the rituals for each are held anyway, despite one's not leaving school.
So again the ritual seems to be marking something other than a physical
change -- perhaps "literal" (whatever that means here), but not physical --
and yet, you're right, it's still "real" in a sense. Worth considering?
Or, it's your party, your birthdate, it's a party (an excuse for one:).
As if an excuse were needed to simply get together and party.
Or, you and a mate are getting married and that's a legal thing with
legal rights attached to it (IRS, insurance, etc.).
But the only physical thing is that you're living together -- and you might
have been doing that for years already -- so maybe nothing physical changed.
Yes, it's a "legal thing", just like the inauguration of a President.
There's a real passage of some sort, from one condition to another, and
yet nothing *physical*, nothing in the "outside world", may have changed.
The ritual of brushing your teeth is wordless, but the actions have
literal real meaning. Teeth are real. Brushing them is a good idea.
Teeth are *physical*. So is periodontal disease, or the lack of it.
But the status of being a graduate, or married, or a President?
If you ran people through X-rays and CT scanners and MRIs, what "real"
(physical) distinctions could you find to indicate who was which?
(Note: people who aren't President can still wear bulletproof vests.)
However, Omine omine omine omini dooo waaaa has no literal or real
meaning - it's religious - it's faith.
I dunno. What religion is that?
Birthdays, graduations, marriages, etc have nothing to do with faith.
You think not? There's no *physical* change involved -- even between
being 17 years, 11 months, and 30 days old, and being 18 years old --
just your *social* role has changed. Recall that AEU definition of
"religion" as referring to one's relationship to one's community....
They are literally real.
Try putting anyone's age, educational status, or marital status under
a microscope. Weigh even the Presidency on a scale. For that matter,
point to a government, any government, in the "real" (physical) world.
I've never seen one; just people, buildings, equipment, and pieces of
paper with ink marks on them -- none of which are "governments". So
how could any governmental office or legal status be "real" (physical)?
You're seeing phantoms, Tani. You're declaring "literally real"
things that don't exist anywhere in the physical world. They are
figments of our social imagination. They're "real" only in the sense
that we, our culture, have agreed to *behave as though* they exist.
They're social constructs, roles and rules of our shared game, no less
than priesthood, or journeyman status, or initiation into a coven.
They're "real" enough in *that* sense, but it's a whole different
*kind* of "reality" than teeth (or cavities) have.
[snip]
I'd made no claim about psychodrama. I was responding to your
"I have never run into a real atheist that thought that any kind
of ritual, for any reason, was anything other than derangement."
TJ: I mean religious ritual.
Well, refer back to that AEU discussion of religion. If "religion
connects a person with a larger world and creates a loyalty that
extends to the past, the present and the future", then what's not
"religious" about gathering to celebrate rites of passage, such as
birthdays, graduations, and weddings -- all marking non-physical
changes, things that aren't "real" in the sense of being *tangible*?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Cunning Linguist :Þ" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
15 Jul 2005 12:04:23 PM |
|
|
"Raven" <raven@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
news:7d8764ba.0507082331.7a9cafb6@posting.google.com...
"Tani Jantsang ©" <tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote in message
<news:leyze.6538$aY6.886@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"Raven" <raven@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
<news:1120830842.863567.110270@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Tani Jantsang © wrote:
Super Wiccan talking to a Satanist? Goddess forbid!
Wait until the old ladies on ARWM hear about this!
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
To give Tales his due, he is a talented and able witch. However he is a
negative energy and will show you the "highlights" of a negatively applied
system.
http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft
© 2005 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved
.
|
|
|
| User: "De Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
15 Jul 2005 12:32:54 PM |
|
|
"The Cunning Linguist :Þ" <the_witchboy@yahooX.com> wrote in message
news:bDNBe.4963$Rx4.2846@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"Raven" <raven@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
news:7d8764ba.0507082331.7a9cafb6@posting.google.com...
"Tani Jantsang ©" <tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote in message
<news:leyze.6538$aY6.886@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
"Raven" <raven@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
<news:1120830842.863567.110270@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>...
Tani Jantsang © wrote:
Super Wiccan talking to a Satanist? Goddess forbid!
Wait until the old ladies on ARWM hear about this!
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
OLD, who are you calling OLD!!!!!
De
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raven" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
20 Jul 2005 07:28:51 AM |
|
|
"De Roberts" <deroberts2@verizon.net> wrote in message <news:W1OBe.6745$3F4.3034@trnddc03>...
"The Cunning Linguist :Þ" <the_witchboy@yahooX.com> wrote in message <news:bDNBe.4963$Rx4.2846@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
"Raven" <raven@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message <news:7d8764ba.0507082331.7a9cafb6@posting.google.com>...
"Tani Jantsang ©" <tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote in message <news:leyze.6538$aY6.886@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
Super Wiccan talking to a Satanist? Goddess forbid!
Wait until the old ladies on ARWM hear about this!
OLD, who are you calling OLD!!!!!
And who is he calling "Super Wiccan"?
And what makes him think anyone on ARWM *minds* who talks to whom?
.
|
|
|
| User: "De Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
20 Jul 2005 12:10:19 PM |
|
|
"Raven" <raven@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
news:7d8764ba.0507192328.110d7ce9@posting.google.com...
"De Roberts" <deroberts2@verizon.net> wrote in message
<news:W1OBe.6745$3F4.3034@trnddc03>...
"The Cunning Linguist :Þ" <the_witchboy@yahooX.com> wrote in message
<news:bDNBe.4963$Rx4.2846@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
"Raven" <raven@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
<news:7d8764ba.0507082331.7a9cafb6@posting.google.com>...
"Tani Jantsang ©" <tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote in message
<news:leyze.6538$aY6.886@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
Super Wiccan talking to a Satanist? Goddess forbid!
Wait until the old ladies on ARWM hear about this!
OLD, who are you calling OLD!!!!!
And who is he calling "Super Wiccan"?
And what makes him think anyone on ARWM *minds* who talks to whom?
And if it's so bad there why is he whining to get pre-approved status? : )
De
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tani Jantsang ©" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
14 Jul 2005 06:23:41 PM |
|
|
"Raven" <raven@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
news:7d8764ba.0507082331.7a9cafb6@posting.google.com...
"Tani Jantsang ©" <tjsrNO@SPAMpost.com> wrote in message
<news:leyze.6538$aY6.886@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
It might indeed, and on some occasions more than others.
Preparing for a first date, as one example; "ritual cleanliness".
No one ever thinks of, or refers to such as "ritual cleanliness."
In a broad sence, "ritual" having a meaning other than the one
associated with religion, brushing your teeth IS a ritual - first
you do this, then that, then that, then that, etc.
Or airplane pilot and copilot going over the checklist before taking off.
That is a necessity - not religious.
Or guards changing shifts at the Tower of London.
Or the inauguration of a President of the United States.
But notice that brushing one's teeth can also be done in a slapdash and
haphazard way, in a hurry, when one remembers, and not necessarily as
thoroughly or in the same sequence each time; it can be simply an action,
just to get the gunk off, without having any symbolic meaning to it.
None of it is symbolic. Say, a dentist tells you how to do it, step by
step, to avoid problems, first do this, then to that, etc. You make sure
you do it - even if it's a CHORE. Ritual can mean chore, when it's not used
in a religious way. "Ach, gotta go thru THAT ritual again (sigh)." Or it
has religious meaning. There are steps taken to get onto this newsgroup
too - step one, two, three, etc. Do them in the wrong order and the puter
crashes. Is that a ritual? I'd say no. It might be a ritual in the sense
that it's a chore.
While an inauguration is not needed to accomplish any physical goal;
it is another type of "rite of passage", marking a non-physical change.
It is a physical/material change. Definitely. The inauguration is for the
public. Bush, before it, er, he was put up as the president, didn't have
the power to declare a war, eg.
When you are having a birthday party, graduation, marriage, etc -
the words spoken, ritual style or not (it varies) are literal words
having literal meaning.
Yet they likewise are not accomplishing a physical goal, but marking a
non-physical change. Physically you are the same person before and after
your party, graduation, or wedding
No, you now are in possession of presents, material things you didn't have
before. The graduation signals a real change in what you are gonna do with
your life. Physically, you are not the same person as you were yesterday,
actually. Materially, you are not in the same situation, hence not the same
person, you were in school when you go into the workplace after you
graduate - or go onto further education. The circumstances, all material,
surrounding you really do change. Legal marriage carries a lot of things
with it that living together doesn't carry. It's a real difference - it's
why gays want it.
-- unless things got really wild --
but the ritual marks or celebrates a change in your social status.
And change in circumstances.
You are graduating. The next steps in your life are very real, you are
no longer in school. A real, literal change is going to happen (whether
you want this or not).
The same would be true if one simply dropped out, so why is there a ritual
for one and not the other, if all it marks is being no longer in school?
Because that's the social tradition. Some people just go get their grad
certificate and that's that.
In fact, a graduate student may still *be* in school afterward, even the
*same* school, through one's bachelor's, master's, and doctor's
degrees --> yet the rituals for each are held anyway, despite one's not
leaving school.
Again, social tradition to emphasize via group strategy that the individual
is now going to embark on something "great."
So again the ritual seems to be marking something other than a physical
change -- perhaps "literal" (whatever that means here), but not
physical --
and yet, you're right, it's still "real" in a sense. Worth considering?
It is physical - in that it is MATERIAL. A high school student generally
lives at home with parents supporting him/her. Not so after graduation (or
that used to be the case). It's like the bird flying out of the nest.
Or, it's your party, your birthdate, it's a party (an excuse for one:).
As if an excuse were needed to simply get together and party.
Or, you and a mate are getting married and that's a legal thing with
legal rights attached to it (IRS, insurance, etc.).
But the only physical thing is that you're living together -- and you
might
have been doing that for years already -- so maybe nothing physical
changed.
A lot materially DOES change when you have the certificate. Material is
what I mean by physical.
Yes, it's a "legal thing", just like the inauguration of a President.
There's a real passage of some sort, from one condition to another, and
yet nothing *physical*, nothing in the "outside world", may have changed.
Your material situation does change.
The ritual of brushing your teeth is wordless, but the actions have
literal real meaning. Teeth are real. Brushing them is a good idea.
Teeth are *physical*. So is periodontal disease, or the lack of it.
But the status of being a graduate, or married, or a President?
Material change. Gov Bush can't declare war. President Bush can. HS grads
didn't used to stay at home supported by parents. They had to support
themselves. Material change. Married already stated it - there IS a
material difference.
If you ran people through X-rays and CT scanners and MRIs, what "real"
(physical) distinctions could you find to indicate who was which?
Different people could be identified. You could be identified from year to
year depending on WHO analyzed those scans. Btw, identical twins do not
have identical thermograms, even tho everything else IS identical.
(Note: people who aren't President can still wear bulletproof vests.)
However, Omine omine omine omini dooo waaaa has no literal or real
meaning - it's religious - it's faith.
I dunno. What religion is that?
Religion in general.
Birthdays, graduations, marriages, etc have nothing to do with faith.
You think not? There's no *physical* change involved -- even between
being 17 years, 11 months, and 30 days old, and being 18 years old --
Yes there is. You can drink. You can be drafted. You are legally an adult
with certain priveleges and rights.
just your *social* role has changed. Recall that AEU definition of
"religion" as referring to one's relationship to one's community....
Social role is material. Hence - real. You are taking my use of the word
physical and real to mean something other than MATERIAL.
They are literally real.
Try putting anyone's age, educational status, or marital status under
a microscope. Weigh even the Presidency on a scale. For that matter,
point to a government, any government, in the "real" (physical) world.
I've never seen one; just people, buildings, equipment, and pieces of
paper with ink marks on them -- none of which are "governments". So
how could any governmental office or legal status be "real" (physical)?
It is material - it has material effects.
You're seeing phantoms, Tani. You're declaring "literally real"
things that don't exist anywhere in the physical world. They are
figments of our social imagination. They're "real" only in the sense
that we, our culture, have agreed to *behave as though* they exist.
Yes. Social culture, social laws, etc - material effects. In that sense,
they are REAL. I thought that was understood? If you want, however, to get
into the samsaric nature of the entire cosmos - then that's another topic.
Try telling the boss that time is an illusion when yer late to work. Heh.
They're social constructs, roles and rules of our shared game, no less
than priesthood, or journeyman status, or initiation into a coven.
Such religious type of stuff has reality only IF someone, or a lot of
someones believe that a Priest or etc can somehow talk to god or goddess or
whatever. It becomes more real when the Priest is in cahoots with the
president - who DOES have power to declare war on nations. In that sense, I
mean it. Time to get rid of that president :)
They're "real" enough in *that* sense, but it's a whole different
*kind* of "reality" than teeth (or cavities) have.
Well, you can't "not believe" in teeth. You can't "not believe" in material
things. You can "not believe" in spirits. Spiritual reality is real only
for those that reall get in touch with it, feel it. It is not real for
atheists who obviously never could or did get in tough with it or feel it.
To that I suggest you take a look at this:
Science News, July 9, 2005, page 27 "Night of the Crusher."
Religion IS real in that it has real material effects on society, people,
etc. In the past, when Altar was united with Throne, religion had a very
big and bad effect on society and people - millions of them.
I feel Deity in me, I see Deity in every living thing, flaming thru things -
and a great deal of other things if I have to spell it out. But can I prove
it's there? No. What of those that can not feel such things? They'd argue
with me - and I would not argue with them - waste of time. Do I have any
kind of ritual associated with any of this? No - I do not, we do not. To
us, trance state, running, swimming, dancing, are all activities some folks
DO and some foks do not or even can not do. They are "the same" - to me, to
us. I hear a song I like. I write the notes down, write the chords down,
play it, etc. Can everyone do that? Hell no they can't, they can't even
sing ONE note and get it right. Is it magic? If it weren't something so
commonly done and well known, people might believe it was magic. It's known
as "having good ears" in street talk - technical explanations exist in
academic talk, tests have been done to analyze it, study it, etc. But if it
was very very rare would anyone bother to study it? And again, is it
magical? Is it?
[snip]
I'd made no claim about psychodrama. I was responding to your
"I have never run into a real atheist that thought that any kind
of ritual, for any reason, was anything other than derangement."
TJ: I mean religious ritual.
Well, refer back to that AEU discussion of religion.
Please note that I did not read that discussion.
If "religion
connects a person with a larger world and creates a loyalty that
extends to the past, the present and the future", then what's not
"religious" about gathering to celebrate rites of passage, such as
birthdays, graduations, and weddings -- all marking non-physical
changes, things that aren't "real" in the sense of being *tangible*?
Sounds like double talk. It's not religious if the people doing these
things do not invoke something intangible - like a God or Goddess or spirit.
The problem with the statement above is that these DO mark MATERIAL
changes - and material changes ARE real and tangible. 55 and older, you get
discounts :) Btw, giving a person a gift on his birthday is taken as simply
a normal gift. Giving a person gifts any other time is often suspect - like
WHY are you giving me that gift? What do you WANT? See?
I happen to be a person exceptionally NOT prone to ritualistic behavior, not
even when brushing teeth or doing chores of any kind. I believe this is an
ethnic thing. It could be environmental or it could be genetic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raven" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious and Atheist Amicability |
15 Jul 2005 08:22:20 AM |
|
|
Tani Jantsang wrote:
Raven wrote:
Tani Jantsang wrote:
... brushing your teeth might be seen as a ritual....
It might indeed, and on some occasions more than others.
Preparing for a first date, as one example; "ritual cleanliness".
No one ever thinks of, or refers to such as "ritual cleanliness."
I just did, right there; you saw and responded to it. How is that "never"?
Incidentally, I also think of sprucing up for weddings and job interviews
as "ritual cleanliness".
In a broad sence, "ritual" having a meaning other than the one
associated with religion, brushing your teeth IS a ritual - first
you do this, then that, then that, then that, etc.
Or airplane pilot and copilot going over the checklist before taking off.
That is a necessity - not religious.
But, as you say, "first you do this, then that, then that, then that, etc."
Or guards changing shifts at the Tower of London.
Also functional, but considerably more ceremonial than the function requires.
Or the inauguration of a President of the United States.
But notice that brushing one's teeth can also be done in a slapdash and
haphazard way, in a hurry, when one remembers, and not necessarily as
thoroughly or in the same sequence each time; it can be simply an action,
just to get the gunk off, without having any symbolic meaning to it.
None of it is symbolic.
I'll presume you've never seen a Changing of the Guard.
And as for an inauguration, it's rich with symbolism -- and if the presence
or absence of explicit religion makes a difference, there's also a Bible at
the center of the proceedings (though the Constitution doesn't require one).
Even if you meant this comment to refer only to brushing teeth, I'll point
to the toothpaste ads as invoking the symbolism: clean white teeth are
emblematic of health, beauty, charisma, and attractiveness. By making
oneself as clean as possible for the date, spouse, or even the potential
employer, one hopes to demonstrate one's earnest enthusiasm and suitability
as a potential mate or a potential employee. Thus: ritual cleanliness.
Say, a dentist tells you how to do it, step by step, to avoid problems,
first do this, then to that, etc. [...snip...]
Yes, but as I said above, it takes on the aspect of ritual "on some occasions
more than others" -- and then you may take extra care with brushing, flossing,
scraping the tongue, and using a mouthwash with a pleasant scent, all to give
the best possible impression to the date, newly wedded spouse, or boss-to-be.
The goal is at that point not solely to keep the teeth and gums healthy.
While an inauguration is not needed to accomplish any physical goal;
it is another type of "rite of passage", marking a non-physical change.
It is a physical/material change. Definitely.
We seem to have very different ideas of what "physical/material" means, if
you think becoming President means undergoing a "physical/material change".
It is, as I said before, a change in one's *social role*; reaching the age
of majority, graduating, getting married, are changes in *social status*;
"social constructs, roles and rules of our shared game". "They're 'real'
only in the sense that we, our culture, have agreed to *behave as though*
they exist." Neither the Presidency nor legal adulthood nor educational
status nor marital status involve physical, material, tangible changes --
which is why you can't determine such a status by using X-rays, MRIs, etc.
The inauguration is for the public.
LBJ was inaugurated on Air Force One after JFK's assassination, not on the
podium in front of a huge crowd. The public only got to see photographs
(<http://tinyurl.com/78p5f>). The inauguration conveyed the *role* of
President. This was what it was needed to do, ALL it was needed to do.
Bush, before it, er, he was put up as the president, didn't have
the power to declare a war, eg.
But this "power" cannot be measured in ergs, watts, volts, joules, BTUs,
foot-pounds, or any other measure of physical (e.g. electrical, kinetic,...)
energy or "power". This kind of "power" is again a social construct,
part of the "roles and rules of our shared game". It "exists" only by
our shared agreement, not as a thing in itself. It isn't "physical".
At the President's orders, physical forces may indeed be exerted, including
electrical, kinetic, and nuclear-explosive forces, yet he himself need not
exert any such physical force -- he need not do anything but speak words,
the same words you or I could speak, only *his* words are obeyed by others.
That is the physical *effect* of the "roles and rules of our shared game".
When you are having a birthday party, graduation, marriage, etc -
the words spoken, ritual style or not (it varies) are literal words
having literal meaning.
Yet they likewise are not accomplishing a physical goal, but marking a
non-physical change. Physically you are the same person before and after
your party, graduation, or wedding
No, you now are in possession of presents, material things you didn't have
before.
And you feel this makes you *physically not the same person* as before?
Let's say I have an acre of Florida real estate, and I give it to you.
How, physically, have you changed?
How, physically, have *I* changed?
How, physically, has the *land* changed?
If ownership of property is a *physical* quality, and not a social construct,
how is it that ownership changed so drastically when societies changed, as
in Britain after 1066, or the Americas after 1492, or Russia after 1917?
Did all those people on each side undergo sudden spontaneous evolution of
ownership-appendages, as though one group suddenly grew extra arms while
another group's third arms suddenly atrophied, withered, and fell off?
To be sure, many of these people *also* underwent physical changes --
like, for instance, dying -- but that wasn't a one-to-one correspondence.
The graduation signals a real change in what you are gonna do with
your life.
Without a Bachelor's in English: "Ya wan' fries wi' dat?"
*With* a Bachelor's in English: "Would you like fries with that?"
That's not exactly what I'd call a "real change".
Physically, you are not the same person as you were yesterday, actually.
True, but you would have undergone that chronological change with or
without graduation, marriage, or inauguration as President. You went
through one day's chronological change between 17 years 11 months 28
days and 17 years 11 months 29 days; another day's change at your 18th
birthday; and another day's change between 18 years and 18 years 1 day.
Why is the middle of those treated as any more significant than the others?
George Bush, Al Gore, and John Kerry all got one day older on Inauguration
Days 2001 and 2005. So did another 300 million or so Americans, and about
6 billion people around the world. Did that mean they all became President?
Materially, you are not in the same situation, hence not the same
person, you were in school when you go into the workplace after you
graduate - or go onto further education.
Materially, you may even be living in the same room, and going to the
same classrooms, subsisting on the same family stipend or part-time job.
The circumstances, all material, surrounding you really do change.
Sometimes, sometimes not. How did George W. Bush's "material circumstances"
change on Inauguration Day 2005? He neither moved into the White House nor
moved out of it. He *would have* had to move out if John Kerry had been
inaugurated instead, but since that isn't what happened, what *did* change?
George W. Bush began a second term as President; is such a term "material"?
Legal marriage carries a lot of things with it that living together
doesn't carry. It's a real difference - it's why gays want it.
The legal status has physical *consequences*, because we as a society
behave differently toward people in and out of that legal status -- but
that doesn't mean the legal status in and of itself physically exists.
If I think you have an invisible vulture on your back, and hit you while
trying to swat at the vulture, my delusion has had physical *consequences*
to you, but this does not mean that the invisible vulture physically exists.
-- unless things got really wild -- but the ritual marks or celebrates
a change in your social status.
And change in circumstances.
It would occur whether or not your material circumstances changed at all.
You are graduating. The next steps in your life are very real,
you are no longer in school. A real, literal change is going
to happen (whether you want this or not).
The same would be true if one simply dropped out, so why is there
a ritual for one and not the other, if all it marks is being no longer
in school?
Because that's the social tradition.
Bingo. It marks a change in your *social status*, thus the rite of passage.
Some people just go get their grad certificate and that's that.
Absolutely. They could even possibly tuck it away and never show it again.
Or burn it, or throw it away. The social status may not matter to them.
In fact, a graduate student may still *be* in school afterward, even
the *same* school, through one's bachelor's, master's, and doctor's
degrees -- yet the rituals for each are held anyway, despite one's
not leaving school.
Again, social tradition to emphasize via group strategy that the
individual is now going to embark on something "great."
You seem to be agreeing with me:
So again the ritual seems to be marking something other than a physical
change -- perhaps "literal" (whatever that means here), but not
physical -- and yet, you're right, it's still "real" in a sense.
Worth considering?
It is physical - in that it is MATERIAL.
Even if he's staying at the same university for postgraduate studies?
A high school student generally lives at home with parents supporting
him/her. Not so after graduation (or that used to be the case). It's
like the bird flying out of the nest.
So why have graduation ceremonies for bachelor's, master's, and doctor's
degrees, when the student is already living at (or near) the university?
Why not for high school students who *don't* graduate, but drop out,
and nevertheless leave home to find jobs?
The change of residence does not appear to be the reason for the ritual.
Or, it's your party, your birthdate, it's a party (an excuse for one:).
As if an excuse were needed to simply get together and party.
Or, you and a mate are getting married and that's a legal thing with
legal rights attached to it (IRS, insurance, etc.).
But the only physical thing is that you're living together -- and
you might have been doing that for years already -- so maybe nothing
physical changed.
A lot materially DOES change when you have the certificate.
A lot *socially* changes. And that may have physical consequences,
due to the way people behave in response to the change in social status.
Material is what I mean by physical.
And how does a person materially, physically, change when reaching an
age of majority (18 here, 16 there, 21 some other place), or graduating,
or getting married, or becoming President? Do they grow an extra eye,
an extra arm, or an extra finger on each hand? Exactly what should we
tell the X-ray and CT scan and MRI technicians to look out for, so they
can sort people into groups according to adulthood, educational status,
marital status, or Presidency?
Yes, it's a "legal thing", just like the inauguration of a President.
There's a real passage of some sort, from one condition to another, and
yet nothing *physical*, nothing in the "outside world", may have changed.
Your material situation does change.
You keep saying this; but, as noted above, one might not change residences
or incomes, let alone undergo any physical changes in one's own person.
The ritual of brushing your teeth is wordless, but the actions have
literal real meaning. Teeth are real. Brushing them is a good idea.
Teeth are *physical*. So is periodontal disease, or the lack of it.
But the status of being a graduate, or married, or a President?
Material change. Gov Bush can't declare war. President Bush can.
This is a change in *social role*, not a physical change in the person.
HS grads didn't used to stay at home supported by parents.
Heck, a PhD in English might still have to. So why the ceremony for them?
They had to support themselves.
But high school *dropouts* might have to support themselves, too.
So why *not* a ceremony for them?
Material change.
Yet a ceremony is still held when there's *no* material change in the first
case, and *not* held when there *is* a material change in the second case.
So the material change does not appear to be the reason for the ceremony.
Married already stated it - there IS a material difference.
Living in the same place as before, paying the same rent as before, even
working the same jobs as before -- there may be no material change at all.
If you ran people through X-rays and CT scanners and MRIs, what "real"
(physical) distinctions could you find to indicate who was which?
Different people could be identified.
Yes, but how would that indicate which ones were legal adults (according
to the laws of their home states), which ones were graduates, which ones
were married, and which ones were the President of the United States?
You could be identified from year to year depending on WHO analyzed
those scans.
That's nice. WHO can analyze those scans to determine legal adulthood,
educational status, marital status, or government-official status?
Btw, identical twins do not have identical thermograms, even tho
everything else IS identical.
That's nice. Here are four sets of identical twins. Of the first pair,
both are 19, but one moved to a location where he became a legal adult at
18, and the other moved to a location where he won't become a legal adult
until 21; have your thermogram say who's which. Of the second pair,
one graduated and the other didn't; have your thermogram say who's which.
Of the third pair, one got married and the other didn't; have your
thermogram say who's which. Of the fourth pair, both ran for office and
only one of them won; have your thermogram say who's which. I'll wait.
(Note: people who aren't President can still wear bulletproof vests.)
However, Omine omine omine omini dooo waaaa has no literal or real
meaning - it's religious - it's faith.
I dunno. What religion is that?
Religion in general.
Religions in general say "Omine omine omine omini dooo waaaa"?
Gosh, I can't remember hearing that in *any* religious service, ever.
Birthdays, graduations, marriages, etc have nothing to do with faith.
You think not? There's no *physical* change involved -- even between
being 17 years, 11 months, and 30 days old, and being 18 years old --
Yes there is. You can drink.
That's not a *physical* change. *Physically*, you could drink before.
You can be drafted.
That's not a *physical* change. Before and after the draft was instituted,
and before and after the draft was suspended, there was no sudden *physical*
change affecting all the potential draftees. That was a *legal* change.
You are legally an adult with certain priveleges and rights.
Are you under the impression that these constitute *physical* changes?
just your *social* role has changed. Recall that AEU definition of
"religion" as referring to one's relationship to one's community....
Social role is material. Hence - real. You are taking my use of the
word physical and real to mean something other than MATERIAL.
No, I did and do take your use of "physical" and "real" to mean "material",
which is why I'm puzzled by your applying those words to social constructs
such as social role or social status, which have no physical or material
existence, and only "exist" in the sense of game rules our society agrees to.
They are literally real.
Try putting anyone's age, educational status, or marital status under
a microscope. Weigh even the Presidency on a scale. For that matter,
point to a government, any government, in the "real" (physical) world.
I've never seen one; just people, buildings, equipment, and pieces of
paper with ink marks on them -- none of which are "governments". So
how could any governmental office or legal status be "real" (physical)?
It is material - it has material effects.
That invisible vulture had material effects, too. But it still wasn't real.
You're seeing phantoms, Tani. You're declaring "literally real"
things that don't exist anywhere in the physical world. They are
figments of our social imagination. They're "real" only in the sense
that we, our culture, have agreed to *behave as though* they exist.
Yes. Social culture, social laws, etc - material effects. In that sense,
they are REAL.
But they don't physically, materially, exist -- any more than that vulture.
How much does a culture weigh? What is the volume of legal adulthood?
What are the Celsius temperatures of the assorted educational "degrees"?
What are the heights, widths, and depths of single vs married status?
What is the mass or velocity or other *physical* measure of a Presidency?
You could at least potentially answer all these questions for a physical
object, like a rock, or a balloon, or a drop of water. These are material,
tangible, "real" in the sense of physical existence. Social roles are not.
I thought that was understood? If you want, however, to get into the
samsaric nature of the entire cosmos - then that's another topic.
Just please explain how you think these social constructs *physically* exist.
Try telling the boss that time is an illusion when yer late to work. Heh.
Just please explain how you think these social constructs *physically* exist.
They're social constructs, roles and rules of our shared game, no less
than priesthood, or journeyman status, or initiation into a coven.
Such religious type of stuff has reality only IF someone, or a lot of
someones believe that a Priest or etc can somehow talk to god or goddess
or whatever.
Now I wouldn't have said that such roles are *ever* **physically** real --
they are "real" only in the same sense that the status of "umpire" is:
namely, that within a certain setting the participants have agreed to
behave according to specific "game rules", including such social roles.
It becomes more real when the Priest is in cahoots with the
president - who DOES have power to declare war on nations. In that
sense, I mean it. Time to get rid of that president :)
They're "real" enough in *that* sense, but it's a whole different
*kind* of "reality" than teeth (or cavities) have.
Well, you can't "not believe" in teeth.
You can touch teeth, weigh them, measure their height and width and
depth and temperature, put them under microscopes, photograph them,
and show the slides upon a screen, pointing out the various parts
for all to see. You can do this because the teeth physically exist.
You can't "not believe" in material things.
Like that invisible vulture that had the material effect of you being hit?
You can "not believe" in spirits.
Well, I've asked you to point to a government, any government, in the
"real" (physical) world. I've never seen one; just people, buildings,
equipment, and pieces of paper with ink marks on them -- none of which
are "governments". Show me one I can touch, and I'll believe in it.
Spiritual reality is real only for those that reall get in touch with it,
feel it. It is not real for atheists who obviously never could or did
get in tough with it or feel it.
You're making an assumption. I think it's a mistaken assumption.
I refer you to <news:7d8764ba.0209010316.268a67a7@posting.google.com>
(or click for a Google Groups archive copy: <http://tinyurl.com/blvys>).
Brief excerpts:
| If the distinction is between "spirit" and "matter", "spirituality"
| might usefully be defined as an immaterial | | | | | | | | | | | | | |