PDA

View Full Version : Fate



thir
05-28-2010, 06:46 AM
Fate, destiny, kismet, karma, wyrd..

Do we control our lives, or is there a path laid out for us?

'Kismet' seems to mean both the will of Allah, and a fate not influenced by any God.

'Karma': "In theistic schools of Hinduism, humans have free will to choose good or evil and suffer the consequences, which require the will of God to implement karma's consequences, unlike Buddhism or Jainism which do not accord any role to a supreme God or gods. In Eastern beliefs, the karmic effects of all deeds are viewed as actively shaping past, present, and future experiences." (Wikepedia)

So karma means free will, but what you do shapes what happens next, with or without a god involved.

'Destiny': "Destiny may be seen either as a fixed sequence of events that is inevitable and unchangeable, or that individuals choose their own destiny by choosing different paths throughout their life." (Wikepedia)

So destiny is used both as an expression of free will, and as the idea that the path is laid out before you from the start.

'Fate' seems to refer to "an inevitable course of events" (Wikepedia)
"a. The supposed force, principle, or power that predetermines events.
b. The inevitable events predestined by this force."((http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fate)

'Wyrd': "is a concept in Anglo-Saxon culture roughly corresponding to fate or personal destiny".

An finally an extract from an article on 'wyrd':
For example, say I happen to find myself in a situation where someone insults me. I can "freely" choose any one of a number of immediate reactions, from ignoring the person to slapping her. But my choice at that moment is obviously going to be constrained by a number of patterns of wyrd already in place, including my inborn personality characteristics, my social conditioning, my past experiences with being insulted, my relationship with the person who has insulted me, even my hormone levels.

To the extent that my reaction is determined by these patterns, wyrd is shaping my life at that moment, and my reaction may feel to me as though it were predestined (if I want to deny responsibility) or the only "right" choice (if I want to claim responsibility for it). To the extent that I am aware of certain recurring patterns in my life, I might feel as though the person was fated to insult me at that moment. But no matter which way I chose to react to the insult, my reaction will add to the patterns in place and constrain my future actions (if I'm insulted a second time, my reaction will be determined in part by how I behaved when I was insulted the first time.) So, at the same time I am caught up in experiencing certain patterns of wyrd, I am creating them.

Moving from the personal to the universal, my reaction will also add to the patterns affecting the behaviour of the person who insulted me. As a result of my response, she may change her behaviour towards others which will, in turn, change her personal ørlög, and so on. Ultimately, each little choice we make affects universal forces which can come back to affect us in weird ways. The larger patterns of wyrd created by individuals in a particular time and place is the source of the zeitgeist (spirit of the age) which informs the beliefs and behaviour of everyone in a society. Thus, "that which has become", wyrd, both creates and is created by individual actions, states, and choices. "
(http://www.wyrdwords.vispa.com/heathenry/whatwyrd.html)

So, what do you think? Do we have choices, or don't we? Is everything written? Do the god(s) decide? Is there a natural law or a cosmic law of consequence?

denuseri
05-28-2010, 06:57 AM
It doesnt really matter if predestination is in fact in effect or not; from our limited perspective we still must make choices.

Thorne
05-28-2010, 07:06 AM
Do we control our lives, or is there a path laid out for us?
So, what do you think? Do we have choices, or don't we? Is everything written?

We certainly try to control our lives, picking and choosing among the almost infinite number of paths we see ahead of us. We can hope that the choices we do make will lead us down the path we want, but there are no guarantees. There are too many random events which are beyond our control, or the control of anyone else, to accurately predict where any one choice will take us.


Is there a natural law or a cosmic law of consequence?
I guess the only law of consequence I would accept is my own, personal "faith":
If you ignore the laws of nature they'll eventually bite you in the ass.

leo9
05-29-2010, 02:44 AM
'Karma': "In theistic schools of Hinduism, humans have free will to choose good or evil and suffer the consequences, which require the will of God to implement karma's consequences, unlike Buddhism or Jainism which do not accord any role to a supreme God or gods. In Eastern beliefs, the karmic effects of all deeds are viewed as actively shaping past, present, and future experiences." (Wikepedia)

So karma means free will, but what you do shapes what happens next, with or without a god involved.
Or as Thorne says, free will with consequences. The only argument is over how the consequences operate, and whether, say, harm done to others will do you harm in the end even if no human justice can reach you.



'Wyrd': "is a concept in Anglo-Saxon culture roughly corresponding to fate or personal destiny".

An finally an extract from an article on 'wyrd':
For example, say I happen to find myself in a situation where someone insults me. I can "freely" choose any one of a number of immediate reactions, from ignoring the person to slapping her. But my choice at that moment is obviously going to be constrained by a number of patterns of wyrd already in place, including my inborn personality characteristics, my social conditioning, my past experiences with being insulted, my relationship with the person who has insulted me, even my hormone levels.

To the extent that my reaction is determined by these patterns, wyrd is shaping my life at that moment, and my reaction may feel to me as though it were predestined (if I want to deny responsibility) or the only "right" choice (if I want to claim responsibility for it). To the extent that I am aware of certain recurring patterns in my life, I might feel as though the person was fated to insult me at that moment. But no matter which way I chose to react to the insult, my reaction will add to the patterns in place and constrain my future actions (if I'm insulted a second time, my reaction will be determined in part by how I behaved when I was insulted the first time.) So, at the same time I am caught up in experiencing certain patterns of wyrd, I am creating them.

Moving from the personal to the universal, my reaction will also add to the patterns affecting the behaviour of the person who insulted me. As a result of my response, she may change her behaviour towards others which will, in turn, change her personal ørlög, and so on. Ultimately, each little choice we make affects universal forces which can come back to affect us in weird ways. The larger patterns of wyrd created by individuals in a particular time and place is the source of the zeitgeist (spirit of the age) which informs the beliefs and behaviour of everyone in a society. Thus, "that which has become", wyrd, both creates and is created by individual actions, states, and choices. "
(http://www.wyrdwords.vispa.com/heathenry/whatwyrd.html)

Thir forgot to make clear that this is a modern interpretation, which doesn't exactly fit what little we know of the ancients' beliefs. The clearest expression of the Nordic view of fate that has come down to us is the Völuspá, in which a seeress tells Odin how the world will end: the Volva tells him how he and many other Aesir will die, without any suggestion that they can avoid it. There are things that mortals can do to put off the end - mostly trivial things like trimming corpses' fingernails - but we can only make it a bit later, it will come eventually.

It is to be assumed that this translates into the same view of individual destiny. If Wyrd (sometimes personified as one of the Norns, the spinners of men's lives) has decided that you are to be poor and enslaved, no amount of striving can lift you from the mud. On the other hand, if Wyrd has decided that a slave shall become a hero nothing can stand in his way, so since we none of us know what our fates are, it's worth trying!

But even when seen as an anthopomorphic personification, Wyrd is impersonal and unapprochable: nobody prays to her or hopes to change her mind, and even the Allfather accepts his fate as inevitable. Pray to the gods for help all you wish, but if Wyrd has ruled differently, all the gods can't change it. One consults seers, as Odin did, not to learn what to avoid, but what to accept.

Not, I may say, a view I share...

catej88
06-05-2010, 11:00 PM
I think fate can have multiple sides. There are times when I think it is used to control people, to give hope for better/worse or else is pre-destined. I think fate can be both applied socially as well as spiritually.

Fate I sometimes like to think of it as a future and potential for life or where someone can go. I guess my view ultimately of fate is “what if?”. When I think of this I think of the times that people hear because of their background they will either do well or poorly in life and others that they can overcome their condition or past and do great things. For some people their past or circumstances are sometimes directly attached to their belief in their fate.

I would love to believe that I have complete control of my life but sadly our lives are attached to others. At times our decisions can effect others in the same way others lives effect us and because of that fate isn’t just our choices but others choices and ours combined. Throw in things that are completely out of our control and the possibility of fate scares me to death.

I think the scariest part is that we have the power to make things we do not want to happen to come true and sometimes after hearing things over and over we turn things that were just phrases into a truth and fact in our life. These are things that we never wanted to be there. At times I think fate is nothing more then a strong belief in something that we either make a truth and reality or else say “it wasn’t meant to be”. For me “fate” changes constantly and my belief isn’t absolute I still like to believe I have control but then I wonder again.

denuseri
06-06-2010, 08:34 AM
And just FYI...did everyone know that in additonal to certian spiritualism based meditative sects and entire religious ethos that are based in part or whole on a way to explaining how some things work in existance from this perspective, there is also a type of science that looks to explore this observation as well becuase they too have come to a similar sumation.

thir
06-06-2010, 09:04 AM
And just FYI...did everyone know that in additonal to certian spiritualism based meditative sects and entire religious ethos that are based in part or whole on a way to explaining how some things work in existance from this perspective, there is also a type of science that looks to explore this observation as well becuase they too have come to a similar sumation.

No, I have never heard of that. Any more info? Links?

denuseri
06-06-2010, 09:15 AM
Its called noetics. (the science part anyway...the spiritualism and religious references would take a far greater amount of time to produce but Lemme see if I can stir up any links for the sci)

Ahhhh Here are some:

http://www.noetic.org/

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



Noetic theory or noëtics (from Greek νοητικός "mental" from νοεῖν "to think" from νοῦς - noûs) is a branch of metaphysical philosophy and science concerned with the study of mind and intuition, and its relationship with the divine intellect. Among its principal purposes is to study the effects of perceptions, beliefs, and intention with respect to human consciousness.

The theory of noetics centers around the idea that the human mind is capable of affecting or even doing work to the physical world. It is suggested that thought and spirit are not in fact imaginary, but Bose or photon based, meaning essentially that the mind can be quantified by formulae which describe quantum materials such as light. This is a radical conclusion where many people think thoughts are weightless. Just as gravity affects all matter, so do thoughts to an apparent lesser degree.

Funny when one can see science and religion come full circle without clashing isnt it.

Thorne
06-06-2010, 01:13 PM
Noetic theory or noëtics (from Greek νοητικός "mental" from νοεῖν "to think" from νοῦς - noûs) is a branch of metaphysical philosophy and science concerned with the study of mind and intuition, and its relationship with the divine intellect. Among its principal purposes is to study the effects of perceptions, beliefs, and intention with respect to human consciousness.
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, not hard science. If they are studying whether perceptions, beliefs and intentions affect how we respond to stimuli, then yes, I think the answer is rather obvious. I'm not sure if they could determine just how these effects are produced, or in what proportions they combine to cause the effects. I would think you would need to completely map all of the synaptic passageways of the brain to even begin to predict what a person's responses would be, and even then it would only be valid for that one individual, since we are all different. General trends, perhaps, can be determined, but isn't that what philosophy and psychology are already doing?


The theory of noetics centers around the idea that the human mind is capable of affecting or even doing work to the physical world. It is suggested that thought and spirit are not in fact imaginary, but Bose or photon based, meaning essentially that the mind can be quantified by formulae which describe quantum materials such as light. This is a radical conclusion where many people think thoughts are weightless. Just as gravity affects all matter, so do thoughts to an apparent lesser degree.
Now here we seem to be delving into the arena of hard science. Maybe. Have they actually measured these photons? I'm not sure what you mean by "Bose based", unless you're referring to bosons? And if they have detected them, have they determined whether or not they are the basis of thought, or the effects of thought? What frequency of photons would the brain produce? And most importantly, what evidence is there to show that thoughts directly affect matter?


Funny when one can see science and religion come full circle without clashing isnt it.
I'm not yet sure whether or not noetics will have any bearing on scientific thought. It's certainly in its infancy and I don't know if any actual relevant data has been produced or evaluated. From what I've read so far it seems to be more akin to astrology and ESP, though, not religion. In fact, if they are able to prove what they claim I would think this would be another stroke against religious thought, rather than for it.

xspy4u
06-11-2010, 09:26 PM
I love this topic. I think the answer is simpler than we allow and the answer is 3 (stay with me my sanity will become evident in a minute.) We know that the number three has powerful implications in our species. Our brains are wired to remember things in three's ( why we say bad things happen in three's). We know that in many religous belief system things are also presented in three's. We know that a woman(1) and a man(2) result in a baby (3).

So the answer to "destiny" and "freewill" is most likely explained in the same manner. Think of a human's existance and relationship with god(s) in the same terms as parents and child.

Born of the parents the child's life is the result of three different conditions; determination, divine guidance, and randomness.

A child is born with certain "things" which will ultimately "determine" other things. In this way there are aspects of their life that are predetermined at birth.

Like a child grows partially through the guidance of his parent(s) so too is there a divine guidance that leads each of us to certain choices and paths.

And third, there is the apparent randomness of events both created and experienced that will provide unique opportunities to make choices that ultimately lead us to a place..and those choices are many, although not infinite as some are removed by conditions one and two.

Thorne
06-12-2010, 08:15 AM
So the answer to "destiny" and "freewill" is most likely explained in the same manner. Think of a human's existance and relationship with god(s) in the same terms as parents and child.
And what of us who have no gods to have relationships with? Are we non-human?


Born of the parents the child's life is the result of three different conditions; determination, divine guidance, and randomness.
Substitute parental/familial guidance for 'divine guidance' and I'm with you here.


A child is born with certain "things" which will ultimately "determine" other things. In this way there are aspects of their life that are predetermined at birth.
A bit tricky, here. Children are born with certain physical, emotional and mental abilities or disabilities which will profoundly affect their lives, yes, but the social acceptance or rejection of those abilities and disabilities will play a far greater role. I have an uncle who was born with muscular dystrophy who was not allowed to go to public school because of his handicap. Today society sees children like this as challenges to be integrated into our society rather than as pariahs to be hidden away. Nothing is predestined.


Like a child grows partially through the guidance of his parent(s) so too is there a divine guidance that leads each of us to certain choices and paths.
I was a child once and I have raised two children and have never seen any evidence of "divine guidance".


And third, there is the apparent randomness of events both created and experienced that will provide unique opportunities to make choices that ultimately lead us to a place..and those choices are many, although not infinite as some are removed by conditions one and two.
This is the one that so many people fear, because this one points to the almost complete lack of control we really have over our lives. And these random events are the ones that will generally bring out either the best or the worst in people. But they don't always have to be surprises. If you live near the ocean you have to be aware that you could get smacked pretty good by a hurricane. If you prepare for it you can limit some of the randomness and get through it. This will help you get through the random event with the least amount of problems. Moving away from the ocean makes it even better. In either event, though, preparation gives you at least some control over a random event.

leo9
06-17-2010, 01:45 PM
In fact, if they are able to prove what they claim I would think this would be another stroke against religious thought, rather than for it.

This is a tricky one, isn't it? If we could show the existence of God by measuring "divine influence" or "divine presence" by some kind of theometer, we'd have proved that He/She was part of the material world... and therefore not divine by most people's definition.

I'm reminded of Douglas Adam's argument that a real, incontrovertible miracle would be final proof of the non-existence of God:
"I refuse to prove I exist," says God, "because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."
"Ah," says Man, "but the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway. It proves you exist, therefore you don't. QED."
"Oh, I hadn't thought of that," says God, and vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore proves that black is white and is run over on a zebra crossing.
(The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

But seriously, it's hard to think of any manifestation that wouldn't reduce the divinity to a science-fiction super-being on the lines of Galactus. I guess that's why I'm happier to know my Goddess in my heart, but not expect Her to leave footprints in the material world.

Thorne
06-17-2010, 07:47 PM
I guess that's why I'm happier to know my Goddess in my heart, but not expect Her to leave footprints in the material world.
So once again it's a matter of faith. You cannot prove she exists, while I cannot prove that she doesn't.

But if she doesn't "leave footprints in the material world" how can you know what she wants? Does she speak to you? Is it just an urge, or a feeling? How can you differentiate, as my sig implies, between her voice and your own insanity? And if indeed she does not interact with our world, why should anyone worship her? Even more importantly, if she is a supernatural being, why should she need or even desire our worship?

These are the questions which have led me to abandon faith as a hopeless exercise in futility. If the gods don't show themselves, then they either do not exist or have given me no reason to worship them if they do. Certainly, relying on the maundering of ancient "prophets" who can't even get their stories straight does not give me any such reason.

Paraphrasing some much more intelligent people than myself:

We are all atheists. I just believe in one less god(dess) than you.

When you can explain why you don't worship any of the thousands of gods which have plagued humanity, then you will understand why I don't worship yours.

denuseri
06-17-2010, 09:42 PM
Fate doesnt nessesarally mean a divinity is involved btw.

Thorne
06-17-2010, 09:52 PM
Fate doesnt nessesarally mean a divinity is involved btw.

Not explicitly,perhaps, but it does imply some kind of supernatural force which is directing our lives. Except for the final fate of death, which we all must face eventually, I can see nothing to suggest that such a force is acting on the world. We make our own fates, making choices which affect the paths we trod. Believing that you are "fated" to be poor or rich, famous or obscure, or any other "fate" which you can come up with, is only making excuses.

True, sometimes these paths can be diverted by outside forces. A hurricane or tornado destroying your home, a thief attacking you, a traffic accident. All these and more can alter our desired paths, but there is nothing to show that they are predestined. So it would be necessary to propose some form of supernatural agency which is directing our lives if you want to believe that our fates are written in stone.

denuseri
06-18-2010, 12:31 PM
I dont believe its nessesary to have a supernatural force involved eaither to have fate work as it works. I believe a certian degree of fate is inheirent to the structure of the universe in and of itself and fractually carried out in lesser cycles on a smaller scale elsewhere within it. Though I doubt we want to get that deep into theoretical quantum mechanics.

leo9
06-18-2010, 02:28 PM
Though I doubt we want to get that deep into theoretical quantum mechanics.

No, let's not, seeing that quantum mechanics (at least, as understood by physicists) only operates at the sub-atomic level and doesn't apply to any object larger than an atomic nucleus.

Trying to apply it to human affairs is on a par with trying to explain them in terms of the laws of gravitation.

leo9
06-18-2010, 03:28 PM
So once again it's a matter of faith.You say that like it's a bad thing. :)

But if she doesn't "leave footprints in the material world" how can you know what she wants? Does she speak to you? Is it just an urge, or a feeling? How can you differentiate, as my sig implies, between her voice and your own insanity?How can you differentiate between your rational materialism and your own insanity? None of us can prove by self-analysis that we're not crazy or deluded: unlike Voyager's computerised Doctor, we don't have self-diagnostic subroutines to call on. We get by, most of the time, by a combination of concensus (if a reasonable number of people seem to agree with me, it's not just in my head) and pragmatism (if my ideas don't put me dangerously at odds with the world, they can't be that irrational). In Robert Anton Wilson's immortal words, only the madman is absolutely sure.

And if indeed she does not interact with our world, why should anyone worship her? Even more importantly, if she is a supernatural being, why should she need or even desire our worship? Like most modern Pagans, I don't see my gods as being so weak or egomaniac that they actually want people to spend hours chanting about how wonderful they are. But... have you ever been stunned by something so vast and so beautiful that you could only stare in awe? That is worship, and it's not something you put on in order to beg for helpful miracles: it's something you can't help but feel.

Hey, I don't waste my time on small delusions. :)


These are the questions which have led me to abandon faith as a hopeless exercise in futility. If the gods don't show themselves, then they either do not exist or have given me no reason to worship them if they do.
Absolutely reasonable, and I can't fault you. That works for you, so it's right for you.

I was right where you are once, apart from a nagging feeling that there ought to be more to it than that. I spent a while calling myself a Buddhist, which means an atheist with spiritual yearnings. But the things I heard from neo-Pagans gave me that feeling which another religious writer has described as "wishing that it might be so". I studied, here and there (this was before the days when every bookshop had a shelf on the subject), and attended rituals in the spirit of trying to see if it would work for me. I saw a cartoon, once, of an intellectual-looking character kneeling in prayer saying "Testing... Testing..." That was me.

And then I got an answer, and the world would never be the same. But I am perfectly well aware that, like the ghost that terrorised everyone who visited a house I stayed in once, it could all be explained away as subjective and unproveable.

The behaviourist pioneer Skinner, in his later years, decided that the conditioned reflex was the only mechanism needed to explain all human behaviour. Therefore, the conscious mind did not exist: all behaviour was a product of reflexes, and if you claimed to be conscious, that was your conditioned reflexes speaking as they had been conditioned to do. And the wonderful thing about this theory is, nobody could prove him wrong: your conscious mind only exists for you, you can't show it to anyone else. We all know he was wrong, but we can't prove it except by agreeing between ourselves that we know it to be true.

Paraphrasing some much more intelligent people than myself:

We are all atheists. I just believe in one less god(dess) than you.You're quite intelligent enough to see that that's a contradiction. To paraphrase: all our glasses are empty, your empty glass just has more in it than mine.


When you can explain why you don't worship any of the thousands of gods which have plagued humanity, then you will understand why I don't worship yours.I can and I do. I don't worship any of the others because my Lady is the one who appealed to me when I was studying the subject: so I reached out and found Her (or created Her in my head, if you wish). None of them appeal to you, so you've neither made the effort to find them, nor been seized by one against your will (as happens to some). That's fine: I'm glad it works for you. I have no intention of spoiling it by preaching how much happier you would be with a religion, because, apart from anything else, you might well not be. The mahamantra of eclectic Paganism is "Whatever works," and that includes atheism.

xspy4u
06-18-2010, 03:47 PM
[QUOTE=Thorne;875438]And what of us who have no gods to have relationships with? Are we non-human?

Not any less human than someone who lacks a relationship with their parents.

[QUOTE=Thorne;875438]Substitute parental/familial guidance for 'divine guidance' and I'm with you here

Umm no can do, there are greater things than the pedictability of men's egos.

[QUOTE=Thorne;875438]A bit tricky, here. Children are born with certain physical, emotional and mental abilities or disabilities which will profoundly affect their lives, yes, but the social acceptance or rejection of those abilities and disabilities will play a far greater role. I have an uncle who was born with muscular dystrophy who was not allowed to go to public school because of his handicap. Today society sees children like this as challenges to be integrated into our society rather than as pariahs to be hidden away. Nothing is predestined..

I disagree as I do not subscribe to tabla rosa. Many things are beyond an individual's ability to achieve - so we are at least "pre-destined" to not be certain things. And the one thing we know about this world...there is no such thing as "always" and "never."


[QUOTE=Thorne;875438]I was a child once and I have raised two children and have never seen any evidence of "divine guidance".

Faith is belief in the absence of proof. "love for our children" may be that divine guidance you have overlooked. I think that it is the "human" qualities that we attempt to apply to the "divine" is the core reason why people stop looking.

[QUOTE=Thorne;875438]This is the one that so many people fear, because this one points to the almost complete lack of control we really have over our lives. And these random events are the ones that will generally bring out either the best or the worst in people. But they don't always have to be surprises. If you live near the ocean you have to be aware that you could get smacked pretty good by a hurricane. If you prepare for it you can limit some of the randomness and get through it. This will help you get through the random event with the least amount of problems. Moving away from the ocean makes it even better. In either event, though, preparation gives you at least some control over a random event.[

Hurricanes are the factor of water temperature and wind conditions and follow seasonal cycles...but I get your point and would add that "apparent randomness" is simply our inability to see the connectivity of all things

Thorne
06-18-2010, 09:05 PM
You say that like it's a bad thing. :)
Faith can be a bad thing, when you let it control your life. Faith says, "This is how things are, and the gods are the cause." Reason says, "This is how things are, so let's figure out why."


We get by, most of the time, by a combination of concensus (if a reasonable number of people seem to agree with me, it's not just in my head) and pragmatism (if my ideas don't put me dangerously at odds with the world, they can't be that irrational).
This is another danger of faith. How many religions are there in the world? How many different belief systems? They generally all have a "reasonable number of people" who agree with those belief systems. Yet obviously, they can't all be right! So which faith is the 'One True Faith'?


In Robert Anton Wilson's immortal words, only the madman is absolutely sure.
If there's one thing I know it's that we cannot be absolutely sure of anything.


But... have you ever been stunned by something so vast and so beautiful that you could only stare in awe? That is worship, and it's not something you put on in order to beg for helpful miracles: it's something you can't help but feel.
Oh, yes, I've felt awe. Images from the Hubble, Armstrong on the Moon, the births of my children. All were awe inspiring, yet I never once felt any sense of a supernatural presence, or a feeling of worship.


I was right where you are once, apart from a nagging feeling that there ought to be more to it than that.
I can understand that feeling. I've felt it myself. No one wants to believe that this is all there is to their life. But making up some comfortable bedtime story, or buying into someone else's story, doesn't change the reality around you. It only makes you feel better, at best. For the worst, one need only look around at the horrors being inflicted on people around the world in the name of one religion or another.


To paraphrase: all our glasses are empty, your empty glass just has more in it than mine.
No, I see it more like your glass having one drop of god-juice left in it, while mine has all been discarded.


I can and I do. I don't worship any of the others because my Lady is the one who appealed to me when I was studying the subject: so I reached out and found Her (or created Her in my head, if you wish). None of them appeal to you, so you've neither made the effort to find them, nor been seized by one against your will (as happens to some). That's fine: I'm glad it works for you. I have no intention of spoiling it by preaching how much happier you would be with a religion, because, apart from anything else, you might well not be. The mahamantra of eclectic Paganism is "Whatever works," and that includes atheism.
I'm glad to see that you have at least thought about your faith, why you follow your Goddess. For this I give you credit. You are far better off than those who follow their faith simply because it's all they know, the faith they were born into, the beliefs they have had drummed into their minds.

I, too, struggled for a long time with my lack of faith. While I had no interest in the social activities of a formal religion, I somehow still felt it was wrong of me to just toss everything aside. But then I started to really learn about what I had been taught, and I saw how unconvincing and ultimately unsatisfying it all was. And I finally realized that there was nothing for me to believe in, nothing for me to fear, no reason for me to feel empty. There are no gods. We are here by virtue of a series of cosmic accidents. And we help each other along not because some imaginary being tells us to, but because it's the right thing to do. This understanding was liberating.

Thorne
06-18-2010, 09:20 PM
Not any less human than someone who lacks a relationship with their parents.
I've known a few people who have not had a relationship with their parents. They are perfectly normal people. Their parents were abusive, bad people. They walked out and never looked back. And they are just as human as anyone else.


I disagree as I do not subscribe to tabla rosa. Many things are beyond an individual's ability to achieve - so we are at least "pre-destined" to not be certain things. And the one thing we know about this world...there is no such thing as "always" and "never."
I agree with that last line, at least. But no one is predestined either to be something or to NOT be something. We may be limited by our lack of ability, unless we can find a way around that lack. We see people all the time overcoming limitations which others thought insurmountable. People losing their legs, yet able to strap on prostheses and run races! That uncle I mentioned was "predestined" never to walk, to die before he was 20, to be a constant burden to his family. Yet he learned to walk, he is now in his mid-60's, he held a job and, while sometimes being a burden, has also sometimes been a joy to his family. All in spite of his "destiny".


Faith is belief in the absence of proof. "love for our children" may be that divine guidance you have overlooked. I think that it is the "human" qualities that we attempt to apply to the "divine" is the core reason why people stop looking.
Love for our children is a genetic imperative, a way to insure the survival of our species. And it is faith and dogma that cause people to stop looking for answers. When you declare something to be the work of God, there's no reason to search for another cause.

leo9
06-19-2010, 02:23 AM
Faith can be a bad thing, when you let it control your life. Faith says, "This is how things are, and the gods are the cause." Reason says, "This is how things are, so let's figure out why."
Your definition is too limited. Faith is belief without proof. That can be faith in a god or gods, or in science (the belief that science can explain everything is a faith, because it's inherently unproveable,) or in a Cause. In his campaigns for atheism Richard Dawkins is as much a faith-driven man as any preacher.

And absolute faith is a very dangerous thing, but not only religious faith. Some of the worst atrocities have been committed by people with no faith in religion, but absolute faith in a Cause. (It's arguable that this also goes for most of the current crop of terrorists, but let that pass as too tricky.) In my youth this country was terrorised by people driven by faith in the reunification of Ireland. They identified as Catholic, but it wasn't about religious faith: even the Pope couldn't tell them to stop. (What finally stopped them - not all of them, alas - was political negotiation, but that's another topic. )


This is another danger of faith. How many religions are there in the world? How many different belief systems? They generally all have a "reasonable number of people" who agree with those belief systems. Yet obviously, they can't all be right! So which faith is the 'One True Faith'?
Not mine, for sure :) At most, I'd like to believe it's "one of the true faiths," but the list I'd include is so long that that's not saying much.

The concept of "one true faith" is one of the most toxic products of the Mosaic paradigm. Polytheists, historically, have never persecuted anyone for worshipping the wrong god, though they may insist that you also make offerings to theirs. They might tell a conquered people "Your Goddess is our God's bitch!" but they wouldn't burn you at the stake for denying it. Only the Jews objected to having an image of Caesar added to their temple. When the first missionaries came to Scandinavia, a lot of people were happy to add the Whitechrist to the list of gods they prayed to: it was only when they discovered they weren't to be allowed to sacrifice to the Aesir that the trouble started.

Oh, yes, I've felt awe. Images from the Hubble, Armstrong on the Moon, the births of my children. All were awe inspiring, yet I never once felt any sense of a supernatural presence, or a feeling of worship. Your loss.

I can understand that feeling. I've felt it myself. No one wants to believe that this is all there is to their life. But making up some comfortable bedtime story, or buying into someone else's story, doesn't change the reality around you. It only makes you feel better, at best. That "at best" is a lot. And it's a very philosophical argument whether making you see the world in a completely new way is a "real" change. Historically, most of the great changes in societies have begun with a change of belief - people buying into someone else's story. We're only here, in a liberal democratic capitalist society with a high level of technology, because people chose to believe stories that moved them that way. The proof is that people who choose to believe other things have not made that change, and actively prefer the feudal primitive societies that fit their beliefs, and we can't make them change at the point of a gun.

For the worst, one need only look around at the horrors being inflicted on people around the world in the name of one religion or another.Or in the name of one political system or another. The dangers of fanaticism and the dangers of religion are two different things that only partly overlap.

No, I see it more like your glass having one drop of god-juice left in it, while mine has all been discarded. But even one drop means you can't call my glass empty, and you can't call me an atheist without bending the word till it breaks. Your arguments are usually so reasonable and well thought out that it annoys me when you talk nonsense.

I, too, struggled for a long time with my lack of faith. While I had no interest in the social activities of a formal religion, I somehow still felt it was wrong of me to just toss everything aside. But then I started to really learn about what I had been taught, and I saw how unconvincing and ultimately unsatisfying it all was. And I finally realized that there was nothing for me to believe in, nothing for me to fear, no reason for me to feel empty. There are no gods. We are here by virtue of a series of cosmic accidents. And we help each other along not because some imaginary being tells us to, but because it's the right thing to do. This understanding was liberating.I'm glad you are happy in your faith.

Thorne
06-19-2010, 07:22 AM
Your definition is too limited. Faith is belief without proof. That can be faith in a god or gods, or in science (the belief that science can explain everything is a faith, because it's inherently unproveable,) or in a Cause. In his campaigns for atheism Richard Dawkins is as much a faith-driven man as any preacher.
Neither I nor Richard Dawkins ever claimed that science can explain everything. We know that it cannot. Science determines the most likely explanations for the things it studies, based upon observation and data. No faith is necessary. Gravity is a great example. We all know that gravity sucks. Why? Haven't a clue! Observation and experimentation tells us it's so, and Newton tells us how much. But (unless there have been changes in our knowledge) no one has yet been able to explain HOW gravity works.


And absolute faith is a very dangerous thing, but not only religious faith. Some of the worst atrocities have been committed by people with no faith in religion, but absolute faith in a Cause.
Absolutely!


Your loss.
Your opinion. ;)


That "at best" is a lot.
Again, your opinion. For my part, I find it makes me much more comfortable knowing that earthquakes are caused by shifting tectonic plates and not by the whim of some angry god. Doesn't make me any safer, of course. Unless I decide not to live near the edges of those plates. Where does one go to avoid an angry god?


The proof is that people who choose to believe other things have not made that change, and actively prefer the feudal primitive societies that fit their beliefs, and we can't make them change at the point of a gun.
No, we cannot. The only way to get people to change is through education. The Soviet Union proved that. Nominally atheistic, they suppressed all religions, usually violently. Yet when they finally collapsed, the religions popped back out from hiding. The only reason for us to have a gun is to keep the fanatics from trying to force us to change at the points of their guns.



Or in the name of one political system or another. The dangers of fanaticism and the dangers of religion are two different things that only partly overlap.
The difference is that most religions, to one extent or another, proclaim themselves to be the arbiters of goodness and morality. "Thou shalt not kill!" Unless its a filthy heathen who believes in false gods. "Thou shalt not bear false witness!" Except to make those atheist 'evil'-utionists look bad.


Your arguments are usually so reasonable and well thought out that it annoys me when you talk nonsense.
Semantics. So the word 'atheism' may not be absolutely correct in this context. That doesn't negate the idea, though. If you can deny the existence of any gods, how does that make you so much different from someone who denies the existence of ALL gods?


I'm glad you are happy in your faith.
I am happy without faith.

leo9
06-20-2010, 02:52 PM
Or in the name of one political system or another. The dangers of fanaticism and the dangers of religion are two different things that only partly overlap.

The difference is that most religions, to one extent or another, proclaim themselves to be the arbiters of goodness and morality.
So did Marxism and Nazism. So, to a lesser extent, do all ideologies: they differ only in their strictness and prescriptiveness. And the same is true of religions. There is a difference between the detailed rules of the Torah and "An it harm none, do what you will."




Your arguments are usually so reasonable and well thought out that it annoys me when you talk nonsense.

Semantics. Exactly: the meanings of words. Without which, you talk Chinese and I'll talk Martian and we'll forget about communicating anything at all.
So the word 'atheism' may not be absolutely correct in this context. That doesn't negate the idea, though.No, it just exposes it as self-contradictory.
If you can deny the existence of any gods, how does that make you so much different from someone who denies the existence of ALL gods?In the first place, it's the difference between one and zero, and if you prove that doesn't exist, don't blame me when your computer crashes.

And in the second place, I never said I deny the existence of any gods. I may reckon that some religionists have completely misunderstood the nature of their god, but that's only my opinion and I wouldn't go to the stake for it. I'm quite prepared to discover when I die that it was all the Flying Spaghetti Monster wearing different wigs. Or indeed to discover nothing at all because I won't be there: but I rate that as rather less likely.



I'm glad you are happy in your faith.

I am happy without faith.
You're playing with words again. Faith, I think we agreed earlier, is belief without proof. When you say there is no evidence for the existence of gods, that's a factual statement. (In the sense that it's verifiable, not in the sense that it's indisputable.) But when you say:
There are no gods. We are here by virtue of a series of cosmic accidents.
that's a statement of faith - a belief which you hold without proof, because it's logically incapable of proof.

I'm not saying this to mock or belittle your beliefs, far from it. I just like to call things by their real names. To reverse your aphorism: we are both believers, you just believe in fewer gods than I do.

Thorne
06-20-2010, 07:42 PM
So did Marxism and Nazism. So, to a lesser extent, do all ideologies: they differ only in their strictness and prescriptiveness.
True, but they did not claim to have the backing of a supernatural being behind them.


And in the second place, I never said I deny the existence of any gods.
My statement was not directed at you specifically. But it is unusual, I think you will agree, for a member of any religion to honestly say that their god might not be the one, true God.



Faith, I think we agreed earlier, is belief without proof.
Which is an altogether different thing from disbelief without proof.


But when you say:"There are no gods. We are here by virtue of a series of cosmic accidents", that's a statement of faith - a belief which you hold without proof, because it's logically incapable of proof.
No, it's a statement of statistical certainty. It's saying that the odds of there being gods, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, are so negligible as to be virtually zero. In mathematical terms, it's stating that the probability of there not being gods is 0.999999999999999999.... Rounded to 1.0


we are both believers, you just believe in fewer gods than I do.
And once again I say, disbelief cannot be equated with a belief in the opposite. It's a lack of belief. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, not a belief that there are no gods.

denuseri
06-21-2010, 10:34 AM
Actually when you look at the universe in its seemingly infinite capacity....how can there not be such things in existance?

Thorne
06-21-2010, 12:54 PM
Actually when you look at the universe in its seemingly infinite capacity....how can there not be such things in existance?
Such things as what? Supernatural/spiritual beings? Sure it's possible, however remotely. But just because people want them to exist doesn't mean they must exist.

As far as we can tell, the universe cares absolutely nothing about our existence. If the human race, or even the entire solar system, were to disappear right now, the universe would not even notice the absence. Some material might rush in over the next few centuries to fill in the empty space, but in the grand scheme of things we would not be missed.

Certainly it would be nice to believe that our lives have more meaning than that. It would be wonderful to know that humanity is a central force in the development of the universe, the end of a long line of evolution designed specifically to bring us into existence. It would also be nice to have Santa Claus drop by every winter to hand out gifts, or for little boys to be able to climb beanstalks into the land of the giants. The probabilities are about the same.

leo9
06-22-2010, 05:56 AM
No, it's a statement of statistical certainty. It's saying that the odds of there being gods, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, are so negligible as to be virtually zero. In mathematical terms, it's stating that the probability of there not being gods is 0.999999999999999999.... Rounded to 1.0
And I believe that the odds that there are is so high as to be vitually certainty. But since neither of us can expect to offer evidence for our beliefs - I don't expect miracles, and you can't prove a negative - they remain beliefs without proof, whether expressed sematically or mathematically.


And once again I say, disbelief cannot be equated with a belief in the opposite. It's a lack of belief. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, not a belief that there are no gods.
Lack of belief is agnosticism, the refusal to commit to any belief system. "There are no gods" isn't lack of belief, it's an assertion of belief, belief in atheism.

It's like conservatives who say they're not political, because in their eyes only left-wing views are "politics", conservative views are just common sense.

But I can see this is a sensitive subject for you, so I'll let it go.

Thorne
06-22-2010, 07:31 AM
And I believe that the odds that there are is so high as to be vitually certainty. But since neither of us can expect to offer evidence for our beliefs - I don't expect miracles, and you can't prove a negative - they remain beliefs without proof, whether expressed sematically or mathematically.
While true that one cannot prove a negative, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that the universe has evolved along natural, predictable lines without any evidence of supernatural intervention. And every year we learn more and more about how the universe works, how matter and energy interact. All evidence of a completely natural order. Mankind has been searching for the gods for at least 10,000 years without finding one solid piece of evidence for them. In fact, the longer we have looked the lower our expectations of what the gods actually do have become. At one time the gods were able to wield lightning, storms, wind and all manner of potent, deadly forces in their efforts to destroy mankind. Now, it seems, they are relegated to forming images of Jesus on burritos (http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/5/jesus.htm), or the Virgin Mary in bird droppings (http://www.kwtx.com/offbeatnews/headlines/50946582.html). Oh, how the mighty have fallen.


Lack of belief is agnosticism, the refusal to commit to any belief system. "There are no gods" isn't lack of belief, it's an assertion of belief, belief in atheism.
While I will agree that agnosticism is a "refusal to commit to any belief system" I don't know if that could be considered the same as not believing. One can still believe in God or gods without committing to a particular religion.

But I see that it's my statement that "There are no gods" is what's bugging you, so I'll amend myself. There are probably no gods. Just like there are probably no canals on Mars, and there are probably no invisible unicorns in my back yard. I wish there were, as they could eat the grass and save me having to run the lawnmower.


But I can see this is a sensitive subject for you, so I'll let it go.
I don't find it a sensitive subject. I find it very interesting, in fact. The only thing that bothers me even a little bit is that we've gone from discussing whether or not there is evidence for the supernatural to arguments over terminology. Like many other believers, you can't, or won't, accept the possibility that anyone can exist without some form of belief system. You seem to be able to accept as facts that there are no leprechauns, there are no unicorns, there are no magical fairies drifting along in the garden, there is no Easter bunny. But let someone declare that there are no gods and that goes from a statement of fact to a statement of belief? Seems just a touch hypocritical to me.

leo9
07-13-2010, 03:36 PM
Like many other believers, you can't, or won't, accept the possibility that anyone can exist without some form of belief system. Not at all, I know plenty of people who get along just fine with no belief system, but they wouldn't be having this discussion: they'd just go "Yeah, OK, whatever."
You seem to be able to accept as facts that there are no leprechauns, there are no unicorns, there are no magical fairies drifting along in the garden, there is no Easter bunny. But let someone declare that there are no gods and that goes from a statement of fact to a statement of belief? Seems just a touch hypocritical to me.

Not at all, all of the above are statements of belief. I believe there is no Easter Bunny, but I can't see any way I could be justified in calling that belief a fact: what would I evidence as proof? The fact that most known rabbits don't distribute chocolate eggs makes my belief well founded, but it doesn't prove that there never was and never could be such a creature: it just makes it unlikely enough that I feel justified in disbelieving it.

But since you feel that this is just a quibble over the meaning of words, while I feel it's an important point, we'd better let it go.

Thorne
07-13-2010, 07:15 PM
Not at all, all of the above are statements of belief. I believe there is no Easter Bunny, but I can't see any way I could be justified in calling that belief a fact: what would I evidence as proof? The fact that most known rabbits don't distribute chocolate eggs makes my belief well founded, but it doesn't prove that there never was and never could be such a creature: it just makes it unlikely enough that I feel justified in disbelieving it.
So then you TRUST the evidence that there is no Easter Bunny. Not the same thing as "believing" that there is no Easter Bunny. How is that different from trusting the evidence that there are no gods?


But since you feel that this is just a quibble over the meaning of words, while I feel it's an important point, we'd better let it go.
It's not just a quibble, though, it's a real problem. The word "belief" can be used in at least two different ways (as far as this discussion is concerned). You can "believe" something is true despite a lack of tangible evidence (a matter of faith) or you can "believe" something is NOT true BECAUSE their is no tangible evidence (a matter of TRUST). But declaring that the latter is just as much an article of faith as the former is absolutely wrong. You would be most likely to maintain your faith despite the lack of evidence, right? While I would have to change my "belief" if actual evidence for gods were to be found.