Lest we forget

[TomOfSweden]

Instead of going the atheist/agnostic route of saying, if we can't prove something, we shouldn't believe in it,

I'd just like to point out that it annoys me when agnostics and atheists are clumped together. The agnostics belong to the religious since they don't deny it. It's seen as some kind of middle-ground but it's really not. Agnostics judge the evidence for and against the supernatural and somehow manage not to see that the supernatural camp has no evidence or credible theories at all to back it up. That to me is taking a stand. A very definate stand.

I have the tendency to believe in everything. I know, how is that skeptical? Well, it's like this: I believe in different planes of reality. That there is a reality, a metaphorical and sense-related reality in saying "The sun rose." This is contradicted by scientific thought which informs us that the sun remains in place and the earth turns and revolves around it. However, if I was writing a poem, I'd never write anything about "the beautiful earth-turn".

I don't think that we, as humans, can judge the truth of someone else's reality. We can only judge our own truth. And I think that people need to find what resonates in their own soul, as opposed to just doing what their friends, parents, culture, etc. thinks is right. A part of me lives in great fear that one of the very belief-centered religions might be right, and that I might go to hell not just because I don't practice that religion but because I'm so adamantly against the idea that one should be blamed or punished for a belief. A god who acts in that manner is not a god I want to serve. Yes, this is an assumption on my part, that everyone has a right to their beliefs. It might be a wrong assumption, but it's one of the few things I believe in absolutely. I believe that when people assert the opposite that it is done out of insecurity about their own belief and not out of true spirituality.

Aren't you mixing up human interpretation of the world with the actual physical state? I live in a different plane of reality then, let's say somebody colourblind. But both of us can understand the physical properties of colours just as well. The goal of the scientiffic language is to minimize the room for interpretation, (hence all the boring maths). I'm sure that with enough shrooms I can see god, that will never be any proof for gods existance. We all know that our senses aren't particularly fine tuned. So we can't really trust them. You do agree on that one, right?

I don't think that the fact that I believe in the supernatural means that I automatically lose the right to have that belief. My own religion (which I've created and which suits me and probably no one else) is not based on the idea that it is Right and all others are Wrong. Now, as I said, it's possible that my religion is Wrong and that some other religion is Right. Again, as I said, that possibility scares me. I'm arrogant, some would say, in assuming that I have the right to judge God. I don't know what happens after death. I only know that spirituality has enriched my own life more than anything else. I know that it has not caused me to run out and try to convert anyone or see anyone as lesser to me because they have a different religion. It's made me work on my own issues to become a better person, by my beliefs, of course, or perhaps by Hers (my Goddess').

So, as to "what if the Satanists are right?" Well, I've read some Satanic writings of Anton LaVey and they actually aren't at all what we imagine. They question authority and have strong views on serving yourself first and being honest and firm about who and what you are. I don't remember all the details, but it's not about calling up demons or performing Black Masses or sacrificing people or animals. So, if they're right, I wouldn't mind too much, I don't think.

As for fundamentalists of any sort (and there *are* pagan fundamentalists, too), those are the people I hope are wrong. But note my language: I'm not saying they *are* wrong. I think they're wrong because I believe that the universe is way too vast to be summed up in one religion, but I realize that that belief is not based on anything that can be proven.

You missed my point a bit. Sorry, for being unclear. The issue is whether or not human morality comes from an external source. Can we and are we working it out for ourselves or do we need to be told by a god? Christians for example believe in that humanity was told by an external source. Somehow comunicated through a myriad of people, (by thought control?) and written in the Bible. It's a mystery to me how christian know which people have had their minds under gods control, and which people just are plain crazy or lying. But nothing else about christianity makes sense so I'll just let that one slide.

On the other hand, I'm not a scientist and cannot prove on my own, without being told, that the earth really turns. I believe it, because I know how the scientific process worked, but for all I know there's no earth and I was born yesterday with a whole bunch of implanted memories and a whole environment designed to make me think I've been alive for 30 years. Do I think that's likely? No, not at all. But it is possible and I have no real proof to the contrary.

And: "How can I distinguish between random thought and devine messages?"

Well, I know that I can distinguish between those two things, but that's because I've chosen to have faith in my Goddess. I will admit that it could all be a delusion. I don't think it is, but who knows. The way I can tell is that the divine stuff usually seems to have no reason and then have changed something drastically later. Or it is something that I know is right already but am resisting doing for some reason.

This is where I think your otherwise excelent post loses it a bit. You've presented a tautology. The evidence you present to believe in the godess derives from your belief in the godess. You are obviously capable of making a coherant case so I won't dwell on this. Why not follow through and draw conculsions from the evidence you yourself have collected?

The religious theories of god and the supernatural are proper scientiffic theories. Nobody is contesting that. The only difference between them and theories like evolution is that nobody bothers to test the religious theories because we know that the results will be inconclusive. What do we all do in a situation where we don't know? Schrödinger cat. We off-course don't make any sure fire claims, leave it on the pile of maybes and stick to whatever makes the most sense. So on the one hand we have the supernatural improbable theories backed up by nothing, and on the other hand the non-supernatural theories plenty of evidence and a large number of plausible explanations for the world. That anybody in that situation still chose to believe in "the godess" is well....strange.

I find the subject very fascinating. Not the supernatural as such, but the large number of people who in spite of evidence take it seriously. That's....to me is just amazing.

And incidentally, sometime in 2000, I wrote a story about a woman who was a sadist in the French department and was writing fantasy stories where women were superior. I did not know about BDSM at the time, and in fact, believed (*rolls eyes*) that it was wrong and that no one would ever want to be submissive and that people who said they were were being brainwashed by their abusive partners... *hem* *hem* Switch here. Um, anyway. I opened the document again last Friday and I discovered a very short story about my life -- HIGHLY autobiographical, down to the street I lived on, in which I took advantage of someone and made them into my sex slave. The last part was fiction, but clearly expressed my own dominant side. I do not remember this story. I thought maybe I had saved the other story under another title, but that story doesn't exist. It doesn't exist. This one does. I have no idea how that happened or why. I know I couldn't have written the story I found because I know I did not see myself that way at that time. Clearly I somehow tricked myself into revealing the truth when I thought I was writing something else. Any rational ideas on how that could have happened? I'm serious here, not trying to be argumentative: *are* there any rational reasons I'm missing?

You tell me. I think people generally are smarter than they give themselves credit for, (and act). And they pick up on many more things than they think they do. You aparently knew yourself better at the time than you give yourself credit for.

The other thing I keep in mind is my own sense of morality. Again, I tend to be pretty arrogant, to some people's mind, in assuming that I have the right to have my own sense of morality, but on the other hand, this world IS the only world we know, and it only makes sense to do what's right by the standards of this world. If a god really wants us to blindly follow and not question things by our own sense of morality, again, I feel that god does not deserve my service. So, if I were to receive a message from the divine that *felt* like a message from the divine but was advocating something I felt was morally wrong, I wouldn't do it.

What I find interesting in all of this, as a kind of rambly personal aside, is that I see now that I'm talking of gods in much the way I would talk about possible dominants. I do feel that way: that in religion, we are creating a relationship with the divine and there is some sort of contract between the devout/believer and the god, and both sides need to have fair expectations of each other. To me, a god asking for blind obedience and for someone to go against their personal morality -- these things are wrong and abusive. Other people would say that I don't have the right to say that because I'm merely human and cannot possibly comprehend what is truly Good or Evil... then again (at least from the perspective of those who believe in Genesis), isn't it because we *do* know about Good and Evil that we aren't granted eternal life? I think people do have an innate moral compass, and that in reality, we do all agree about what's truly right and wrong... the problem comes when we add to the list of "wrong" things in order to make ourselves feel superior. Again a personal belief that I have no way of measuring.

ok, let's follow your reasoning. I've interpreted it as, in your state of existance there are three possible scources for morality for humanity.

1) There is no god and we make up our moral standards alone.
2) There is god but does not have moral codes for us to follow or they are optional and we make up our own moral standards.
3) There is a god and does have moral codes for us to follow.

In the first two cases god can be ignored. In the third case gods rules should be followed blindly and all we can do is interpret them as best we can.

See the problem? A god with optional moral codes doesn't really have moral codes to follow does it?

And it's a little off-topic. I'm rambling a lot here, and I apologize.

ha ha ha. Yeah, off-topic and then some. I think I'm more guilty for it than anyone else here. But since it's Cariads thread and she let's us get away with it I'll just keep going.