New to Paganism

[Materialist]

Why are you making that assumption about anyone? You don't know our debate histories.

Based on the conversations I've seen here, this place is pretty tame.

[yewberry]

Based on the conversations I've seen here, this place is pretty tame.

 
Why?  Because people aren't rising to your obvious bating?

I'm so happy to disappoint you.

Brina

[FollowerofOdin]

Hello

As a child I had christianity forced on me by my god fearing parents and I must say as a child I took it all in as fact.  But then, as you, do you get older and I began to question.  It became quite clear to me that many religions don't like too many questions especially when the answers 'god works in mysterious ways' or 'god has a plan for us all' just dont do it for me.  So for several years through my study of science i found myself turning away from religion and becoming a non-believer.

But then last year it all changed for me.  I can not explain it very well but it was like i began to feel the Earths life force.  I could sense a consciousness of all the nature a round me as if it was all connected.

Now I find myself believing that the Earth is more alive then people make out.  She has awarness and the power to change herself as she sees fit.  Not only this but I believe all planets have this as well.  They are all connected and communicate with each other.  I could go into more of my thoughts but this post is long as it is.

I began to research what i believe to see if there where others like me and I found paganism.  But as many of you know paganism ranges very widely and I find myself looking for a path to take.

I want to find others like me.  Where can I go to find more information (sites, books, meeting, etc).  If anyone can help with this it would be greatly appreciated.  There are estimated 250,000 neo-pagans in britain yet i find myself feeling very alone.

 
I know how you feel, trust me. I never had Christianity shoved down my throat, thank the goddess for that, but feeling alone is something that feels every real to me. A very real emotion. Still living with my mother, she's forcing Christianity down my throat. I think that she thinks that she messed up by allowing me to practice Wicca and being open minded.

I do hope that you find those that can help you. But if you want some good info then try Ronald Hutton, Gerald Gardner (I hope I spelled his name right. It's 12:24 in the morning here), and some of the other figures of the early Wicca movement. Of course if your not interested in Wicca then there are a number of other books in Druidry and other subjects. Can't remember them all because it's way too late at night.

[Louisvillian]

Have you any idea how offensive this statement is?

If by "offensive" you mean "a reasonable critique", then yes. I'm a Neopagan, I disagree with his assertion, but he brings up a good point. Neopaganism tends to be religious and spiritual, and has just as much emphasis on superstitious ideas as any other spirituality. Does this mean it inherently rejects scientific inquiry or is as hostile to science as other religious groups? No. But it has equal potential as Christianity to be pseudoscientific or even anti-science.
He might be being a little stern about it, but I can't fault him for sticking up for his views. Seriously people, you need to take critiques as just that. Not as insults or offences.

[Jack]

If by "offensive" you mean "a reasonable critique", then yes. I'm a Neopagan, I disagree with his assertion, but he brings up a good point. Neopaganism tends to be religious and spiritual, and has just as much emphasis on superstitious ideas as any other spirituality. Does this mean it inherently rejects scientific inquiry or is as hostile to science as other religious groups? No. But it has equal potential as Christianity to be pseudoscientific or even anti-science.

 
What he actually said was not that either one had the potential to be pseudoscientific or anti-science but that it is "incompatible with scientific facts." Also he said it in the context of 'hey there scientist, you should check out a different religion because yours is incompatible with science.' Which, yes, many people would find an offensive thing to say.

[Louisvillian]

What he actually said was not that either one had the potential to be pseudoscientific or anti-science but that it is "incompatible with scientific facts." Also he said it in the context of 'hey there scientist, you should check out a different religion because yours is incompatible with science.' Which, yes, many people would find an offensive thing to say.

Which, while I disagree with him, I think is a completely valid criticism of any spirituality. If his perspective is that spirituality and superstition goes against scientific inquiry and claims things in contra to scientific facts, then he has every right to voice the opinion and make that critique. If we're not willing to accept deep, incisive criticism, and use it as an opportunity to grow and understand our beliefs better, then we're not being very good people.

[Jack]

Which, while I disagree with him, I think is a completely valid criticism of any spirituality. If his perspective is that spirituality and superstition goes against scientific inquiry and claims things in contra to scientific facts, then he has every right to voice the opinion and make that critique. If we're not willing to accept deep, incisive criticism, and use it as an opportunity to grow and understand our beliefs better, then we're not being very good people.

I don't think that qualified as "deep, incisive criticism" personally, but you're welcome to disagree. I tend to expect my incisive criticism to actually make points in favor of its arguments rather than statements that boil down to "your religion is silly, try mine instead".

The closest thing we had to a scientific fact in this thread was "naturally, it's much too dangerous to jump through fires with your clothes on."

[Louisvillian]

...rather than statements that boil down to "your religion is silly, try mine instead".

I was under the impression he was a non-religious atheist, given his assertions about superstition.

[Jack]

I was under the impression he was a non-religious atheist, given his assertions about superstition.

Religion does not require theism (just ask a Buddhist!), but fine, pretend I said "your philosophy is silly, try mine instead." Does that convey it more clearly?

[Louisvillian]

Religion does not require theism (just ask a Buddhist!), but fine

Hence why I specified "non-religious atheist" and didn't just blanket religious people as theistic.

pretend I said "your philosophy is silly, try mine instead." Does that convey it more clearly?

Yes. And I still don't believe that he's being offensive. Pushy, sure. But he seems overall like a generic Logical Positivist.

[Egarwaen]

But he seems overall like a generic Logical Positivist.

 
Being a member of an entire philosophical school based around being as offensive as possible to everyone does not excuse offensive behavior.

[Darkhawk]

Yes. And I still don't believe that he's being offensive. Pushy, sure. But he seems overall like a generic Logical Positivist.

 
Wasn't that guy the one who was talking about "genetic memory"?  I don't think advocating for things that are not only not scientifically provable but not even possible according to any known understanding of reality qualifies for "Logicial Positivism".

Someone who wants to accuse other people of being anti-scientific might best check the building materials of their houses before they engage in stonechucking behaviours.

[Jack]

Being a member of an entire philosophical school based around being as offensive as possible to everyone does not excuse offensive behavior.

 
I am picturing Professor Lupin saying that and it is a beautiful thing. I applaud you.

[Louisvillian]

Wasn't that guy the one who was talking about "genetic memory"?  I don't think advocating for things that are not only not scientifically provable but not even possible according to any known understanding of reality qualifies for "Logicial Positivism".

Fair enough. I did not see every point he'd made, only the bit that was quoted as being "offensive".