Staying Home to watch the Inaguration?

If this poll was open, I would say that I was going to be there. But I was already gone by the time the thread started.

I was there. I was cold. The lines were a fiasco, ticketed or not. But it turned out to be a pretty nice day, in more ways than one.

It was very moving watching it with one other person in my living room. I can only imagine what it was like to be there watching it with 2 million people! And something to tell your grandchildren for sure.

Uncle Aleister believed in a lot of supernatural things..
among them that Horus appeared and spoke to him in person..

No, 'patronizing' means saying or typing things such as 'maybe go beyond Wikipedia and actually read on the subject(s)' [from your post]. By making remarks of so unperceptive a nature, you demonstrate a basic insecurity about your beliefs, which is unfortunate for your advocacy.

Obviously it is my extensive reading on the subject that informed my own remarks--a fact that would be apparent to the perspicacious reader.



Here is where your logic breaks down (and I don't doubt that you aren't alone in this). You seem to be reasoning thusly:

1. 'Supernatural' is a negative descriptor.
2. Nothing that I participate in can have a negative descriptor.
3. I participate in paganism.
4. Therefore paganism can have no supernatural component.

Clearly, this is fallacious (even if it is comforting for you).


The root of the difficulty seems to be in the definition of 'supernatural'. You seem to be using the definition: If I believe in it or practice it, it can't be Supernatural. It must, instead, be Natural.

This isn't a very useful definition, however.

To give just one reason why this isn't useful: consider that the vast majority of Christians, if asked if God is Natural or Supernatural, would almost certainly answer: "Natural."


A more useful distinction might be approached by considering a situation such as this:

If you look at an impressive, beautiful tree and think 'this came about because of the processes of natural selection and climate events and geologic factors', then you are a person who does not believe in the Supernatural.

But if you look at an impressive, beautiful tree and think 'this came about because of the actions of the deity ______' or 'this came about because of the guidance of the spirit of _____' or 'this came about because of the will of the _______ that resides in the tree'--------------the you are a person who DOES believe in the Supernatural.

Nice... so instead of them, now we have Barack Hussein Obama? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the name of a despot we kicked out of power in his country, hunted down to a hole like a rat and turned him over to his former people who then ended up executing him after a fair trial?


And as far as trying to 'love our enemies'... I just don't think that will work. It's kinda like 1/6 of the world wants to either destroy the other 5/6 or make it like them. My biggest fear is that in order to make the planet a safe place, we, as not only a nation, but the entire free world, will have to take a page out of late-'30s/early-'40s Germany's playbook. It's a VERY scary thought, but if it had to be done... well, I'd support it.

How noble!

Hey, I'll be the first to state that that's a very ugly thing to have to do.

But if it comes down to a question of them or us, which would you rather it be?

Isn't George the name of the King of England at the time of the American Revolution? How can you support a president with a name like George?

How many here watch The Simpsons?
Discraceful. That's blatant glorification of O. J. Simpson.
There's clearly a connection. I mean ---- "Simpson"

I suppose this means that a white guy of Irish extraction, named Barry O'Bama will have a hard time getting elected president because he's got a 'black-sounding' name.

this thread can be locked.. inauguration is over.. end of topic

What is obvious is that you can't read, much less reason. I specifically said that there are pagans that believe in the supernatural. Supernatural for theological purposes exists in its relationship to the natural and either you believe that there is something that is other than the natural, which the supernatural is, or you don't. If you don't believe that the supernatural exists, it doesn't mean there are no gods, only that their existence is within the natural. And no, that does not include the Christian god, which preexisted the natural world per their particular myths.

I see nothing 'wrong' with the supernatural. I just don't see the necessity for it or that there is any particular proof that it exists. This puts me in alignment with the majority of pagans, secular humanists of most stripes, and religious naturalists by definition, and others. You are the one that seems to have a problem dealing with other possibilities or moving beyond a locked-in point of view.

My point was simply this. We do not define our religious beliefs by what we do not believe in, based on your point of view, Obama's, or the Pope's. We define our religion by what we believe in. We are not 'non-believers'. Even Secular Humanists of the stringently naturalist point of view are believers. To cast all of 'us' into a particular mold by calling us non-believers is to define us by your world and religious view point and I reject that categorically.

This is my last comment on this discussion. This really seems to boil down to you trying to define pagans from your point of view. Fine. Have fun. Just don't expect many of us to agree with the results...

Training with Levi and has said he will be riding in support of Levi as 'second leader'. I'm just glad to see Chris Horner on the roster as well. I've officiated at a few races that he was in and talked to him several times and like to see him still at the UCI pro team level. Since I'm on the other coast, I'll have to hope its on cable.

Agree with the first point. Just pointing out that's why the definition extends to that concept. The Greenman, as another example, to the extent that he is considered a deity by some, does not have necessarily supernatural characteristics and can be defined within nature.

I think that most supernatural characteristics can be redefined within nature. Many religions choose to define their gods as outside nature, either as a superset or completely separate. To some degree then they are choosing to believe in the supernatural by definition.

I think the instinctive part is the issue of free will, that piece that people believe in within themselves, whatever you call it, soul, spirit, whatever. People do act as if there is an element separate of the body that is 'them', able to make transcendental jumps and decisions. Even secular humanists I know have trouble keeping references to that 'me' out of their discussions. This is the piece that requires the most reformulation in my opinion and is hardest to come to grips with, the fear that without free will we are stuck in a mechanistic life, unable to rise above what we were as we were created and taught. Some religions have that piece rooted in the natural, but they don't always deal with how one rises above the point you are now to another level or explain how it is a 'creator' or independent decision maker, rather than a purely reactive conscience. Doubt you can deal with the issue with discussions on a forum...

How can anything in the material world be a god?
How about militant agnostics?
Materialism doesn't require that you don't believe in the "me", it means that you don't believe that the "me" is separate from the physical body.

Yes to the first one, although you may have to lower your standards of deities from omnipotent, omniscient beings.

Don't know any militant agnostics, but if I meet one, I'll ask if they believe. Probably turn out to be a Arizona football fan and have an answer...

I agree with your last point, but the issue is how does a 'me' that is part of the material body rise above what IS the material body, which is in some ways the issues that free will answers to provide something other than pure determinism. Some like to find the answer in some form of modern theories that allow matter to be less causal, some focus on training and heightening the awareness of the world around them, more or less channeling determinism. I don't think either is going to be satisfactory to someone raised on Emerson.

The question itself is faulty, because the answer changes both with the opinion of the person asked and the definition of god used by the asker.

I like Chris too. Not that I've ever met him - that must have been so cool - but from seeing him on tv he seems like a down to Earth guy. Do you get Versus where you are? They'll be covering the Tour of California. I'm in San Diego so last year I was able to go up to Passadena for the last stage. (you can see my little video here: http://kaimis.com/video/MVI_4432.html ) And they're coming into San Diego County this year so I'll get to see some in person again.
Right now I'm looking forward to seeing their coverage of the Tour Down Under, on Saturday.
http://www.versus.com/nw/article/view/75280/?UserDef=true&catID=76
I'm not a cyclist myself but I really enjoy watching.

Full marks for stupidity and offensiveness.

If it's in the material world, I'll have to lower them a lot further than that. Something like Charlie Stross's Neko-chan. Problem is, I don't have any evidence that such a thing exists.
You have now. An agnostic says "I don't know", and a militant agonstic says "I don't know, and neither do you". I don't believe in what I can't know, and I don't believe you can know anything that I can't know.
Why do you believe it does? What does free will have to do with materialism anyway? Determinism was knocked in the spittoon back before World War II.

You're assuming that I have a definition of a god. I'm interested in Cael's definition of a god. There are definitions of a god (for example, the one used by the shamans in Swanwick's "Stations of the Tide" that seem entirely materialistic. I don't know of any real-world belief system that uses the term quite that way, though.

Uncle Aleister came close, if you take him with a pinch of metaphor.

You use the term materialistic, which is not a prerequisite for a deity to be natural, rather than supernatural. If the deity obeys the general laws of nature and the laws of nature as they may be (a key issue for Wicca and Druids, for example, not might or could, but may), they can be considered fully natural, of this world. That doesn't preclude a belief in the Three Elements or the Three Realms, but says that these are of the natural world and are not, in any sense, supernatural.

A person that exemplifies this in his writing (so closely that I think that he has to be either a practicing Druid or Wicca) is Jim Butcher, in his Harry Dresden series (which I confess is a favorite of mine), but more so in his other series about the earth and air magic. Reading the first book of that series, Furies of Calderon, would give you a better idea of what some Druids would believe possible over a long time of development than I could give you on a forum.

A hangup a lot of followers of western religions have is that they do not let go of the carryover of their own religion. If 'spirits' are supernatural in their religion, they are supernatural in all religions, as an example. Talking to the dead would require supernatural intervention in their religion, it is required in all religions. It doesn't take much reading to find cultures that find talking to their dead to be part of the natural world entirely. This isn't an issue of describing something you would find to be natural instead of supernatural; it is realizing that what you may find only as evidence of the supernatural is deemed by other cultures and religions to be part of the natural.

The laws of nature are only what we can observe, measure, experiment with, and understand. If it's not observable, then it's not a law of nature. If it's subject, even in principle, to the scientific method, it's natural. If not, then it's not. If you can devise a reproducible experiment that would demonstrate the existence of another realm, then we'll have to consider expanding the scope of nature. If not, then what you're dealing with is the supernatural. The ball is in your court to come up with an experiment.

Getting back to the "me" issue, an example of something that doesn't qualify as such an experiment is the "philosophical zombie". You can't demonstrate the existence of a separate consciousness by assuming that you can create a being indistinguishable from a human but lacking the thing you're trying to prove exists.

Yes, indeed.

What we've seen argued by Cael so far boils down to 'if I say it's natural then it's not supernatural', which is a wholly unconvincing (and fallacious) argument.

I don't know about fallacious, since it's not falsifiable (by definition), but it's not a *useful* definition of supernatural.

You seem convinced that resorting to personal insults will constitute an effective advocacy for your point of view. I wonder if that's true?





In what post did you see me stating that Obama's use of 'non-believer,' as a category to cover everyone who is not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu, was ideal or correct or admirable?

It's true that I applauded the change from the usual formulations which imply that every listening is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu. But that hardly constitutes an endorsement of 'non-believer' as the best terminology for those who are not followers of the four named religions.

Perhaps you simply didn't understand what you read, but I don't see how anyone could come away from any of my posts with the opinion you express here.



I see that you didn't even attempt to refute my two major points (in my previous post):

1) You seem to be reasoning thusly:

1. 'Supernatural' is a negative descriptor.
2. Nothing that I participate in can have a negative descriptor.
3. I participate in paganism.
4. Therefore paganism can have no supernatural component.

Clearly, this is fallacious (even if it is comforting for you).


The root of the difficulty seems to be in the definition of 'supernatural'. You seem to be using the definition: If I believe in it or practice it, it can't be Supernatural. It must, instead, be Natural.

This isn't a very useful definition, however.

To give just one reason why this isn't useful: consider that the vast majority of Christians, if asked if God is Natural or Supernatural, would almost certainly answer: "Natural."


2) A more useful distinction might be approached by considering a situation such as this:

If you look at an impressive, beautiful tree and think 'this came about because of the processes of natural selection and climate events and geologic factors', then you are a person who does not believe in the Supernatural.

But if you look at an impressive, beautiful tree and think 'this came about because of the actions of the deity ______' or 'this came about because of the guidance of the spirit of _____' or 'this came about because of the will of the _______ that resides in the tree'--------------the you are a person who DOES believe in the Supernatural.

..............................................................
I appreciate your conceding that you have no counter for these points.