|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » The Pagan 'problem' |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
StoneGloves 1149 posts |
Sep 21, 2010, 12:29
|
||
From lurking the farmers' forum it seems as if they believe the European money to be secure. Most of the agri-enviro schemes are funded by this - only a tiny bit comes from NE - so they should be safe for the time being. I totally neglect the urban moths and know a moth survey would be helpful. I reassure myself by knowing that the nectar plants, exploited by the butterflies through the day, will be visited by moths at night. I used to survey and monitor the urban ponds, but it was miserably depressing watching them continually being mismanaged and lost.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 21, 2010, 14:58
|
||
|
I attended a rally of my local moth club on the common next to my house recently - about 20 mercury lamps dotted around in the dark. I'd say they were all a bit weird but that would be self-condemning. One had a hat with corks hanging down. From what I could see they were getting far fewer and smaller stuff than when I were a lad, which is sad.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Sep 21, 2010, 16:35
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: I attended a rally of my local moth club on the common next to my house recently - about 20 mercury lamps dotted around in the dark. I'd say they were all a bit weird but that would be self-condemning. One had a hat with corks hanging down. From what I could see they were getting far fewer and smaller stuff than when I were a lad, which is sad. At least you didn't have far to walk Nigel!!! (g)
|
|||
Jane 3024 posts |
Sep 23, 2010, 14:27
|
||
|
Resonox wrote: The thread seems(IMO)to be veering towards confusing "paganism" with "atheism"..I have always assumed that praising nature was a form of worship and in it's own way a sort of deity worship, so can't really be atheism...even the scientists are just as pagan as the rest of us with their own form of worship. I love, cherish and respect the natural world more than anything else, but I don't worship it. It is a series of complex physical and chemical processes which enable life to exist, that we are only just beginning to understand. The natural world is not a deity. Resonox wrote: These "celebrity atheists" who seem to rail against everything and anything....are just telling us how clever they are by believing nothing at all..yet(desperately)want us to believe in them are the ones who get my goat. ;0P By celebrity atheists I presume you mean Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others. Prof Dawkins has it right when he says: "We are all atheist about one god or another. Some of us just go one god further." Dawkins is simply pointing out that worshipping a judeo-christian god is no more irrational that worshipping Thor or Amon Ra or Vishnu or Dawkins doesn't want you to think he is particularly clever (though he is); all he wants people to do is to think things out logically and rationally for themselves by examining the evidence. The reason he is so strident about it is because he (like me and millions of others) are FED UP to the back teeth with those who assert religious privilege. By pussy-footing around the believers in case we cause offence, we prolong their unfair privilege. Happily, I was not in the UK when Pope Ratzinger visited, so I didn't have to breathe the same air as him.
|
|||
|
Jane 3024 posts |
Sep 23, 2010, 15:21
|
||
|
The Sea Cat wrote: That is a perfectly valid to a point, however, many people of a 'spiritual' perspective get a litle fed up with being shouted at by atheists and empiricists. Amon Ra, Vishnu et al are entirely symbolic. Dawkins and his fellows have no knowledge of deeper spititual/esoteric knowledge systems whatsoever. Thus, their railing against this fictional cloud bound anthropomorhic entity are entirely irrelevant in that context. :-) People sometimes say they are not religious but they are 'spiritual'. I have pondered this often, but I have no idea what this means. Can you - or anyone - explain? I'm sure believers of Amon Ra, Hanuman et al believed in their gods a strongly as do catholics in the holy virgin mother, and not symbolically at all. Most atheists I know, and especially 'celebrity atheists', (not that I personally know any of them!) exhibit a greater knowledge of the major religions and faith systems than most people of faith that I know. :-) back atcha J x
|
|||
The Sea Cat 3608 posts |
Edited Sep 23, 2010, 15:47
Sep 23, 2010, 15:43
|
||
|
Jane wrote: Resonox wrote: The thread seems(IMO)to be veering towards confusing "paganism" with "atheism"..I have always assumed that praising nature was a form of worship and in it's own way a sort of deity worship, so can't really be atheism...even the scientists are just as pagan as the rest of us with their own form of worship. I love, cherish and respect the natural world more than anything else, but I don't worship it. It is a series of complex physical and chemical processes which enable life to exist, that we are only just beginning to understand. The natural world is not a deity. Resonox wrote: These "celebrity atheists" who seem to rail against everything and anything....are just telling us how clever they are by believing nothing at all..yet(desperately)want us to believe in them are the ones who get my goat. ;0P By celebrity atheists I presume you mean Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others. Prof Dawkins has it right when he says: "We are all atheist about one god or another. Some of us just go one god further." Dawkins is simply pointing out that worshipping a judeo-christian god is no more irrational that worshipping Thor or Amon Ra or Vishnu or Dawkins doesn't want you to think he is particularly clever (though he is); all he wants people to do is to think things out logically and rationally for themselves by examining the evidence. The reason he is so strident about it is because he (like me and millions of others) are FED UP to the back teeth with those who assert religious privilege. By pussy-footing around the believers in case we cause offence, we prolong their unfair privilege. Happily, I was not in the UK when Pope Ratzinger visited, so I didn't have to breathe the same air as him. That is a perfectly valid to a point, however, many people of a 'spiritual' perspective get a litle fed up with being shouted at by atheists and empiricists. Amon Ra, Vishnu et al are entirely symbolic. Dawkins and his fellows have no knowledge of deeper spititual/esoteric knowledge systems whatsoever. Thus, their railing against this fictional cloud bound anthropomorhic entity are entirely irrelevant in that context. :-)
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Sep 23, 2010, 18:17
Sep 23, 2010, 16:59
|
||
|
Jane wrote: People sometimes say they are not religious but they are 'spiritual'. I have pondered this often, but I have no idea what this means. Can you - or anyone - explain? J x The I Ching for example might be described as a spiritual philosophy with no 'god' involved. It has survived for thousands of years in many different forms; neither is there anything superstitious about the hexagrams - each one gives sound advice about how respond/react to life's crises and can be applied to any situation. (Edited)
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 23, 2010, 17:00
|
||
|
Hey Jane..... http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/francestuzec.htm Enjoy!
|
|||
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Sep 23, 2010, 17:24
|
||
|
Jane wrote: By celebrity atheists I presume you mean Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others. No..I was referring to our"national institution"(as he is often called these days)..the sometimes comical...yet regularly pompous La Fry, who is promoting another book...so needs to be in the public eye..if it wasn't a rant against a nazi homophobic pontiff who wouldn't know atheism from lesbianism it would've been a turgid statement railing against/for(depending on the current concensus) pear trees/fluffy clouds/etc etc All the Hawkins,Dawkins,Hitchens et al..deserve their day in the sun.. they've worked hard to prove points with fairly reasoned facts.
|
|||
tiompan 5758 posts |
Sep 23, 2010, 17:59
|
||
|
dee wrote: Dawkins vs Watts ....ding ding....round 1 !! I remember a late night discussion , probably in the good old early days of Ch 4 , when a lightweight like Ben Okri (surely an atheist , so there was no juvenile baiting required ) had Dawkins reeling on the ropes .
|
| Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
