Post Reply
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Do I fit in the Secular Humanist bin?
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 1:12PM #1
Lady_Heresy
Posts: 6

I am non-theist. Basically I just do not care if there are any gods or not. I think they are more likely more highly evolved aliens that got involved in human gene manipulation and either left us as a failed experiment or left us to "cook" awhile before possibly returning to exploit the results.

I am perhaps a bit more anti-religious than non-religious, but it comes from bitter personal experiences and I am trying to be more tolerant of ignorance and superstition Wink .

BUT--I do feel that there is a part of life that reflects the qualities that religion gives to "spirit". Perhaps it can be explained by science in the future. Today's sci-fi is tomorrow's sci-facts. I have had "paranormal" experiences that are difficult to explain scientifically. And I do feel there is some merit to some religious practice and paraphenalia like meditation, crystals/magnetic/harmonic vibration stuff. I know when I listen to Hindu Crystal Bowl Chakra Healing CDs I feel a physical reaction to the sound and it makes me feel better afterward. The same with some Reiki techniques. I have seen amazing synchronicities in my life and I do think that horoscopes, tarot cards, divination or even channeling have a psychological connection to the human brain that may be explained by science one day along with ESP and remote-viewing or psychokinetics.

Because of my unique (where I live it is unique!) personal philosophy I have called myself a non-theist witch. But that does not really fit me. I do not consider "magick" to be a power from some supernatural benevolent or malevolent Source. I feel the power in myself when I "do" magick. I feel it is a manipulation of natural elements through physical and psychic discipline. I love archetypes and symbols, but I am not much into the neo-paganism "everything old is new again" bit. Most of the old can't be proven, so most of the new is just someone's imagination. Which is as valid as any religion is--but not scientific or historic, and I despise intellectual dishonesty and the arrogant need for some kind of pedigree to make some belief system more valid than another one. THAT is religious hubris! I hate it.

oh yeah--my Hero is Patrick Jane of The Mentalist! (And Doctor Who.) Laughing

So do I fit in the Secular Humanist bin?

Sincerely,
Ravyn

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 1:31PM #2
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Mar 5, 2012 -- 1:12PM, Lady_Heresy wrote:


I am non-theist. Basically I just do not care if there are any gods or not. I think they are more likely more highly evolved aliens that got involved in human gene manipulation and either left us as a failed experiment or left us to "cook" awhile before possibly returning to exploit the results. 



If you think it's likely that "gods" are nothing more than highly evolved aliens, you're an atheist. After all, highly evolved aliens aren't gods. I don't know whether you're a secular humanist or not because I'm not sure what secular humanism is.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 2:53PM #3
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

Mar 5, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Ken wrote:


Mar 5, 2012 -- 1:12PM, Lady_Heresy wrote:


I am non-theist. Basically I just do not care if there are any gods or not. I think they are more likely more highly evolved aliens that got involved in human gene manipulation and either left us as a failed experiment or left us to "cook" awhile before possibly returning to exploit the results. 



If you think it's likely that "gods" are nothing more than highly evolved aliens, you're an atheist. After all, highly evolved aliens aren't gods. I don't know whether you're a secular humanist or not because I'm not sure what secular humanism is.




I don't know... the "gods are highly evolved aliens" bit makes her sound more Mormon than Secular Humanist to me....

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 2:55PM #4
Sparky_Spotty
Posts: 751

I can't stand when people use the word "magick".


Its the pretentious spelling that irritates me.



I think GENERALLY, secular humanists do not believe in supernatural things, but that's only my generalized opinion.



Other than that, I have nothing constructive to add to this discussion.  :p

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 3:00PM #5
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Mar 5, 2012 -- 2:55PM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:


I can't stand when people use the word "magick".


Its the pretentious spelling that irritates me.



Me too. It's an obsolete spelling from the days when people wrote "publick" and "tragick."

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 3:32PM #6
F1fan
Posts: 11,136

Mar 5, 2012 -- 2:53PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:


Mar 5, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Ken wrote:


Mar 5, 2012 -- 1:12PM, Lady_Heresy wrote:


I am non-theist. Basically I just do not care if there are any gods or not. I think they are more likely more highly evolved aliens that got involved in human gene manipulation and either left us as a failed experiment or left us to "cook" awhile before possibly returning to exploit the results. 



If you think it's likely that "gods" are nothing more than highly evolved aliens, you're an atheist. After all, highly evolved aliens aren't gods. I don't know whether you're a secular humanist or not because I'm not sure what secular humanism is.




I don't know... the "gods are highly evolved aliens" bit makes her sound more Mormon than Secular Humanist to me....




Or even the Urantia folks with all that alien talk, although they believe in Jesus and a single god, so are true theists.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 3:40PM #7
F1fan
Posts: 11,136

Mar 5, 2012 -- 2:55PM, Sparky_Spotty wrote:


I can't stand when people use the word "magick".


Its the pretentious spelling that irritates me.



Can we say these folks are sic.


I think GENERALLY, secular humanists do not believe in supernatural things, but that's only my generalized opinion.





I thought secular only refers to there being no religious influence politically in a given society.  And humanism being a philosphy that aims to protecting basic human experience, in that people are fed, shelter provided, well-being promoted, etc.  I've heard some theists refer to secular humanism as being "godless", but that implies it is evil.   It is odd that humanism has probably more respect for humanity than some religious views, such as those of fundamentalists who deny climate change and the need for polution controls.  I don't see how secular humanism necessarily rejects theists from the category, although they will have to be liberal.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 3:50PM #8
Sparky_Spotty
Posts: 751

Mar 5, 2012 -- 3:40PM, F1fan wrote:


Can we say these folks are sic.




taBoom Tish!


Hello?  Hello?  Is this thing on?


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 5:21PM #9
Lady_Heresy
Posts: 6

in the pagan/neopagan/witchcraft community the spelling "magick" with a "k" is used to distinguish between parlor tricks or birthday party entertainment and the manipulation of the elements of nature to bend to the will of the above persuasion practioner with or without a religious context. So it is relevant to the conversation as I used it and in it's proper form. It is only perceived as pretentious to people who are generally intolerant of all belief systems and especially those that come under the neo-pagan umbrella.


Beliefnet has some interesting articles on Secular Humanism and what it is and what it is not. I just did not know if they are anti-paranormal or anti-spiritual. I know Atheists are. But usually Humanists are lumped in with Atheists. Sorry if I am in the wrong place.


Ravyn

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Mar 05, 2012 - 5:26PM #10
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Mar 5, 2012 -- 5:21PM, Lady_Heresy wrote:

in the pagan/neopagan/witchcraft community the spelling "magick" with a "k" is used to distinguish between parlor tricks or birthday party entertainment and the manipulation of the elements of nature to bend to the will of the above persuasion practioner with or without a religious context.


It's quite unnecessary. Everyone understands the distinction from the context. If a distinction really has to be made, referring to the former as "stage magic" is always sufficient. "Magic" by itself denotes the latter.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook