Slashdot Mirror
Hackers And Mysticism?
Chaoli the Grey asks: "Long before everybody and their mother used the Internet there were neo-pagan and occult ftp-archives and newsgroups. Margot Adler notes in her book _Drawing Down the Moon_ that among neo-pagans, '[an] amazingly high percentage [works] in computer, scientific and technical fields'. Appendix B in the Jargon File states that 'There is a definite strain of mystical, almost Gnostic sensibility that shows up even among those hackers not actively involved with neo-paganism, Discordianism, or Zen.' But has the interest in things mystical and occult among computer geeks watered down after the masses found computers and the Net? Do hackers still believe in magic or practice a mystical religion?" A risky question, as most of us have beliefs that we feel strongly about, but it is an interesting question nonetheless. So those interested in sharing what they believe in, please feel free. I'm sure others may find it interesting. The one thing I do ask is that you not judge people based on the information that is shared here, as all that is bound to do is cause problems.
perhaps you have no understanding of zen?
Because zen is a version of Buddhism, and is one of the world's leading religions. To include it in the same breath as 'occultism' betrays a lack of knowledge of the two very different religions.
I'm not going to go into the differences here; do a google search to find out for yourself (for starters).
I would be very interested to know your definition of 'deities' :) is gravity a deity? Is the self-organizing properties of genetic algorithms a deity? Is Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (or its sentence 'g') a deity? (I think the last would make a nifty one, in all seriousness :) )
Point how many commandments are there in the first 5 books of the bible. (Hint its more than 10)
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
I don't think this is any big deal, as those interested in computers come from a wide range of religions.
I'd be interested in seeing statistics on how many neo-pagans/heathens are interested in computers, and what percentage of those geeks study or follow neo-pagan religions. It'd certainly be interesting to find out.
I personally think computer's are Loki's domain because they are so tempermental. :)
Fialar
Vingolf Fellowship
Grasping at beliefs for which one has no logical basis is something which every human must do. Logic itself is based on the concept of proofs. Proofs are ultimately based on axioms and definitions. A definition is when we all say "Let's agree this is so." An axiom is just a guess. Take any axiom and prove it's true. I dare you, I double dare you. If you don't believe me go buy a logic textbook.
Furthermore many people view the "supernatural" aspects of religion as SYMBOLS. Human language is pretty shitty in terms of what information it can convey and symbols are often a powerful way to convey large amounts of data between a speaker and a listener.
When Christians talk about "God" they are not talking about some brawny one-eyed diety with a spear that never misses. They are talking about someone that they believe to be omniscient and omnipotent. In other words it is clearly within his power to know how each of us will react and place us in situations which will allow us to excercise our free agency, so that we can learn and grow (assuming we choose correctly :).
Yes, this is true. On the other hand if you had something that made your life better wouldn't you want to share it with others. Honestly, most true Christians are only trying to help, and they generally don't get mad if you are not interested.
We all do this to some extent. For example, you talk about your more "normal" explanations. Which, of course, implies that a Christian's explanations would be somehow inferior. Not that I am criticizing you, I am simply pointing out that all of us have opinions on these sorts of subjects, and we all share them quite freely.
We also all believe that we have the "normal" explanations.
Believe it or not, there are well educated Christians. I personally believe that I am a better person for my beliefs, and I know that the Lord has helped me in many ways. I am certainly not perfect, but I am better than I was before, and will hopefully be better still tomorrow. You might scoff at my beliefs as delusion, that is certainly your right. But to judge my belief system without making the experiment yourself is hardly scientific. Open the scriptures with an open mind, read them, and pray to your Heavenly Father in Christ's name and ask him if he truly exists. Then make your judgements as to what is true.
An outrageously high percentage of Americans are Christian. Some of these Christians are annoying (a small percentage), and somehow you believe the fault for these annoying people is Christ's.
On the other hand, there is a rather small percentage of Americans that are not Christian (less than 10%). Of this minority nearly all of them are quite vocal in their contempt for Christianity. Look at the number of Darwin fish you see, for example. Just like you don't want to hear me talk of Christ I don't particularly want to hear you compare Christians to Spammers. Especially since the vast majority of Christians are not banging on your door trying to get you to listen. Do you blame everyone in the world with an email address every time you receive spam? Then why do you blame all Christians every time you meet an annoying one.
I guess this just proves /. has a distinctively anti-Christian bias, eh? Way to go on the tolerance there people.
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
When you get down to it, Jesus was the original geek. He was persecuted for the first thirty years of his life, then he "graduated" amidst a storm of insults and is now lord of all he surveys.
*boik*
--
-- Slashdot sucks.
Your definition of agnostic is correct, you are however definately not one. Witness your next remarks:
There is no God. There are no gods.
An agnostic would never say this.
Here's a quick scorecare everyone can use:
If you answered (A), congratulations, you're a monotheist! God Bless!
If you answered (B), congratulations, you're a polytheist! Blessed Be!
If you answered (C), congratulations, you're an atheist! Have a nice day!
If you answered (D), congratulatoins, you're an agnostic! Your intellectual honesty (in admitting you don't know when you actually don't know) is highly admirable.
If you answered (E), congratulations, you're a strong agnostic! This is actually the traditional meaning of "agnostic", although (D) is also an accepted use of the word these days. You may or may not also be an epistemological sceptic (i.e. you deny the possibility of knowledge altogether).
To claim to know whether a god exists or not automatically makes you not an agnostic, regardless of whether that claim is that a god exists or that no god exists. To make either claim is to violate the very definition you gave for what it means to be agnostic. Since you believe no god exists, you are an atheist and definately not at all agnostic.
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Not if they obviously weren't interested.
Honestly, most true Christians are only trying to help, and they generally don't get mad if you are not interested.
Spammers are genuinely interested in generating customers, and are not the slightest bit interested in annoying people. They still annoy people, though, because they are intrusive with their unsolicited advertising.
Why are Christians so convinced that anyone who is genuinely interested won't be able to find their church? They're not that hard to find, people! Don't come knocking on my door, don't harass me as I walk between classes, I'm not interested! The fact that I'm in my home or walking to my next class rather than standing in your church ought to be a clue!
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
After following your hyperlink, I'm not sure if I can give a better answer, but I'll take a stab at it. I guess you might say I'm something of the Technoshaman type. I always giggle as the phrase "software engineer", since how I write code has nothing in common with what most people think of as engineering. It's an intuitive, artistic talent, based almost entirely on ones sense of aesthetics, or at least that's my experience. I completely dumbfounded my boss when he discovered I can't tell a resistor from a, well, I can't even think of the name of another electronic component to complete this sentence. I have no idea how computers work. Everything below the level of assembly language is simply magick as far as I'm concerned. I believe ideas exist independently of people, and I believe they sometimes desire to be expressed into the physical world. Philosophers have often wondered at how mental events cause physical events and vice versa (the lack of a plausible mechanism is the primary argument used against Dualism). I don't know and/or care much how it happens, but I know it does. Because of this, we serve as perfect conduits for ideas (completely mental things) who want to find physical expression, to actually affect the physical world. ESR has been known to describe programming as scratching an itch nagging at you. That itch is an idea trying to being expressed. For me, though, this would be a gross understatement. Some ideas I can ignore, and they either continue to hound me or go look for another conduit. But some are far more powerful than an itch. The really powerful ones take over completely. I am ridden, as a voudon preist ridden by the legba. I achieve a state psychologists call disassociation. I watch, passively, as this living, willful force expresses itself through me. I do not tire, I do not hunger, I have no sense of touch, I do not hear the events around me, I do not see except in the narrow tunnel before me. I feel the idea, I feel its presence. I don't think about algorithms, I feel them. There's no normal sensory analog, but I liken it to that feeling you get when you walk through a dark room that you're familiar with -- you can feel where all the furniture is. It's like that -- I feel the program taking shape, and I feel the idea moving about to flesh it out, and not being the kind of person who can easily dismiss the evidence of my own senses, I cannot possibly rationally disbelieve in the real, independent existance of the ideas, and their ability act idependantly of us. The ancient greek philosophers were right, the Forms are there, I know for I have seen them. I communicate with them, in a way, and they communicate with me, "speak" to me, "speak" through me when I let them (and sometimes I cannot help but let them).
Sometimes they are not around. Then, I plod through code like the untalented students I went to school with, producing mediocre stuff. But eventually, the spirits return, and I produce works of great beauty and efficiency. And I thank the gods for allowing me to serve this function.
I hope this answers your question...
--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Logic is a powerful tool when explaining what "is" or what "exists" from OUR perspective. Logic dictates that for every observable occurrence there will exsist a root cause. Logic however is completely unable to explain the the unobservable occurences i.e. quantum pre-states, or root causes (i.e. where reality came from). Logically speaking "something' cannot come from "nothing", this would be impossible. Thus the only logical conclusion is that what we call "reality" came from something "outside" of itself. Anyone who thinks our sensory input can even remotely explain "reality", I recommend you do some reading on the subject of quantum mechanics. I am not saying that quantum mechanics proves the existence of the "outside cause" only that it shows the limits of our logic. The fact that all of our "reality" is built on something like quantum mechanics leads me to believe that the only thing I know for sure, is that I exist. Everything else I believe/think is merely an illusion created by me. Even the illusion that I Shane am seperate from everything else is merely my perspective. Albert Einstein said it best: "The illusion that we are separate from one another is an optical delusion of our consiousness"
-- You can be a geeklord too
If thou art truly LORD, then send me a sign! Fill mine account with karma!
To me, technology and (stereotypically Pagan) mysticism are a natural combination. Many Pagans believe, simply, in working to make the world a better place. Yeah it's a blatant cliche, but I freely admit to being an idealist.
I dream (and yes, I really do have dreams about this!) of a world where people are taken as people, and that is all. Maybe a touch of meritocracy, but where all of us realize the inherent equality of one another, and each of respects the rights and ideas of the rest.
To my mind, one of the major stumbling blocks in this idea(l) is the fact that most of us don't communicate well with one another. We get lost in the moment. (When was the last time you called your mother, by the way?) We get hung up on different eye colour, different skin colour, different religious preferences (both in interpretation of $DEITY and that whole KDE/Gnome debacle). We talk, we listen sometimes, but we rarely understand.
(Insert standard "Internet shattering communicative and cultural barriers" speech here.)
Ever use a ouija board as a mousepad? It's an interesting experience.
Paganism accepts that there is no one truth, so there is no one correct way.
So what you saying is that it's kind of like Perl?
"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
Who's for starting a religion on SourceForge? The OpenReligion project should be able to have GnuMysticism v0.1 out within a few weeks if we start now!
-Waldo
-------------------
To be a member of a minority religion or other belief system is difficult at best in a monotheistic society. (I'll spare you my rant on why I think monotheism virtually guarantees bigotry and intolerance; it's off-topic and probably flamebait anyway.) The pre-AOL internet was a good place for geographically distant minorities to meet and, well, hide. Hackerdom was also a good place to hide and to find community outside of the mainstream. Beyond that, I don't think there's any causal connection.
The nearer today's Internet comes to imitating TV, the less it comes to differ from the general populace. Those oldbies who remain have either hidden themselves a little deeper or moved on.
--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
What about the position "On present evidence I believe that God does not exist, but I can't prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. If new evidence on the matter comes to light, I will re-evaluate my position."
What does that make me, according to your neat little five-way test?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
> Also, as is quite obvious many of them turn to very vocal atheism. This atheism/agnosticism is most likely so vocal because secretly they want someone to come around and convince them they are wrong
Speaking as a born-again atheist, I agree. Good ol happy existence forever and ever, however implausible, because I would eventually run out of things to experience, still has a certain allure for my mortal self. As it stands, I still believe in the oblivion part, but feel free to convince me otherwise.
And you will convince me by proving that I am wrong. Though I can't think of anything more horrifying than the thought of a jealous and petty god who damns people to eternal suffering because of their sexual peccadilos or their use of profane language...
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
> One thing that I have not seen, and I hope never to, is any geek attempt to press his/her views on anyone else
Oh please. Linux. Windows. Unix. Emacs. Vi. GUI. Text.
Geeks are some of the most vocally opinionated people on earth and spare no opportunity to make their case for the technology they consider superior. I'm certainly a geek and I certainly do so, and I don't apologize for it.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
For my part, I am an atheist. (Strictly speaking, I am also an agnostic ...
... so this little gem of not being able to prove a negative still gets hauled out.
:)
There is no God. There are no gods. Jesus was a man. He lived, he died. End of story
This sounds like the rarer variety of "strong atheism" that actively denies any existence of the divine, as opposed to the more common "weak atheism" (or "strong agnosticism") that says the existence of a higher power is unproven, unprovable, and at best irrelevant to everyday life. So I'd say you're not also agnostic, you have already made the ontological choice the agnostic refuses to make when he says that the existence of a god is unknowable.
Strong atheism is strictly speaking, logically indefensable, since you can't prove a negative you have no direct experience of or show that its existence is contrary to known facts about the subjects (thus I can prove there is not an elephant under my bed, because the physical dimensions of an elephant are incompatible with the space under my bed). This is a revision of the old saw "you can't prove a negative". In the case of a supreme entity, its existence would violate any number of laws of physics, but he who makes the rules can apparently break them if we're to take the definitions usually made of a god
I'm a strong atheist myself, and I defend this claim with the simple declaration that it's absurd. I start with the foundation of weak atheism: requiring a standard of proof, even for the most spectacular claims -- especially for them (I don't subscribe to the idea that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, any evidence will do). But since logic is only a framework of consistency and not an epistemological foundation, I merely present the absurdity of the idea in general, of the good and evil forces, devils, demons, and how they are chuckled at in children's stories and other religions, but taken for granted in the mythos of a believer.
There's no winning the argument. With fundies, at some point it boils down to argumentum ad bacillum (argument from the club) that I'm damned to hell if I don't believe. Currently I continue to argue (not always fruitlessly, I've uncovered interesting variations on beliefs) at the illogic of hell. I think instead I just need to learn how to say "then I'll see you there" in the native tongues of a few other religions
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Wow, and I thought *I* was the only solipsist around here :)
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Apparently you completely overlook the abuse, censor tatics used by Scientology to shut up detractors or people leaking 'sensitive' information.
The Scientologists were the first to assualt web freedoms with legal bullying.
Wonderful daily contributions they make.
Dude, you have no fucking clue.
The documents were verbatim copies of supposedly 'secret, very sensitive documents' that they were charging upwards of $50k for copies of. See the whole fish man story.
At any rate, there was no *abuse*, unless you call depriving them of the ability to charge clueless cult followers fifty grand for some fiction a crime or abuse.
What is this GPL your talking about? Don't fuck with us or we sue you out of existence?
They even sued a fucking cult awareness site, non profit, non biased, because of some sensitive information regarding member of the fucking scientologist crap.
They got sued out of existence, after all, non profit organisations dont stand against cults with $50k+ paperback fiction fanatics.
Get a grip man.
Sorry, your wrong.
We sense time. We just cannot universally sense specific quantities of time.
The mind is its own proof of concept. The fact that we perceive, is fact that 'it' perceives. You *are* your mind, your body is simply an input device.
Consciousness is sensed. Every thought you think, of which you are aware, is 'sensed; by your consciousness. You can't touch a thought, if that's what your getting at, but human senses are not truly limited to the 5 common ones.
I still manage to be surprised that rational people can accept supernatural explanations for their own subjective experiences. Read the sci.skeptic FAQ? It's good stuff. I tend to pigeonhole theists alongside UFO freaks, crystal-waving new age bubbleheads and Carlos Castaneda fans. I really cannot understand how people who use computers daily can swallow such transparent myth.
On the other hand, I recently started reading about Buddhism here, and, modulo the culturally specific far-eastern context, found it very interesting and thought-provoking. Next thing in the reading pile happened to be The Elegant Universe, which discusses superstring theory and how it unifies quantum mechanics and relativity. (Links to Amazon, sorry B&N too slow... where else is there? anyone?) This last is utterly mind-bending. Now there are still some features of the universe and cosmology that are poorly understood; some things we may never be able to know, although we can invent untestable theories about what they might mean. I can see that there is space within this framework for something... hard to comprehend. We may call this 'the mind of god' if we like, but whatever it is, is sure as hell isn't an old guy with a big beard sitting on a cloud taking an interest in the events on planet Earth.
Christian Geeks? Do me a favour.
This comment posted with mozilla!
Camaron de la Isla 'When I sing with pleasure, my
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
And the folks at Jonestown followed a version of Christianity... From what I understand, Zen Buddhists are a fairly minor sect, in the same way that Franciscans are a fairly minor sect in the Catholic church (note the choice of Franciscans for comparison: like the followers of Zen, I believe they have an influence on the mainstream religion that is definitely out of proportaion with their numbers.)
On the other hand, the number of mystics, new-age wannabes and other feel-good semi-religious types that have latched onto Zen as a vehicle for their various ideas probably outweighs the number of true practicioners, helping reinforce the image that many have that Zen is nothing more than some sort of mystical snake-oil that only an idiot could believe in. What's worse, they're right, in a way; that particular, watered down, corrupted, I'll-bend-it-to-meet-my-needs type of Zen really isn't really what Zen is like, any more than the folks at Jonestown were really what the vast majority of Christians are like.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
First of all, I'm not reading most of this thread; the first three highest moderated posts - at this time - are jokes, and the fourth is pro-Christian.
;))
Second, my real identity, etc, are not available to slashdot users just so I can be honest about questions like this in this forum. (Yes, this means I basically trust Rob &co. to not reveal my e-mail address. Sue me for not being entirely cynical. Oh, wait, you can't, you don't know who I am...
Anyway.
I am a Pagan, and have been, and I've been on the net since '85 (though at that time, only usenet and e-mail), using Linux since '94. I dabbled in mysticism and gnosticism before I came to the realization that Paganism was what I believed, what I'd -always- believed, and just been afraid to -do- it. (i.e., when I was told that the Pagan myths were just myths, and the Christian myths were 'religion' and that people didn't follow the pagan myths anymore, I kind of cut that off as an option for religion, even though I felt that's what I -should- be doing. 'But why? I wish people still believed that way, it feels more right...' I thought, but eventually put away with time & indoctrination.)
Anyway. I think the commonality is the same thing that is in common with all people in all alternative lifestyles - they can look at the world and say 'wait - that may be what everyone does, but it isn't -right-' and change the direction their going in. This takes some combination of intelligence, curiousity, and independent-mindedness.
Which is something for a lot of people in the geek community to think about. You have a lot in common with alternative religions, political activists, transsexuals, homosexuals, mystics, and hell, even politicians. (You think people go into politics for the money? Shyeah, right, you'd make more as an NT Admin and not spend it all on your next campaign. They do it because they think they can -change- things.)
Think about it.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
Isaac Asimov wrote a delightful essay, about his time as an undergraduate, that explains why all mathematicians are mystics. I won't bother to repeat the entire story, only the punchline. Mathematicians are mystics because they believe in the unreal and the imaginary. They conduct entire branches of their science around the notion that the square root of -1 exists and is real yet is also imaginary.
By Jungs personality typing system, which became the Myers-Briggs, many IT people are INTPs. Introverted, intuitive, perceivers of possibilities and primarily driven by their thinking faculty. According to Jung, in his book "Psychological Types", the introverted intuitive is more open to the mystical, spiritual dimention of life.
This type is also more likely to find the first half of life the most difficult when it comes to worldly affairs, while the extrovert will dominate and succeed in worldly matters more easily. However, the dominance is reversed in the second half of life, where the extrovert finds it increasingly more difficult to deal with his/her own "twilight", and hence the bigger question of "why am I here?", "what does it mean to 'be'?" and "who am I?". The extrovert is simply not equipped, and may try to find fulfillment by trying to "stay young", having affairs etc. But the introvert is already open to these questions, and through philosophy, religion etc. will deepen his understanding and create more meaning.
Ok, now for a quick poll. Who here has ever heard of:
You're all welcome to add your favourite philosophy/guru/technique...
Geeze you guys are picky.
Why would we even think of
constructing devices to enhance our senses unless we had every reason to think that things exist beyond our perception?
Planets. We first saw planets as stars that moved quickly, and then did little loop-de-loops in otherwise stable paths in the night sky. Lives were spent creating extravagant models to explain these movements in a geocentric model.
Various bright fellows (Galileo, Aristotle) had different ideas. They saw the patterns generated, and created a new models that placed Earth as another object wandering the heavens around a central body (the sun...), and the incredibly complex models of circles within circles within circles all revolving about changed into very simple ellipses.
This model repeats itself. We notice objects burning in the abscense of measurable heat. We ponder the situation. is God extending His Wrath? No, it's gamma radiation.
So far, we've found very solid reasons for phenomena within the physical realm. There is no apparant change in this happening.
I'd wager most atheists would change their mind on seeing angels sweeping down from on high, priests raising the dead or Wiccans effecting measurable and objective changes through magick, all in cases where other explanations don't fly.
I'd hope that most Christians would change their mind, given the chance, after they died and didn't turn into spirits. I.E., given irrefutable evidence, one is likely to change the tune being sung.
He's not saying he absolutely disbelieves in alternate beliefs, but that his own belief is one of atheism. Chill.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
"If in that syrian garden ages slain
you sleep and know not you are dead in vain
nor see in dreams how dark and bright
ascends in fire by day and smoky by night
the hate you died to quench and could but fan
sleep well, and see no morning, son of man.
But if grave rent, and stone rolled by,
you sit, ascendant, on your throne on high
and sitting so, remember yet,
your agony and bloody sweat,
the love, and passion, and life you gave,
bow hither out of heaven, and see, and save."
-- A.E. Houseman.
I think he had the same thing to say as the above comment, but just a little more eloquent.
Darn. Now I've violated copyright, probably.
Tweet, tweet.
Of course it's not treated quite right in the media. In "My Name is Asher Lev" said something like this.... magazines, newspapers, gossip... these things are not good vehicles for communicating nuances of truth. Slashdot included. And
Potok's books have been really good reads for me. The themes of personal struggle within a religious or cultural community spoke to me even though I'm outside of the Jewish communities he wrote about. Maybe it helped that The Chosen and The Promise were about smart people.
Tweet, tweet.
Y'AI 'NG'NGAH,
/. message boards.
YOG-SOTHOTH
This is the spell of summoning of Bowie J. Poag.
By reciting this incarnation, you can summon a twisted and deformed being that has done absolutely nothing with other that posting a few tiled backgrounds -- something monkeys can be trained to accomplish.
Despite this, the deranged being will assert that it is some sort of leading light in the linux community and will pursue it's strange agenda of destroying VA Linux by making an ass of itself on the
Try the incantation, it really works!
--Shoeboy
Basically the fundamental principal of Democracy is that we are all sovereign and that we bequeath that soveriegnty unto our chosen government officials. As an extension of this is the notion that we are all equal. From this has evolved a strong relativistic view point on the world that says nobody's right and nobody's wrong.
Out of this relativistic perspective is born the notion of tolerance. Basically if nobody is right or wrong then we should accept other people's beliefs. But it isn't a pure tolerance. If one was to be purely tolerant, one would even tolerate intolerance. But in fact what happens is that we believe everybody should be tolerant and open to others beliefs.
As a result, we find that people are actually very intolerant despite their claim of tolerance. They are only tolerant of those who are tolerant and relativistic as well. To be intolerant or to have an absolute belief in certain fundamental truths is considered arrogant.
To further the problem many people who believe in these truths have incorporated in their beliefs the notion that they must help others find the truth that they know. To relativists, this comes off as pig headed and pushy. How can you know the truth? What makes you better than everybody else?
Now, having said all that, I consider myself a relativist. But I think there's an important consideration people need to make in relativism. One can say that nobody has an iron grip on what the right answers are, but that doesn't mean you can't find truths that work within your own life. And it doesn't mean you can't respect people for the truths that they find in their life that make them happy.
If somebody tries to tell you that Christ is your savior, don't hate them for it. They are doing it because they think that if you don't believe that, you are going to suffer. They are doing it because they love you as a human being. Respect that fact, even if you disagree with them. Don't hold them in contempt if they found a belief that makes them happy. Respect them for it and move on to find what makes you happy.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
so what kind of technopagan are you?
just wondering...
I think generic Mysticism is the gentler, more open minded alternative to Atheism... face it, most people can't stand to look up into the sky and think that there isn't *something* out there...
check -- THIS -- out
Exclusion of all yet-undiscovered possibilities in your beliefs system is irrational. I think anti-spiritualitsm is irrational. It's impossible to prove what you can't point to, but it's impossible to disprove it either... Many beliefs systems are beyond the scope of rationalism and verifiability... so why do you have to be such an asshole about it? and do you need a rundown of what "Occult" is or where it came from??
actually, it's common for *mystics* to be geeks, but seemingly not the other way around...
these surveys come from neo-pagan litterature, thus they are sampling from the *mystic* pool only...
it would be nice to have a slashdot poll on this stuff tho...
(Religiously) I am an...
1) Atheist, you morons!
2) Christian, you heathens!
3) Agnostic, you somethings?
4) Discordian/Subgenius
5) Neo-Pagan
6) Fluffy white bunny
7) Cowboy Neilist
bullshit, do you think that someone would do that around their overtly christian boss?
there are tons of pagans who are still in the "broom closet" and stay there because they can't stand to be shat upon for their religion...
ok, how bout this... WSU's aps sees about a dozen students, one grad student, and one staff member...
come Samhain (halloween, traditional holliday), I found out that 3 other faculty and staff were pagan... I was visibly pagan and they didn't say a thing to me... or prostelatyze or say a word about it...
I actually have quite the phillosophy on creation that coincides with evolution and personal powers of creation (software authorship)...
you see the duality, balance, and divinity of creaiton is central to Neo-Paganism... in particular the universe exists because of the "sexual" union of dieties (remember the Greek Eros and Gaia?)
modern Wicca embraces a simmilar creation idea, and Thelema even has a triumvate (father, son, spirit) simmilar to Christianity...
can you verify salvation or spritualism?
on the other hand how do you measure the failure of salvation or spirit based theodicy?
rather it's a failure to verify... does that exclude it from possability?
what if you write some code and stick it into gcc, but you die before it finishes compiling?
Y'AI 'NG'NGAH,
YOG-SOTHOTH
I deffinately believe...
We don't understand the brain as a whole, but we have a pretty good idea of how it works
I hypothesize that there are so many interactions within that brain that you can't understand it... only emulate it and attempt duplicate it and build on it untill you give birth to another divine intelligence like yourself...
you still won't understand it and won't be able to predict it... when you can predict it, it isn't alive... it isn't intelligent, thinking, or feeling...
but I suppose all of these little things can just be explained away, right?
dude, that whole BS about Wicca being THE "Old Religion" is something you grow out of... at least most Pagans I know grew out of it to an extent...
yes, there is symbolism and reflection on "old ways" etc etc... but most people realize that nothing is as static as that!
Wicca is a modern religion modeled after stuff inspired by primitive beliefs and practices... but it's modernized for the most part...
yes, I do gag when I hear much about the "Celtic Reconstructionists" etc etc...
I've had a few very positive experiences, particularly in a circle with my current group...
if you can stand in with a local Pagan group I'm sure you'll enjoy the experience...
other great mystic events for me include a terrific wind storm I experienced on the beach in Key West...
Um, "long-haired Satan-worshipping Wiccans"? Gee, I find it rather hard to worship a being that I feel does not exist.
:-\
Yes, I'm Wiccan - Dianic Wiccan, to be precise. I'm an ordained minister, even have my certificate to show that, hanging on my wall (not that it does me any good, being solitary, but still...).
Yes, I have long hair as well. I find long hair sensual and soft, two aspects of myself that are hard to express with computers. I'll probably lop some off soon - these split ends are killing me
Am I then to be considered a criminal? From this anonymous coward's words, it would appear so. Gee, this brave, right-minded God-fearing Christian wouldn't even share his (or her) identity with us. Why am I neither surprised nor impressed?
Love and Light,
Jeannette
Lemon curry?
Pigeonholing geeks is absurd. Of those that I know personally, very few generalities can be made. They range from fundamentalist christian and muslim to athiest to mysticism-of-the-week. Politics are ditto. I am I libertarian, and that is supposed to be the stereotype, but I personally know more libertarians working for the military than with computers.
The one constant trait of geeks is that they cannot be pigeonholed.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Ah, the exception proves the rule.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Don't tell me you believe that stuff? Do you not know that A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads?
--
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Sorry.. I didn't mean to imply that Zen was 'obscure' or wierd...
I just meant that it bothers me when people try to draw this kind of conclusion about techies in general.
And by 'obscure' I suppose I meant everythign aside from the Jews, Jesus & his fanclub, and their enemies.. and the Muslims.
I always find it disturbing when people try to statistically (or otherwise) state (or try to prove) that 'hackers believe in xxx' or whatever.
Do younger, tech-savvy people tend to stray from standard religion and perhaps look at more obscure things such as zen, etc? Certainly.
Does that mean they believe in magic (magik) or whatever? Sheesh. I'm betting not.
Many people I've spoken with, especially in the tech world, don't believe in *any* religion, otehr than things that help them obtain focus and peace of mind. To them, it is nothing but this.
ever hear this joke?
An atheist is fishing somewhere in the loch ness, when all-of-a-sudden the loch ness monster comes out and starts approaching his boat.
"Dear god save me!!" screams the atheist..
[BOOOM!] a thunderous explosion stops all creation freezing it in place and time, and this deep, powerful voice says "I thought you didn't believe in Me..."
the atheist says "gimme a break God, a minute ago I didn't believe in the loch ness monster either.."
------ Poo-tee-weet?
That's an understatement
Look, you're obviously not an atheist, so stop pretending to know what all atheist in the world are thinking. Heck, even if you were an atheist you could never know that. Personally, I am an atheist, and it is not something I go around advertising. I am not the least bit vocal about it. In fact, a lot of good friends of mine probably don't even know it. The only reason I bring it up here is because it is relevant to the discussion. I'm not trying to hide anything, it's just that if the subject doesn't come up I don't mention it.
I think I know where you're getting this idea that most atheists are vocal about it, as I've experienced it firsthand, but you have a very important fact confused: it's generally not the atheists who bring it up. For example, back at my old high school I can remember the subject of religion coming up casually in a conversation, and I made the mistake of mentioning I was an atheist. Because of this, I was harrassed for years. I had people constantly bringing up the subject, again and again and again. I had people trying to convert me just about every single day. They always ask, "why are you an atheist?" Had said I was christian, jewish, muslim, or even budhist I can't imagine being asked that question so many times. But I was asked, "why are you an atheist" just about every single day by somebody or other. It's as if everyone felt that there was something wrong with me and it was their job to fix it. So what do I do? I tell them why I'm an atheist! I've had to tell them why so many times because I've been asked that damn question so many times.
And now we get people like you claiming that atheists go around advertising that fact because they want to be converted. You'll excuse me if I'm more than a little bitter after reading your comment, but you couldn't possibly be further from the truth. You ask why I don't treat religious people just like anyone else has their facts wrong? Guess what? I do! I have never once in my life tried to convince anyone to give up religion. I do not bring up the subject of religion for no reason. I have plenty of friends who are religious. No, I don't treat them any differently. It is religious people (admittedly not all religious people, but definately a large number of them) who treat me differently.
Well, I guess I'm about done with this ramp. You can disagree with me all you want, just don't try to convert me.
I am not an idiot. Please use my name to email me.
"That's right, I'm quoting myself."
-Upsilon
While I'll agree that "fundie" would seem to take aim at those deemed at a loss for critical thought, the use of the letter X to take the place of the word CHRIST is only slightly less old than Chistianity itself. Those who decry the "secularization" of Christmas be its common abbreviation X-mas seem to have their history turned around. People are historically lazy, and the abbreviation (X for Christ) dates from the earliest Greek and Roman Christians. Christmas the holiday is actually much younger.
This falls into the same category as those who decry as semi-literate those who say "ax" for the word spelled a-s-k. It was pronounced "ax" for a long long time before being modified to ask sometime around the evolution of modern english (16th cty). People may indeed be using it to slander, or out of ignorance, but it does not mean they're wrong.
'kay, I'm gonna sit here and listen to my music and write a bit, so bear with, I'm going somewhere with this.
/several/ reasons, not one. So even if A reason does not seem sufficient to explain the observation, it does not mean that it is the only contributing factor. So the following are the primary factors that I propose to account for the observation.
/is/ bigger/smarter than your upper mind) and some of those answers they find in mysticism. Many aspects of Hacking go into this dark place, which is of course why many people (including me) do it. It feels cool to 'talk' to a you that aint you, or something like that.
First, lets take the posit of this article as true, so to do that, I'll say -
Observation: A disproportiantetly large percentage of hackers and other techland creatures belive in 'magic', or something close enough to it that no one but them would argue the point.
Now, we must look for the reason. But not really, because in social anomalies, there are usually
0) The RPG Integral:
Many have already suggested that the effects of Role Playing Games, Science Fiction, and Fantasy. So I wont go into detail, But it is a factor. It gives the mind something to chew on, so that when an expresion is needed, it may be used as a source. D&D doesn't make people crazy, but some crazy people have been exposed to D&D, and thus think that 'Feather Fall' will work. Same for religeons. And smart people like complex games, and games don't come more complex than D&D with all its expansions, so we get a large exposure base.
1) The Clark Equation:
Some people (not all people, but some) really like to make things happen. They get a kick from it. I'm one, Clark was another. Magic just seems the logical end of the curve, I point, it happens. Think about how many people you know that are going to LOVE good voice/gesture recognition as computre intarfaces. Thinks how many of those wish the real world worked like that. Xyzzy, anyone?
2) The Gonzo Factor:
Now, what if you are already weird? Well, if you are (and I am), normal social taboos don't apply very strongly to you ('cause society is already "punishing" you, what more can they do?), so you end up thinking about/trying many more things. This is why you see large (compared to the normal population) numbers of people aware that they are homosexuals in EVERY 'weird' group. If you are already a bixer/dancer/actor, there is not nearly as much pain in realizing that you are gay, so more of them do. The same things apply to religeons. If no one talks to you in high school already, maybe getting naked and freaky on the solstice doesn't seem as a likely to bring negative repercusions, so you "shop arround" as it were.
3) The I-Wanna-Be-Gonzo Coefficient:
Wanna-Bes, every group has them, and hackers are not an exception. If all the other guys whorship THor, and you don't really care, you might try it just to get along. ANd then the religion's got you hooked, as most of them are based upon social groups anyway, and there you go.
4) The Bicycle Exponent:
This is a weird one. You cannot (well, you can, but its the common example, and you should already know that, so hush) simultaneously ride a bicycle, and think about the muscle movements necessary to ride a bicycle. This is an example of a (rather large an interseting) class of actions which can be done, but cannot always be explained by the person doing them. Why? Well, cognitive studies shows us that there is a WHOLE lot more capacity "under the surface" of the mind than the conscious mind can ever get hold of (walking is HARD, yall), and all the true geniuses/artists/etc GO with that, and learn to toss problems to there undermind, problems that come back with answers that are obviously correct, but the peson is completely unable to explain how they did it (even to themselves). This makes some people look for answers (which is silly, as the answers is right there, your undermind
But finally, I think most just worship at the church of "Wouldn't It Be Pretty To Think So?", and I challenge anyone to tell me that the various magic, magik, majick, etc. religeons arent pretty.
::To set the record straight, I personally am a meta-agnostic, as I dont think the question 'Is there a God' can have a meaningful answer from inside the system, so I don't bother asking it; as opposed to agnostics who wonder about it, or atheists who belive that there is no God (which they cannot prove, which is my point.)
Have fun flamming me to death on this one, if you want.
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
-- Crutcher --
#include <disclaimer.h>
I started both with mysticism and computers as a teen in the 60s, and I actually walked away from my first programming job because I realized very vividly that it was going to distract me from the search for self-knowledge (which was very big in the early 70s).
I explored mystics like Gurdjieff and psychological systems like Fritz Perls' gestalt psych, and I put a lot of effort into meditation as a way of seeing what was really going on in my psyche/subconscious.
By the mid-70s this range of 'gurus' had narrowed to one who was especially austere and conceptually challenging-- J Krishnamurti. From him I came to see that soiritual freedom was about living without preconceptions or attachments, which is a common theme of a lot of mystical schools (especially Zen), but one that Krishnamurti handled with greater honesty, I thought.
At a certain point then I turned away from the whole mystical 'quest' and just started living, and at that point sociobiology became very inspiring, as did (non-sci-fi) literature.
I formulated a philosophy I call 'Robot Wisdom' that demands-- ultimately-- computer models of human behavior, that fit the requirements of sociobiology but also have the humane dimension of literature.
So my whole thrust has been to wrestle with how to model human emotions on a computer, eg in video games. And I look to great literature (especially James Joyce) for inspiration about the laws of human emotion.
I still feel a lot of sympathy for mystical points of view, because they deal with real psychological phenomena that materialist viewpoints seem to deny, but I don't practice any form of organised worship.
As to noticing things, I think this is where heavy-thinkers get disturbed or dis-enfranchised by "organized religions" (defining organized religions as those that impose, rather than inspire belief). Speculation and contemplation of religious writings will inevitably result in paradoxes that people of simple faith will have difficulty defending to someone with good logical analysis skills. Yet there's a great and joyfull challenge for a thoughfull person in discovering consistency and constancy in the scriptures of all faiths. Metaphors and parables in religious literature have been intended to obscure the truth throughout history, both to inspire the believers to thorough study and contemplation and to protect the believer's activities from persecution. Joseph Campbell's studies show the inter-connectedness of belief systems throughout history.
Personally, I'm Baha'i. I believe in progressive revelation from God that is guiding us in building a united, peacefull world. We can't wait around expecting miracles if we're not ready to start making things better ourselves. To do that requires a bit of faith, and alot of hard work and thought. I think it's my beliefs as a Baha'i that makes me so enthusiastic about open source. It's a community working together despite of, or even because of, their differences to make something better.
I think there is a more direct explanation. Computers allow one to make abstract ideas a functional reality. Anything you can conceive of can be implemented, assuming you have the skill and it doesn't violate some fundamental laws on algorithmic efficiency, which, for the most part, are far more forgiving than the laws of the physical universe.
This lack of constraints appeals to the creative person who has little patience for the real world. The computer offers limitless possiblities and great power for those who understand them. In this sense, computers are much like magic, and the hacker much like a wizard.
Myths and fantasy are appealing to the hacker, because they offer flexibility and strangeness not found in the real world. But the most important part is that these systems are internally consistent, just like mathematics. It is fun to imagine things that cannot exist, but it is even more fun to imagine the ramifications of those things, and that can only be done if there is an order to their being.
That is why we just don't just settle for sword and sorcery stories, but construct a taxonomy of monstors and magical creatures, of spells and weapons, of characters and races, etc. It isn't enough to just make shit up, you've to got make up a system so that it can be understood and manipulated, otherwise, what's the point?*
So computers and fantasy do two things: they both offer greater possibilies than the mundane world, and they both offer much greater power over their respective environments than we are used to, so we can achieve more of those possibilities.
(*) This probably where us rationalists differ from actual mystics and romantics in our view of these things. The romantic likes fantasy because it's pretty, or horror because its scary. The mystic likes the lack of responsibility implied in being part of "something bigger".
I know, because I believe in solipsism absolutely and I am a geek.
(think about it)
--------
Wow, what a skeptic!
I suppose all the websites could be fakes, but I could take you to a convention where you could see it with your own eyes.
You could probably go and confirm it yourself too, if you just go to the store in town with a name like "The Dragon's Dicecup", "Gandalf's Library", or "The Android's Dungeon".
Or perhaps you are referring to the TV show. A lot of people have foggy half-memories that they suspect might be false, but if you watch Fox tomorrow morning, you can confirm that one for yourself, too.
Oh, by the way, the whole "pagan" movement mostly has to do with trying to justify orgies.
Orgies need no justification. An orgy is an end unto itself.
Hmmm, perhaps you forgot to add "...to your girlfriend." That makes more sense. If what it takes is some chanting, candle mood-lighting, and a bucket of goat's blood to get her going, you just thank your lucky stars that that's all.
--------
All of them hate it when people make broad, sweeping statements that are supposed to apply accurately to every hacker.
This is because hackers are highly individualistic and all deeply resent being referred to as having anything in common with other hackers than the ability to program computers.
Also, all hackers are open-minded and sensitive, so they don't like to exclude people who don't fit the description.
Finally, hackers universally reject all religion as superstitious nonsense, so they are annoyed by the suggestion that they believe in mystical crap.
--------
"hostile to organized religion in general" and "enjoy `parody' religions" come a lot closer to being religious bigotry than they are to being hostile to religious bigotry.
Hah! Organized religions are really organized religious bigotry. Organization and religious tolerance don't go together. They are systems for gaining profit for the priests, and as such, they are generally as ruthless and intolerant as they can get away with, which is generally a function of what percentage of the population they can claim. This is why minority religions almost always seem gentler and friendlier: they are weak and could be wiped out if they made too much fuss. For example, Judaism seems a gentle, harmless religion (especially in America), but look in the Old Testament and you'll find that ancient Hebrew law in the days when it had a local near-monopoly was as brutally intolerant as the Catholic inquisition; look to modern Isreal and you can just how "gentle" and "harmless" it is becoming once again, now that the very government is based on the religion (mind you, this would happen with any organized religion; it doesn't matter what it's "about", the priesthood will always attract those who enjoy exercising the power abusing their authority gives them). Look to Iran, if you want to see the threat of organized religion with general support over a long period.
Mocking organized religion is an example of intolerance of intolerance: superficially intolerant, but generally aimed at a net gain in tolerance.
They don't mock the belief, but the ridiculous convoluted propaganda that is used to promote the belief, and the hypocracy of prominent members of the religion.
an example that you see here frequently is the use of "xtian" and "fundie".
Are we reading the same website? I hear xtians bitching about this from time to time, but I never have read it other than that. Anyway, they're just abbreviations, don't get your panties in a bunch.
--------
Long before I found out that the moon was of special importance in magic (or at least some kinds), I would find myself feeling strange emotions whenever I would look up at the moon at night. I believe in reincarnation and some of the feelings and thoughts I had gave me the impression that the moon was of some special importance to me in the past. I would be happy to see it. Whenever I'd be out and I would look up at it, at the first glance these feelings would always hit me. They are hard to describe. I would be filled with a sense of possibility and excitement. That is the best way I can put it and even that isn't a very good description. These feelings were perplexing because I didn't have the memories to go along with them that would explain why I felt that way.
Later on I found out that the moon was important to various kinds of magic and was seen as the source of magical power. When I first heard the term "drawing down the moon" I realized that was what my emotions were about. That when I would stand out in my backyard and lookup at it and be filled with these powerful emotions, that that was what I was unconsciously trying to do. This explained an awful lot. You see while I don't believe in magic per se, I do believe in the ability of people to influence reality by the power of their will. Its something I've done all my life. Once upon a time I could change the weather. If I wanted it to rain, it would rain. I would sit in class on boring days and look out the window making the rain stop and start and stop again. I never got rained on when I was outside because I'd just reach up into the clouds and desire for the rain to stop, and it would. But then something bad happened. I came out here to Arizona in '92 and I didn't like how dry it was. So I encouraged the weather to change and for rain to fall. There were flash flood in phoenix and the interstate between Phoenix and Tucson was washed out in a couple of places. But the truly bad thing was that people died because of it. I dont know their names but I do know I'm responsible for their deaths. Ever since I realized this my influence over the weather has been gone. Actually I don't really think it is gone, I think I'm holding myself back from using it. I'm sorry for the deaths of those people and this is my subconscious way of keeping it from happening again. Maybe someday I'll get over this and have better mastery of this ability so that such things won't happen again. Phoenix is a desert, I was wrong to try and change that and others paid the ultimate price for my foolishness. Of course if I tell people these things they'll think I'm crazy, so I don't.
There are other less impressive things I can still do, such as predict with 90+% accuracy the outcome of coin tosses. If I think about it and try to figure out what will happen my accuracy goes to shit. But if I just let go and let the answer come to me I'll get it right almost always. My sister is even more talented in these areas than I am. Being female that only makes sense. Unfortunately she made the mistake of trying to talk to spirits and got a hold of a demon. The bastard set up house in the extra room of our house. I come home to find this malignant presence in one room and my sister terrified and in tears in the other room. I contronted the demon and eventually got him to leave but not before he put the screws to me including trying to possess my body. Not fun. Now my sister is a super devout christian who thinks anything that isn't christian is satanic. There is evil in the world but most of what I've experienced has been me and not other entities and I can't see how I'm satanic.
I'm also a computer geek/nerd/hacker (but not cracker). I always have been. When I was a young child and I first heard the word computer I knew it was something special and wonderful even though I didn't know what it was. Seems "magic" isn't the only thing I've dealt with in past lives. I've got a lot of talent with computers and understand things easily which others have difficulty with. I also have "magical" abilities with computers and other electronic things. Computers begin working just because I show up to look at the problem. This is a common thing I see with others who have ability in this area too. Now there are people who are into computers because computers are popular now. They aren't like me and their mindset and talents are not like mine. I was a computer geek long before being one was "cool." I'm the real deal you know? I'm sure there are lots of others here who are the same.
To some of you I've come accross as a nutcase, or an idiot or both. But those of you who have seen or experienced the kinds of things I've described know I'm not. In either case I just hope this post doesn't get flagged as flamebait or as the ravings of the insane. I was originally going to post it anonymously but not I've decided not to.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I see mysticism as, in part, an intuitive leap forward from the senses. It's certainly not going to be as accurate as relying strictly on sensory input, but it is an enabler for seeing farther than your senses allow.
I believe the right path, if one can be said to exist, lies in a balance of sensory grounding with mystic thought and practice. To use science as an analogy, it is the great foundation of experimental evidence which grounds us, but it is the imagination and intuition of where to look next that provides progress and inspiration.
The complete skeptic may, IMHO, minimize the risk of being wrong. This same conservatism and fear, though, may inhibit personal growth and understanding of the world that surrounds us.
http://quaker.org . (I can't say any more than that lest I lose my Quaker badge, because we try very hard not to evangelize.)
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Here's the Amazon.com book review (and summary):
That's a pretty fair summary of the work. It's a decent read for people interested in this topic, and now it's out in paperback so you don't have to shell out to much cash to get it.
--
Behold the Power of Cheese!
To see a lot more members of the Order of the Mystical Frog of the Playa hacking.
But we're busy gathering signatures for the Seattle Monorail Initiative today, so I guess not.
Seriously, I think we're all a bit closer to the mystical, whether hacker or not. You need to put things in a frame of reference, and mysticism works pretty darn well when you have to keep trying and trying to get it working.
Although, if we mean hacking as an altruistic state, then there is Good Code, Grey Code, and Bad Code. MSFT churns out Bad Code, many people churn out Grey Code, and few attain the enlightened state of Good Code.
Will in Seattle
And so it goes. Naturally, there will be plenty of hacker types that don't believe in X (and, btw, please spare the jokes about the windowing system--you know what I mean), but those counterexamples are either ignored or marginalized as "rare exceptions" or "not true hackers" or whatever.
If you want to see some really good examples of this phenomenon in action, have a(nother) look at the Jargon File; it is rife with them. I mean, do we really believe that you're not a true hacker if you don't like Chinese food? I suspect not, but the guys that wrote the Jargon File liked it, and they constructed a whole mythology around why it was only natural that their hacker nature should lead to a love of Chinese food. It's the same thing with religion; in fact, with religion people have even more personal incentive to rationalize their beliefs, particularly in a subculture that prizes logic and analytical skills above all else.
My feeling is that there probably isn't any one religious stereotype that applies to hackers in general. There may be a slight trend away from mainstream religion, but even at that there seems to be no shortage of hackers that do follow a mainstream religion. Just believe what you want to believe, and don't worry about whether it's the "hackish" thing to do. And don't waste time trying to rationalize it. Religion is an inherently nonrational phenomenon, and that is not a bad thing.
-rpl
But there are necessarly limits to what Science can explain--limits imposed by Godel's incompleteness theorm, and by the nature of Science as a refind version of Logical Positivism. (That is, there are limits on what Science can explain because it's model of explaining the universe presupposes a number of postulates, such that there is no unseen intelligent force who controls the throw of the dice to it's own ends.)
Beyond what Science can explain are a number of areas of philosophy which relate to human existance. For example, why are we here? While the answer provided by Science (that we are the chance happenings of an uncaring universe) may be intellectually satisfying to some, this sort of existentialist void is emotionally unsatisfying to most who really give it some thought.
My personal take, picked up from someone else, is that Science is great at explaining the "how" of the universe. Theology or philosophy or religion or whatever the heck you want to call it is great at providing the "why."
And I'd like to point out that (a) Native Americans don't want converts and would rather just have all these damned white-light neo-Pagan "shamans" fuck off and die. (Being Native American myself, and one who recently wasn't ashamed of that fact, I can tell you that the only people who want to be Native American are the very people Native Americans would rather just drop dead.)
Oh, and (b) there are a number of organizations such as the OTO who forbid proselytizing, or even proselytizing about not proselytizing--has to do with belonging to a secret, oath-bound organization which positively forbids that sort of thing, AFAIK.
Cool! I never met a practitioner of ancient Indian religion!
Or are you refering to that bullshit that a bunch of Germans came up with at the beginning of the century which was based on some really bad (and since debunked) anthropology?
If done right, Zen is mystical.
But that's because if done right, Life is mystical. (Anyone who has never seen the mists clear off a New England lake in the early morning and felt the cold air on their face, and started having a feeling of mysticism really needs to have their heart checked.)
Gnostics believed that the world was created not by God, but by an evil being called Demiurge.
Except that it's unclear if the Demiurge is evil or just uncaring (not the same thing), and it's unclear if the Demiurge even exists, or if the Demiurge is a "being" below the ultimate who believes it is the ultimate because it's simply too dumb to look "up."
Further, most modern day Gnostics I know are more interested in what I would call "Zen Gnosticism"--that is, they are interested in achieving a direct communion with the Divine through various means, some highly intellectual (the Enochian system comes to mind), some very emotionally intuitive.
I for one wait for Jesus Christ to come back. How do I know He will come back? Because He told us He would.
...
And you believe everything people tell you, right?
You stiff-necked people - you must prove to me that there is no God, because it's been proven already to me that there IS a God, and His incarnation of flesh is named Jesus, and one day, He will return.
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men,
to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward
of your Father which is in heaven.
"Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not
sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrits do
in the synagogues and in the streets, that they
may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you,
They have their reward.
"But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand
know what thy right hand doeth:
"That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father
which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee
openly.
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as
they hypocrits are: for they love to pray standing
in the synagogues and in the corners of the
streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I
say unto you, They have their reward.
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy
closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray
to thy Father which is in secret; and they Father
which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as
the heathen do: for they think that they shall be
heard for their much speaking.
"Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your
Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before
ye ask him."
Matthew 6:1-8.
By demanding that I explain my religion to you, and by standing up in your righteousness before men, you act as the fool on the corner of the street shouting repetitions so that men may hear your vain prostrations. Jesus himself said you will have your reward--but it won't be alongside the Father.
Witnessing is a tricky thing at best. Many in the United States, in large part due to the history of Baptists and others in the south in the last century, take it that "witnessing" involves pounding the bible on street corners attempting to convert the "wicked"--not even knowing if the next "wicked" person coming down the street is Jesus Christ Himself, freshly arrived and steeling into town as a thief in the night, as Christians believe he will appear.
But it's pretty clear that this sort of "vain repitition" and building vast monuments and sounding large trumphets to "God" that are only witnessed by men is exactly the sort of crap that Jesus Christ warned against in Matthews. And it's pretty clear why He warned us about this sort of person: time and time again televangelists are revealed to be nothing more than side-show carnies, thiefs, adulterers and con-men who claim they act in the name of God but who really only serve themselves.
That is the reward Jesus Christ was talking about when he said "Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." This is the reward of sin--the reward of self-delusion in the form of "righteousness"--the very reward you appear to be trying to strive for when you "proclaim" publically for all to see.
Best to witness silently, by example--to share a kind word rather than beat people over the head because you think their belief in God is not good enough for you. It isn't for you to judge our beliefs--that right is reserved to God and God alone.
Why? Because Jesus Christ said so. If Jesus Christ is your Lord and Saviour, then why do you so flagrently ignore His Word?
I am an Atheist. That pretty much puts me at the bottom of everyone's list, I know. Religion tends to be a "pick a religion, any religion" proposition. "You must believe is SOMEthing!" they say. Or my personal favorite: "Atheism is a religion too." Yeah, and health is a form of disease. (Health is the absence of disease not a type of disease. Atheism is the absence of religion*.)
:)
Disclaimer: If you think I am bashing your religion right now, think again.
* belief in deities.
The thing is, I think a lot of geeks, especially science geeks, are much more likely to be atheists than the general population. And by atheists what I mean probably includes most peoples' definitions of agnostics and about a dozen other labels. (Like the difference between Free Software and Open Source.)
Hmm. Slow News Day.
You should come to a Pagan festival like Starwood or the Free Spirit Gathering and see just how many hackers are there. It's remarkable, and leaves little doubt that there is some connection.
IMHO, Zen and Paganism appeal to hackers because they are centered on experience, rather than dogma ("Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proven it correct, not tested it"), and because they allow for heterodoxy ("There's more than one way to do it.").
Suggested reading: my own introduction to the Laughing Thunder Circle and ESR's Frequently Asked Questions about Neopaganism
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
"Chi" literally just means "breath", which clearly exists; if you mean the semi-supernatural "life energy" extolled by some I'll agree that it doesn't have physical existence, yet concepts of chi can be useful in martial arts and in healing practices.
Atheism is not incompatable with Paganism. I label myself a Zen Pagan Taoist Atheist Discordian; it all fits together.
The following questions are left as an exercise for the reader:Does the number 3 exist? Does truth? Beauty? The note Bb? The color red? The property redness? Your thoughts? Your mind? My mind?
Who is more real: Mr. Spock, or John Smith, Esq. of Crofton, Maryland? One is fictional, one is (according to the phonebook) a real person; but Mr. Spock exists in many more minds than Mr. Smith. Which is the more durable existence?
Every see Penn & Teller in action? Your senses are limited and can be fooled; what reason do you have to think that what you can detect with them means anything? What assumptions are you making when you integrate sense data? What other sets of assumptions are possible? Can these other sets of assumption led to useful results?
The Paganism I practice has more to do with questions like this than with "How do I cast a love spell?"
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Of course there's something... billions and billions of stars, an almost unlimited quantity of worlds to discover, probably a zillion different lifeforms. Now why would anyone want to see *anything else* in the sky is beyond me...
However, back when LotR was getting big, in the 70's (also when a lot of the big computer milestones were being met) one of the ways the love of fantasy it engendered was express was through Fantasy Role Playing Games. The history of Fantasy role playing games is that they grew out of tabletop miniature games with wonderfully complex rules and cool little figurines (don't forget the sand tables!) Eventually, fantasy elements were added to medieval miniature wargames, and that evolved (sorry for offending any Kansans reading this!) into the earliest versions of Dungeons and Dragons. It seems to me that Dungeons and Dragons was very popular among computer programmers. Either that, or the complex rules of D&D were just perfect for creating computer games. Whatever the reasons, a lot of the earliest computer games I played, Zork, Ultima, Temple of Apshai were more or less ripoffs of Dungeons and Dragons.
Of course, D&D was legally forbidden to use the concepts and mythology present in Tolkien, so the creators borrowed from many sources, as diverse as H.P. Lovecraft and Ancient Greek and Egyptian religions. Besides, that stuff was cool, and in the early days, D&D liked to include stuff that was cool.
Well, some fundamentalist preachers eventually decided that they needed to unite their sheep against an enemy, and unfortunately one of them discovered D&D. It was perfect, it contained demons and pagan gods, so the simple minded members of the faith could be convinced that the complex rulebooks (which were... ahem... beyond the level of the average sheep's reading ability) contained actual evil incantation for summoning Lucifer and Demogorgon.
I can remember even Infocom got somewhat caught up with this, someone sent a letter into The New Zork Times telling them how evil their games were and how they were all going to Hell. (If you've ever played an Infocom game, you'll know why this is ridiculous... the Frobozz Magic Glue factory is not the stuff of real magick.)
So, I suspect this is where the myth that hackers were more likely to be pagans or into alternative religion comes from.
Now... it may be that there is more actual alternative religious belief among hackers than among more average society. Certainly, California seems to be more open to alternative religions than the rest of the country. I don't think there has ever been an actual scientific poll take to determine numbers. Myself? I used to be Catholic and now basically consider myself mostly agnostic.
Ia, Ia Cthulhu ftagn!!
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Quite right!
As you might have guessed, I had my scientific materialist ("right tool for the job", "religion is a way to help you deal with certain feelings") hat on when I wrote that. The notion that "real" might constitute anything beyond the material world was quite preposterous to me, and so I said "real-world" when I meant "physical world".
Which is a long way of saying that what's "real" to me is a function of me mental state at any given moment in time. Or "Who is the master who makes the grass green?" (As you can guess now, I'm in a Zen state :)
Incidentally, I note that my belief systems have been fairly carefully evolved to have relatively minor areas of overlap. To use the example at hand, there's not much in the Zen concept behind "you are the master who makes the grass green" that gets in the way of the principles Jesus elucidated in, say, the Sermon on the Mount, and it's a very elegant way of reminding yourself that there are damn good reasons why the scientific method requires double-blind experiments.
Huh? If by "why are we here", you mean "how did homo sapiens evolve?", you're absolutely right. That question is within the realm of science.
I meant "is there any purpose to our existence as conscious beings? What are we supposed to do with our lives?" That's metaphysics.
And while the opinions of scientists on that question are every bit as useful and interesting as the opinions of philosophers and religious types, they're just that: opinions. I know of no scientist who would call them "facts" in the sense of scientific truth.
To take the question "Why are we here" in the sense in which I meant it:
Dawkins would argue argue "No reason beyond providing an environment (a body and reproductive system) to propagate your genes. Indeed, you only exist in a form that's capable of asking such a silly question because 'consciousness' happens to be just one of about 30 million effective methods (species) that genes use to ensure their propagation".
A follower of Zen would say "Mu." The very notion that there exists some "thing" that one is "supposed" to do with one's life is wholly bogus in Zen. It's like asking a mathematician "What quantity is expressed by the sum 2 + fish?".
A Christian would say that one ought to follow the example set down by Christ in the Bible. (Umm, and the next Christian beside him would say the same thing, but they'd disagree violently on exactly what that example was ;-)
And a Fundie of any religious stripe would say that one also ought coerce everyone else into doing the same thing.
If you've got a double-blind experiment that will determine which of these (and the other zillion-odd religious and philosophical viewpoints out there) is demonstrably right, I'd like to see it.
I point out that the scientific method can be expressed in five words:
Hypothesis. Materials. Method. Data. Conclusion.
I finally got around to playing Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri last night, and finished it in a couple of all-nighters.
Your quote reminds me of something from the game. Paraphrasing the game, "The question isn't why a perfect God would create this universe, but why a perfect God would create a universe at all".
My take on the topic at hand: Geeks are freethinkers. Because we acknowledge that it's very hard for one geek to understand all that's going on inside these boxes we call "computers", we're tolerant of views in the absence of conclusive evidence. All geeks believe that what does on inside the box is understandable, but the process whereby any one geek understands a piece of code is something uniquely a function of (a) the geek, and (b) the code.
If I extrapolate these beliefs about computability to the Real World, I see two tendencies:
- First - geeks will choose world views that imply the world is understandable and that there are processes whereby one can change the world.
- Unlike normals, geeks tend to be tolerant where evidence is unclear. We're willing to use the best tool for the job.
Traditional religions have never tolerated this - they tend to be monolithic one-size-fits-all solutions geared for memetic propagation, rather than best-of-breed solutions for particular subsets of philosophical problems.Whether it be Fundamentalist Christianity ("know God and follow His commandments"), Paganism ("Change the world through acts of Magick"), Buddhism ("You are the master who makes the grass green"), or Scientific Materialism ("The world operates according to physical laws which can be divined through experiment"), all of these world views provide adherents with tools whereby reality can be manipulated.
The scientific method is an excellent tool for figuring out how gravity works and why the stars shine. It's not as useful a tool for answering the answers to philosophical questions like "Why are we here", and "How shall we live?". Religions are pretty good for this. You may not like the answer any one religion provides, but you have to admit it's an answer.
Normals tend to want one tool for everything. Fundamentalist Christian Normals have a lot of trouble with dinosaur fossils. Scientific materialists have trouble with metaphysics. Normals end up like Linux users without an xterm trying to use Internet Explorer to rename 100 files, or MSOffice users trying to write annual reports in TeX.
The "joke religions", such as the Church of the SubGenius, or Discordianism, have a significant place in geek culture because they're explicit demonstrations of an important principle - "best tool for the job" doesn't mean "science or religion", but can mean multiple religions for multiple types of religious type questions.
Normals hate having to pick and choose and learn something new every time they encounter something new. Geeks love having to adapt - we do it for fun - it's what happens every time we design new software, debug old software, or play any game from Quake to Everquest to D&D.
I'll close off by describing my belief system: I'm a scientific materialist when solving real-world problems; I have no need of the God hypothesis to explain physics, evolution, or even human intelligence. I've chosen the Christian God (and I freely admit "because that's how I was brung up" - an accident of the religious affiliation of my parents, who infected me with the Judeo-Christan meme) as my arbitrary Big Brother figure. But I also like the Zen and Existentialist approaches to life when Big Brother doesn't give me what I want.
Oddly enough, I appear to lack the capability to really get into the altered mental/emotional states experienced by Pagans, neo-shamans, or to use the modern equivalent, trance/techno music and dance. So I concluded that the "really mystical" stuff that started this thread wasn't for me. (But if it's your thing, hey, more power to ya. It's your brain; if you've got the circuitry to enjoy this kinda stuff, enjoy the hell out of it!)
And I'm a card-carrying SubGenius. Which means I'm not really here -- I left Earth on July 5, 1998 with the rest of the SubGenii, and am beaming this message to MWOWM from my Pleasure Spacecraft. You are actually a brain in a vat, living in a World Without Slack.
The movie The Matrix was a practical joke we decided to play on you to see if you'd figure it out. Of course you missed the point completely, just like we knew you would. But it was right there in the movie -- for stupid primates to believe in a virtual world, it's gotta suck.
And that, humans, is why the world (well, at least the one you slackless gimps live in) is so fscked up.
Bertrand Russell wrote the definitions of atheism, theism, and agnosticism that have the most meaning in my life. I can only paraphrase, but he said, basically, this:
Atheists believe that they can KNOW that God does NOT exist.
A theist believes that it is possible to KNOW that God DOES exist.
An agnostist believes that it is impossible to know whether God exists.
In this way, I consider myself, in a purely _pragmatic_ sense, to be both an atheist and an agnostic. I don't believe that God exists, but I acknowledge that He might.
And, truthfully, at this point in my life, I consider the question of His existance or non-existance to be (almost) irrelevant. If I knew that he existed, I wouldn't live my life any differently than I do now. Still, there is the intellectual curiosity, and I wouldn't pass up the opportunity of certainty if it arose (assuming that this opportunity did not involve wish-fulfillment or self-delusion).
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
If I believed that God existed, I would be unlikely to believe any of the aforementioned. Currently, when I entertain the idea that God exists, I consider him as an 18th century Deist might, choosing to believe that he interferes not one iota with his universe. If he really knows me "completely and truly," as you say, then he will understand my skepticism.
Also, I wasn't talking about God "show[ing] up." I was referring more to the intellectual conviction that he did exist, and not a personal visit. In some scenarios, a visit from a vastly superior being would certainly be terrifying. However,unless his point was to terrify, he could appear to me in a totally non-threatening form.
I would be unprepared to believe in the Xtian God without a visitation, incidentally. It would take less to persuade me that a more impersonal God existed, but I am not expecting any such evidence to be presented soon.
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
Ah, you mean Frisbyterianism. . .
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
For example, back at my old high school I can remember the subject of religion coming up casually in a conversation, and I made the mistake of mentioning I was an atheist. Because of this, I was harrassed for years. I had people constantly bringing up the subject, again and again and again. I had people trying to convert me just about every single day. They always ask, "why are you an atheist?" Had said I was christian, jewish, muslim, or even budhist I can't imagine being asked that question so many times.
That's because religious people (myself included) do not understand Atheism. We understand Agnosticism, we understand other religions. But we do not understand Atheists. The fact that someone is actually willing to say that 'NO! There is no deity of any kind anywhere and I KNOW THIS FOR CERTAIN.' baffles us completely. Agnostics proclaim not to know the answer, perfectly understandable. Other religions have their own views, but all admit the possibility of an all powerful deity or multiple powerful deities somewhere doing something. Atheists proclaim that they have sure knowledge of the nonexistance of such a being despite there being no proof one way or the other. That is why you are constantly asked 'Why are you an Atheist.' if you were an Agnostic that probably wouldn't happen...
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but the only reason I'd be vocal with my religious beliefs would be to see how others react to challenges about their religion. I've noticed that people often react by trying to insult you, try to convert you to the One True religion (theirs), ignore you, or will discuss it rationally with you (very rare).
,and I wish more Christians and in fact more people of all faiths would put a little more effort into understanding themselves and what they believe before they go blindly attempting to convert everyone to a system that they don't even understand yet.
Boy do I ever hear that!
I'll go ahead and state that I'm a Christian. I suppose I'm technically a Baptist, but I tend to hold a lot of beliefs that most Baptists don't. And when I hear Christians babbling on about how God hates this and God hates that and telling people 'This is the Way it Is.' I have the urge to kick them. Because invariably when you take an opposing view point that don't have any argument beyond 'That's just the way it is.' which tells me pretty clearly that they haven't put one seconds thought in to what they believe. So how is anyone supposed to take them seriously? I see supposed Christian groups protesting Homosexuality, screaming about how 'God Hates Fags!' and it makes me sick. These are the kind of people that don't even bother to find out what Christ was actually teaching, they just use their religion as a big stick to beat down anyone they find annoying or disagreeable and then they pretend it makes them better people. I've made absolutely certain that I know why I believe what I believe and can discuss it with anyone who comes along no matter from what angle they attack my views (attack used in the sense of challenging ones ideas, not slandering them.)
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Hah! Organized religions are really organized religious bigotry. Organization and religious tolerance don't go together. They are systems for gaining profit for the priests, and as such, they are generally as ruthless and intolerant as they can get away with, which is generally a function of what percentage of the population they can claim. This is why minority religions almost always seem gentler and friendlier: they are weak and could be wiped out if they made too much fuss. For example, Judaism seems a gentle, harmless religion (especially in America), but look in the Old Testament and you'll find that ancient Hebrew law in the days when it had a local near-monopoly was as brutally intolerant as the Catholic inquisition; look to modern Isreal and you can just how "gentle" and "harmless" it is becoming once again, now that the very government is based on the religion (mind you, this would happen with any organized religion; it doesn't matter what it's "about", the priesthood will always attract those who enjoy exercising the power abusing their authority gives them). Look to Iran, if you want to see the threat of organized religion with general support over a long period.
Asa Christian I have to say this is VERY true.
Christianity began as small groups that studied together and only wanted enough political pull to stop themselves from being fed to lions. But as more people joined the movement various politically motivated people saw this demographic that didn't have much represntation in their government and saw it as a potential powerbase to further their own agenda. And hence 'The Church' was born. Christianity began it's downward spiral into an inreasingly harmful political movement instead of a beneficial religious movement with a primary motivation to help everyone. I find it extremely distateful when some pseudo-religious political figure gets up and pretends to represent MY views as a Christian while at the same time advocating all manner of harmful legislation, and proclaiming their hatred for various social groups. It's nothing like Christ seems to have intended it to be. Of course I can't say for certain that Christ wanted anything to be like anything else since I wasn't there. But from all accounts He was a tolerant and peaceful person not prone to inciting crusades to slaughter millions of people who disagree.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I'm painted as the bad guy for even asking where the clothes on the emperor are. As if I'm being silly, or worse a bigot just for disagreeing. Someone please explain this reasoning to me, but skip the common explanations. Been there, done that.
Welp, the simple explanation for my belief in God (or some kind of creator deity) is that to me Random Chance just doesn't cut it for an explanation of the origin of all things. When someone can give me a better explanation for that I'll pick it up. But The idea that we went from nothing to today simply by random chance is to me as equally absurd as the idea that an all powerful God had nothing better to do than create walking meat. I think that as long as I'm going to believe something it might as well be something that has things working out well for me in the end (eternity in paradise isn't that bad a deal). I believe most of the main tenets of Christianity, that Christ walked the earth and performed mircales (don't see any reason why he couldn't have, we don't yet understand enough about the way the universe works to say it's impossible), that Christ wants us to dwell with him in heaven for eternity (must get somewhat boring being all powerful and not having anyone to play with). Beyond that I think it's just details.
I also whole heartedly agree with you, nonsense is nonsense, and my opinion of current scientific theory on the origin of everything and how it went from nothing to today is that it's equally nonsensical.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Yes, I was referring to the supernatural (semi? are you kidding?) life-energy often referred to. I'm not aware how it is necessary for any martial art to function.
Chi is used by practitioners of Chinese Kung Fu (Wu Shu, Gung Fu, whichever you want to call it) to inrease the strength of their strikes and to lessen the impact of an opponents strike. The existance of the ability of Chi Masters to manipulate the heat and electrical energy in their body is a proven fact. You can hook them up to machines and watch the heat increase wherever they say it will increase, it's all about controlling your body. It's spiritual in the respect that one MUST be calm and mentally stable in order to concentrate well enough to do any of this. So it requires meditation and a lot of spirtuality in order to achieve this mental attitude. Chi is a very real physical principal and isn't exactly pseudo-mystical. If you ever get the chance to speak with a Chinese Kung Fu master get them to demonstrate Chi. Ask a practitioner of Iron Palm to break a coconut open for you with his hand... Those involve Chi Energy Transfers, not just brute strength. Sine the strongest man on earth can't break open a coconut simply by punching it.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I'm still confused on why taking the 'None of the above' opinion brings out such ire. I don't hate people for being religious. (In Rome a few years ago, I even watched in admiration the Pope give a public greeting on the steps of St. Peter's.)
Because 'None of the above' isn't as comforting as A,B, or C. And as long as you can admit to yourself (we can admit to ourselves) that we're picking our religion based on greed (God created us, he knows we operate on greed and self interest, He knows how to make it work for Him) then we won't be intolerant of others. But it's the people that feel they are somehow superior for choosing this particular religion over that particular religion (this and that being generic) that cause problems. Just like people who feel they are superior for being this color instead of that color, or this gender instead of that gender.
People who are insecure in their faith, and unsure as to why they believe what they believe are going to be openly hostile to anything which challenges their ideas because they know they have no defense for them.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I hate it when they post topics I have a vocal opinion on during the weekends, I didn't find the topic until saturday night.>:)
In that case, you don't misunderstand atheists, you misunderstand what is meant by the term "atheist." It's rare for an atheist to claim they know for certain there is no deity of any kind; rather, they reject specific claims for the existence of a deity on the same grounds for which they reject the claim for the existence of the Easter Bunny, for example, or of Santa Claus.
You don't have a problem with someone rejecting the existence of (for example) Allah -- if you're a Christian, you no doubt do this yourself ("Thou shalt have no other gods before Me"). You say you understand other religions, which I take to mean you understand someone rejecting the existence of the Christian God. How then is there a problem with understanding the union of all these specific sets of disbelief?
Another way to put it is this: all the world's religions can't be right -- there's too much contradiction between them -- but they can all be wrong. I can't prove that that's the case, but after careful examination of a large number of religions, I have to say that it's pretty easy for me to conclude that the whole lot is not worth pursuing...
What you describe here is what I view as Agnostic, not as Atheist. You admit that there is the possibility of one of the current religions being right, but you think they are wrong, but you also admit the possibility of their being a deity of some sort.
Oh, I personally do not deny the existance of Allah, and I base it on the very line you quoted. In order for there to be other gods that we could place before Him, then there must be other gods. Hence I believe there are other deities that exist as well as the Christian God. Also, my wife and I have developed a working theory for the coexistance of all religions based on the premise that all rewards and punishments are visited only on those who believe in them. Hence, Saved Christians go to heaven, unsaved go to Hell, worshippers of Satan go to Hell, everyone else is taken care of by their own deities, and Atheists and Agnostics if they are full 100% (Very difficult, most have some underlying background belief) simply cease to exist. It's not exactly scientific, but it's possible.
Anyways, I don't think you are an Atheist, I think you are an Agnostic. You haven't found anything you believe is correct yet, but you admit the possibility of something coming along.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
I have felt for a long time that the strong correlation between computer programers/sysadmins and alternative religions has to do with BOTH requiring the ability to think "outside the box" in certain ways.
Understanding computers, how they work and how to program and manage them requires thinking about things most people never approach, much less study or do routinely. The same ability to get outside the box of routine thinking is required when a person begins questioning the religion they were raised in.
I am not at all surprised that many IT professionals are exploring other religions. It is an outgrowth of their natural abilities.
--[Cyber Bear]
If the Question is whether or not hackers believe in spirtual natures, my opinion is that they have to. Not because some dark master is secretly pulling at thier strings, but mainly because of the possibility that they could exist. I think most people on the net have an atheist (sorry if that is spelt wrong) type opinion to the whole spirtual side of nature, but I think those who are wise still respect them, without actually believing in them.
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
There's no fundamental, logical reason why the simplist solution should be the correct one.
That is not what Occam's Razor states. The original wording was "pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate," meaning "plurality should not be posited without necessity." This basically means that when formulating a theory, there is no need for complex ideas when simpler ones will do. For example, Occam was opposed to the idea of universals, abstract terms that are common among a number of objects, such as heaviness. By Occam's Razor, there is no need for universals to exist (outside of human thought); all objects can be described by their physical attributes and the way we perceive them.
I just gnu there was something gnostic about it.
This is stereotypical nonsense with not a shred of evidence to back it up. In fact the gross generalizations are in complete disagreement with my own anecdotal observations that hackers tend to be engineering & science oriented folks with a healthy contempt for the sort of wishy washy nonsense peddled in this article. A fondness for science & sci-fi (the latter optional) and a tinkering, curious, analytical rather objective approach to everything is the norm. To dress this up with all this talk of mystic nonsense & magic is to completely misunderstand the culture. Aside from RPG's like D&D & related Tolkein-esque material there's no mysticism, and this connection has nothing to do with conventional notions of mysticism or magic.
So now for a brief commercial: isn't the Biblical account of creation uniquely rational and uniquely similar to present-day scientific theory on how and when things came to be?
The Biblical account of creation appears to claim, among other things:
a.) There was a self-conscious, intelligent entity - which means, at least, that you or I could in theory have a conversation with it - and this entity existed before the creation of all the matter in the universe.
b.) There was exactly one of these things: not two, not zero.
c.) This entity, the very same one, whom English-speaking believers refer to as "God," exists essentially unchanged and with a continuity of identity, from prior to the beginning of the universe to this very day.
d.) And finally, this entity is actively concerned, even as I type, with every detail of my unimportant and pointless life, as well as yours.
Pitch overboard any of the above elements and I say you have abandoned the Biblical creation hypothesis altogether. But if these four axioms are central to the Biblical creation theory, I fail to see what is so "uniquely" convincing about it. First of all, why only one "God"? In nature, as we see around us, so many things that generate new forms reproduce by twos; why is "God" single and lonely? Second, if the properties of the universe are the outcome of consciousness, why are they so boringly mechanical? One would expect water to flow up hill every now and again, just by Divine whim, if consciousness rather than mechanics created and ruled the cosmos.
Finally, why is today's "God" identical with the creator "God"? Other living things age and die and are replaced by new ones, and besides if I were "God," sentenced as He is to loneliness forever, and beholding this unsatisfactory world in such close detail as He does, I do believe I'd jump off the bridge. I did once read some philosopher somewhere who claimed that "God," though He is omnipotent by definition, nonetheless is logically incapable of killing Himself, from which follows the pride-inflating lemma that you and I possess a super-divine power to do what even "God" himself can not.
Finally, where you say
Atheistic materialism ultimately can't explain anything, because it can't account for its own existence
I can buy that notion, less because of Godel's theorem (why should the number of rules of the universe be countable, anyway?) than the old "first cause" argument (if X caused everything what caused X? if the world rests on the back of a giant turtle, upon what does the turtle rest?) but the "first cause" paradox weighs equally heavily against any scheme, theistic or atheistic, which claims to globally explain the universe.
Skeptically yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
How can you possibly know there are no gods / is no God?
The problem you have is that you expect a person's beliefs to be watertight and absolutely unsinkable. I can't imagine being so egotistical to claim that my arguments are irresistible against those of any and all debaters from now till eternity. I would also like to point out that you yourself surely do not use the words "belief" of "believe" in this rigid sense elsewhere when you talk.
For example, you or I might honestly, sincerely, and reasonably say, "I believe it's not going to rain tomorrow, so I will pack a picnic lunch and prepare to go fishing." If you say this to me, I'm not about to jump down your throat with "But how can you be sure?" Now we know that we can't be absolutely sure what the weather is going to be tomorrow. But we can still formulate a belief and act upon it. A couple of other common beliefs are these:
a.) The Sun is going to rise tomorrow, and
b.) The Sun is going to rise the day after I die.
Everyone believes the first, right? yet no one can prove it ahead of time; we'd have to wait until tomorrow to absolutely know it is true. The second is even weirder; clearly, by deinition, I can't ever possibly prove that one. But who reading this fails to put 100% full reliance on either conjecture?
If you like, for us to firmly hold mundane beliefs such as these is nothing less than a leap of faith; "faith" is a word which alarms atheists and theists alike, but the alternative to this ordinary sort of faith is that we don't make any plans whatsoever any more.
The difference, then, between an atheist and an agnostic is that an atheist believes that there definitely is no such thing as "God" and he orders his actions and plans accordingly, whereas an agnostic believes that the "God" question is either currently unsolved in practice, or else is unsolvable per axiom, and he conducts his affairs with that somewhat different belief in mind.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Nice rant! Thanks for writing. Say, how do you feel about VP candidate Lieberman, that Social Security bandito^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hprivatizer, and his claim that we atheists (and for that matter, followers of non-theistic religions like Buddhism) can't possibly be good Merkins on account of us failing to believe in "God"? And, ha ha, the very next day after I read that crap in the newspaper, I get a solicitation in my mailbox from the Democratic National Committee asking me to dig into my wallet and give till it hurts! Bite me, DNC, and rack up another vote for Righteous Ralph instead!
cf. our crabby old friend Mencken on this very issue.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Me too, I agree entirely, you betcha. "IXTHUS," Greek for "fish," is an acronym and an excellent multi-level pun (cf. Mark 1:17, Matthew 4:19) nearly two millenia old, which, expanded, spells out "Iesus Christos Theu Uios Soter," or in English "Jesus Christ Son of God Savior".
Now whenever I see someone with one of them cute lil' "IXTHUS" fishies glued to the rear end of their car, I immediately think, "Whoo-ee! What a vicious atheist, gratuitously insulting the world's billion-plus Christians with that ugly one-letter abbreviation for 'Christ'".
Yeah buddy, yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
ps: animated fish .GIF courtesy of this web page...
So whatever X is, Xes are just wonderful and they never do wrong, because as soon as they do wrong, they're instantly no longer Xes. That's cheating.
Besides, ask them. Axe in hand, blood up to their elbows and knees, they'll proudly tell you, "ad majorem gloriam Dei."
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
One thing that I have not seen, and I hope never to, is any geek attempt to press his/her views on anyone else. One common trend seems to be, these are my beliefs, I will discuss them, but not try and convert people. Most people have the intelligence to choose there own way, and there seems to be a respect for that. (this does not apply to window managers)
I have also noticed that even with hackers and geeks that follow "mainstream" beliefs there is often a tendancy to reject the organised structures of thats belief, which in most religions is not against the word of the god(s), but can be against specific branchs of that religion (there are some obvious exceptions).
-- "[The] NSA can eat shit and die until they stop listening to my phone calls" - TastyWheat
There was a need to replace the spiritual void left by this departure of both kin group and Christianity, and the default was to seek out pre-Christian spiritual traditions. Unfortunately, those spiritual traditions were of by and for country folk, and instead we got the urban neopagans headed by urban ethnics like Margot Adler and "Starhawk" who describes herself as a "radical Jew". Sorry, Jews just aren't country folk -- they are virtually the antithesis -- and they really don't understand the spiritual needs of the kinds of people who came off the farms to build engineering excellence at places like Control Data Corporation, Cray Research, PLATO and NCSA.
Whether you call yourself a "heathen" meaning you're from the heather lands, or you call yourself a pagan, meaning you're from the countryside, you don't really belong in an urban area and you don't really belong under the influence of the current neopagan leadership.
Neopaganism is merely a new form of that old time Middle Eastern religion run by urbanites just like Christianity.
Seastead this.
fnord.
Well its certainly true within my experience that a lot of modern Pagans are also technically inclined, but not my experience that a lot of techs are Pagans. I think the one is a subset of the other.
I have been interested in computers since I first played with the mainframe at the University of Victoria, and with my friends Trash80 and Apple II. I have been interested in Witchcraft and Paganism for an even longer period - over 25 years now. I am an initiated Alexandrian Wiccan (for those not familiar with Wicca, view it as a subset of Modern Paganism. Modern Paganism includes a variety of religious beliefs based on resurrecting Pre-Christian religous practices. Neither have anything to do with Satanism, Satan being part of the Judeo-Christian mythos).
I run a website devoted to Paganism (Omphalos if you are curious), currently work as a programmer on several websites, and spend much of my time learning about various technical subjects - mostly relating to programming, Linux, and FreeBSD. Within the Pagan community, I am fairly typical.
I think the thing that attracts many technical types to Paganism is that it is generally unstructured, non-authoritarian, and fairly do-it-yourself in nature. It also does not insist in any "One True Way(TM)". I can have a conversation with another Pagan, differing in our viewpoints entirely, and there is nothing in either philosophy which excludes acceptance of the other's religous practices in most cases. Paganism accepts that there is no one truth, so there is no one correct way.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
I do see a bit of a Gnostic attitude in many hackers, though, and it conflates with the anti-orgnaized religion tendency. Gnostics believed that the world was created not by God, but by an evil being called Demiurge. ISTM that many hackers feel the world is far too fscked up to have been created by a perfect, good being. A general preference for the intellectual (not to say noetic) over the physical, corresponding roughly to the Gnostic belief that material existence is inherently evil, exemplifies this as well.
Me? I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian. This is the Christian group that has best preserved it's mystical traditions, so in a way I'm an example of what Chaoli the Grey was talking about.
And the brethren went away edified.
The fact that such a miserable, hate-filled screed filled with questionable facts and flaccid self-justification got modded up to 4 is proof that the statement in the subject line is true.
And the brethren went away edified.
Oompa Doompa Doompa de de.
I want Linux instead on NT.
It's always fun to play with religious fundies (kind of like poking a rabid badger with sharp sticks).
One fun thing to do: hold a long religious discussion w/in earshot of a fundie, but always refering to God & Jesus as females (e.g., Goddess instead of God), but leave most of the other details the same.
Most of them will recognize what you're doing, but the conflict that the mental imagery creates with their permanently-engraved patriarchical view of their faith will REALLY make them uncomfortable - and the ones who can't take it also get upset when you accuse them of not believing that She is All Things and can be female if She wants to, and that they shouldn't be imposing their puny human prejudices on Her.
I'm assuming that you also include the ability to detect by deduction, as in: "We cannot directly observe the existence of this phenomena (like an elusive subatomic particle, for instance), but through logic & indirect observations, we have eliminated all other probable causes."
I always thought Chi was some kind of useful mental abstraction which allowed someone who was "practiced" in it to manipulate a lot of the usually-subconscious functions of their brain & bodies.
I wonder what effect having a Churge of Open Religion would have on the current legal landscape. Could we argue against the DMCA on grounds that it violates the separation of church and state?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Hail Eris!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Long before everybody and their mother used the Internet there were neo-pagan and occult ftp-archives and newsgroups
There is a good reason for that. I remember when I was in high school, and I was quite interested in the concept of Libertarianism, which I had only ready about in books. Growing up in a small town in Canada, there were no other people with similar beliefs... which frustrated me a lot. Then I discovered Usenet... where thousands of people discussed and argued the things I thought about, instead of pop artists and movie stars and football players.
Now, I can imagine someone interested in the occult, or some other somewhat obscure concept, that would have a great attraction to the net for the same reason. I don't think that there is any natural disposition to the occult... it's just a result of the disparate locations of uncommon beliefs.
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
There is no God. There are no gods. Jesus was a man. He lived, he died. End of story. There are no UFOs hovering over earth. The Loch Ness Monster does not exit. Neither does Bigfoot. There are not an abnormal number of vanishing ships/planes in the Bermuda Triangle compared to anywhere else. Crystals do not have unexplained power. There is no such thing as chi.
I could go on. My point is, there is no reason to think that anything exists aside from what we can detect with our senses (and devices that enhance our senses, like radio telescopes).
Mysticism has its place -- in sci-fi. That's it. In the real world, all that has a place is reality.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Things that leave evidence of their existence are not "ordinarily undetectable". The fact that they leave evidence by definition means they are detectable. When I say "detectable" I do not mean "directly observable via sight, sound, touch, smell, etc.", I mean "able to be detected." Keep that in mind.
Now, that aside, I do not claim that if I have not personally detected something, it does not exist. Rather, I claim that if I (or someone I trust) has no evidence that something exists, there is no logical reason to assume that it does. This is the critical point. I am not saying, "I can't see God, therefore God does not/cannot exist." What I AM saying is, "I have no evidence that God exists, therefore I assume that God does not exist; however I am open to evidence."
I also NEVER say (or at least, I really try not to), "There is no evidence that X exists, therefore, there will never be evidence that X exists." This is clearly ludicrous.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
I disagree. We don't "have faith" that it works. We KNOW FOR A FACT IT WORKS. How? I may not have any idea how gcc works, but I can actually use it to compile a program. I don't have to have faith that it compiled, because I have hard evidence: the binary!
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
My apologies; what I should have said was, "I have no reason to think that there is a God, or that there are any gods."
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Oh who cares! Christians have the biggest, most pathetic persecution complex. Just because of the Roman Empire we have had to put up with 2000 years of paranoid psychotic fundyism. Looking at the historical record, Christians have done far more to persecute and kill others than they have ever suffered. To so many Christians simply not sharing their beliefs is tantamount to religious bigotry and persecution. They demand prayer in school (which is always forced and lead by teachers. I grew up in Alabama, so I know the reality, when they say it is always student lead and not imposed, they either don't know what is going on, or are lying). Christians must believe that without coercion from the government their religion will die out.
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
Is it possible there's simply a diverse group of people, with many faiths, much like the population at large, and the story here is that there is no story?
/., in the geek community, as in the public at large, people tend to adopt certain attitudes based on their perspective vis a vis those of other. Atheists decry the terrible influence and backwards political agenda of the religious right; christians cite the unacceptance of their religion, many believers in smaller practices are either the "lurkers" of their religions (practicing, not talking about it), or talkative, enthusiastic, information, and oddly accepted by the same people decrying christianity as backwards. And what I believe is the largely silent majority has little to say on the topic other than: don't use religion to judge people or their views
/. posts which actually have something insightful to offer, and at the same time horrified of the ease at which people toss around harmful labels or sarcastic flames, as though the sarcastic flaming will appeal to anyone other than the people they pander to with it.
I think so. I also have noticed that here on
Personally, I'd probably expand that: don't use labels, religious or otherwise. I've been labelled a number of things myself, from ignorant to "randite", based on the topic at hand, and it certainly doesn't advance us anywhere to label people instead of using arguments that make sense. I've found myself both consistently impressed by the plethora of truly intelligent
Or, in other words, it seems to me no different that the people I encounter every day in normal life (a geeky life though it may be). And that variety truly is the spice of life, and one of the best things the net has going for it. By committing to truly commit for a minute to another viewpoint, we can all gain the ability to either integrate it into ourselves, or reject it and know why, if we truly seek to understand, rather than to attack.
i flew out of my body once(okay thirteen times) while i was on shrooms.
It could just be the fact that the people who are attracted to high-tech jobs tend to be intelligent and metnally active and, over time, start to notice things. Not a few of them are given to speculation, contemplation, and looking for patterns. Not only that, we may find that "nerds" suffer from some social austracism (okay, we've been over this). This might lead to a tendency to look outside the herd for ideas and beliefs.
Add the fact that programming can require the ability to enter near-autistic states of concentration and you have people looking at Zen (actually meditation) seriously. You might also get people thinking about the mystical connectivity of the Internet and also the fact that it all just "works" (if you have ever written a program on one computer and compiled it on another you may know what I mean) and you have "faith" in the system. None of us FULLY understands every aspect of computing and networking. We have faith that it all works most of the time. When we know what is wrong we fix it, but there is always some unknown factors. Refreshing isn't it? :)
--8<--
--8<--
Me-- well I used to like playing M:TG, am a "hacker", and am also a born-again Christian. So I guess I broke the trend ;-)
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
To me, the awnser seems pretty simple. I think the type of people who are drawn to computers are also drawn to the mysterious. Take me for an example. Whenever I play a D&D sort of RPG, I like to be a mage. You have control over something that noone else can control or even understand. Fighting you can understand easily. Theivery you can understand easily. Wizardry, now there's the challenge for the mind.
...which is exactly it. Hackers love a challege. They love to explore the unexplored realm of computers just as the mage explores the unexplored realm of magics.
What am I you (may) ask? As far as theology goes, I'm still exploring. Trying to figure out the unknown and perhaps unknowable. My only tools I have at my disposal in order to take on this challenge responsibly: Science, Math, and Logic. For we can only know more when we know what is known. Ya know?
Kingpin
;P
fool, you have done it wrong.
Like this:
I _believe_ Discordianism is the true faith.
I _believe_ Discordianism is the true faith.
I _believe_ Discordianism is the true faith.
I _believe_ Discordianism is the true faith.
I _believe_ Discordianism is the true faith.
Follow the Law of Fives!
See this page here for more information on Discordianism, including... everything!
I like my religion like I like my hardware: Do-It-Yourself.
A little bit of Hindu reincarnation here, some Celtic gods and goddesses there. Religion is modular, right?
Pax Digitalia
I'd have to say that both hackers and mystic people are a little offbeat. It's not that being a hacker causes you to become a mystic, or the other way round. Simply that both groups do not draw heavily from the Joe-schmo segment of the population.
No great revelation there... Marketing people know about segmentation from the time they can first stick their heads up their asses.
not_cub
q='echo "q=$s$q$s;s=$b$s;b=$b$b;$q"';s=\';b=\\;echo "q=$s$q$s;s=$b$s;b=$b$b;$q"
I have, on occassion, tried 'alternate' means to get a Windows NT server to work.....
Eeka! Beeka! Boo!
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
And yes, a lot of Christians and members of other "mainstream" religions are hypocrites. ... That's not specific to organized religions; it's a dark side of human nature.
Personally, I don't care about the whacko religous leaders. They're nothing without followers.
Here's my enlightened conclusion on religon and good deeds in general that meshes well with your last comment;
Religon is often used as a way to be 'good' and allows the practitioners to be 'bad' in other ways.
Guilt and subservience is used to regulate the 'bad' actions but the thoughts are still there and make many highly religous people seem fake -- they aren't true to thier nature, and can't be trusted 100%.
Personally, I don't care what nonsense people believe. There's probably some truth in it, but none in the literal details. If someone says one thing odd, I try not to take it literally, and I suspect many other hackers/geeks are the same regaurdless of the topic. If the person insists on pushing a point they're being rude or just crazy. If it's nonsense they deserve getting mocked or referred for medication -- religion or not. Nonsense is nonsesnse.
What concerns me deeply are when friends and people I trust tell me what I think...as if gods are somehow normal and all over the place.
I'm painted as the bad guy for even asking where the clothes on the emperor are. As if I'm being silly, or worse a bigot just for disagreeing. Someone please explain this reasoning to me, but skip the common explanations. Been there, done that.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
I do understand, though. Since I was a young teen, I thought that atheist=bigot. Because of that, I told people I was a non-practing Christian not an atheist.
Nothing has happened in my basic lack of beliefs between then and now. The only 'difference' is the label. I've been an atheist since I was probably about 12 to 14 years old.
Now, if I even give a hint that I think the god concept is only a concept and not reality, I get harrased...or a wry grin. There are other heathens out there, don't you know? :}
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Welp, the simple explanation for my belief in God ... [ snip ] ...I also whole heartedly agree with you, nonsense is nonsense, and my opinion of current scientific theory on the origin of everything and how it went from nothing to today is that it's equally nonsensical.
I _was_ Christian. I _know_ this point of view in detail...and don't begrudge you for having it.
I'm still confused on why taking the 'None of the above' opinion brings out such ire. I don't hate people for being religious. (In Rome a few years ago, I even watched in admiration the Pope give a public greeting on the steps of St. Peter's.)
Is there a legitimate reason for such an attitude? Why is it so common among religous people -- even those with under grad and graduate degrees?
Way off topic...I'm stopping now but will look for replies later.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
The first occurred when I was with a group of friends experimenting with a Ouija board. We were all receptive and open-minded about the whole thing, and sure enough, we were summoning spirits that would move the little plastic piece around and form letters. We got well past the point where any of us was skeptical that something otherworldy was taking place.
The weirdest part of that whole time was the night before we were all going to go see Al Di Meola/Paco De Lucia/John McLaughlin/Steve Morse in concert. We summoned this particularly nasty spirit and proceeded to insult it, being the well-mannered geeky teenagers that we were. Well, I kid you not, we all received what felt like an electric shock from this thing. Ever touch a piece of metal that is inserted into an electric socket? That's EXACTLY what it felt like.
I was pretty freaked about it. When I talked it over with my Dad, he insisted that it was a bunch of nonsense - anything we experienced was created entirely out of our own minds. However, I never forgot the experience, and I still don't understand how that kind of shock could be transmitted through a plastic piece.
I believe there are natural explanations for everything supernatural. Anyone here want to explain how the above could have happened?
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
What Pagan doesn't mean:
What Pagan does mean:
I'm a neo/techno-Pagan type that believes in Stephen Hawking, Larry Wall, Richard M. Stallman, Norse gods (not by choice...they're just kind of there), practicality and relativism, karma (not the
I have dealt with many common and uncommon strains of Pagans, and my view may be a bit broad for the liking of most common Pagan types, so I'm probably not the guy to tell you all this. If you want to know any more about the topic, I'd recommend the book that was referenced in the original story.
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
-The Professor, Futurama
Oh, by the way, the whole "pagan" movement mostly has to do with trying to justify orgies.
No in fact I am an atheist. I was giving an explanation for why many atheists seem to preech their atheism as much as religions preech.
The motivations for an argument have no bearing on the truth of that argument. I may want others to belive the earth is 4 billion (or however) many years old because I want to discredit their religious philosophy but this does not change in any way the truth of my claim.
And my observation does not individually impinge upon you. This is something that really bothers me when someone says group X is more likely to have prooperty Y and someone who is in group X gets very mad because they do not have property Y. You don't fall into the category good for you...now it very well be that I have made an incorrect generalization and you are one data point against that but don't take it personally.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
While I do generally dislike broad generalizations made about hackers/geeks this is quite an interesting question.
Hackers/geeks like everyone else *want* to believe in religion a higher power to give them comfort. While some may deny this I think the prevalance of religious people on earth (for whatever reason) is more than enough to establish that the human pysche naturally craves something outside itself.
Unfourtunatly people of our persuasion often find "normal" religions inadequate. Whether it is because we are smarter than the average practitioner and hence see the flaws in their belif or because we are used to working in formal none emotive enviornment and hence aren't well equiped to handle the emotional type of religion often practiced hackers often seem to reject conventional religion.
This pushes them in several ways. First some of them turn to alternate spiritualites which let them blaze their own path. Also, as is quite obvious many of them turn to very vocal atheism. This atheism/agnosticism is most likely so vocal because secretly they want someone to come around and convince them they are wrong. If they simply thought others were making a factual mistake they would treat them no differntly than someone who belived (mistakenly) that Mt. McKinley is higher than everest but the desperate need to prove to them they are wrong and broudcast it loudly probably represents a desire to be proven wrong.
Well this is at least true of myself and maybe Im wrong in my generalization but im interested in your comments.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
My money's on Linux desktops.
A conventional oven works on science. Gas flows down a vented pipe where it is ignited by a pilot light. The burning gas (reacting with oxygen) heats the oven chamber until a bimetallic metal strip inside the oven bends enough to trip a lever that cuts off the flow of gas. Then as the oven cools, the metal bends back until it opens the gas flow to again heat the oven. A regulated temperature hysterisis is maintained. All goooood solid reliable and science. All of the chemical and physical properties of this non-living system are readily known and predictable.
A microwave oven, on the other hand, works on magic. When you press the 'start' button, an unseen dimensional portal is opened up inside the oven chamber and a horde of tiny invisible demons is released. The demons poke your food with their magic charged pitchforks causing it to heat up. The demons are picky, though. They don't like to touch some materials so they don't heat up at all (e.g., glass or porcelin). The demons are also playful. Sometimes they deliberately leave a big region of your food uncooked and laugh feindlishly as you later bite into that big chink of ice in your otherwise scalding hot lasagne. Sometimes the demons get so excited that they actually explode. This explains the mysterious splatters you find stuck to the interrior walls of the oven even though you always keep your food covered while cooking it. (Demons, once dead, can no longer maintain their invisibility and so show up as visible splatterings). When the timer stops, power is cut, and the warp hole begins to collapse and sucks all the demons back into the other realm. So since they're based on magic and rely on conscious beings with random personalities, microwave ovens are inherently unreliable and unpredictable.
There is no doubt that computers operate on magic. The entire device requires a spell (we call them programs today) in order to do anything useful. Truly, we programmers are the modern day sorcerers.
I think pagan/occult type people are drawn to the technological fields. Essentially, (boy, now I'm really laying it on thick) the tech fields are the closest thing we have to a meritocracy where you are judged by what you are capable of doing not who you are or what God/dess you do or don't worship.
I think there is another factor in regards to this subject. When I was younger, I was a devote atheist. The concept of any Divine Figure was absurd to me. As I got older, there was too many things that could't be explained properly any other way except through a mystical/religious element. These things were all touchy/feely kinds of issues that you can't gather imperical evidence on. Because of my past beliefs, I was more open to hearing from different religions and belief structures which then led me down the path to a pagan belief.
I am also going to blame roleplaying games a bit in this process, because of D&D I was exposed to the concept of entire Worlds devoted to occultism.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Of course, I find it interesting I too once used Bertrand Russel and Ayn Rand in debates against religion. Isaac Asimov was a friend in many a creationist debates. As age settles in on some of us, we sometimes seek comfort in mysticism. It gives us some sense of hope, even if it is false. As my father said, the cruelist thing you can do to a person is take away their hope.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Deep linking will get you sued!
sulli
RTFJ.
I do practice magick, read tarot cards, and go to various pagan gatherings and rituals. I have only been doing so for around a year, some psychadelic experiences I had opened me up to the idea of all of the different ways it is possible to see reality.
I try very hard to neither believe nor disbelieve, the experiences are incredibly valuable and wonderful regardless of what the ontological reality of them is. When one casts a circle or contacts a "spirit" the mood of the area shifts and insights can be gained. This is valuable regardless as to whether the spirits are beings with objective existance or just constructs of our own minds. The feeling of being in a group doing a ritual that is really on cannot be described! I also feel a much more heightened connection to nature than I used to
Likewise I have gained many insights for the tarot, whether this is from the patterns of the cards themselves being nonrandom or just the exercise engage parts of my mind that are not normally active I don't know, and ultimately it really does not matter.
I have noticed a fair number of computer geeks among the neopagan community (of course this is the Bay Area where there are a fair number of geeks in *every* community. I especially love my fellow geek pagans they seem to strike a good balence between questioning skepticism and being able to get into that magickal space where anything is possible.
MichelleThere is certainly a connection between scientists and mystics; Mystics are scientists.
Consider the following questions:
These are questions that scientists and other technically minded people ask, and they are questions that mystics ask as well. Note that the word "Gnostic", used in this Slashdot intro, means "Understanding".
Of all religious devotees, Mystics are the most scientific, since they constantly try to find the truth through observation, trial, and error. Mystics generally find that the the written word takes second place to first hand repeatable experiments, usually in the form of meditation.
If there is any one thing that would make a mystic out of a scientifically minded person (assuming that the scientist hasn't already taking Socrates' advice to heart and studying their own awareness), it would have to be the hard problem of consciousness, which is essentially, the problem of how we are ever aware of anything at all; why it is that there is something like to be a person (or a butterfly).
If you can explain the universe, but can't explain how it is that you're even aware of it in the first place, you may have just as well just explained a very nice and very neat little dream. Universes are probably a dime a dozen.
Let me put it a completely different way:
If you were a computer programmer, electronics enthusiast, or some other kind of tinkerer, and you come across these concepts of awareness, something called "God", different dimensions, and this mystery of light and sound, which of the following would appeal most to you:
(Necessary plug: Personally, I practice Surat Shabda Yoga).
I think you could make a strong case that meditation practice could be viewed as hacking our own personal operating system...
Of course, correlation does not imply confirmation. While a lot of Wiccan or other pagan groups may use the Internet to try to draw in new recruits, it's unlikely that there's much of a direct link between hacking and getting interested in mysticism, or being a mystic and getting interested in hacking. It's just that few of the mystics happen to be interested in many of the principles that power the open source movement.
Zen is not mystical. It only appears to be.
I (also) was surprised to see Zen grouped with "neo-paganism, Discordianism" and in one post "occultism".
I like to watch how people group or classify things they don't understand.
I'm no hacker, but I am learning (slowly) to program, and I have been noticing interesting connections between Zen and programming. For example, there is some difficulty in teaching a computer to recognize things. This is something we do easily and naturally, so I was reminded: recognizing things is something we DO. We recognize things. It's an action on our part. What if we were to practice NOT recognizing things for a while? To NOT impose meanings, words, and associations onto a recognized 'thing', but just to experience it as it is? Acceptance. For me, this is part of Zen.
Zen has taught me that thinking is a tool. But it is a tool that is often abused. Just because you have a hammer doesn't mean you should go around banging everything you see. You should put it down. Pick it up when you need it, then put it back down. Is it hard to let go of? Then you should practice.
James.
Could it theoretically be used in a neutral or positive way? Sure. But it's not used that way and I'm objecting to the way in which it is used.
---------
But that's irrelevant to my point. The responses to my original post include several textbook examples of the "hostile to organized religion in general" mindset. Now you tell me -- do any of these guys give an impression of tolerance or respect for those whose beliefs differ from their own? Whether or not their anger and bile are justified, they're certainly not impressing me with their openmindedness.
Flame away! I'm neither religious nor a Christian.
---------
Even hackers who identify with a religious affiliation tend to be relaxed about it, hostile to organized religion in general and all forms of religious bigotry in particular. Many enjoy `parody' religions such as Discordianism and the Church of the SubGenius.
To my mind, "hostile to organized religion in general" and "enjoy `parody' religions" come a lot closer to being religious bigotry than they are to being hostile to religious bigotry.
While I'm on the subject, an example that you see here frequently is the use of "xtian" and "fundie". I'm neither an xtian nor a fundie, but I find that sort of gratuitous nastiness distasteful. It only makes me think less of the person who uses it, not the person it's directed at.
---------
When our server crashed last week, in a fit of desperation, I sacrificed a goat. No more blue screens; everything worked fine. Just a slight, Gates-esque cackle on the edges of perception.
I... uh... don't go in the server room anymore. As of tomorrow, you can find me three miles away from the nearest signs of civilization, lying under a rock with my blankie and crying uncontrollably.
On second though... Ah, what the Hel (sic), I'll just keep sacrifing goats. I've heard that Windows 2000 requires black goats, so I think we'll wait to upgrade.
---
i don't think it's so much of a belief in "magic" or "uncommon religions"...but rather a different, often "off-the-wall" way of thinking
of the people i've met that (and me included) that are truly technically inclined, the majority are atheist, agnostic, or one of various "other" religions (can't think of the correct word)...the one person i know who follows a mainstream religion is Jewish....but was raised Christian...
my theory is that since programming is a major time-consuming activity that also requires nearly full concentration, people who enjoy programming are often recluses (which makes sense why many coders prefer working late nights: no disturbances)
anyways, due to the lack of social interaction (i myself never had a real friend until i was 16 or 17) the person develops an independent set of beliefs, and often studies various nontraditional religions/theories/etc...not due to "evilness" but rather curiousity...at 14 or 15 i was studying witchcraft and satanism-i grew out of it in time and it never had a negative impact on me, but i was in search of a higher power or another way of life , and i was studying ideas that had never been presented to me in hope of acheiving happiness (loneliness didn't help)...i've talked to others who are "technically inclined" and, as i said, for the most part their youths were fairly similar...
anyway, if that made any sense, that's my theory...
I know a few guys at church that are pretty computer geek oriented. The computer geeks i know outside of church, i really dont know what there relegious affiliations are, religion is the last thing we talk about together.
But this is something that I have been mulling over in my mind lately. The internet has changed almost every aspect of how I live my life. The job I have is based somewhat on the internet. The way I keep in touch with freinds and family is 90% over the internet. Most of my recreation is on the internet. (linux + quake :)
But the internet has yet to change the way I worship, the way i practice my religion. Im not sure I would want to logon every sunday morning for my church services. Could I get closer to god in an AOL chatroom?
Ive also wondered why there doesnt seem to be any type of big Jerry Fallwell type Internet preachers the way there are the TV preachers.
Im wondering if technology and religion are mutually exclusive, or will these to social institutions converge the way everything else in my life has.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Arthur C. Clark
---
Sucks to your ass-mar! - _Lord of the Flies_ by William Golding