Pagan morality

[iambiguous]

Well, Iambiguous, I think this ↑ might be a time to whip out the Stooge label.

First of all, there is always the possibility that his tongue was embedded in his cheek at the time. Or, perhaps, he was just being his usual provocative self?

Anyway, how can it not be intriguing for those of us who are not blind to ponder what it might be like to be blind in the romance department.

And, in part, that is because in the sighted world [for some], "looks" might actually become the...the deciding factor? And, come on, in our world today, it would be foolish to suggest that beautiful women and handsome men don't have advantages in the dating game. Then the part where this is attributable more to genes than to memes. Or more to memes than to genes.

But how would this be conveyed to Maia...someone who has been blind since birth.

Instead, as a sighted person, I try to imagine how much "looks" might have played a part in my own past relationships.

It would be interesting if Maia were to explore that with us given her own personal experiences. Did "looks" ever come up in her relationships with sighted men? How would such a conversation unfold for those who are not blind?

Here's a discussion about that at Quora:

"Do blind people not care about appearance when dating, only personality? What are their standards for dating?"

https://www.quora.com/Do-blind-people-n ... ch%20other.

Then the part where physical beauty is grappled with...philosophically? How ought all rational men and women react to it?

I thought it was quite funny, actually.

Firstly, everyone's experience will differ, and I can only talk about my own.

That's my point as well, however. But then the part rooted existentially in that collection of our own uniquely personal interactions with others. Then the part where that precipitates conflicting goods. The part where some are able to anchor "I" to one or another external moral font [God or No God] or to one or another "internal component" rooted in an Intrinsic self. Or, for others, an Emotional Self or a Spiritual Self or an Intuitive Self.

There is far more to physical attraction than just looks. The first thing I notice about a person, before they even start speaking, is, to put it bluntly, their smell. From this, I know immediately if I'm attracted to that person or not. I strongly suspect that this is true of everyone, to be honest, including sighted people, but most of the time it's on a subconscious level. Well, for me, it's right up there, and is a definite deal breaker or deal maker. Not that I would ever tell them this, of course.

Clearly, as you noted, there are many, many other factors beyond "looks" that can lead to a fulfilling relationship:

1] personality
2] character
3] wit
4] emotional depth
5] social skills
6] accomplishments
7] sexual prowess
8] tolerance
9] athletic abilities
10] all of the cultural and historical memes you share in common

And there's more. If I'm sitting right next to a person, in a pub for example, even without actually touching them, it's pretty easy to get an impression of their size. As a Pagan, I also have a big advantage, as Pagans tend to like hugging each other when they meet or depart, and this allows me to check out their general shape and fitness. All in complete innocence, obviously.

Voice is pretty important too. I mentioned Christopher Lee in The Wicker Man earlier, who surely has the most alluring voice in cinema.

Like I always say, "whatever works".

On the other hand, if the "signals" were good and you commenced a relationship with someone, how did your sighted friends react to how he "looked". Or she "looked"? Looks never came up?

Like you say, in being a Pagan or not, each of us as individuals accumulates his or her our own personal experiences and "looks" and "smells" and "sounds" and "caresses" and "touches" may or may not be something you are able to communicate to others.

Love is a funny thing, though. It can strike when you least expect it. They say that the difference between infatuation and love is like the difference between a cold and the flu, and you only know it if you've had it. I can certainly attest to that.

Yes, but in regard to how most would describe a romantic relationship, there is also that crucial distinction between love and lust. Especially in regard to how men come into this world hard wired genetically to make that distinction as minimal as possible. In fact, it was Supannika who tried to convince me that sexual intimacy is by far the most powerful way in which to communicate love to another. And I believe that is true. Sort of. At least given my own relationships down through the years.

[iambiguous]

Well, Iambiguous, I think this ↑ might be a time to whip out the Stooge label.

First of all, there is always the possibility that his tongue was embedded in his cheek at the time. Or, perhaps, he was just being his usual provocative self?

Ah, being provocative precludes being a Stooge. Noted for future style use.

Note to others:

When did I ever argue that being provocative precludes being a Stooge? As though I've got "Stoogery" down to, what, the philosophical equivalent of...mathematics? Prom75 may have a variable or two that would make him a Stooge but ontologically we need at a minimum 5 variables.

Anyway, how can it not be intriguing for those of us who are not blind to ponder what it might be like to be blind in the romance department.

Good, to know. Intrigue, romance and mulling over another poster's strategies for avoiding dates with the 'not visually attractive: not Stoogy. I will get these nuances down.

Back to this:

If he's not embarrassed to submit "clever" posts of this sort here, then I'm not embarrassed to suggest that perhaps he ought to be.

Or is this too all just tongue in cheek?

And, in part, that is because in the sighted world [for some], "looks" might actually become the...the deciding factor? And, come on, in our world today, it would be foolish to suggest that beautiful women and handsome men don't have advantages in the dating game.

Yes, I don't know what I was thinking when I suggested otherwise. In fact, I don't even know what I was writing, then.

From my frame of mind, this is what he construes as being clever.

But how would this be conveyed to Maia...someone who has been blind since birth.

Yes, she couldn't possbily have caught on to this via, well, all the media. I know, I know, you meant the actual visual experience. It was good of prometheus to help her see this more clearly.

Right. Human romantic relationships in the media -- social media? -- are practically interchangeable with our own personal relationships. Besides, there are always pornographic links on the internet if you just need sexual healing.

It would be interesting if Maia were to explore that with us given her own personal experiences. Did "looks" ever come up in her relationships with sighted men? How would such a conversation unfold for those who are not blind?

I can see where this connects with pagan morality.

Actually, I don't see how anyone could not make that connection. Both Pagans and non-Pagans pursue sexual relationships. And, as all of us sighted folks know too well, looks is often a very, very, very important factor here.

[Aside. Even when I watch true crime docs on programs like Dateline, over and over and over again, when the victim is a woman it's the fact that she was seen as "beautiful" by others that comes out on top. That's what seems to make it a particular tragedy.]

Then the part where physical beauty is grappled with...philosophically? How ought all rational men and women react to it?

Yes, we definitely need a universal and rational rule.

And yet any number of objectivists not only share this frame of mind, they mock those who insist it's another one. Go ahead, run that by these folks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

How many of them do you suppose would concur with the belief that, "no, really, we do need universal and rational rules".

My guess: their own.

[iambiguous]

Some do.

Do you?

Yes.

"Pantheists, like theists, tend to be 'moral realists.' They believe it is an objective fact that some kinds of actions are ethically right and others wrong, and what is right and wrong is independent of what any person thinks is right and wrong." sep

Okay, how is that either applicable or not applicable in regard to moral conflicts down here on Earth?

Any number of times I've asked those posting in the ethical theory forum to note particular examples of what they construe to be objective facts in regard to things like the morality of abortion, or guns or human sexuality.

Let's start there.

Pantheism just seems [to me] to be an entirely "thought up" spiritual path for those who can't quite make themselves believe in God but are truly perturbed by the thought of living in an essentially meaningless world where morality is subjective, and oblivion swallows us all whole sooner or later.

[iambiguous]

It's very easy to get bogged down in terminology, and I've done it myself, many times. I knew I was a Pagan long before I knew it had a name, and I think, at its heart, it's something that exists at an emotional level. As with dreams, any attempt to put those feelings into words sells them short.

Fair enough. I find in philosophy forums that if I label something that can come back to haunt me. Perhaps Integral Animism would be a better short cut description.

Or, perhaps, given that philosophers have been attempting to put words to one or another deontological moral philosophy for literally thousands of years, how do we go about explaining why they have not yet accomplished this? In fact, they have never really even come close in regard to the most contentious issues.

Well, to the best of my current knowledge anyway.

[iambiguous]

Everything is alive and connected, and we are not separate from nature, but part of it.

On the other hand, run that by these folks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events


But that's just me. Whatever morality is defended in whatever community, it somehow has to account for the sheer magnitude of human pain and suffering above. Thus, it's less the existence of One True Path that draws me in here, and more the search for an explanation for why so much pain and suffering is allowed to exist at all if there is a Creator.

[Iwannaplato]

It's very easy to get bogged down in terminology, and I've done it myself, many times. I knew I was a Pagan long before I knew it had a name, and I think, at its heart, it's something that exists at an emotional level. As with dreams, any attempt to put those feelings into words sells them short.

Fair enough. I find in philosophy forums that if I label something that can come back to haunt me. Perhaps Integral Animism would be a better short cut description.

Or, perhaps, given that philosophers have been attempting to put words to one or another deontological moral philosophy for literally thousands of years, how do we go about explaining why they have not yet accomplished this? In fact, they have never really even come close in regard to the most contentious issues.

Well, to the best of my current knowledge anyway.

Well, that discussion with Maia was about something along the lines of a label for a whole belief system, ontology mainly. But I'll take this as a gentle reminder that the focus of the thread is Pagan Morality, which would really be Pagan Moralities. Modern pagans may well be deontologist, though I think they are more likely than Abrahamists to have a kind of virtue ethics or a combination of consequentialism, virtue ethics and deontology, like other current people, regardless of religion or belief system.

You say 'put words to one or another deontological moral philosophy'. They've certainly beeing doing that. Proving that one or another moral system, deontological or otherwise, they haven't managed to do.

[Iwannaplato]

Pantheism just seems [to me] to be an entirely "thought up" spiritual path for those who can't quite make themselves believe in God but are truly perturbed by the thought of living in an essentially meaningless world where morality is subjective, and oblivion swallows us all whole sooner or later.

How did it seem that way to you? Did you read what the term means and think about what would make you decide on that? Was it through reading works by pantheists? What experiences led to it seeming this way to you?

And given that it is very common among indigenous religions, it seems to be a more likely starting position, rather than wanting to have some kind of belief but not wanted to go whole hog with a monotheism, for example.

Anyway, why psychoanalyze those who believe something if the idea is not to make people the issue, but rather the topic of the thread. IOW you just psychoanalyzed, and not well, any of us who put themselves in a category. If we look at the OP, the topic is how morality is handled in pagan communities, not what makes pagans believe what they believe. So, again, if Stooge-behavior is focusing on the people in the thread, and you'd prefer not to have Stooge behavior, then my suggestion would be to avoid it yourself.

One other assumption above is that pantheism and having deities or even a central deity are mutually exclusive: they're not.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, Iambiguous, I think this ↑ might be a time to whip out the Stooge label.

First of all, there is always the possibility that his tongue was embedded in his cheek at the time. Or, perhaps, he was just being his usual provocative self?

Ah, being provocative precludes being a Stooge. Noted for future style use.

Note to others:

When did I ever argue that being provocative precludes being a Stooge? As though I've got "Stoogery" down to, what, the philosophical equivalent of...mathematics? Prom75 may have a variable or two that would make him a Stooge but ontologically we need at a minimum 5 variables.

It's true, you didn't say that. But here was the context. I pointed to his behavior where he is psychoanalyzing another poster. You start off saying that first of all he might have been tongue and cheek (yes) or he was just being his usual provocative self. I think most readers would take that to mean, given you do not decide he was being a Stooge, an alternative possibility. He might have been being provocative, not being a Stooge. Otherwise I'm not quite sure how that was a response to what I wrote.

Anyway, how can it not be intriguing for those of us who are not blind to ponder what it might be like to be blind in the romance department.

Good, to know. Intrigue, romance and mulling over another poster's strategies for avoiding dates with the 'not visually attractive: not Stoogy. I will get these nuances down.

Back to this:

If he's not embarrassed to submit "clever" posts of this sort here, then I'm not embarrassed to suggest that perhaps he ought to be.

Or is this too all just tongue in cheek?

I just wondered if you would suggest that prometheus should be embarrassed. And yes, I was being tongue in cheek, but, yes also wondering if prometheus met the Stooge criteria.

And, in part, that is because in the sighted world [for some], "looks" might actually become the...the deciding factor? And, come on, in our world today, it would be foolish to suggest that beautiful women and handsome men don't have advantages in the dating game.

Yes, I don't know what I was thinking when I suggested otherwise. In fact, I don't even know what I was writing, then.

From my frame of mind, this is what he construes as being clever.

I think one difference between us is when I quote things and write directly after the quotes, what I write there is a response to what I just quoted. Since you quoted me and then said 'come on,....it would be foolish to think X', right after quoting me, the come on (which generally indicates the person is asserting something silly and obviously off). See, I think what you write after quotes apply to what you quoted. So, yes, I was likely failing to cleverly point out that I never said anything about attractive people not having advantages. So, your reaction seemed odd to me.

But how would this be conveyed to Maia...someone who has been blind since birth.

Yes, she couldn't possbily have caught on to this via, well, all the media. I know, I know, you meant the actual visual experience. It was good of prometheus to help her see this more clearly.

Right. Human romantic relationships in the media -- social media? -- are practically interchangeable with our own personal relationships.

Again, I never said that. In fact I offered two interpretation of what you wrote. How do we convey to Maia that visual attractivenss is a big thing? Well, she would know that through all the media - films, videos, sure social media - she is hearing about the importance of attractiveness all the time as are we all. Then I moved on to what is more likely what you meant: that she, being blind, can't experience visual attractiveness like we do. I think she is aware of that also and further prometheus's post didn't take any steps to clear all that up.

Besides, there are always pornographic links on the internet if you just need sexual healing.

Yes, this cleverness would be lovely if I was saying anythign about romantic healing via social media. And I would like this as a response to certain silly assertions I did not make. Might even use it.

It would be interesting if Maia were to explore that with us given her own personal experiences. Did "looks" ever come up in her relationships with sighted men? How would such a conversation unfold for those who are not blind?

I can see where this connects with pagan morality.

Actually, I don't see how anyone could not make that connection. Both Pagans and non-Pagans pursue sexual relationships. And, as all of us sighted folks know too well, looks is often a very, very, very important factor here.

OK, prometues's speculations about another poster's sex life did help us understand Pagan Morality, but then why haven't you brought in more about your non-pagan sexual experiences, since mulling over Maia's experiences as a blind pagan could be compared and contrasted with those. And I missed this focus on your sexuality and other nihilists' sexual experiences there in the Nihilism threads. Given there's no way to discuss Pagan Morality without mulling over Maia's personal sexual relationships. We could have this as a focus in all the threads dealing with specific moralities, nihilism conflicting goods and moral realism. I wonder what VA has for sexual relationships. Peter Holmes? Yes, I agree now. This is good. Probably has come up with the men quite a bit and I missed it. Many people speculate in your threads about the sexual lives of each other, especially the men wondering about the sexual lives of the other men. How could it not move us forward in the discussios of Nihilism, conflicting goods, the various moralities. I'd like to read about prometheus' guesses about your sex life over in the Nihilism thread. Heading there after this post. I'm such an idiot. Not Stooge behavior [hitting my own head for ever thinking something like that]

[Aside. Even when I watch true crime docs on programs like Dateline, over and over and over again, when the victim is a woman it's the fact that she was seen as "beautiful" by others that comes out on top. That's what seems to make it a particular tragedy.]

I notice this implicitly horrible moral position also. And we also seem to grieve more for those doing well in school and participating in sports or other group interests.

Anyway, I'm convinced. Maia's sexual relationships are a relevant topic in this thread and that it came up has little to do with her being a woman.

So, you and prometheus, a nihilist and a well I'm not sure what his category is or his thoughts on Pagan Morality - how odd!? - are........how are your sex lives going and how does how your sex lives are going help us to understand Pagan Morality at least through contrast? I mean, I'm sure you'll happily do this or at least say it isn't happening much these days - but how might that be related to nihilism??? Anyway, trying now to find the posts where you speculated on prometheus' sexual life in the other threads and he on yours. Look out objectivism, a new tool has been found.

[Maia]

+++So, in a Pagan community more in sync with how you construe it, if Jane's relationship with Nature prompts her to conclude that abortion is unnatural, while Jean's relationship with Nature prompts her to conclude that it is natural...?+++

Then they will have different opinions about it, and either argue about it or agree to differ.

+++So, again, if in regard to moral or immoral behavior, each Pagan in a community follows only his or her own spiritual path -- through the Gods and the Goddesses? -- it seems impossible [to me] to reconcile all of the conflicting goods unless The Leader is there acting as either a demigod, or as a Philosopher King, or as the one who orchestrates the Pagan equivalent of Judgement Day?+++

Group leaders are definitely not anything like that. It would be quite possible for everyone in a group to leave and set up a new group, if they didn't like what the leader was doing. I know of a Pagan Morris dancing group that did exactly that. There have also been attempts to set up groups where no one was in charge, but it goes without saying that these don't last very long, as no one takes responsibility organising anything. In most groups, the authority of the leader is derived from the fact that the group meets at their house.

+++Especially if you only interact with other Pagans from time to time. That way not nearly as much needs to be resolved. Why? Because "for all practical purposes" the conflicts end when you leave the Order or the Coven or the Moot and go home.

Thus, from my own frame of mind, there is a world of difference between Pagans interacting in a community of Pagans 365/24/7 and Pagans who interact...at a much greater distance?+++

I don't think I could live in any such community. I value my own personal space and independence too much.

+++Fragile, maybe. But not fractured and fragmented, I suspect. And look how fragile Sargeant Howie's own devout Christianity can be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... ominations

Hundreds of interpretations regarding what the Bible is telling us. And that's before we get to the Jews and the Moslems...who just happen to worship and adore [and fear] the very same God!+++

That sort of conflict seems to be a particular feature of monotheism, which I suppose is exactly what happens when you claim to have the one true way.

+++On the other hand, why would that not [perhaps] be true for you as well? Or you could visit all the Pagan groups in England -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_pa ... ed_Kingdom -- one by one in order to be sure those that you interact with now reflect "the best of all possible Pagan worlds"?+++

I'm sure it would be an interesting experience, but mainly just to meet people.

+++As ususal, I can only understand this up to a point. Beyond that is just my own rooted existentially in dasein understanding of love and romance. Also, in being born blind you are are dealing with the only world you have never known.+++

Yes, my experience is completely different to someone who loses their sight. To me, everything is just completely normal and feels exactly as it should be.

+++It's just that, for me, here and now, sight is such a crucial component of how I understand the world, that, were I to lose it, my first priority would be find those I could share this with.+++

That's definitely understandable.

+++Clearly, as you noted, there are many, many other factors beyond "looks" that can lead to a fulfilling relationship:

1] personality
2] character
3] wit
4] emotional depth
5] social skills
6] accomplishments
7] sexual prowess
8] tolerance
9] athletic abilities
10] all of the cultural and historical memes you share in common+++

Yes, all of those things are true, to varying degrees.

+++Like I always say, "whatever works".

On the other hand, if the "signals" were good and you commenced a relationship with someone, how did your sighted friends react to how he "looked". Or she "looked"? Looks never came up?

Like you say, in being a Pagan or not, each of us as individuals accumulates his or her our own personal experiences and "looks" and "smells" and "sounds" and "caresses" and "touches" may or may not be something you are able to communicate to others.+++

If by looks you mean facial attractiveness, as perceived visually, then this is simply not a factor, for me, and it wouldn't bother me what other people thought. Not that it has ever come up in conversation. It's also a myth, incidentally, that blind people want to feel random strangers' faces to find out what they look like. Whatever it is that sighted people see in someone's face that makes it attractive, is not the same info that you pick up by feeling it.

+++Yes, but in regard to how most would describe a romantic relationship, there is also that crucial distinction between love and lust. Especially in regard to how men come into this world hard wired genetically to make that distinction as minimal as possible. In fact, it was Supannika who tried to convince me that sexual intimacy is by far the most powerful way in which to communicate love to another. And I believe that is true. Sort of. At least given my own relationships down through the years.+++

Physical attraction is extremely important, obviously, but it's just the beginning.

[iambiguous]

Fair enough. I find in philosophy forums that if I label something that can come back to haunt me. Perhaps Integral Animism would be a better short cut description.

Or, perhaps, given that philosophers have been attempting to put words to one or another deontological moral philosophy for literally thousands of years, how do we go about explaining why they have not yet accomplished this? In fact, they have never really even come close in regard to the most contentious issues.

Well, to the best of my current knowledge anyway.

Well, that discussion with Maia was about something along the lines of a label for a whole belief system, ontology mainly.

Quite the opposite.

Sure, if there are moral objectivists here able to provide us with an ontological and a teleological assessment of the human condition, I would very much appreciate it if they would at least make an attempt to

But, again, only to the extent they are willing to bring that assessment down out of the theoretical clouds and intertwine it in actual human relationships does it interest me. And, in particular, involving conflicting goods.

But I'll take this as a gentle reminder that the focus of the thread is Pagan Morality, which would really be Pagan Moralities.

Yes, but which one?

And the thing that draws me closer to Maia is that, like me, she doesn't come here to argue that her own understanding of Paganism is all others need grasp in order to become a True Pagan themselves. And she doesn't argue that one will be punished if they don't embrace Paganism as the one true path. And she certainly doesn't insist that unless others understand it as she does, they are....damned?

Modern pagans may well be deontologist, though I think they are more likely than Abrahamists to have a kind of virtue ethics or a combination of consequentialism, virtue ethics and deontology, like other current people, regardless of religion or belief system.

Okay, let them come here and, in regard to deontology, virtue ethics, consequentialism or any other moral belief system, demonstrate how that has played itself out of late in their own lives.

You say 'put words to one or another deontological moral philosophy'. They've certainly beeing doing that. Proving that one or another moral system, deontological or otherwise, they haven't managed to do.

Yes, and where I tend to part company with many of them is in regard to where their philosophy is defended...in or out of the philosophical clouds.

[attofishpi]

--- atto is quoting you for advice ---

I Maia - I've read somewhere earlier that you are blind or have a level-degree of blindness. I'm currently working on redeveloping my website and would like to improve it for blind people, just wondering if you have some inside info before I do research the web.

Is there any particular software that you prefer to use for this forum for example, do you change the software depending on the type of website, finding that some app is more suited to particular sites? ..or do these sites need to have adjustments embedded that you know of to improve the functionality of the app \ software that you are using?

Perhaps you are using default Microsoft or Apple assistance functionality.

Any help would be appreciated - but if you don't feel bothered to discuss, then totally ignore ol' atto!!

[Maia]

--- atto is quoting you for advice ---

I Maia - I've read somewhere earlier that you are blind or have a level-degree of blindness. I'm currently working on redeveloping my website and would like to improve it for blind people, just wondering if you have some inside info before I do research the web.

Is there any particular software that you prefer to use for this forum for example, do you change the software depending on the type of website, finding that some app is more suited to particular sites? ..or do these sites need to have adjustments embedded that you know of to improve the functionality of the app \ software that you are using?

Perhaps you are using default Microsoft or Apple assistance functionality.

Any help would be appreciated - but if you don't feel bothered to discuss, then totally ignore ol' atto!!

Hi, very happy to help. Some general guidelines would be to keep your page layouts clear and straightforward, with numbered section headings. If you have any images, include a description, and the same goes for links. Have a clear menu at the top of the page, with a link at the end of each each section to return to the menu.

I use the same software, JAWS, for everything, but there are lots of different screenreaders available these days, and they vary greatly in what they can do. The guidelines above are just suggestions, though, and you'll presumably want to balance these with making a website that's appealing to everybody. Screenreaders can handle most websites, since that's what they're designed for.

[iambiguous]

Pantheism just seems [to me] to be an entirely "thought up" spiritual path for those who can't quite make themselves believe in God but are truly perturbed by the thought of living in an essentially meaningless world where morality is subjective, and oblivion swallows us all whole sooner or later.

How did it seem that way to you? Did you read what the term means and think about what would make you decide on that? Was it through reading works by pantheists? What experiences led to it seeming this way to you?

pantheism:

1. a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2. worship that admits or tolerates all gods.

First of all, to the extent Pantheism is deemed to be a religion, then back to this:

1] a demonstrable proof that Pantheism does in fact reflect the one true understanding of, among other things, the human condition
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of Gods and religious/spiritual paths were/are/will be championed...but only one of which [if any] can be the true path. So why Pantheism?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in Gods and religious/spiritual faiths
4] the questions that revolve around theodicy and Pantheism

And given that it is very common among indigenous religions, it seems to be a more likely starting position, rather than wanting to have some kind of belief but not wanted to go whole hog with a monotheism, for example.

Indigenous religions? Like, say, the Aborigines or the Yanomami or among the 574 Native American tribes the U.S. Federal Government recognizes?

Still, from my frame of mind, they are no less obligated to actually demonstrate why all rational men and women ought to believe what they do.

Or how about these people: https://www.survivalinternational.org/c ... ncontacted

Again, let's not forget what is at stake here for many: moral commandments, immortality and salvation.

It's just that some Pagans do believe in one or another rendition of them, while others do not. Or those like Maia who [to the best of my recollection] is just not sure what to expect after death.

Anyway, why psychoanalyze those who believe something if the idea is not to make people the issue, but rather the topic of the thread. IOW you just psychoanalyzed, and not well, any of us who put themselves in a category.

Again and again, in my view, you note things like this as though mere mortals in a No God world actually are able to "psychoanalyze" others with any degree of sophistication. After all, in the field of psychology, what do all or most practitioners come back to in regard to moral philosophy?

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_psychology

So, where do Pagans fit in? All these different schools of thought...why one and not the others?

If we look at the OP, the topic is how morality is handled in pagan communities, not what makes pagans believe what they believe.

Right. Like for each of us there is not a uniquely existential sequence of experiences that link the two in our heads.

One other assumption above is that pantheism and having deities or even a central deity are mutually exclusive: they're not.

Unless, of course, some Pantheists out there insist their own assessment does reflect the most reasonable set of assumptions.

Then this part:

"Pantheist scientists include Michio Kaku, Paul Dirac, Albert Einstein, and Carl Sagan. ...
Philosophers Frederick Nietzsche, Carl Jung, Hegel, Spinoza, Alan Watts, Lau Tzu, Zeno, Haekel, and Giodarno Bruno were all pantheists.
Writers William Wordsworth, Robinson Jeffers, David Henry Thoreau, and Voltaire."

So, in regard to things like abortion, moral nihilism and human sexuality what do you suppose all of these folks would agree on?

[attofishpi]

--- atto is quoting you for advice ---

I Maia - I've read somewhere earlier that you are blind or have a level-degree of blindness. I'm currently working on redeveloping my website and would like to improve it for blind people, just wondering if you have some inside info before I do research the web.

Is there any particular software that you prefer to use for this forum for example, do you change the software depending on the type of website, finding that some app is more suited to particular sites? ..or do these sites need to have adjustments embedded that you know of to improve the functionality of the app \ software that you are using?

Perhaps you are using default Microsoft or Apple assistance functionality.

Any help would be appreciated - but if you don't feel bothered to discuss, then totally ignore ol' atto!!

Hi, very happy to help. Some general guidelines would be to keep your page layouts clear and straightforward, with numbered section headings. If you have any images, include a description, and the same goes for links. Have a clear menu at the top of the page, with a link at the end of each each section to return to the menu.

I use the same software, JAWS, for everything, but there are lots of different screenreaders available these days, and they vary greatly in what they can do. The guidelines above are just suggestions, though, and you'll presumably want to balance these with making a website that's appealing to everybody. Screenreaders can handle most websites, since that's what they're designed for.

Thanks Maia ..I'll have a look at how the likes of JAWS and other apps get their info especially pertaining to images.

[Maia]

I Maia - I've read somewhere earlier that you are blind or have a level-degree of blindness. I'm currently working on redeveloping my website and would like to improve it for blind people, just wondering if you have some inside info before I do research the web.

Is there any particular software that you prefer to use for this forum for example, do you change the software depending on the type of website, finding that some app is more suited to particular sites? ..or do these sites need to have adjustments embedded that you know of to improve the functionality of the app \ software that you are using?

Perhaps you are using default Microsoft or Apple assistance functionality.

Any help would be appreciated - but if you don't feel bothered to discuss, then totally ignore ol' atto!!

Hi, very happy to help. Some general guidelines would be to keep your page layouts clear and straightforward, with numbered section headings. If you have any images, include a description, and the same goes for links. Have a clear menu at the top of the page, with a link at the end of each each section to return to the menu.

I use the same software, JAWS, for everything, but there are lots of different screenreaders available these days, and they vary greatly in what they can do. The guidelines above are just suggestions, though, and you'll presumably want to balance these with making a website that's appealing to everybody. Screenreaders can handle most websites, since that's what they're designed for.

Thanks Maia ..I'll have a look at how the likes of JAWS and other apps get their info especially pertaining to images.

You're welcome!