so i've decided to keep the good (charity work, reverence for mary, praying the rosary) and discard the rigidity of weekly attendance and certain social views (the pill). and as an outdoor enthusiast, i still feel a draw to paganism, especially the idea of a pair of forces being responsible for creation, since that's the way most of life begins.

i will attend my first service at uu in san jose this week. i think they will provide me the freedom to believe what feels right to me, even if it's just abstract ideas like god the mother, the wiccan rede or "salvation" through just being a good human.

"Again, wrong. Plenty of individuals will tell you that they have beliefs they consider to be moral, and that are different from society's. So, no, "these things" are not required to become popular before being considered moral."

Just because one person thinks something is "moral" doesn't make it so - if that was the standard for "morality" then anything one thinks is "moral" is "moral" by default (ex. I think running over squirrels in the parking lot is "moral" therefore it is!). A thing only becomes "moral" or "immoral" when some external entity judges the thing in question.

"Also, somehow I missed this gem:

As far as people like myself are concerned? Yes. Could they be consided valid to some one else with a different view on "truth?" Possibly, but I don't speak for them - only myself."

This is a concept difficult to express in the abstract, so let me provide a concrete example: take two individuals with two different lifestyles and worldviews (let's say... a health nut and a metal musician, for example). Now, let's say that both of these people adopt a habit that could potentially affect their health (say... eating foods high in sugar) - and both people are criticized by their peers for doing so.

In the case of the health nut, the criticism is valid as the habit conflicts with the ideas he supposedly espouses (a long, fit life) - thus he can't reconcile this habit with his lifestyle. The metal musician, on the other hand, probably won't have a hard time reconciling this habit with his existing lifestyle (which likely includes lots of unhealthy habits like excessive alcohol consumption, drug abuse, smoking addiction, etc... basically a live-fast-die-young way of life) - thus making the criticism of his new habit (sugar) rather moot.

The same criticism is given to both people, but it has different repercussions on them: it's detrimental to one, but doesn't even phase the other. I hope this helps shed some light on my statement.

I'm glad there's yet another non-dogmatic example for atheist communities to follow. And I'm all for organizations that acknowledge our common humanity, without splitting theological or political hairs. But Universal Unitarianism, however laudable, is not a specifically atheist organization. Those "propagandists" you mention could conceivably dismiss it as an example of what atheists can do for the cause of good in the world.

Again, wrong. Plenty of individuals will tell you that they have beliefs they consider to be moral, and that are different from society's. So, no, "these things" are not required to become popular before being considered moral.

Also, somehow I missed this gem:

As far as people like myself are concerned? Yes. Could they be consided valid to some one else with a different view on "truth?" Possibly, but I don't speak for them - only myself.

...ah. You don't think there is "truth," but you think your views are true. So, basically, nothing you've said has any intellectual content at all. Gotcha. I knew that before, but it's nice to see it spelled out so clearly.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm no clown.

Now, see, that's just the sort of thing a clown would say.

"False. Plenty of individuals have *moral* values that are different from society–unless you're pre-defining "morality" as "society's rules," which is tautological and contrary to the general usage of morality (which refers to something beyond society, whether you believe it exists or not)."

But there is nothing beyond the will of society: there are only concepts that are accepted and those that aren't. I know that people have tried to posit something else beyond the social order, but all attempts to do this have failed - as these things must first become popular in a society to be considered a "moral" standard; thus society has the last laugh in defining "morality."

That said, I embrace my own values over that of any society: whether they label them as "moral" or "immoral" is of no consequense to me.

"More often then not, he's still the madman. Sorry. They laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm no clown.

A person can have values apart from a collective, but those values only become "moral" or "immoral" once some other body passes judgement on them. Until then, they have no "moral" value at all.

False. Plenty of individuals have *moral* values that are different from society--unless you're pre-defining "morality" as "society's rules," which is tautological and contrary to the general usage of morality (which refers to something beyond society, whether you believe it exists or not).

2. Many people who we now think of as intellectual heavyweights were once publically ridiculed and dismissed as madmen - and then their ideas began to show some merit, the authorities tried to silence them, their ideas spread to other thinkers and the rest is history.

Remember: the madman of one generation may very well be the model thinker of the next...

More often then not, he's still the madman. Sorry. They laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

And you're not mad. You're just a troll.

"Nonsense. Individuals frequently have moral values that are radically different from the collective's, whether that collective is society or religion or their family or all three."

A person can have values apart from a collective, but those values only become "moral" or "immoral" once some other body passes judgement on them. Until then, they have no "moral" value at all.

"Which makes them your values. Sorry. There is no pure version of you that existed before society got its clutches into you."

I know that people are greatly influenced by their surroundings, but that doesn't mean that the ideas fed to them belong to them: the ideas fed into them belong to the entity who spoon-feeds them into the other person, making the receiving individual merely a vessal to carry those ideas.

Now, an idea *can* become the property of the individual in question if he examines it and decides that it serves his purposes well enough to leave be: at this point the value in question becomes a tool to serve the individual. Alternatively, he can break down the value, take the portions he wants and trash the rest - effectively creating a new value out of the raw materials of the older values.

On the other hand, a value can become a parasite - leeching the individual it was imparted to by making him a servant to the ideal, owning him. More often than not, this is what happens when values are given from one party to another. Often they become institutionalized and no one questions them, allowing them to spread like viruses into new minds indefinitely.

"Aaanndd we have a winner! A troll compares himself to an intellectual heavyweight! That has to be high up on the list of internet cliches."

1. I'm no troll - just an unpopular commentator.

2. Many people who we now think of as intellectual heavyweights were once publically ridiculed and dismissed as madmen - and then their ideas began to show some merit, the authorities tried to silence them, their ideas spread to other thinkers and the rest is history.

Remember: the madman of one generation may very well be the model thinker of the next...

"Ah, but is it true that they're moot?"

As far as people like myself are concerned? Yes. Could they be consided valid to some one else with a different view on "truth?" Possibly, but I don't speak for them - only myself.