Is Voodoo a Religion?

[dustbunny]

I'm not sure whether I'm putting this thread in the right place but I'd like to learn more about voodoo and other members opinions on it. It's always been a pretty scary subject to me, even though I know some believers don't use it for black magic, etc.

Voodoo has got many followers, for whatever reason. I just thought I'd take the opportunity to write my thread. I'd really like to know how it fits into religion, the little bit I know is like the tip of an iceberg.

[paximperium]

Voodoo is a religion as commonly defined.

It is an amalgamation of African tribal beliefs with a host of other beliefs such as Catholicism...yup Mary and Jesus are voodoo "gods". This occurred due to the Slave trade. They have their gods, their magics(prayer) and meet most of the most common criteria to be called a religion.

Some primers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Vodou
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Voodoo

[UnrepentantSinner]

Voodoo is recognized as a religion by the U.S. government and practitioners are free to worship as they see fit. It's all hokum, but you might find some of the investigations in to zombies interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_and_the_Rainbow
(links on this page will give more info)

[Complexity]

Let's see...

It is silly
It is superstitious
It requires obedience
It enriches some at the expense of others
It uses bribery and fear to shape behavior
It is wrong
It harms
It retards human progress
Yep, it's a religion.

[Filippo Lippi]

I'm going to keep that checklist somewhere handy

[kmortis]

Speaking as one who used to practice Gris-gris (a New Orleans "denomination" of the Diasporic religions), yes it IS a religion. They're (Vodou, Santeria, Candomblé, etc) all combinations of Yoruba and a local flavor. Vodou came from Haiti, Santeria from Hispanola/Cuba, and Candomblé from Brazil.

I'll say this, I enjoyed my time practicing Gris-gris. Any religion that uses rum and cigars as sacraments is ok in my book. ;)

You get that iceberg feeling intentionally. Most practitioners still treat them as they were traditionally treated, as a deeply-held secret. Think about it, these are slave religions that we're talking about. If they were found to not be practicing da mastahs' religion, they were punished. I was lucky enough to become friends with a Mambo's son at a time when she was taking on new students.

On the one hand, it is a fascinating study in religion, history and sociology. On the other, it's, like all other religions, a load of horse pucky. I still like the symbolism of the Orishas/Lwas. Baron Samedi is my buddy.

[kmortis]

Hrm...Papa Legba must be having some fun by causing double posts...

[kmortis]

Let's see...

It is silly
It is superstitious
It requires obedience
It enriches some at the expense of others
It uses bribery and fear to shape behavior
It is wrong
It harms
It retards human progress
Yep, it's a religion.

Just for clarification, in what way is it wrong? As a general rule, Yoruba-based religions don't make many long-term predictions. They don't have a scripture, although they have a rich history of legends (aka myths). Myths, by their nature, are factually incorrect as they are using symbolic language to describe natural phenomenon, but I would hesitate to call them "wrong".

Just curious, really.

[dustbunny]

Thanks everyone and for the links too. I didn't realise how many branches of voodoo there were. The darker side to it plays a far less significant role than I thought. I can understand why the zombie theory worked, to someone uneducated on drugs it must have been terrifying to see it. Like any other religion the followers have strong beliefs and live their lives by them. The religious side to voodoo is now clearer to me, the mysticism and secrecy that surrounds it is something I'll have to look into a little more.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Just for clarification, in what way is it wrong?

Welcome to the simplistic outlook on the world. I am a bit shocked though, but I'm not sure what Voodoo's outlook in non-traditional relationships is, I can't be sure whether that simplistic outlook would be effected if certain aspects of it weren't derived from Christianity and specifically Catholicism.

[plumjam]

I used to go out with a Voodoo practitioner. She had lovely pins. Man, what a doll!

[MG1962]

Sounds like you were really stuck on her

[Kilgore Trout]

Coincidentally, yesterday I was following a few odd Wikipedia links and landed on West African Vodun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodun). I make no claims as to the accuracy, but I have heard elsewhere about how it was a particularly good fit with Catholicism and the religion survived the slave trade, in some form or another, because of these similarities.

[plumjam]

Sounds like you were really stuck on her

Yeah, in the end she chickened out. Left me in limbo. :(

[JoeTheJuggler]

But I'll bet she was sympathetic.

[dustbunny]

Coincidentally, yesterday I was following a few odd Wikipedia links and landed on West African Vodun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodun). I make no claims as to the accuracy, but I have heard elsewhere about how it was a particularly good fit with Catholicism and the religion survived the slave trade, in some form or another, because of these similarities.

The Wikipedia is a good source of information, voodoo has many followers globally, far more than I thought.

[ImaginalDisc]

Just for clarification, in what way is it wrong? As a general rule, Yoruba-based religions don't make many long-term predictions. They don't have a scripture, although they have a rich history of legends (aka myths). Myths, by their nature, are factually incorrect as they are using symbolic language to describe natural phenomenon, but I would hesitate to call them "wrong".

Just curious, really.

Are there, as a matter of fact, magical beings capable of riding people like horses (I always thought that was a strange metaphor, it's more like a puppeteer and a marionette) and who control various physical forces, such as the sea?

No.

Ergo, it's wrong.

[Complexity]

Just for clarification, in what way is it wrong? As a general rule, Yoruba-based religions don't make many long-term predictions. They don't have a scripture, although they have a rich history of legends (aka myths). Myths, by their nature, are factually incorrect as they are using symbolic language to describe natural phenomenon, but I would hesitate to call them "wrong".

Just curious, really.


Wrong in believing that their superstitions reflect reality.

[kmortis]

Welcome to the simplistic outlook on the world. I am a bit shocked though, but I'm not sure what Voodoo's outlook in non-traditional relationships is, I can't be sure whether that simplistic outlook would be effected if certain aspects of it weren't derived from Christianity and specifically Catholicism.

True. The slaves had to masquerade their native religion as Catholicism to be able to practice.

I don't understand the "non-traditional relationships" comment. You mean like gay marriage et alia?

Are there, as a matter of fact, magical beings capable of riding people like horses (I always thought that was a strange metaphor, it's more like a puppeteer and a marionette) and who control various physical forces, such as the sea?

No.

Ergo, it's wrong.

Ever been ridden? It's a VERY apt metaphor for the sensation.

Is there a spirit doing the riding? No.

Does the practitioner work themselves into a state where that distinction is meaningless? Yes.

Wrong in believing that their superstitions reflect reality.

Ok. I understand what you're saying now. Thanks for clarifying.

[kmortis]

Coincidentally, yesterday I was following a few odd Wikipedia links and landed on West African Vodun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodun). I make no claims as to the accuracy, but I have heard elsewhere about how it was a particularly good fit with Catholicism and the religion survived the slave trade, in some form or another, because of these similarities.

It was a good fit in that Yoruba (the West African base religion) was "spiritually" structured like Catholicism. They both have a Main God with a bunch of helper spirits. The Catholics call them "saints"; Yoruba calls them "Orisha".

Granted, Yoruba thinks that the Main God made the world, saw that it was half-baked and left to research the recipe a bit more, leaving us all in the hands of the Orisha. Kind of like the Deists, really.

[ImaginalDisc]

Ever been ridden? It's a VERY apt metaphor for the sensation.

Is there a spirit doing the riding? No.

Does the practitioner work themselves into a state where that distinction is meaningless? Yes.

The distinction is not meaningless. Is it a magical being, or an altered state of consciousness? Is it a trick of the human brain, or a powerful supernatural being with its own wishes and desires? The difference is extremely significant.

[kmortis]

The distinction is not meaningless. Is it a magical being, or an altered state of consciousness? Is it a trick of the human brain, or a powerful supernatural being with its own wishes and desires? The difference is extremely significant.

Not really.

In reality, it's an altered state of consciousness. The thing is, when you're in that altered state, it seems like it's an external being that is controlling you. You'd swear that it's Ochosi that is making you dance like that, not you. Papa Legba is the one telling the others gathered all the "Tales of the Crossroads".

You can't even blame the rum, because you didn't drink more than a sip or two while you fed him. No hallucinogens are used, as a general rule. Usually it's rum, tobacco and fervent dancing.

Looking back at it, with a rational mind and a proper education, you can see that it's all an artifact of the brain, but it is SO convincing while you do it.

[ImaginalDisc]

Not really.

In reality, it's an altered state of consciousness. The thing is, when you're in that altered state, it seems like it's an external being that is controlling you. You'd swear that it's Ochosi that is making you dance like that, not you. Papa Legba is the one telling the others gathered all the "Tales of the Crossroads".

Yeah, and last night I could have sworn that Paul Newman was teaching me how to do the pigeon drop so we could run a big con on John Hurt, who was portraying Winston Churchill in an Argentinian film about the ill fated landing on Gallipoli in WWI. As vivid as it seemed to me in my altered state of consciousness, it wasn't real.

[Jimbo07]

sure, it's already becoming a mainstream religion, but what about "Oprahism?"

:D

[kmortis]

Yeah, and last night I could have sworn that Paul Newman was teaching me how to do the pigeon drop so we could run a big con on John Hurt, who was portraying Winston Churchill in an Argentinian film about the ill fated landing on Gallipoli in WWI. As vivid as it seemed to me in my altered state of consciousness, it wasn't real.

Yes, you are right.

[Silentknight]

I used to go out with a Voodoo practitioner. She had lovely pins. Man, what a doll!

I'm guessing it didn't work out once you found out someone else had been riding her the whole time.

[Hooloovoo]

sure, it's already becoming a mainstream religion, but what about "Oprahism?"

:D
Now there's a creepy religion. I hear the high priest is a Wizard named Oz.

[ImaginalDisc]

Yes, you are right.

Sorry, I know I'm being a stickler for the objective reality, but I've never really caught onto the idea that just because something feels convincing that is some sort of reality.

[kmortis]

Sorry, I know I'm being a stickler for the objective reality, but I've never really caught onto the idea that just because something feels convincing that is some sort of reality.

Well, there's a problem. Because it IS a reality, yet it's not Reality. It's kinda like the difference between theory and fact.

There is something to be said for a more metaphoric understanding of the universe. The human brain seems to be wired that way. Why are myths so pervasive? There is some need being filled, and until we atheists figure out a way to replace those ancient myths with updated, scientific ones we'll never make headway against the ancient ones.

I understand your point of view, it's one that I once held as recently as a year ago. It's just that I'm more interested in understanding others' myths, so that I can help them see them for what they are.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well, there's a problem. Because it IS a reality, yet it's not Reality. It's kinda like the difference between theory and fact.

There is something to be said for a more metaphoric understanding of the universe. The human brain seems to be wired that way. Why are myths so pervasive? There is some need being filled, and until we atheists figure out a way to replace those ancient myths with updated, scientific ones we'll never make headway against the ancient ones.

I understand your point of view, it's one that I once held as recently as a year ago. It's just that I'm more interested in understanding others' myths, so that I can help them see them for what they are.

It's obvious that we rarely see things clearly, but build models or "intentional objects" (Or not so so obvious, there being nothing philosophers won't argue about.) Granted, a false experience may have the verisimilitude to make it convincing, but I have little patience for the idea that subjectivity is a valid way to learn about the world. I'm getting a degree in science, and we don't waste time with subjective assessments - we throw ideas at a brick wall until they break. As far as learning about the world goes, it's a much better method than "It was so real to me, it has to be true."

[kmortis]

It's obvious that we rarely see things clearly, but build models or "intentional objects" (Or not so so obvious, there being nothing philosophers won't argue about.) Granted, a false experience may have the verisimilitude to make it convincing, but I have little patience for the idea that subjectivity is a valid way to learn about the world. I'm getting a degree in science, and we don't waste time with subjective assessments - we throw ideas at a brick wall until they break. As far as learning about the world goes, it's a much better method than "It was so real to me, it has to be true."

Speaking as one who has a degree in science, that's all fine and good for quantifiable things. Religion, personal interactions and many other examples are not quantifiable.

Plus, Understanding peoples' myths allow you a glimpse into their mindset. Everyone has a portion of the brain dedicated to rationalization, myths give you the framework that those rationalizations will take. The subjective reality helps form the myths, and later are described by them.

Besides, do you honestly think that by poking people in the eye is an effective method to get them to change their minds? Wouldn't it be better to get to know them and try to put the arguments into a language that they have half a hope of understanding? Or is it all or none? Totally rational or total moron?

[Baron Samedi]

Thanks everyone and for the links too. I didn't realise how many branches of voodoo there were. The darker side to it plays a far less significant role than I thought. I can understand why the zombie theory worked, to someone uneducated on drugs it must have been terrifying to see it. Like any other religion the followers have strong beliefs and live their lives by them. The religious side to voodoo is now clearer to me, the mysticism and secrecy that surrounds it is something I'll have to look into a little more.

If you want to learn more about abusing the myth of that whole dark side of Voudoun, read up on Papa Doc and the Tonton Macoute. It's absolutely fascinating how he used the imagery and lore to scare the living bejesus out of everybody to maintain his power.

[kmortis]

If you want to learn more about abusing the myth of that whole dark side of Voudoun, read up on Papa Doc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Duvalier) and the Tonton Macoute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonton_Macoute). It's absolutely fascinating how he used the imagery and lore to scare the living bejesus out of everybody to maintain his power.

Oh, no ****. That guy, while the closest thing to evil since Jim Jones, was a fricking genius. Walking around in top hat and tails. That's mastering the myth.

I added the links to your quote. Hope you don't mind.

[Baron Samedi]

Oh, no ****. That guy, while the closest thing to evil since Jim Jones, was a fricking genius. Walking around in top hat and tails. That's mastering the myth.

I added the links to your quote. Hope you don't mind.

Not at all, not at all. I was going to add the wiki links myself, but I didn't think it quite captures just how sinister Duvalier was. To me, he is the absolute pinnacle of how one can take religion and twist it into pure, self centered evil. Jim Jones had his cult. Papa Doc had an entire country. And there was no way Papa Doc was going to drink the Kool-Ade himself.

[kmortis]

Not at all, not at all. I was going to add the wiki links myself, but I didn't think it quite captures just how sinister Duvalier was. To me, he is the absolute pinnacle of how one can take religion and twist it into pure, self centered evil. Jim Jones had his cult. Papa Doc had an entire country. And there was no way Papa Doc was going to drink the Kool-Ade himself.

"Sinister" being the modern euphanism for "evil-twisted-****", eh? And he passed it on to his son, who wasn't, thankfully, as adept at it as Papa was.

I always thought it was the height of cruelty to portray yourself as Baron Samedi - who, in legend, was know for his humor and...um..."earthly pursuits" as much as his association with death. And portray him as this overbearing tyrant. I'm sure that with a bit of research that another candidate could be put for for the Edi Amin Manipulative Bastard Award - Religious Category, but Papa Doc would be on a very short list. Torquemada comes to mind, but even he pales in comparison.

[dustbunny]

If you want to learn more about abusing the myth of that whole dark side of Voudoun, read up on Papa Doc and the Tonton Macoute. It's absolutely fascinating how he used the imagery and lore to scare the living bejesus out of everybody to maintain his power.

Thanks, it takes no time at all to instil fear into people but it takes an eternity to get rid of it.

[ImaginalDisc]

Speaking as one who has a degree in science, that's all fine and good for quantifiable things. Religion, personal interactions and many other examples are not quantifiable.

What?

Did you type that with a straight face? I suppose we can just chuck behavioral sciences, neurology, psychology, sociology, and anthropology right out the window then. Human behaviors are quantifiable. If there are such things as non-quantifiable gods or spirits, they allegedly interact with humans and thereby have quantifiable effects. I reject the idea that religion is classified as a human interaction beyond reason and evaluation.

[ImaginalDisc]

Besides, do you honestly think that by poking people in the eye is an effective method to get them to change their minds? Wouldn't it be better to get to know them and try to put the arguments into a language that they have half a hope of understanding? Or is it all or none? Totally rational or total moron?

A) Did I ever advocate poking people in the eye, or attacking their religion, if that's want you mean to imply?

B) Does it matter what is an effective way to change the mindset of religious believers? I'm talking to you, specifically, and you're saying things I simply don't understand. Voodoo is a religion and it makes extremely specific false claims, like all religions.

[kmortis]

Before I respond, could I request you make the text on you avatar a little bigger. I can barely read it, and it's quite funny. Thankee.

What?

Did you type that with a straight face? I suppose we can just chuck behavioral sciences, neurology, psychology, sociology, and anthropology right out the window then. Human behaviors are quantifiable. If there are such things as non-quantifiable gods or spirits, they allegedly interact with humans and thereby have quantifiable effects. I reject the idea that religion is classified as a human interaction beyond reason and evaluation.

Yes, yes I did write it with a straight face. My eyes are bad enough to go screwing around with a silly face while typing.

With the exception of neurology (and maybe anthro), all the sciences you listed are more poll/statistics oriented. They are considered "soft" sciences for a reason.

Now, this doesn't denigrate them, but their standards of "quantifiable" are different from a hard science, like physics and chemistry. E.g. I can take a block of wood, of mass "m", put it on a near frictionless surface (say ice), put it on an incline of angle "phi" and calculate its final velocity. I can setup a radar gun and measure it and the two, the calculated and measured will come out to be pretty damned close, if not spot on.

I cannot, however, take an individual human "jim", put him in a room "abattoir", and with any kind of accuracy, pick the particular action he will take. I can take, however, a group of people "Mormon Tabernacle Choir", and put them in the same room, and pick an action "pick nose", assign a probability, "50%" and have that come out repeatedly accurately.

I'm not discounting those sciences, just acknowledging their limitations. until Hari Seldon comes along, it just isn't possible to quantify human interactions.

Neurology looks at how the brain works. Yes, they've made tremendous strides to figure out what parts do what (e.g mirror neurons helping with empathy) but they still cannot say that these neurons firing in such-and-such an order produces this effect because the location of said neurons differ from person to person, sometimes wildly so (e.g. a person with situs invertus).

Lets go back to this phrase.
I reject the idea that religion is classified as a human interaction beyond reason and evaluation.

I don't think that religion is beyond reason and evaluation, you just cannot assign numbers to it. You cannot say "is a person is only 25% Catholic, then they are 73% more likely to like cheese" or somesuch. You can, however, look at the actions of the practitioners of a religion and say that 87% of all Anabaptists wear lederhosen*, or 99% of Westboro Church hate gays.

You cannot say that Antoine leFevre didn't experience being ridden by Oya. You can argue (quite easily and rightly) that Oya didn't do the riding by virtue of her not existing. You cannot say that Johnny Maldachi didn't experience speaking in tounges, but you can argue that it's not God Breathed (as he'll claim) for the same reason.

You'll also have a knock-down, drag-out fight on your hands.

Personally, all things being equal, I'd rather get to know Antoine and Johnny and find out why they do those things. Maybe even participate, it's not anything I've not done before becoming an atheist. Engage them in conversation, not bludgeon them with "you're wrong, there's no god".

Which brings us to...

A) Did I ever advocate poking people in the eye, or attacking their religion, if that's want you mean to imply?

B) {i}Does it matter what is an effective way to change the mindset of religious believers? I{ii}'m talking to you, specifically, and you're saying things I simply don't understand. Voodoo is a religion and it makes extremely specific false claims, like all religions.


A) Not this time. However, whenever the topic of religion is supported by any poster, you, amongst others, come running in to be the first in line to the the unfortunate sod how WRONG they are. Much like with Claus, your style can be combative, not conversational. I've no issue with what you say, for the most part, merely how you choose to say it. It is at times rude and not conducive to dialog.

B{i}) Yes, it matters. You have implied (and may have stated, I just don't feel like wading through reams of posts to play a silly "gotcha" game) that you would like to see religion's influence wane. To do that, you have to get people to stop believing in it (a losing battle, in my book, but we can discuss that later). You will not get people to stop believing with a truncheon. That's how Voudou got started in the first place.

B{ii}) So, if I have said something that you don't understand, then ask me about that. Your response to me felt more like an attack than a conversation. Like I had to defend my turf in some school-yard tussle. I'll pee over here, you can pee over there kind of thing.

All I said was that the term "being ridden" is an apt way to describe the phenomenon. What is confusing about that?

I followed by saying that the subjective reality can be as important as the objective to the observer. Actually, it's more important, but that (again) is a discussion for another time. What would you like me to clarify about that?

If you want me to say that objective reality SHOULD trump subjective, I agree. Unfortunately, that's not how we humans are wired so we'd better take that into account when dealing with people who's Belief Systems (BSs) are highly subjective in nature.

If you want me to say that I think that religion is fairly useless in the modern age, I'll agree. Unfortunately again, we're not wired like that (asfarasweknowatthisjuncture), so we'd better take that into account to when dealing with the 90% or so of humanity that does believe in a deity or two.

Of course, all of this is way far away from the OP which simply asked if Voudou is a religion. We've answered that, as far as I can tell. I'd recommend that, if this is a discussion you want to have, take it to another thread. This one's been derailed enough.



* All statistics can be found in the most recent issue of Baseless Claims Quarterly, available on newsstands TODAY!

[Baron Samedi]

dustbunny, here's another take on it. It's from John Safran vs. God (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l2rFvD9zOI). If you are slightly squeamish, I'd pass. And if you get easily annoyed by whiny voices, I'd pass too. But as a quick 9 minute introduction, I think it's a good take.

(So I guess if John Safran covered it, it -must- be a religion! ^_^ )

[dustbunny]

dustbunny, here's another take on it. It's from John Safran vs. God (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l2rFvD9zOI). If you are slightly squeamish, I'd pass. And if you get easily annoyed by whiny voices, I'd pass too. But as a quick 9 minute introduction, I think it's a good take.

(So I guess if John Safran covered it, it -must- be a religion! ^_^ )

Wow! :wide-eyed Double thanks for the warning Baron Samedi. I managed to jump past most of the goat sucking testicles bit, it makes your stomach churn. The whiny voices paled into insignificance but the rest of it was educating.

It looked barbaric to me. Even their trip to the local market nearly ended up with serious injuries. They need to work themselves up into a frenzy and John Safran was swallowed up by the commotion. He scored 10 out of 10 for having the guts to do the documentary. I'm glad I'm a coward. :)

[Baron Samedi]

Wow! :wide-eyed Double thanks for the warning Baron Samedi. I managed to jump past most of the goat sucking testicles bit, it makes your stomach churn. The whiny voices paled into insignificance but the rest of it was educating.

It looked barbaric to me. Even their trip to the local market nearly ended up with serious injuries. They need to work themselves up into a frenzy and John Safran was swallowed up by the commotion. He scored 10 out of 10 for having the guts to do the documentary. I'm glad I'm a coward. :)

I've heard this statement many times before, so please don't take this as a dig at you. It's just more of a random thought on my own. You say that the ritual is barbaric. I wonder just how barbaric it is compared to other religions. Take a southern baptist revival. They both have songs, they both have dancing, they both have praying. The only real difference I see is that at the end of the voudoun ceremony, everybody shares some stewed goat, while the baptists eat potato salad and fried chicken.

[kmortis]

I've heard this statement many times before, so please don't take this as a dig at you. It's just more of a random thought on my own. You say that the ritual is barbaric. I wonder just how barbaric it is compared to other religions. Take a southern baptist revival. They both have songs, they both have dancing, they both have praying. The only real difference I see is that at the end of the voudoun ceremony, everybody shares some stewed goat, while the baptists eat potato salad and fried chicken.

Sounds like my dinner tonite.

Well, without the praying and possibly the dancing. It all depends on if any Alabama 3 pops up on my MP3 player while I cook the goat.

[dustbunny]

I've heard this statement many times before, so please don't take this as a dig at you. It's just more of a random thought on my own. You say that the ritual is barbaric. I wonder just how barbaric it is compared to other religions. Take a southern baptist revival. They both have songs, they both have dancing, they both have praying. The only real difference I see is that at the end of the voudoun ceremony, everybody shares some stewed goat, while the baptists eat potato salad and fried chicken.

Sorry Baron Samedi, bad choice of word (trust me I'm good at that :oldroll: ). Maybe chaotic is a better description. I can imagine standing there with a pulse of about 300, transfixed on everyone else and wondering "ok so how do I do that then". The market incident didn't help, everything seemed so hectic. I must admit though I don't like any form of animal sacrifice. I hate the thoughts of animals being used in that way.

The one thing voudoun followers share is a great passion in their beliefs. I know all religions have the same but theirs is more of a physical one. Even non believers in any religion have get togethers for whatever reason. Different ways of celebrating life, now if I could just get them to use pretend goats....................! :D

[ImaginalDisc]

Before I respond, could I request you make the text on you avatar a little bigger. I can barely read it, and it's quite funny. Thankee.

The text is: Im in ur theater watching ur movie - or in closer lolcat. The mini text below I'm not sure. I'll see if I can find it on my hard drive.




I cannot, however, take an individual human "jim", put him in a room "abattoir", and with any kind of accuracy, pick the particular action he will take. I can take, however, a group of people "Mormon Tabernacle Choir", and put them in the same room, and pick an action "pick nose", assign a probability, "50%" and have that come out repeatedly accurately.

I'm not discounting those sciences, just acknowledging their limitations. until Hari Seldon comes along, it just isn't possible to quantify human interactions.

I'm afraid while your assumption - individual human actions cannot be predicted well, if at all - is entirely true, your conclusion - human behavioral sciences are therefore not properly the same sort of sciences as physics or chemistry- is erroneous. I can no more predict the behavior of an individual hydrogen atom in distilled water than I can predict an individual human's behavior in any controlled environment. Your point about statistics is well taken, and applies to nearly all sciences in most ways. An architect cannot predict which beam or girder in a building will give way under strain, only make a statistically significant inference. An ecologist cannot predict which species will go extinct today, but they can predict which species are in the gravest danger. If we applied your standards to all sciences, then we would have to discard them all. Therefore, sciences of human behavior are sciences as much as physics and chemistry. Iron clad certainty is the domain of nonsense, not science.




You cannot say that Antoine leFevre didn't experience being ridden by Oya.

If we're going to be rigorous and accept the null hypothesis (X does not exist) in the absence of evidence to the contrary, then yes, we certainly can say that. Any other standard is ludicrous, because if we accept one unsupported premise we have no ability to reject any of them. That sort of thinking opens the doors, directly and instantly, not as a matter of a slippery slope, to superstition.

Personally, all things being equal, I'd rather get to know Antoine and Johnny and find out why they do those things. Maybe even participate, it's not anything I've not done before becoming an atheist. Engage them in conversation, not bludgeon them with "you're wrong, there's no god".

I'd love to know why they believe these things, but I see no reason to accept their claims until they present evidence. Religious ideas are just like political, scientific, or entertainment ideas. People's ideas get savaged, criticized, kicked around, and poked at relentlessly in the marketplace of ideas. I won't treat religious ideas any differently than the way our culture treats all other ideas.


A) Not this time. However, whenever the topic of religion is supported by any poster, you, amongst others, come running in to be the first in line to the the unfortunate sod how WRONG they are. Much like with Claus, your style can be combative, not conversational. I've no issue with what you say, for the most part, merely how you choose to say it. It is at times rude and not conducive to dialog.[/QUIOTE]

Leaving aside any general issue you have with me, I am here speaking to you directly, a scientist. I fail to see why this idea deserves lower standards than all other ideas.
[QUOTE]All I said was that the term "being ridden" is an apt way to describe the phenomenon. What is confusing about that?

It's not a very good metaphor for the experience, in my opinion. A rider does not make his horse eat, drink rum, leer at women, or any of the other myriad of intimately human social behaviors a loa allegedly makes a person perform. The outward expression more closely resemble puppetry than horsemanship.



If you can, because I flatly disagree with it. Objective reality is how we tell the difference between figments of our imagination and reality. All human progress follows from squinty-eyed skepticism, not blind acceptance of subjective reality.

[QUOTE]If you want me to say that objective reality SHOULD trump subjective, I agree. Unfortunately, that's not how we humans are wired so we'd better take that into account when dealing with people who's Belief Systems (BSs) are highly subjective in nature. Neither are we wired to roll cigars, brew rum, ride horses, build bridges, compose piano concertos, fly to the moon, or bore into the Earth. I'm not at all interested in what we were made to do, I am interested in what we can do. Religious folly insults and debases every glimmer of potential in humanity.

[kmortis]

The text is: Im in ur theater watching ur movie - or in closer lolcat. The mini text below I'm not sure. I'll see if I can find it on my hard drive.
That'd be cool. Or if it's available, to your knowledge, on one of the lolcat sites, let me know, and I'll just go find it my own damn self.

I'm afraid while your assumption - individual human actions cannot be predicted well, if at all - is entirely true, your conclusion - human behavioral sciences are therefore not properly the same sort of sciences as physics or chemistry- is erroneous. I can no more predict the behavior of an individual hydrogen atom in distilled water than I can predict an individual human's behavior in any controlled environment. Your point about statistics is well taken, and applies to nearly all sciences in most ways. An architect cannot predict which beam or girder in a building will give way under strain, only make a statistically significant inference. An ecologist cannot predict which species will go extinct today, but they can predict which species are in the gravest danger. If we applied your standards to all sciences, then we would have to discard them all. Therefore, sciences of human behavior are sciences as much as physics and chemistry. Iron clad certainty is the domain of nonsense, not science.

If we're going to be rigorous and accept the null hypothesis (X does not exist) in the absence of evidence to the contrary, then yes, we certainly can say that. Any other standard is ludicrous, because if we accept one unsupported premise we have no ability to reject any of them. That sort of thinking opens the doors, directly and instantly, not as a matter of a slippery slope, to superstition.

I'd love to know why they believe these things, but I see no reason to accept their claims until they present evidence. Religious ideas are just like political, scientific, or entertainment ideas. People's ideas get savaged, criticized, kicked around, and poked at relentlessly in the marketplace of ideas. I won't treat religious ideas any differently than the way our culture treats all other ideas.

If you can, because I flatly disagree with it. Objective reality is how we tell the difference between figments of our imagination and reality. All human progress follows from squinty-eyed skepticism, not blind acceptance of subjective reality.

Neither are we wired to roll cigars, brew rum, ride horses, build bridges, compose piano concertos, fly to the moon, or bore into the Earth. I'm not at all interested in what we were made to do, I am interested in what we can do. Religious folly insults and debases every glimmer of potential in humanity.

To sum up, we're at an impasse. I don't have an issue with taking religion at face value; you do. No biggie, really. We come to the same ends, just different path.

[roseglass]

Thanks everyone and for the links too. I didn't realise how many branches of voodoo there were. The darker side to it plays a far less significant role than I thought. I can understand why the zombie theory worked, to someone uneducated on drugs it must have been terrifying to see it. Like any other religion the followers have strong beliefs and live their lives by them. The religious side to voodoo is now clearer to me, the mysticism and secrecy that surrounds it is something I'll have to look into a little more.

Don't forget Hoo Doo, that's a brand of it's own too ...

[Baron Samedi]

Sounds like my dinner tonite.

Well, without the praying and possibly the dancing. It all depends on if any Alabama 3 pops up on my MP3 player while I cook the goat.

Following the 12 step method? :D If people at work ask me about my religion, I tell them that I'm part of the First Prestleyterian Church of Elvis the Divine. That tends to confuse them enough.

But I digress.

Sorry Baron Samedi, bad choice of word (trust me I'm good at that :oldroll: ). Maybe chaotic is a better description. I can imagine standing there with a pulse of about 300, transfixed on everyone else and wondering "ok so how do I do that then". The market incident didn't help, everything seemed so hectic. I must admit though I don't like any form of animal sacrifice. I hate the thoughts of animals being used in that way.

The one thing voudoun followers share is a great passion in their beliefs. I know all religions have the same but theirs is more of a physical one. Even non believers in any religion have get togethers for whatever reason. Different ways of celebrating life, now if I could just get them to use pretend goats....................! :D


No worries about the choice of words. Like I said, I've heard it so many times, it's common enough. Strangely enough, I tend to defend the sacrifices. Okay, maybe not the testicles off of a live goat, but a dead one perhaps. Have you ever eaten prairie oysters? I haven't, but some people do, so it's the same idea. And have you ever seen a slaughterhouse? It's not a fun sight indeed. When I was younger, we used to get our chickens quite fresh... ooh, what a mess.

Anyway, my thought is this. With the sacrifice, they don't just kill the animal and leave it there. They kill it, usually swiftly, and then it gets butchered for the feast for the entire community. By having the goat as part of the ceremony, at least you get some sort of idea and appreciation where your food comes from. This is what we humans must do to survive, and look at what we must kill so we can live. I think we've totally lost any perspective of that from having all out meat so nicely wrapped and packaged at the store. (All that said, my church's sacred food is the fried peanut butter and banana sandwich, so what do I know? ;) )

As for the rest of the ceremony... I agree. Chaotic doesn't even begin to describe it. It's an organized chaos, though. I think I actually have more respect for that kind of physical involvement type of worshiping. In Catholic church, most people sit there quite passively, and you always have the old joke of half the people in church being asleep and not really paying attention.

[kmortis]

Following the 12 step method? :D If people at work ask me about my religion, I tell them that I'm part of the First Prestleyterian Church of Elvis the Divine. That tends to confuse them enough.

But I digress.
Naturally I follow the 12 step. Rev. Love is a profit. :D

No worries about the choice of words. Like I said, I've heard it so many times, it's common enough. Strangely enough, I tend to defend the sacrifices. Okay, maybe not the testicles off of a live goat, but a dead one perhaps. Have you ever eaten prairie oysters? I haven't, but some people do, so it's the same idea. And have you ever seen a slaughterhouse? It's not a fun sight indeed. When I was younger, we used to get our chickens quite fresh... ooh, what a mess.

Anyway, my thought is this. With the sacrifice, they don't just kill the animal and leave it there. They kill it, usually swiftly, and then it gets butchered for the feast for the entire community. By having the goat as part of the ceremony, at least you get some sort of idea and appreciation where your food comes from. This is what we humans must do to survive, and look at what we must kill so we can live. I think we've totally lost any perspective of that from having all out meat so nicely wrapped and packaged at the store. (All that said, my church's sacred food is the fried peanut butter and banana sandwich, so what do I know? ;) )

As for the rest of the ceremony... I agree. Chaotic doesn't even begin to describe it. It's an organized chaos, though. I think I actually have more respect for that kind of physical involvement type of worshiping. In Catholic church, most people sit there quite passively, and you always have the old joke of half the people in church being asleep and not really paying attention.

My Mambo once told me that Olodumare is a touch deaf so you have to speak up to get his attention. The sacrifices are a bit off putting at first, but the meal after is fan-freakin'-tastic.

[dustbunny]

Don't forget Hoo Doo, that's a brand of it's own too ...


Cheers roseglass every little helps. :)

[dustbunny]

No worries about the choice of words. Like I said, I've heard it so many times, it's common enough. Strangely enough, I tend to defend the sacrifices. Okay, maybe not the testicles off of a live goat, but a dead one perhaps. Have you ever eaten prairie oysters? I haven't, but some people do, so it's the same idea. And have you ever seen a slaughterhouse? It's not a fun sight indeed. When I was younger, we used to get our chickens quite fresh... ooh, what a mess.

Anyway, my thought is this. With the sacrifice, they don't just kill the animal and leave it there. They kill it, usually swiftly, and then it gets butchered for the feast for the entire community. By having the goat as part of the ceremony, at least you get some sort of idea and appreciation where your food comes from. This is what we humans must do to survive, and look at what we must kill so we can live. I think we've totally lost any perspective of that from having all out meat so nicely wrapped and packaged at the store. (All that said, my church's sacred food is the fried peanut butter and banana sandwich, so what do I know? ;) )

As for the rest of the ceremony... I agree. Chaotic doesn't even begin to describe it. It's an organized chaos, though. I think I actually have more respect for that kind of physical involvement type of worshiping. In Catholic church, most people sit there quite passively, and you always have the old joke of half the people in church being asleep and not really paying attention.

I agree a dead goat would be better, it must be excruciating while they're biting them off. I'm glad you reminded me that usually the sacrifice is swift I'd forgotten that bit while trying to skip past the testicles. We were unfortunate to have a slaughterhouse on our route to school. Listening to herds of pigs squealing on their way in was horrendous and had such a profound effect on a friend that it became one of the reasons for her becoming a vegetarian.

We have lost perspective too. Thankfully nowadays cattle, etc, are killed in a more humane way. Saying that though it doesn't apply to everywhere. The fried peanut butter and banana sandwich sounds like an interesting combo :D peanut butter is under estimated. I'll skip the oysters Baron Samedi (a vomit bucket would be handy right now! :newlol ) One of the most obvious and agreeable aspects of the ceremony was the sheer excitement the members had while taking part. To them it was second to none, no fighting or arguing, just complete enjoyment. We could do with a lot more of that.