What's wrong with Paganism??

[Crisor]

I have a two questions to ask. The first is simple: Why is it atheists group pagans and christians together as individuals worthy of degrading. I can understand that view towards fundies (I used to be one and can see how annoying they can be). But, while a fundy will approach you and argue with you as to why you are wrong (and subsequently, going to Hell), I have never been approached by a Pagan, be it a Wiccian, Druid, or even a Satanist, and had their p.o.v. pushed onto me. Yet, very often in this forum, I have seen pagan's patronized for simply expressing their p.o.v. on a subject. From what I understand, they are just as likely to be told they are going to Hell as we are as atheist. So is the enemy of my enemy my friend? If so, why do we not appreciate their viewpoint just as much as our own. If not, then why?

My second question is: I have also seen pagan's laughed at for their rituals. (I would provide links to prove these accusations, but none come to mind at the moment seeing as how I lurk most of the time reading other's posts on a subject) What is wrong with rituals? Do we not all have them on some level? If something (such as prayer to God, or calling the four corners) works to boost someones confidence to do a piticular obstical that would not have been able to do otherwise, should we make fun of that ritual or should we question wheither the ritual has some bases in helping that person cope with life in general and leave it be (as long as the ritual has no effect on others around them. I would hate to find out that a person's ritual to get dates was to sacrifice small puppies to the great god Pan and smear the blood over their intended date without consent)?

I am curious to hear your thoughts on the subject.

[Gothic_J]

first off, pagans may be unpopular if their beliefs are unfounded. very insistent on proof, atheists are.

second, I find christos lots more annoying then pagans.

[premjan]

I think the atheist insistence on proof for beliefs pretty silly myself. What is the proof that life is important or fundamental? Nothing. We should all curl up and die.

[Crisor]

first off, pagans may be unpopular if their beliefs are unfounded. very insistent on proof, atheists are.

True, they may be unpopular, but that still does not answer my questions.:confused:

I think the atheist insistence on proof for beliefs pretty silly myself. What is the proof that life is important or fundamental? Nothing. We should all curl up and die.

I am not saying (nor have I read anywhere) that an atheist, or anyone for that matter, has said that life is important or fundamental. What I am asking is if grouping pagans and paganistic ideas with the thoughts and attitudes of christians a reasonable reaction to those thoughts and ideas. If you have heard someone say that, please correct me.

By the way, premjan, your profile states that you are a panthiest. I would be curious to hear your story as to how you chose that belief system sometime.

[premjan]

mostly born that way. Hindus are either pantheist or panentheist though sometimes they are also pure theist like the semitic followers. I like pantheism since it is about nourishing your own spirit, as I see it. to see God in all the workings of the universe, immanent and transcendent is to live a life free of fear and bitterness IMO. Could be a deluded life in some cases, but I say it is important to be happy and not only to be right.

[Peter Kirby]

I am an atheist who says there is nothing bad about the ritual and mythology that paganism can give. But then, I don't believe that Christians are evil either. The only advantage that pagans have is that there is little fundyism in their communities. Ye olde liberal Christian and your average Wiccan (and for that matter a Buddhist) are good and reasonable in practicing their religions, in my opinion.

best,
Peter Kirby

[premjan]

I think it was C.S. Lewis who said "Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions".

That's the argument for Christianity (or I suppose Islam or Judaism) over paganism.

[andy_d]

In answer to your first question, some atheists here have very little experience of any religious leanings besides Christianity. Go count how many times you see people refer to "religion" as being such-and-such, when they are in fact refering to Christianity.

Simply put, some people think all religions are broadly similar. Thus they tend to transfer their negative feelings about Christianity onto other religions. Given that people who live in predominantly Christian societies may have had little opportunity to experience other systems, they can perhaps be given a little slack. It's often just a matter of a little education to clear up people's misconceptions.

Certainly not everybody is prone to this, but it does happen.

[Heathen Dawn]

Some atheists are curmudgeons and get a kick out of ridiculing any form of spirituality. It’s these atheists that laugh at paganism and give atheists a bad reputation. Just keep in mind that they’re not the totality of atheists.

In my mind, although theist Christians and theist pagans both believe in unevidenced things, only Christians are deserving of mockery, for theirs is an evil religion (http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/evilreligion.htm), whereas paganism is fundamentally good (especially nowadays as neopaganism). I have a great problem in participating in an Abrahamic prayer service, where it is routinely chanted that nonbelievers go to hell. I have no problem at all in participating in Wiccan or other neopagan ritual.

[Paul2]

Some atheists are curmudgeons and get a kick out of ridiculing any form of spirituality. It’s these atheists that laugh at paganism and give atheists a bad reputation. Just keep in mind that they’re not the totality of atheists.


He's talking about someone like me.

I think paganism is awfully silly. let's dance around fires and pray to non existant gods and godesses, and worship nature. pfft, sounds like hippy bullshit to me. uh, I mean, whatever floats your boat.

:p

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Paul2
I think paganism is awfully silly.


I think theism and occultism are awfully silly. However, once you distill those elements out of paganism, you’re left with nature worship, which I think is great and not silly at all.


let's dance around fires and pray to non existant gods and godesses, and worship nature.


I have no problem with that except for the middle part.


pfft, sounds like hippy bullshit to me.


Call it what you like. I have my own thoughts on Secular Humanism, Objectivism and other anthropocentric forms of atheism. Go secular paganism! :D

[premjan]

I feel like atheism is awfully stuffy just from the sound of it. I have to wonder what atheists do for a good time besides discuss philosophy.

[beyelzu]

I find paganism to be more offensive than mainstream xianity and only equal in offensiveness to fundies.

for a very simple reason. they believe in magic: that it exists and that they can practice it. I find myself am unable to take such a person seriously, just as when a fundy tells me about his or her experience with casting out demons. Similarly, I question a pagan's judgment and world view.

You demonstrate some magic for me, and I will be perfectly willing to one convert and two apologize.

There is nothing wrong with paganism, I suppose, if the practitioners do not believe in any form of magic.

In a similar vein I find deism to be the most worthy of theistic beliefs because it is possible for a deist to not believe in the supernatural.

premjan,

we eat babies for fun.

Maybe I should return the favor by making fun of different belief systems but I just dont feel like it right now.

Atheists have fun just like everyone else, just cuz we kick the shit out of others in philosophy doesnt mean its our only interest.

[Abacus]

Originally posted by premjan
I feel like atheism is awfully stuffy just from the sound of it. I have to wonder what atheists do for a good time besides discuss philosophy.

FYI, atheists are people too. And like most people, they tend to seek out whatever things they may enjoy.

I have to wonder why some theists have such weird misconceptions about us.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Beyelzu
they believe in magic: that it exists and that they can practice it.


The magic they believe in is pissy-weak compared to what people usually think about when they hear of “magic”. It’s nothing at all about producing 4000 loaves and fishes from a single loaf and fish; it’s more about bringing good luck for a job interview, love spells, and all that petty sort of thing.

But don’t make the mistake of confusing the Wiccans for all of paganism. Reconstructionist pagans don’t set that much store on magic. Recon paganism is more about worshipping the gods than about magic and ritual. I have no problem with worship, though I do have a problem with gods (namely, I don’t believe in them).


There is nothing wrong with paganism, I suppose, if the practitioners do not believe in any form of magic.


I just say “so what?” to those believers and practice my own form of heathenish worship. Paganism is rich enough a system that it can accommodate atheists as well. I just say I belong to the atheist branch of paganism. At first it puzzles them no end. :D


In a similar vein I find deism to be the most worthy of theistic beliefs because it is possible for a deist to not believe in the supernatural.


:confused: Deists believe in God—that’s supernatural enough! How can a Deist not believe in the supernatural? You probably mean that is possible for a Deist not to be superstitious.

[Virgil Tibbs]

Originally posted by premjan
I think the atheist insistence on proof for beliefs pretty silly myself. What is the proof that life is important or fundamental? Nothing. We should all curl up and die.

What is the "proof" that life is unimportant? Your very question implies an absolute connection betweem theism and having a reason to live that is well falsified. Unless you seriously believe all theists find happiness in life, and no atheist ever has?

There is a vital difference between the question of what exists, and how we judge the things we observe to exist. The former can be handled empircally or supernaturally, but the latter can stem only from emotion.

There is no "rational" (as in emotionless) reason to exist or purpose to life, and the atheist needs one no more than the theist does. Except of course in the minds of atheistic nihilists and well indoctrinated supernaturalists, both of whom think atheism precludes happiness for the same insipid, discredited reasons.

The place where (most) atheists differ from theists is not in the ability to feel or use emotion, but in the ability to conduct observation without allowing what we prefer to be true to cloud our judgement. The place of emotions is solely in judgement, not in observation, and the question of the existence of a deity is a question of observation. Either a reason for its existence has been observed, or it hasn't.

As for the OP, personally I don't lump bigoted supernaturalists (fundamentalist xians) in with tolerant supernaturalists (such as liberal xians or most pagans), except to say that their bigotry or lack thereof has nothing to do with the empircal truth of their claims.

Tibbs

[Calzaer]

I find paganism to be more offensive than mainstream xianity and only equal in offensiveness to fundies.

So someone who believes a Theocracy should be legislated into existence and you should be forced to believe in Christ or be stoned to death is just as offensive as someone who believes in ritualized prayer? And someone who would just tacitly aid the first guy in the creation of his new Holy American Empire is *less* offensive than someone who belives in ritualized prayer?

How are actions that don't affect you and are none of your business as offensive as actions that are specifically intended to fuck you over?

[Heathen Dawn]

Exactly what Calzaer said.

I overlooked it, but I shouldn’t have:

Originally posted by Beyelzu
I find paganism to be more offensive than mainstream xianity and only equal in offensiveness to fundies.

Let us see. What does paganism (well, one branch of it) have?

“An it harm none, do what ye will”.

And what does Christianity have?

“And if any one's name was not found in written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”.

And you put them on an equal pedestal?! Are you crazy?! The former is good and kind, the latter is purely EVIL. Fundamentalist Christianity and Islam are the very manifestation of human evil (http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/evilreligion.htm). How can you compare them to paganism?!

Not all religion is evil. Not even most of it. The only ones that should really be wiped off the face of the earth are the Abrahamic three.

[Ojuice5001]

Originally posted by premjan
I think it was C.S. Lewis who said "Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions".

That's the argument for Christianity (or I suppose Islam or Judaism) over paganism.

First of all, that was G.K. Chesterton, and he said, "Tolerance is the virtue that remains after a man has lost all his principles." Your version might be a good point, but the quote says "principles," not "convictions." It's referring to people who want to live a life of sin, and to see themselves as fair, they affirm the right of others to do the same.

And it might be a good generalization, but it couldn't apply to all pagans. The content of your beliefs isn't what makes them a conviction. There are pagans whose belief could be considered a conviction (I would count myself as one of them), and the faith of most liberal Christians is somewhat less of a conviction than the average pagan.

[Infidelettante]

Just to let you know I'm staying out of this one. It ain't easy what with atheists making fun of us an all but it is a new age and they will be running things soon if that one is any indication. No, no I ain’t got no dog in this fight. I guess ignorant is as ignorant does. Just don’t see it often from Atheists. I mean they usually don’t pontificate on what they know nothing about like that one does. So ya’ll go ahead and butt heads over this butt head and I’ll just go watch_ A Mighty Wind_ with the rest of the family. Don't want no hard feelings about this magic stuff no sir, no sir don't have time for that. Here I am trying hard to understand the Theists and the Atheists and the Pantheists and the panentheists and the one who ain't got no idea and that don't leave much time to teach the ones who ought to know better. It's a shame is all just a shame I've always felt good about being here and now...well I just got to think it over is, just think it over is all. And I'm staying out of this one. Staying out yes sir, staying out.
:confused:

[gsx1138]

I'm one of the resident Pagans here. I lurk here almost everyday and post every once and awhile. There are fundy atheists here but for the most part everyone is cool and I enjoy their POV. Unlike most Christians I don't need others to believe what I believe. It doesn't really bother me if others want to bag on my beliefs (well it kind of does). However, I also realize that this is an atheist forum so I have to accept that my beliefs will be analyzed with the same scrutiny as Christianity.

Edited to add: Every Pagan I know, and that's alot, is for the seperation of church and state. Most all of us realize the spirituality should be a personal matter.

[Aquila ka Hecate]

I'm also not going to get involved here-I'm going on leave for a week so I'll leave you in the capable hands of HD and Calzaer and gsx1138, whom I feel I can trust to represent me with confidence.
(where's that ironic smiley when you need it?)

Suffice to say Crisor, that I'm an atheist and a pagan also.

[Supergirl]

Originally posted by Crisor
Why is it atheists group pagans and christians together as individuals worthy of degrading.

My second question is: I have also seen pagan's laughed at for their rituals.
I am curious to hear your thoughts on the subject.

1. Believing in concepts like transfiguration, getting premonitions (especially on the day after Charmed was aired), vampirism, sprites that control the environment being struck by the goddess after taking too many psychedelics, etc. Yes, I ridicule my pagan friends endlessly! These beliefs of concepts that are rather "outdated", unfounded, or really very simple and explainable is a bit like denial of reality! Or as pagans time and again told me, all these beliefs are the fruit a their imagination. I rest my case :D

2. Well, I do ritual, and I really give a hoot at anybody laughing at it or me! Is it irrational? Probably, and I enjoy it. But then again I still ridicule my pagan friends who wear elaborate robes (specially prepared!), and insist that when calling the quarters, Mother Nature is evoked along with some or other deity. It is just symbolism!

[Supergirl]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn


I just say “so what?” to those believers and practice my own form of heathenish worship. Paganism is rich enough a system that it can accommodate atheists as well. I just say I belong to the atheist branch of paganism. At first it puzzles them no end. :D [/B]

:notworthy I can mirror that sentiment! I have fun and personal fulfilment being a secular/ atheist/ rational pagan.

But I still need to work on that ridicule thing though ;)

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn

:confused: Deists believe in God—that’s supernatural enough! How can a Deist not believe in the supernatural? You probably mean that is possible for a Deist not to be superstitious. [/B]

no, a deist's do not believe in an interventionist god. It is possible I believe to be a deist metaphysical naturalist, with god existing outside of space and time, not a part of the universe. Deists can completely reject all supernatural claims.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by Calzaer
So someone who believes a Theocracy should be legislated into existence and you should be forced to believe in Christ or be stoned to death is just as offensive as someone who believes in ritualized prayer? And someone who would just tacitly aid the first guy in the creation of his new Holy American Empire is *less* offensive than someone who belives in ritualized prayer?

How are actions that don't affect you and are none of your business as offensive as actions that are specifically intended to fuck you over?

I find their thought processes to be offensive I suppose. I dont think all fundies believe that a "theocracy should be legislated into existence and you should be forced to believe in christ or stoned to death" in short you are blowing up a stawman.

Also, I do know plenty of liberal xians who do think people should believe in their own thing.


Furthermore, I should have said I find their beliefs to be as ridiculous as any xians, more so than most. I do not question their politics, most of the pagans I know certainly do believe in religious freedoms and have no wish to impose their veiws on others.


I still think believers of magic are ridiculous.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Beyelzu
no, a deist's do not believe in an interventionist god. It is possible I believe to be a deist metaphysical naturalist, with god existing outside of space and time, not a part of the universe. Deists can completely reject all supernatural claims.

That’s right, Deists do not believe in an interventionist God. And they reject all supernatural claims except for one: God. Everything God created is natural, and works according to strict, unbroken natural law, but God Himself, the Creator of the natural, stands above nature, beyond space and time. Deists believe in a First Cause God: a Creator of space and time who is Himself not bound by space or time. That is supernatural. The creator of nature and all natural law must be above nature and natural law. Therefore, by definition, the Deistic God is supernatural.

Deists are therefore almost-naturalists—everything, they believe, is natural, except for the source of all that is natural.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Beyelzu
I find their thought processes to be offensive I suppose.

Whoa. You get upset because other people think differently from you?

Sat it ain't so! :eek:

[BioBeing]

When I think of Pagans, I think of a few friends I have who are into the power of crystals, 'worship' the Earth Goddess, use alternative medicines, and a one who practices reiki and sees Shamen.

In the context of this forum, I am quite happy to ridicule them. (As gsx1138 said "this is an atheist forum so I have to accept that my beliefs will be analyzed with the same scrutiny as Christianity.")

In person, however, I tend for the most part to just keep quite about it. I do the same with most Christians I know. If they want to discuss it, fine, but I am reticent to bring it up first. In any discussion about superstitious beliefs (God, gods, crystals, homeopathy, etc...) I often have to seriously bite my tongue to not make the orther person feel like I am totally ridiculing them. Which, I guess I am! ;) All I really every want is evidence!

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by BioBeing
When I think of Pagans, I think of a few friends I have who are into the power of crystals, 'worship' the Earth Goddess, use alternative medicines, and a one who practices reiki and sees Shamen.

That’s the confusion of paganism and occultism / New Age that I find so unfortunate.

All I really every want is evidence!

Pagan theism is usually predicated on experientalism: one believes because one has had a subjective religious experience of the deities. As such, there is no hard, objective evidence pagans could give you. Their only response to your charges would be an invitation for you to participate in their rituals and experience the gods for yourself.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by andy_d
Whoa. You get upset because other people think differently from you?

Sat it ain't so! :eek:

not exactly, the way they seem to arrive at their conclusions is the irritating part. I find faith offensive, I find people fooling themselves into thinking that they work magic to be even more offensive.

[Calzaer]

I dont think all fundies believe that a "theocracy should be legislated into existence and you should be forced to believe in christ or stoned to death"

Isn't that sort of the definition of a fundie? Why spend all this time combatting fundamentalist doctrine if they're not trying to pump it into the government?

[gsx1138]

not exactly, the way they seem to arrive at their conclusions is the irritating part. I find faith offensive, I find people fooling themselves into thinking that they work magic to be even more offensive.

At first I thought about making some witty comeback to this but see that I'm not really that different. I find atheists who think that everyone should think like them irritating and offensive. As well as those that pontificate about how intellectually superior they believe themself to be.

I guess I really don't get "it". I don't know any Pagans and there are very very few who were born into it. Most of us took our own journy's to get where we are. As for myself, it was a life changing experience that slowly led me to where I am. Now I'm just babbling. My irritation and anger with others has come from how they treat me and others. We all have plenty of examples where belief and action tend to be very different. I prefer to judge someone based on their actions and only that someone.

[Kassiana]

I haven't had much of a problem with atheists here attacking my Pagan beliefs or me for being a Pagan. I have occasionally had problems because some threads here are labelled "Theists: Prove (X Bible Verse) is True!" or "Theists: Give Us All Your Miracles!" and when I post in them without first unambiguously saying that I'm a Pagan, the atheists in those threads react to my post as if it was made by a Christian. (I think my perspectives should be enough at least to flag me as a non-fundie, but often I'm related to as if I'm not just a Christian but the most conservative breed of Christianity as possible.)

I don't mind if people think my beliefs are silly. I'm partly Discordian in orientation. I REVEL in the silliness of my beliefs! :D That's part of the fun of having them. I do mind when people get my beliefs wrong, of course, or when I'm credited with the actions of others to whom I am not at all connected...but then, I think everyone does.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by gsx1138
At first I thought about making some witty comeback to this but see that I'm not really that different. I find atheists who think that everyone should think like them irritating and offensive. As well as those that pontificate about how intellectually superior they believe themself to be.

I guess I really don't get "it". I don't know any Pagans and there are very very few who were born into it. Most of us took our own journy's to get where we are. As for myself, it was a life changing experience that slowly led me to where I am. Now I'm just babbling. My irritation and anger with others has come from how they treat me and others. We all have plenty of examples where belief and action tend to be very different. I prefer to judge someone based on their actions and only that someone. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


whatever

yeah, its ok to believe the earth is flat as long as they come to that comclusion on the road of life,





wait I dont believe that at all.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by Calzaer
Isn't that sort of the definition of a fundie? Why spend all this time combatting fundamentalist doctrine if they're not trying to pump it into the government?

perhaps, I dont know if all fundies do want no separation betwen church and state. It is certainly true that many of them would like to see xianity legislated. On the other hand, some just wish to see their morality legislated, and, although their morality is at least to some degree based on their religion, I dont think its quite the same thing.

[gsx1138]

yeah, its ok to believe the earth is flat as long as they come to that comclusion on the road of life,

You know what? As long as they aren't trying to convince me of it I could care less. If they're not coming to my door and telling me that that is what I need to believe and they're perfectly happy then so be it. In the course of my life their beliefs will have zero impact.

[BioBeing]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
That’s the confusion of paganism and occultism / New Age that I find so unfortunate.
It is true I do not understand the difference. Many of those friends call themselves pagans. Is this a question of the "no True Scotsman"? ;)

Pagan theism is usually predicated on experientalism: one believes because one has had a subjective religious experience of the deities. As such, there is no hard, objective evidence pagans could give you. Their only response to your charges would be an invitation for you to participate in their rituals and experience the gods for yourself.
How many gods does one need to try until one finds the "right one"? If I found god X, does this mean that gods a thru' W are wrong, or just wrong for me? Do they exist, or just not exist for me? Do I stop searching at X, or am I obligated to try Y and Z, and then A', B' etc etc etc? Do I need to go through Tickfast's entire (but incomplete) list? Or can I just make up my own god?!

Of course, Xianity is usually based on subjective evidence too. Yahweh is just another god for which there is no objective evidence.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by BioBeing
It is true I do not understand the difference. Many of those friends call themselves pagans. Is this a question of the "no True Scotsman"? ;)


The confusion effectively means that if I call myself a pagan, people automatically assume I’m into occult stuff: astrology, tarot, spiritism, runes, reiki and all that sort of thing. I then have to go an extra mile in explaining that my paganism is not what they think it is, that it is entirely free of the occult and is based on nature-worship alone. And having explained that, I still run the risk of having ignorant people say, “well, that can’t be called paganism at all”.


How many gods does one need to try until one finds the "right one"? If I found god X, does this mean that gods a thru' W are wrong, or just wrong for me? Do they exist, or just not exist for me? Do I stop searching at X, or am I obligated to try Y and Z, and then A', B' etc etc etc? Do I need to go through Tickfast's entire (but incomplete) list? Or can I just make up my own god?!


They usually do as Ojuice does and accept all experiences as real. Ojuice and other polytheists have no problem in believing that all the gods in Tickfast’s list are real. It’s terribly complicated and in gross violation of Occam’s Razor, but at least it fosters tolerance.


Of course, Xianity is usually based on subjective evidence too. Yahweh is just another god for which there is no objective evidence.

The experience of “being saved” is the closest thing Christians have to pagan experientialism. Of course, they depart from pagan experientialism in that they say all the subjective religious experiences of other religious believers are caused by Satan and his demons. That’s exclusivism and is a major aspect that makes Christianity an evil religion (http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/evilreligion.htm).

[Kassiana]

How many gods does one need to try until one finds the "right one"?
--All of them are right. Not all of them may be right for you, but all of them are right.

Do they exist, or just not exist for me?
--They exist for their believers/worshippers. If you're not one, you shouldn't expect, e.g., Kuan Yin to reveal herself to you when you believe in Inanna.

Or can I just make up my own god?!
--Sure. Go ahead. I made up one of mine. :)

[Crisor]

I'm going to have to admit my ignorance when it comes to a form of paganism that only worships nature (secular paganism, I think someone called it). I am looking into it a bit more, though.

I can see some of your points when it comes to atheism (that we dwell on wanting evidence) and I will admit that I sometimes wonder if atheism is a double-edged sword, so to speak. It brings with it logical thinking about what you truly believe, yet it does take some of the "mystery" out of everyday life. Is there anybody else that feels this way?

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Crisor
I'm going to have to admit my ignorance when it comes to a form of paganism that only worships nature (secular paganism, I think someone called it). I am looking into it a bit more, though.


I called it that, and there are a few more of this persuasion on these boards. The nomenclature began with a website called Secular Spirituality, by a woman who named herself “Secular Pagan”. Her site is no longer on the web, but you can still access its archive at www.archive.org, typing www.secularspirituality.org in the input box. And see also some pages of mine here (http://www.geocities.com/emotionalatheism/).


I can see some of your points when it comes to atheism (that we dwell on wanting evidence) and I will admit that I sometimes wonder if atheism is a double-edged sword, so to speak. It brings with it logical thinking about what you truly believe, yet it does take some of the "mystery" out of everyday life. Is there anybody else that feels this way?

I don’t feel that way at all. In fact I think atheism adds mystery more than it takes it away. For example, it is a great mystery that chemical elements have the properties to self-organise into entities like us. Under creationism there is no mystery at all: God is omnipotent, so His creating us is no more a feat than Superman lifting heavy objects. But just to look at us, at our complex cells, and think that the particles and the impersonal laws of physics are under all that—that is mysterious to the extreme. The lake inspires me far more than the supposed fairies at the bottom of it.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Kassiana
--All of them are right. Not all of them may be right for you, but all of them are right.


See that? When did you last hear a Christian say “all gods are right”? How could there ever be a comparison between tolerant, kind paganism and evil Christianity?

[Opera Nut]

I checked out your pages. Very cool, Heathen Dawn.

I watched the Cosmos TV series and shared the joy of wonder with Sagan and millions of other people. The wonders of nature are far greater than the Genesis story.

Thanks for the link.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by gsx1138
You know what? As long as they aren't trying to convince me of it I could care less. If they're not coming to my door and telling me that that is what I need to believe and they're perfectly happy then so be it. In the course of my life their beliefs will have zero impact.

on the other hand, my point of view, which also has zero impact on you, pisses you off?

funny isnt it

help me out is that cognative dissodence or what?

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
See that? When did you last hear a Christian say “all gods are right”? How could there ever be a comparison between tolerant, kind paganism and evil Christianity?

yeah, if there is anything better than believing in one imaginary figure, its believing in a bunch of them.:rolleyes:

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by Kassiana
How many gods does one need to try until one finds the "right one"?
--All of them are right. Not all of them may be right for you, but all of them are right.

even the gods that demanded human sacrifices in the americas?

Do they exist, or just not exist for me?
--They exist for their believers/worshippers. If you're not one, you shouldn't expect, e.g., Kuan Yin to reveal herself to you when you believe in Inanna.
conveniently resistant to logic, testing, reality

Or can I just make up my own god?!
--Sure. Go ahead. I made up one of mine. :)

and you believe in a god that you made up for yourself??

how can I be the only one that finds such reasoning appalling???

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Beyelzu
yeah, if there is anything better than believing in one imaginary figure, its believing in a bunch of them.:rolleyes:

BUT... they aren’t asking YOU to believe in them!

Is it the very fact that they believe in imaginary beings offensive to you? If so, I’m afraid you don’t win awards for tolerance.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Opera Nut
I checked out your pages. Very cool, Heathen Dawn.

I watched the Cosmos TV series and shared the joy of wonder with Sagan and millions of other people. The wonders of nature are far greater than the Genesis story.

Thanks for the link.

Thanks for visiting and commenting. :) I’ve got to expand that site somewhen, and update it to the new standards (XHTML and CSS). But right now I’m busy on my metaphysical naturalism pages (the other website).

[gsx1138]

on the other hand, my point of view, which also has zero impact on you, pisses you off?

No it doesn't piss me off but it comes across to me as being intolerant. I don't think any tolerant person should tolerate intolerance. Of course, maybe I'm reading too much into what you're writing but my interpretation is that you get irritated with people who believe in something you don't and it doesn't matter whether they're trying to convince you of it.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by gsx1138
No it doesn't piss me off but it comes across to me as being intolerant. I don't think any tolerant person should tolerate intolerance. Of course, maybe I'm reading too much into what you're writing but my interpretation is that you get irritated with people who believe in something you don't and it doesn't matter whether they're trying to convince you of it.

Not exactly, I know plenty of people who believe in things that I do not that still use good sense to arrive at their conclusions. I have a problem with the belief in witchcraft or magic because it can not be proven to an outsider and their beliefs seem in conflict to the very nature of the world around us. I do not intend to reeducate the people that believe differently or anything. I simply think that their reasoning is weak.


Similarly, I would also question some of their judgments as they believe in magic without any real proof which is just asinine. I guess what gets me is that they actually believe that they can or have worked magic. If ithat is so proof should be easy to provide but they cant.


Believers in magic either lack critical thinking skills or do not apply them when it is inconvenient for them and as such I have no more use for them then I do a fundy.


I do not care how warm and cuddly everyone else seems think the believers in magic are.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
BUT... they aren’t asking YOU to believe in them!

Is it the very fact that they believe in imaginary beings offensive to you?

pretty much
I believe I have outlined pretty well why I think their beliefs asinine, again, though I must point out that its the thought processes themselves that are irritating.
because of the resistance to logic and actually believing in magic.

If so, I’m afraid you don’t win awards for tolerance.


who gives a shit, its not like I am advocating laws being past against believers in magic or anything. I do believe that they have the right to believe whatever the hell they want.


I have a right to believe that those beliefs are just silly however and be aggravated at their inablity to see the obvious.


Please tell me again how I am being intolerant?????????

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Crisor
So is the enemy of my enemy my friend? If so, why do we not appreciate their viewpoint just as much as our own. If not, then why?

The pagans are not trying to take over the government to force their religion on us, so yes, politically, the enemy of the enemy is my friend.

On the other hand, pagans do teach irrationality as a virtue, training people to be stupid. It is in this sense that they are the friends of our enemies.

crc

[Crisor]

Thanks for the site, Heathen Dawn (by the way, great poetry). I haven't had time to look up the other you suggested but it is on my "to do" list.

As for those who believe in magic. I have always thought (and correct me if I'm wrong, for, as I stated, I am still learning these things and it takes time) that most do not believe that the magic really works as much as believe that the ritual gives them power to control themselves rather than others. An example would be someone wanting to receive a raise at work; casts a spell to do so by meditating and visualization of the raise and what it would take to get the raise (as well as some ritual that clarifies in their mind the object desired); then self-fullfilling the spell cast by doing those things visualized therefore getting the raise. In this instance, the spell worked, not because of any true magic, but because the person, believing the spell would work, created the situatuion in which the thing desired would come about. This is what I have always thought magic was.

I'm sure that there are those who actually believe that they use real magic to cause change. And I can see why proof would be asked for from that type of person. But, given the example above, is it possible that this is the type of "magic" that is used and not "true magic" which goes against all known laws of physics? Is it the label that is being used wrong, not the practice?

In the beginning post, these are the rituals that I refer too. I am under the impression that maybe a misunderstanding has developed between what one means by the terms "magic" and "ritual" being that both can be understood in many number of ways.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Beyelzu
not exactly, the way they seem to arrive at their conclusions is the irritating part. I find faith offensive, I find people fooling themselves into thinking that they work magic to be even more offensive.

Hmm, you write "not exactly" but what you seem to mean is "yes, I do"

[Kassiana]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kassiana
How many gods does one need to try until one finds the "right one"?
--All of them are right. Not all of them may be right for you, but all of them are right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
even the gods that demanded human sacrifices in the americas?
--The Gods never did. Humans attributed their own cruelty to the Gods.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do they exist, or just not exist for me?
--They exist for their believers/worshippers. If you're not one, you shouldn't expect, e.g., Kuan Yin to reveal herself to you when you believe in Inanna.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
conveniently resistant to logic, testing, reality
--Why, thank you! :D

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or can I just make up my own god?!
--Sure. Go ahead. I made up one of mine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and you believe in a god that you made up for yourself??
--Sure do. I enjoy it, too.

how can I be the only one that finds such reasoning appalling???
--I don't care if you find it appalling or not. I'm not living my life to impress you or any other person, atheist or Christian. I am a little amused that you let me bother you so much, but hey, it's your life. If you want to spend it getting ticked off by those who are different than you rather than spending it doing what you find important, so be it. :)

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Beyelzu
pretty much
I believe I have outlined pretty well why I think their beliefs asinine, again, though I must point out that its the thought processes themselves that are irritating.
because of the resistance to logic and actually believing in magic.


I too think those beliefs (in gods, magic, divination etc) are asinine. But there’s some way off between finding them asinine and actually being offended by them. I could only be offended by those beliefs if they harmed me. Christianity and Islam offend me. Pagan theism doesn’t.


who gives a shit, its not like I am advocating laws being past against believers in magic or anything. I do believe that they have the right to believe whatever the hell they want.

I have a right to believe that those beliefs are just silly however and be aggravated at their inablity to see the obvious.


OK. :) It wasn’t clear from your first posts, though.


Please tell me again how I am being intolerant?????????

By equating pagans with Christian fundies.

[premjan]

Kali is a pagan (Hindu goddess) who likes human sacrifices. So that could be a problem, with a Kali fundamentalist.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by andy_d
Hmm, you write "not exactly" but what you seem to mean is "yes, I do"

reading comprehension problems???

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by Kassiana
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kassiana
How many gods does one need to try until one finds the "right one"?
--All of them are right. Not all of them may be right for you, but all of them are right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
even the gods that demanded human sacrifices in the americas?
--The Gods never did. Humans attributed their own cruelty to the Gods.


and I suppose you know this because you have spoken to the gods of the ancient americans?????

what did they have to say


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do they exist, or just not exist for me?
--They exist for their believers/worshippers. If you're not one, you shouldn't expect, e.g., Kuan Yin to reveal herself to you when you believe in Inanna.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
conveniently resistant to logic, testing, reality
--Why, thank you! :D
wasnt a compliment


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or can I just make up my own god?!
--Sure. Go ahead. I made up one of mine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and you believe in a god that you made up for yourself??
--Sure do. I enjoy it, too.


and that is just sad. truth over false happiness is decision that I would make every time, I suppose the same can not be said of you.


how can I be the only one that finds such reasoning appalling???
--I don't care if you find it appalling or not. I'm not living my life to impress you or any other person, atheist or Christian. I am a little amused that you let me bother you so much, but hey, it's your life. If you want to spend it getting ticked off by those who are different than you rather than spending it doing what you find important, so be it. :) I dont have a problem with people who are different from me. I find your beliefs silly and a detriment to society on the whole, basically I view your beliefs in much the same light as I do xianity.

[Heathen Dawn]

Rest assured, Beyelzu, that you will never find a pagan flying a plane into an office building.

[BioBeing]

The word "Pagan" it seems has many different meanings:
What is a "Pagan?"

Everybody has their favorite meaning of "Pagan." But there is no consensus, even among people who adhere to a single religion.

"Pagan" comes from the Latin word "paganus" which originally meant "country dweller." In the early years of the Christian movement, the term referred to conservative folks from the rural areas who continued to follow ancient religions, long after city dwellers had converted to Christianity. By the third century CE, its meaning evolved to include all non-Christians. Eventually, it became an evil term that implied the possibility of Satan worship. The latter two meanings are still in current use.

There is no generally accepted, single, current definition for the word "Pagan." The word is among the terms that the newsgroup alt.usage.english, calls "skunk words." They have varied meanings to different people. The field of religion is rife with such words. consider: Christian, cult, hell, heaven, occult, Paganism, pluralism, salvation, Witch, Witchcraft, Unitarian, Universalist, Voodoo, etc. Each has so many meanings that they often cause misunderstandings wherever they are used. Unfortunately, most people do not know this, and naturally assume that the meaning that they have been taught is universally accepted. A reader must often look at the context in which the word is used in order to guess at the intent of the writer.
From http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism.htm

Thus, Heathen Dawn, paganism CAN include the occult etc. YOUR own personal definition may be more limited than that, but others are not necessarily "ignorant".

[Accoring to one of the definitions above, pagans (i.e. non-christians) DID fly a plane into a building. Never say never!]

[BioBeing]

Note to add, HD, your views as laid out on your page (http://www.geocities.com/emotionalatheism/secpag.htm) are really no different to mine. I just don't call myself a pagan. I would add:

My only ritual is coming to work every day.

My temple is my lab.

;)

[BioBeing]

Originally posted by Kassiana
How many gods does one need to try until one finds the "right one"?
--All of them are right. Not all of them may be right for you, but all of them are right.
But if I find one who is pretty gosh darn good, but not quite perfect, can I stop? SUrely, the only logical thing to do is try every single imaginable god/goddess, and to try worshipping them in every imaginable way. Otherwise, I may just miss out. However, that seems like a few too many permutations for me to have the time to do all of that.


Do they exist, or just not exist for me?
--They exist for their believers/worshippers. If you're not one, you shouldn't expect, e.g., Kuan Yin to reveal herself to you when you believe in Inanna.
But how do i come to believe in Inanna? Do I just wake up and say to myself "today, I will believe in Inanna"? Then a God(dess) will pop into existance for the day?

Or can I just make up my own god?!
--Sure. Go ahead. I made up one of mine. :)
I grew out of invisible friends a long time ago ;)

Seriously: I am kind of with Beyelzu on this one. Any kind of god/magic/elf-belief is not what I consider rational thinking, and thus does tend to make me think "well, if they can believe that, what else do they believe in?".

Let me say though, that most of the self-professed pagans I have known have been very well-behaved, tolerant etc. I tend to group them along with deists and very liberal christians. Not at all offensive, just a little wooly round the edges.

Except for the girl who does reike though. She scares me in the strength of her conviction in her beliefs. In other situations, she would be a good fundy Xtian.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by BioBeing
Thus, Heathen Dawn, paganism CAN include the occult etc. YOUR own personal definition may be more limited than that, but others are not necessarily "ignorant".


Hey, that was the opposite of what I’m trying to argue: I’m not arguing that paganism cannot include the occult, I’m arguing that there can be a form of paganism that does not include the occult.


[Accoring to one of the definitions above, pagans (i.e. non-christians) DID fly a plane into a building. Never say never!]

I don’t care what the Christians say. They’re wrong on all counts. Paganism is reserved for polytheists and/or nature-worshippers. Muslims don’t fall into either category, so they can’t rightfully be called pagans. As far as I’m concerned, Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden are on the same side—evil Abrahamic religion.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by BioBeing
Note to add, HD, your views as laid out on your page (http://www.geocities.com/emotionalatheism/secpag.htm) are really no different to mine. I just don't call myself a pagan.


My worldview is metaphysical naturalism, so obviously it wouldn’t differ from yours, or from most of the atheists on these boards. My spirituality is pagan, though.


My temple is my lab.


My temple is living, green Nature.

[Calzaer]

perhaps, I dont know if all fundies do want no separation betwen church and state. It is certainly true that many of them would like to see xianity legislated. On the other hand, some just wish to see their morality legislated, and, although their morality is at least to some degree based on their religion, I dont think its quite the same thing.

So, in other words: Believing something silly is just as offensive as trying to legislate you into believing it too.

May as well start the PAC, since I'm already causing the maximum amount of offense...

[Majestyk]

Personally the idea that, we should accept willful ignorance in our society, offends me. It offends me for probably the same reason that the superstitious are offended by my skepticism; each of us will have an effect on the culture in which we participate.

Superstitious beliefs, regardless of what we clothe them in, should be discouraged. The simple reason is that if, we are to accurately understand the world around us then, we must be willing to set aside fairy tales and accept what evidence the world presents to us.

Others may feel that living in blissful delusion is the "right" thing to do. They may say: “Who cares if, people think the world is flat and the stars are pinholes in the curtain of night? So long as people live happily and are kind to each other, let them have their warm and fuzzy fantasies.”

Is that absolutely important? Maybe not. It's what I hang my philosophical hat on, though.

[Heathen Dawn]

I advocate the administering of sceptical-naturalistic medicine only to those who wish to spread their superstitious-theistic illness onto other people: the Abrahamics. Concentrate on the Abrahamics. They are the true troublers of the world. Their exclusivism, their cruel beliefs, their immorality, their disdain for science and their high birthrates are bringing the world to a state of hell. It is the Abrahamic cancer that needs to be chemotherapeutically treated with the treatment of naturalism and scepticism.

[Kassiana]

But if I find one who is pretty gosh darn good, but not quite perfect, can I stop?
--Sure. Why not?


Do they exist, or just not exist for me?
--They exist for their believers/worshippers. If you're not one, you shouldn't expect, e.g., Kuan Yin to reveal herself to you when you believe in Inanna.

But how do i come to believe in Inanna? Do I just wake up and say to myself "today, I will believe in Inanna"? Then a God(dess) will pop into existence for the day?
--I happen to believe that yes, the Divine will fill any shape you make for it. So if you create the shape of "Inanna" for the Divine, then Inanna will become a real Goddess for you.


Or can I just make up my own god?!
--Sure. Go ahead. I made up one of mine.

I grew out of invisible friends a long time ago
--Wow. How'd you do that? ;) I've never grown anything out of invisible friends… :D


Seriously: I am kind of with Beyelzu on this one. Any kind of god/magic/elf-belief is not what I consider rational thinking, and thus does tend to make me think "well, if they can believe that, what else do they believe in?".
--You could always ask, of course, if you really want to know. But seeing that I attend a Unitarian Universalist church, was raised by a loving atheist mother and a caring kind of Deist variant father (well, that's the best I can do at categorizing his beliefs, anyhow), and know my Constitutional law, you can be assured I have no interest in pushing my beliefs onto you or anyone, and that I apply rational thinking to those things which require it. I just don't include my personal faith in that group. :)

[BioBeing]

Originally posted by Kassiana
...I apply rational thinking to those things which require it. I just don't include my personal faith in that group. :)
Can't argue with that ;)

[Kassiana]

and I suppose you know this because you have spoken to the gods of the ancient americans?
--Nope. Common sense. :)


conveniently resistant to logic, testing, reality
--Why, thank you!

wasnt a compliment
--So what? Thank you! :D


and you believe in a god that you made up for yourself??
--Sure do. I enjoy it, too.

and that is just sad. truth over false happiness is decision that I would make every time, I suppose the same can not be said of you.
--Hm. I could choose to insult your grammar or lack thereof if I wished, or your constant need to attack me for my beliefs, but I think this insult simply means I need to put you on ignore. :)


I find your beliefs silly and a detriment to society on the whole…
--Funny. Since very few Pagans I know of hold precisely my beliefs, and very few Pagans in general exist, I find it hard to believe that my personal faith has a detriment to society on the whole. I'm not an elected official, I'm not a Christian, and I don't go around talking to much of anyone IRL about my religious beliefs. But keep on believing the above if you like, even though it isn't true. :)

[BioBeing]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
I advocate the administering of sceptical-naturalistic medicine only to those who wish to spread their superstitious-theistic illness onto other people: the Abrahamics. Concentrate on the Abrahamics. They are the true troublers of the world. Their exclusivism, their cruel beliefs, their immorality, their disdain for science and their high birthrates are bringing the world to a state of hell. It is the Abrahamic cancer that needs to be chemotherapeutically treated with the treatment of naturalism and scepticism.
But surely the EAC has its sights set higher than just destroying the Abrahamic religions? Since the Abrahamic religions are sure to be defeated within the next few years, we need to decide NOW what our next goal should be. If we rest on our laurels and savour the victory, then the next phase will be worse than the last. The world needs to be purged of ALL superstitious mumbo-jumbo once and for all.

:p

[Afghan]

The big difference I see between modern pagan spirituality and Abrahamic religions is this: whilst Abrahamic religions tend to be very concerned with the object of devotion (that is God), paganism is more concerned with the process of devotion. For an Abrahamist (if that is a word) the existence and nature of God is of paramount importance. For the modern pagan, such considerations are largely uninteresting. Sure, there are a number of quite dubious new age and pagan metaphysics and theology but, by and large, these are an afterthought. They are not the point.

Whether or not magic works, whether or not Diana exists, whether or not she is a separate goddess to Morrigu or whether they are simply aspects of 'the Goddess' are not challenging questions. Paganism is about the act of spirituality. It is about ritual and mystery and perhaps a little sense of being different.

In this sense, I have paganism to be a very mature form of spirituality. It offers a sense of connection to the past, to the natural world, to other human beings. Spiritual, in this sense, does not imply supernatural. Paganism is certainly not irreconcilable with naturalism.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Beyelzu
reading comprehension problems???

Politeness problems? :D

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Majestyk
Personally the idea that, we should accept willful ignorance in our society, offends me. It offends me for probably the same reason that the superstitious are offended by my skepticism; each of us will have an effect on the culture in which we participate.

Superstitious beliefs, regardless of what we clothe them in, should be discouraged.

While I admire your idealism, I feel that at a certain point you have to start being practical.

If you don't let go and tolerate others being different, and indeed just plain "wrong", you're going to be unhappy. That helps no-one.

If you value your ideals it's important to pick your battles, and trying to change others against their will is an unwinnable fight.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by Kassiana
and I suppose you know this because you have spoken to the gods of the ancient americans?
--Nope. Common sense. :)

yet, you seem hesitant to apply common sense to your beliefs.


conveniently resistant to logic, testing, reality
--Why, thank you!

wasnt a compliment
--So what? Thank you! :D
still no intent of compliment.


and you believe in a god that you made up for yourself??
--Sure do. I enjoy it, too.
still, I dont see the point of it.

and that is just sad. truth over false happiness is decision that I would make every time, I suppose the same can not be said of you.
--Hm. I could choose to insult your grammar or lack thereof if I wished, or your constant need to attack me for my beliefs, but I think this insult simply means I need to put you on ignore. :)


I attack silly beliefs, if you didnt have silly beliefs I wouldnt attack your beliefs. Ignoring people that disagree is something else I dont do. Also, snide comments about grammar are something else that I rarely engage in. I am sorry that you feel that I am persecuting you or some such shit, but as long as you advocate invisible people you made up, I think you should expect some attacks.

I find your beliefs silly and a detriment to society on the whole…
--Funny. Since very few Pagans I know of hold precisely my beliefs, and very few Pagans in general exist, I find it hard to believe that my personal faith has a detriment to society on the whole. I'm not an elected official, I'm not a Christian, and I don't go around talking to much of anyone IRL about my religious beliefs. But keep on believing the above if you like, even though it isn't true. :) Resistance to reality is bad, bad I tell you. Belief in magic is unhealthy and leads to things like John Edwards.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by andy_d
Politeness problems? :D


i follow iidb rules, if you think that I am not please proof with the relevant quotes, otherwise I will assume that my comment was dead on.

[paul30]

I like paganism lots better than Christianity.

(Shoot, I would like a sharp stick in the eye better than Christianity.)

I look at paganism as the literalization or concretization of abstract perceptions or feelings.

Pagans realized there were tremendous powers outside themselves--in nature and the structure of the cosmos--as well as inside themselves--birth, death, the unconscious mind, physiologic functions, the inevitable magnetism of social programming, and so on.

They gave these the names "gods" or "goddesses" or "nymphs" or other things, and personalized or concretized them.

To the extent that they took these personifications literally, they were in error; but many did not.

Christianity, however, takes its metaphorical deity and his semi-metaphorical son oh-so-literally, and in this goes wildly astray and becomes rigid and tyrannical and imperialistic.

The pagans were none of these things.

Their advantage over atheists is that they acknowledge the sense of transcendence.

To deny the sense of transcendence is tantamount to denying a feeling for beauty or harmony or love. Yes, you can reduce these things to physiological processes, or functions helpful to the group (and so, to survival), but that doesn't help to understand how they feel.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by paul30
Their advantage over atheists is that they acknowledge the sense of transcendence.


Funny, what attracts me to paganism is the lack of transcendence. In Judaism/Christianity/Islam you have a transcendent God who is as occult (hidden) as can be. In paganism, on the other hand, you can worship what you can see: sun, moon, stars, trees, rivers and rocks. Paganism attracts me because idolatry attracts me—idolatry which is the opposite of worshipping what you don’t see.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn


Funny, what attracts me to paganism is the lack of transcendence. In Judaism/Christianity/Islam you have a transcendent God who is as occult (hidden) as can be. In paganism, on the other hand, you can worship what you can see: sun, moon, stars, trees, rivers and rocks. Paganism attracts me because idolatry attracts me—idolatry which is the opposite of worshipping what you don’t see. [/B]

You know heathen dawn, I have no problems with your secular paganism. Nature worship isnt bad, unless you veer off to worshipping the spirit of a tree. I have a problem with pagan practitioners of magic. I really liked your post above, worshipping what you can see is definitely better than worshipping a lie.

[premjan]

I think the universe (cosmos), the sun and the moon have been the three primary objects of nature worship throughout history.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by paul30

To deny the sense of transcendence is tantamount to denying a feeling for beauty or harmony or love. Yes, you can reduce these things to physiological processes, or functions helpful to the group (and so, to survival), but that doesn't help to understand how they feel.

Question: You talk here of a SENSE of transcendance, rather than referring to transcendance as an actual extant phenomenon. Does this mean you acknowledge that "transcendance" is a self-imposed psychological fiction?

[premjan]

Originally posted by premjan
I think the universe (cosmos), the sun and the moon have been the three primary objects of nature worship throughout history.

oops also the earth.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Beyelzu
You know heathen dawn, I have no problems with your secular paganism. Nature worship isnt bad, unless you veer off to worshipping the spirit of a tree.


Rest assured I won’t. Had I any liking for occult stuff, I would still be a monotheist.

I have a problem with pagan practitioners of magic. I really liked your post above, worshipping what you can see is definitely better than worshipping a lie.

I have a great problem with the conflation of paganism with the New Age. The fact that most pagans deal with New Age things such as astrology, tarot, runes and reiki irritates me no end. Yes, let them do what they want, but then there grows out a perception that this is the only One True Paganism™. “Stuff your tarot down your throat, it was invented by Christians anyway!” ;)

[paul30]

Dear Contracycle:

Yes, I meant what I said: Sense of transcendence.

(I will leave up to you whether there is actual transcendence.)

As for monotheism.

I don't like it. It slides too easily into tyranny and imperialism.

Believe in the ONE god--which, by the way, I happen to represent and therefore believe in (and obey) ME!

[contracycle]

Originally posted by paul30
Yes, I meant what I said: Sense of transcendence.

(I will leave up to you whether there is actual transcendence.)


OK. No there is not. Done and dusted.

[Katarzyna]

Originally posted by gsx1138
Edited to add: Every Pagan I know, and that's alot, is for the seperation of church and state. Most all of us realize the spirituality should be a personal matter.

I wonder whether that's due to the nature of paganism, or the fact that pagans are such a minority. My guess is that it's a little bit of both.

Christians, in the very early years of Christianity, were very much for the seperation of their church and the Roman state--they were considered atheists and were arrested for not paying tribute to the Roman gods. Once they had power, they did a 180. I'd bet American fundies would do another 180 if they became a minority to a non-Christian religion. It'd almost be worth it, to see Pat Robertson et al preach to get prayer taken out of schools.

As for the original question--I've no problems with paganism whatsoever.

[Supergirl]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn

I have a great problem with the conflation of paganism with the New Age. The fact that most pagans deal with New Age things such as astrology, tarot, runes and reiki irritates me no end. Yes, let them do what they want, but then there grows out a perception that this is the only One True Paganism™. “Stuff your tarot down your throat, it was invented by Christians anyway!” ;) [/B]


:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

The only true paganism IMAO has no connection with esoteric and occult dogma. :D

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Supergirl
The only true paganism IMAO has no connection with esoteric and occult dogma. :D

No, I don’t go so far as to call occult-free paganism the Only One True Paganism™. That would make me like those occult-obsessed pagans who call their version the only one true pagan path. Paganism is very wide and very accommodating. I believe the only requirements for paganism are either polytheism or nature worship or both; though, I should hasten to add, one poster on MysticWicks Pagan Forums (http://www.mysticwicks.com) said she called herself a pagan despite having nothing to do with either polytheism or nature worship; and who am I to write her off as an outsider? ;)

[Infidelettante]

Heathen Dawn:
No, I don’t go so far as to call occult-free paganism the Only One True Paganism™.

Thank you HD! We occultic pagans welcome your fairness and generosity.:notworthy

JT

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Infidelettante
Thank you HD! We occultic pagans welcome your fairness and generosity.:notworthy

Hmmm, I hope that was in a well-meaning tone.

Anyway, labelling something as The One True X is a monopoly of the Abrahamic religionists.

[Infidelettante]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
Hmmm, I hope that was in a well-meaning tone.

Anyway, labelling something as The One True X is a monopoly of the Abrahamic religionists.

Well meaning and heartfelt.

JT

[kaelcarp]

I'll admit to not having read through this entire thread, but I just had to chime in. I'm an atheist and my wife is a pagan, yet our beliefs do not conflict. How is that, you may ask?

My wife does perform "spells", but acknowledges that they are only magic in the sense that they make her feel better about a situation, not that they actually alter aspects of reality. In other words, she may do a spell to help her do well on a job interview. While she is fully aware that the actual spell doesn't materially change anything, it is a way of getting herself into a mindset whereby she will do better on the interview. Basically, it gives her confidence.

When she refers to gods, she doesn't think of them as actual beings, but as the unifying force behind all things. She doesn't think about there being a literal god or goddess. She actually has a similar view to mine, but she spiritualizes, as I put it, where I don't.

However, because of her beliefs, many atheists would choose to criticize her. That's fine, but there is actually very little upon which to base the criticism, other than a rather unsound bias against people of a particular type, a bias any critical thinker should try to avoid.

[Supergirl]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
No, I don’t go so far as to call occult-free paganism the Only One True Paganism™. That would make me like those occult-obsessed pagans who call their version the only one true pagan path. Paganism is very wide and very accommodating. I believe the only requirements for paganism are either polytheism or nature worship or both; though, I should hasten to add, one poster on MysticWicks Pagan Forums (http://www.mysticwicks.com) said she called herself a pagan despite having nothing to do with either polytheism or nature worship; and who am I to write her off as an outsider? ;)

I was saying it as tongue in cheek for the exact reasons you mentioned. :)
It is all about perspective, interpretation and all those lovely fussy inexact concepts.

[NiceWookie]

Hey Ya'll
My first post on these forums is to anounce my paganism and my utter lack of need to prove my beleifs or practices to any skeptics. It works for me, and thats all that matters. :)

Cheers.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by NiceWookie
Hey Ya'll
My first post on these forums is to anounce my paganism and my utter lack of need to prove my beleifs or practices to any skeptics. It works for me, and thats all that matters. :)


Cool. So you'll not be offended if I think of you as a self-delusional lunatic? Excellent stuff.

[kaelcarp]

Originally posted by NiceWookie
Hey Ya'll
My first post on these forums is to anounce my paganism and my utter lack of need to prove my beleifs or practices to any skeptics. It works for me, and thats all that matters. :)

Cheers.

What's the nature of your pagan belief system?

[wiploc]

Originally posted by NiceWookie
Hey Ya'll
My first post on these forums is to anounce my paganism and my utter lack of need to prove my beleifs or practices to any skeptics. It works for me, and thats all that matters. :)

Cheers.

Welcome to the boards.
crc

[Yangja Isuko]

I feel like atheism is awfully stuffy just from the sound of it. I have to wonder what atheists do for a good time besides discuss philosophy.

Sex, Premarital/Gay/Bisexual/Heterosexual/Orgies/Anal/Oral/etc
Alcohol
Soft Drugs
Hard Drugs
Eat Food
Go to raves and/or other types of parties involving music
Start barfights
Play violent computer games and listen to violent anti-christian music

....


oh wait, that's what *i* like to do.

[Infidelettante]

edit to delete

[Kassiana]

Originally posted by NiceWookie
Hey Ya'll
My first post on these forums is to anounce my paganism and my utter lack of need to prove my beleifs or practices to any skeptics. It works for me, and thats all that matters. :)

Cheers.
Good. That's exactly how I feel, too. Isn't it great to be a member of an anti-proselytizing faith? :)

[NiceWookie]

Originally posted by Kassiana
Good. That's exactly how I feel, too. Isn't it great to be a member of an anti-proselytizing faith? :)

:) Indeed it is!

Honestly, I don't know how to respond to irrational attacks on a person's philosophical perspective. I can understand pushing back when someone is out pushing their beleifs, but attacking people minding thier own business seems to be the prefered method of fundamentalists. Why on earth would Atheists want to behave like fundamentalists? :confused:

I would even go so far as to speculate that maybe radical Christians are going around in disguise as Athieists and attacking Pagans as a divide and conquer ploy, but then again I do have a big imagination. :) :cool:

[NiceWookie]

Originally posted by kaelcarp
What's the nature of your pagan belief system?

Lol, is that supposed be a pun?...nature, pagan belief system ;)

Well I am a nature loving Pantheist and a student of Hermetic philosophy if that answers your question. :)

[gsx1138]

My personal beliefs lean towards Pantheism. However, I'm active with Pagans who believe magick is real and when they preform spells there is a definitive change. I don't feel the need to have to agree with them in order to learn or practice with them. I also don't feel the need to tell them they're crazy or ignorant.

[kaelcarp]

Originally posted by NiceWookie
Lol, is that supposed be a pun?...nature, pagan belief system ;)

Well I am a nature loving Pantheist and a student of Hermetic philosophy if that answers your question. :)

Lol, pun not intended. :)

My wife is pagan, which is why I asked. She's pagan and I'm atheist and we get along just fine. I've rarely met pagans who would insist that their faith is the correct one and others are wrong. They are generally more prone to finding the similarities or deeper truths between religions, which is much better. Plus, I agree that if we think of nature as something to which we do not belong, we will soon find ourselves in a world that is not very nice to be in, to say the least.

My wife doesn't really believe in personal gods or goddesses, but in forces that she personifies by calling them gods or goddesses.

[gsx1138]

Kaelcarp, your wife and I sound like we share almost the same beliefs. It's good that you two get along and I think it is much easier that she is not Christian. My personal Goddess is one that fits my personality so in that way we are different. Although, I don't think that she exists in the physical sense so maybe that is what you're trying to say. I see her as one aspect of not just my own personality but of nature as well. It's tough to explain.
I think you're also correct about the dangers of thinking that we are outside of nature. We're slowly turning our little space in space into a shithole.

[Dialogian]

I think with regard to the idea of separation of religion and state, atheists and Pagans indeed have common ground.

But there is another political dimension some atheists may disagree with some Pagans, and that is on environmental issues.

To the extent that some Pagans take nature worship to the conclusion that pristine nature should be preserved in large amounts, and to the extent that some atheists are against the use of force, whether the vigilantism of "Earth First" type activists, or of government enforcing environmental legislation, to keep people from transforming natural resources to human benefit in a peaceful manner, this is where a conflict may emerge.

Of course not all environmentalists nor militant environmentalists are Pagan. But I think it would be accurate to say that many Pagans support various forms of environmentalism. To the extent that some atheists would disagree with Pagans and believe, for example, that Alaskan lands should be allowed to be used for economic production, then Pagans who actively support such legislation have an equivalency to Xians who push for creationism to be taught in schools, erecting 10 commandment monuments in front of courthouses, etc.

The equivalency is not so clear cut though since many atheists I would guess support various forms of environmentalism....

Sorta thinking out loud here. I look forward to feedback.

[Arkus 02]

As an atheist, I definately find some forms of paganism to be extremely silly. Many forms of non-secular paganism believe in gods that were made up, or ripped off older religions. Also, many pagan religions can be traced to a founder. One reason Christianity can't be disproven is that we can't point a finger at someone and say they made it up (and too damn bad). Making up a god to worship is, IMO, far dumber than worshiping a pre-invented god, which in itself is pretty pointless.

On the other hand, Secular Paganism makes a lot of sense. Most of the time, it amounts to a flowery version of Pantheism. The idea of god in everything makes a lot of sense to me, and giving names to the masculine and feminine aspects of the universe, while un poco goofy, is understandable to me, and a lot less far-fetched than christianity.

Anywayz thats my opinion. Intraspectively, I suppose it's not very tolerant, and therefore a little hypocritical coming from an Atheist in an overwhelmingly theist world. oh well.

[premjan]

I think pantheism and theism are both flawed, from an objective point of view by the use of the word "God".

There's no such thing as God, so why do we keep on bringing God up? What within our natures compels many of us to imagine a creature in the heavens?

I think the reason is that we are ourselves pretty general in the way we think and behave (some kind of universal thinking being, in the spirit of Turing), so it is easy for us to see images of ourselves in aspects of reality.

[kaelcarp]

Originally posted by premjan
There's no such thing as God, so why do we keep on bringing God up?

Many pagan believers have a drastically different definition of God than Christians or the other Abrahamic religions. Rather than a personal God (i.e. one with its own personality, will, etc.) they simply think of all objects/events of the world as aspects of God. God isn't so much a being as a force.

While I don't particularly subscribe to that way of looking at things, it's certainly a lot more palatable than the personal God, IMO.

[DigitalChicken]

Originally posted by kaelcarp
Rather than a personal God (i.e. one with its own personality, will, etc.) they simply think of all objects/events of the world as aspects of God.

Why bother doing this? Its just a way of word substitution and renaming of things. It doesn't actually provide any beneficial explanation and doesn't expand knowledge.

DC

[Infidelettante]

Digital Chicken
Why bother doing this? Its just a way of word substitution and renaming of things. It doesn't actually provide any beneficial explanation and doesn't expand knowledge.

DC

Within occult circles the naming of a thing can be a way to know it’s true nature. It is so as well that to rename a thing can open it to an understanding which the original name obscured. The demiurge who is the God of the Christians has obscured his nature by claiming to be the creator of all things. When we accept the creation as divine we render the supposed creator powerless. When we call him liar he is unable to hide the truth from us any longer and we are freed from his tyranny. That is to our benefit and expands our knowledge of existence.

JT

[kaelcarp]

Originally posted by DigitalChicken
Why bother doing this? Its just a way of word substitution and renaming of things. It doesn't actually provide any beneficial explanation and doesn't expand knowledge.

DC

It helps with perspective, mostly. I don't personally look at things that way, but I do understand it. If you think of all things as being basically the same underneath, all as aspects of the same thing, you realize that you, too, are part of everything. It makes you a more compassionate and empathic person. If the religious people of the world who don't view things this way would do this instead of thinking of themselves as separate from nature and all objects as separate from one another, they might not do some of the things they do.

To recognize humanity as part of nature rather than some sort of line between humanity and nature is far more accurate. To recognize that your table and your chair are simply different aspects of the same thing is a lot more true than seeing them as separate objects.

Changing one's perspective is an excellent way to expand one's knowledge.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by Infidelettante
Within occult circles the naming of a thing can be a way to know it’s true nature. It is so as well that to rename a thing can open it to an understanding which the original name obscured. The demiurge who is the God of the Christians has obscured his nature by claiming to be the creator of all things. When we accept the creation as divine we render the supposed creator powerless. When we call him liar he is unable to hide the truth from us any longer and we are freed from his tyranny. That is to our benefit and expands our knowledge of existence.

JT

Naming the tree outside my window "Dennis" does not confer an automatic understanding of the biological processes that cause it to be there.

Renaming it "Roberta" does not open it to an understanding which the name "Dennis" obscured and I still lack the understanding of its true nature which I may have been able to put in a thesis to get myself a biology degree. May be if I rename it "Jack"............no, still no revelations about the existential suchness of the tree or about the intricate processes. Damn!

There may well be a god who is divine and is everything the Christians say it is. Or there may not be. There may be a demiurge claiming to be a god or there may not be.

Calling it a liar does not strip it of power in any way from its own side if it actually exists. The tyranny comes from the smugness of those who think they're right and from our fear that they may be right.

The freedom comes not so much from taking the power that the alleged god has but from realizing that it never had the power to begin with. Maybe that's actually what you're saying.

I agree that freedom from spiritual tyranny allows one to play with more ideas and to be more open about things, less fixated with static concepts and hence more likely to experience gnosis and that is indeed a good thing. I hope to experience a bit myself one day.

[gsx1138]

I wonder whether that's due to the nature of paganism, or the fact that pagans are such a minority. My guess is that it's a little bit of both.

Sorry I didn't see this. I think you're correct as well. There is a slow movement of Pagans to become more centralized. And there are those who oppose it. But I think being in the majority can change your viewpoint. I'm sure there would be quite a few Pagans who wouldn't want Seperation of Church and State if we were the majority. However, I don't think Atheists would be much different if they were the majority. How long do you really think it would be before they would insist that all religion be erradicated?

I see laws and ideas that are put forth by the majority as more a part of human nature than anything. It's kind of a: Why settle for a glass of milk when I've already got the whole damn cow. That is why Christianity is becoming more extremist. They know that their membership is decreasing.

[kaelcarp]

Originally posted by gsx1138
I'm sure there would be quite a few Pagans who wouldn't want Seperation of Church and State if we were the majority. However, I don't think Atheists would be much different if they were the majority. How long do you really think it would be before they would insist that all religion be erradicated?

This is very true in general and I think many people don't realize it. While most members of any religion/non-religion in the US are happy with the "live and let live" philosophy of letting people believe what they want, there is that vocal minority in any group that believes that their own beliefs are demonstrably the correct ones and that other beliefs should always be led to, if not forced to, follow their own.

While true freethinkers should object to this, I know of quite a few atheists who would be first in line to ban all forms of god-worship. These are people with little understanding of human nature.

The best majority group would probably be some sort of pantheistic religion, since pantheists are generally open to many different faiths. Still, even then, there would be plenty of issues.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by kaelcarp
While true freethinkers should object to this, I know of quite a few atheists who would be first in line to ban all forms of god-worship. These are people with little understanding of human nature.


Ahuh. Yeah, that must be it.

[Infidelettante]

Waning Moon Conrad
The freedom comes not so much from taking the power that the alleged god has but from realizing that it never had the power to begin with. Maybe that's actually what you're saying.

I agree that freedom from spiritual tyranny allows one to play with more ideas and to be more open about things, less fixated with static concepts and hence more likely to experience gnosis and that is indeed a good thing. I hope to experience a bit myself one day.

We agree on more than I thought at first glance at your post. The gods only have such power as we give them. There is a beautiful moon out tonight. Why do you use that user name?

JT

[Katarzyna]

Originally posted by gsx1138
But I think being in the majority can change your viewpoint. I'm sure there would be quite a few Pagans who wouldn't want Seperation of Church and State if we were the majority. However, I don't think Atheists would be much different if they were the majority. How long do you really think it would be before they would insist that all religion be erradicated? But... but... but....

Oh dear, you're right, and I hadn't thought about it that way. I'm ashamed of not having realized that--should've known better, human response to power, and all.
That is why Christianity is becoming more extremist. They know that their membership is decreasing. They're trying to do damage while they can. Ack.

Kat

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by NiceWookie
Hey Ya'll
My first post on these forums is to anounce my paganism and my utter lack of need to prove my beleifs or practices to any skeptics. It works for me, and thats all that matters. :)

Cheers.

conveniently resistant to testing and/or reality.

most self delusions are.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by kaelcarp



However, because of her beliefs, many atheists would choose to criticize her. That's fine, but there is actually very little upon which to base the criticism, other than a rather unsound bias against people of a particular type, a bias any critical thinker should try to avoid.

critical thinkers should be biased against unprovable bullshit.


I think that its in the defintion.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by NiceWookie
:) Indeed it is!

Honestly, I don't know how to respond to irrational attacks on a person's philosophical perspective. I can understand pushing back when someone is out pushing their beleifs, but attacking people minding thier own business seems to be the prefered method of fundamentalists. Why on earth would Atheists want to behave like fundamentalists? :confused:

yeah, dumbass atheists, attacking all beliefs that are heavy on faith and light on facts and reality, what the fuck are they thinking.

I mean just because something is completely impossible to prove true and due to burden of proof can be considered false is no reason to not embrace it with open arms.

whatever.

I would ridicule or argue anyone who believed in santa as well, if it makes you feel better. note children are sort of an exception, while I would never teach any future children I may have that santa is real, I dont go around disabusing random children of their santaism.



I would even go so far as to speculate that maybe radical Christians are going around in disguise as Athieists and attacking Pagans as a divide and conquer ploy, but then again I do have a big imagination. :) :cool:

yeah, I am not really an atheist, I am a hard core baptist in disguise. :rolleyes:

[NiceWookie]

Originally posted by Beyelzu
yeah, dumbass atheists, attacking all beliefs that are heavy on faith and light on facts and reality, what the fuck are they thinking.

I mean just because something is completely impossible to prove true and due to burden of proof can be considered false is no reason to not embrace it with open arms.

whatever.

I would ridicule or argue anyone who believed in santa as well, if it makes you feel better. note children are sort of an exception, while I would never teach any future children I may have that santa is real, I dont go around disabusing random children of their santaism.



yeah, I am not really an atheist, I am a hard core baptist in disguise. :rolleyes:

The burden of proof is on you. Prove my beliefs false...wait YOU DONT KNOW MY BELEIFS so how can you say they are light on facts and reality? I would deduce that you are light on the facts...the facts of what I beleive. ;)

Even if you did know my beleifs...you couldn't prove them wrong for me any more than I could prove them right for you. You can heckle and jeckyl...but you cant change the fact that they work for me. So go ahead and ridicual and argue what what is unknown to you, while you are at it please explain how that is such a rational and logical course of action.

Oh yeah you may want to adjust your irony and sarcasm detector...you missed some in the post of mine you quoted. :)

[NiceWookie]

Originally posted by Beyelzu
conveniently resistant to testing and/or reality.

most self delusions are.


Well prove it. Prove my beleifs are resistent to testing and reality.
Prove I am having self-delsuions. Good luck. It will be tough considering how very little information you have to go on.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by NiceWookie
[B]The burden of proof is on you. Prove my beliefs false...wait YOU DONT KNOW MY BELEIFS so how can you say they are light on facts and reality? I would deduce that you are light on the facts...the facts of what I beleive. ;)

you need to brush up on the rules of logic,

the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim, that would be you, kemosabe.

You have stated that you are a pagan that is a system of beliefs.

and thus I think it unlikely you deduce a whole lot, also this fact would cerainly explain your problems with understanding the whole burden of proof thing.


Even if you did know my beleifs...you couldn't prove them wrong for me any more than I could prove them right for you. You can heckle and jeckyl...but you cant change the fact that they work for me. So go ahead and ridicual and argue what what is unknown to you, while you are at it please explain how that is such a rational and logical course of action.
logic and reason are my friends, as they are to most atheists, not all mind you, there certainly are irrational atheists.

how does one jeckyl exactly, this must be some sort of uberbadass debate tactic that I am unaware of. I dont intend to try to change the fact that your belief system works for you, I will simply try to show you that your beliefs are not consistent with reality.

but, by all means, feel free to stick your fingers in your ears and recite, lalalalalalalala Im not listening all you want, figuratively of course.
Oh yeah you may want to adjust your irony and sarcasm detector...you missed some in the post of mine you quoted. :) I didnt think you were being serious just retarded.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by NiceWookie
Well prove it. Prove my beleifs are resistent to testing and reality.
Prove I am having self-delsuions. Good luck. It will be tough considering how very little information you have to go on.

My first post on these forums is to anounce my paganism and my utter lack of need to prove my beleifs or practices to any skeptics. It works for me, and thats all that matters.

your stance that you dont need to prove your system of beliefs true is very convenient and makes your beliefs resistent to testing as you refuse to test them.


if you have any other questions about your belief system feel free to ask me, I am always glad to help.

[NiceWookie]

Beyelzu:


Please explain the logic of telling someone their beliefs are delusional ,untested, and inconsistent with reality when you don't know that person and have less than 10 sentences worth of information about that person's belief's to go on.

Until you explain this so-called """logic""", I am going to conclude that you have nothing substanstial to bring to a discussion on paganism and that you are not as logical as you claim to be.


Also you made the 'positive' claim that I am self-delusional and that my beleifs are untested and inconsistent with reality. You made those statements and you have the burden of prove them.

I only have to prove that I still have nothing to prove to skeptics.

[beyelzu]

Originally posted by NiceWookie
[B]Beyelzu:



Simply put, I find your whole I dont need to prove my believes stand to be dodging your burden of proof,

which is convenient for your system of belief.


I find most pagans, with one obvious exception being hd, to be incredibly self delusional, now I suppose you could be another exception but it isnt very likely.


In this case I am using inductive logic, perhaps you have heard of it.


Now can I prove taht you are self delusional, not yet, but once you get a couple of hundred posts under your belt, I will probably have ample evidence.

you want to debate paganism?

I thought you had nothing to prove?