Yes, and that's irrelevant to this line of discussion. We're discussing paganism.
I believe we are discussing how paganism is treated differently from other religions and whether or not that different treatment is justified.
I agree that in certain situations it is very fair to treat paganism differently, but I don't agree in this case. It should not be held to a different evidence requirement than other worldviews. You should not ask it for anything you--yourself--are unable to provide.
Of couse there's always arrogant intolerant people, but I have the impression that non-abrahamic/vedic (aka Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, et cetera) religions are at best not taken seriously or very much hated.
The two main "pagan" branches, Wicca and Norse Reconstructionism, have quite a lot of bile spit at them by the media. The former are appearently all imbecile teenagers or attention whores according to nearly every show in existence, while the latter are invariably depicted as either white supremacists or outright satanic.
It's also a sport to make fun of the Greek gods and their "depraved" ways, while the genocidal abrahamic god gets scott free.
Not all of the west. In the united states I know for a fact that any religion that is not Christianity is discriminated against at least by peers. Some of these sects even discriminate against themselves. Jefferson put it best when he said "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
You have no ability to disprove the existence of God.
We have ABUNDANT data disproving that the sun, the moon, the stars, and the trees are intelligent lifeforms that can be appeased by the sacrifices of grain, livestock, and human beings.
I wouldn't lean too hard on this argument if I were you.
If we're going to look at actual Christianity, which presumably includes Christ somewhere, then it's only fair to recognize that from the evidentiary perspective, the statement "a man was resurrected after three days dead" and the statement "the sun is a sentient entity" have exactly the same degree of credibility, which is essentially none. Therefore no viewpoint properly describing itself as grounded in evidence can make a distinction between those two things, and of course, any viewpoint that is going to say that one of these things is credible and the other is not can only be described as contemptuous of evidence.
Moreover, the "you can't disprove God" hidey-hole is only available to belief systems that hold that God does not intervene observably in the universe. It is not a knockdown blow or even germane in a typical question of Christianity versus paganism, since those religions tend not to hold their respective deities to be completely physically inert.
If we're going to look at actual Christianity, which presumably includes Christ somewhere, then it's only fair to recognize that from the evidentiary perspective, the statement "a man was resurrected after three days dead" and the statement "the sun is a sentient entity" have exactly the same degree of credibility, which is essentially none.
Again, that's a tangent. This thread is about paganism.
And what I've gathered from your post, you're claiming that paganism has zero credibility. I am also claiming that paganism has zero credibility. Matter of fact, I don't think anyone has even bothered to argue in favor of it. So this seems to provide a pretty abundant answer as to why no one regards it as credible.
Or, to be less glib about it: our evidentiary support for the non-sentience of the sun essentially boils down to a bunch of observations of the sun, plus inferences from the laws of physics. Similarly, the evidentiary support that a human being can't be resurrected after three days comes from a bunch of observations of human beings plus inferences from those same laws of physics. Medical science and stellar science are both sciences. You can't deny one of these things and accept the other while claiming that you are on the side of the evidence.
People who claim that Christ was resurrected usually say that it was a miracle -- that is to say, an aphysical, ascientific interruption to the normal physical order. But there isn't any reason a pagan couldn't say the same thing about the sentience of the sun. All of the proof that you have against paganism relies on the very techniques you must repudiate in order to get Christianity to come out true.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Or, to be less glib about it: our evidentiary support for the non-sentience of the sun essentially boils down to a bunch of observations of the sun, plus inferences from the laws of physics.
Plus the fact that burning meat does not feed the sun.
Similarly, the evidentiary support that a human being can't be resurrected after three days comes from a bunch of observations of human beings plus inferences from those same laws of physics.
... So you're telling me that I'm claiming Jesus had properties not exhibited in a normal human being?
Otherwise known as the entire point behind the religion?
All of the proof that you have against paganism relies on the very techniques you must repudiate in order to get Christianity to come out true.
Invalid. You can scientifically disprove that the sun, the moon, the stars, trees, rivers, and rocks are sentient. You cannot, however, disprove that Jesus rose from the dead.
Of couse there's always arrogant intolerant people, but I have the impression that non-abrahamic/vedic (aka Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, et cetera) religions are at best not taken seriously or very much hated.
We are discussing how paganism is treated differently from other religions and whether or not that different treatment is justified. You're claiming paganism is ridiculous because it thinks the sun is sentience and the fundamental forces of nature can be changed by offerings, while YOU think love is sentience and the fundamental forces of nature can be changed by prayer IS very much the point of this thread.
... Except for the part where Herakles doesn't exist without Zeus' wanton debauchery.
And once again, you ignore that said sources also ignore Herackles birth in favour of his actual function.
Old Testament God is also defined as all benevolent. Are you getting the sense yet that just because the Greeks claimed their gods were all benevolent, this doesn't exactly mean they were?
Yahweh is not defined as omnibenevolent, he is defined as "creator of light and darkness", of benevolence and catastrophe. He admits cretaing evil as well as good.
Why?
You can't fathom the divine without ladders. I recommend the Chaldean Oracles.
Didn't I just get through saying I place no stock in iconography?
We all place values in symbols. A cross is still an eikon, a vesica piscis is still an eikon.
So in other words, doesn't that mean you must therefore believe in and worship the God of Israel in order to not contradict your beliefs?
Romans also acknowledged the existence of Horus. Doesn't mean they worshipped him.
You have no ability to disprove the existence of God.
Ah, the "I can't prove, whence you must disprove" logical fallacy. Love this exercise of intellectual dishonesty.
We have ABUNDANT data disproving that the sun, the moon, the stars, and the trees are intelligent lifeforms that can be appeased by the sacrifices of grain, livestock, and human beings.
Same with the universe. If the Sun is not a sapient being in a spiritual level, neither is anything else, and thus Yahweh cannot exist, especially as The Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, the pagan polytheistic beliefs that you're describing accepted the existence of God. Therefore any attacks against the credibility of my belief in God undermine the credibility of your religion. Note that the reverse does not apply.
Except that the basic arguments for Yahweh also apply to all other gods, like it or not. Thus, the reverse does apply.
And finally, even if you somehow proved these pagan gods did exist, why would anyone ever worship them?
Why do you worship god, then? If it is ethical apreciation, why not Guan Yin? Why not Hestia?
If it is fear, why not anything else?
If it is duty, same?
If it is feelings you cannot describe, same?
And then there's the Gospel of John.
Wonderfully mistranslated, if you bothered to learn greek.
Once again, justify that your religion has any credibility. And don't say, "Well, Christianity also believes some outlandish things" like somehow deflecting the burden of proof onto another topic is going to help you. Demonstrate your religion has any basis at all.
And you have any justification for Christianity? If you don't, then the same applies: you think you're so high and mighty to attack other religions, I feel the same.
Because it seems like all you seek to do is alienate everyone on this thread with your arrogant attitude and empty posts. Which leads me again to ask: exactly what did you seek to accomplish by this thread again?
Oh, so I am the arrogant one now? Funny, I'd think people calling equally valid religious beliefs out of highly stereotypical prejudices would fit the general label for "arrogant", but again, these forums seem to operate on highly hypocritical, alien mentality.
Prove that Christ didn't rise from the dead.
How about the fact that the reccords are wildly inconsistent, and that theurgists were also described as rising from the grave?
You also speak of it as if it was proven fact. Might I ask you then why it isn't an accepted scientific theorem, then?
Little customs remain, also in christian tradition and local folklore. But the pope did a really good job of christinising the continent.
But someone who really worships to wodan is a nut. We dont have written sources from those times so pagan practisisers are really just acting doing what they think pagans once did. How can you not make fun of that?
If by "little customs" you mean "a large influence on localised Christianity", indeed.
Spirituality is stunted by dogma anyways.
That last part was the big part of religion in antiquity. The sacrificing and redistribution of meat was central. That's one of the biggest reasons why the Jews were seen as so odd, and why the Christ movement was so persecuted: because they refused to participate in the sacrifices to the gods of other peoples, or in the case of the Christ movement amongst the Gentiles, the gods of their ancestors. Meat sacrificing was a big deal.
To mainstream roman religion, yes. To several traditions on Europe and Africa? No, down to a rejection of physical sacrifices.
Invalid. You can scientifically disprove that the sun, the moon, the stars, trees, rivers, and rocks are sentient. You cannot, however, disprove that Jesus rose from the dead.
For starters, if he did rise from the grave, we would have less inconsistent reccords, evidence of tons of corpses being removed from the graves, as he walked accompanied, more widespread witnesses aside from just the christian sympathisers, et cetera.
We're all working through faith, hope, trust, and confidence.
Which are four different things, and different people place different values on each. Compare the following sentences:
"I have faith the Packers will go undefeated next year."
"I hope the Packers will go undefeated next year."
"I trust the Packers to go undefeated next year."
"I am confident the Packers will go undefeated next year."
They have different meanings, don't they? Faith is belief in the absence of justification. Hope is desire without necessarily any belief. Trust is an expectation about a person's behavior. And confidence is belief with (supposed) justification.
Yes, but the point is that these things work without evidence or proof. Indeed, lack of the latter is entirely the point.
So the claim that one does not operate without evidence or proof is an erroneous statement. No human being operates that way.
You know what, you're right. When I see a person impugning the characters of others (for example, by calling them "hypocritical and narcissistic") and sarcastically mocking them for their ignorance (for example, by asking, "do you even know about Christian theology?"), "integrity" is certainly not the first thing I think of.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So in other words, doesn't that mean you must therefore believe in and worship the God of Israel in order to not contradict your beliefs?
Romans also acknowledged the existence of Horus. Doesn't mean they worshipped him.
Actually, it means exactly that. They worshiped all gods. They had no reason not to. They even went so far as to petition the gods of any city they were going to invade to relinquish their protection over the city, on the assurance that prayers and sacrifices would continue to be made to them.
We have ABUNDANT data disproving that the sun, the moon, the stars, and the trees are intelligent lifeforms that can be appeased by the sacrifices of grain, livestock, and human beings.
Same with the universe. If the Sun is not a sapient being in a spiritual level, neither is anything else,
Uh, no, because we have sapient beings. You're one. I'm one. Sun isn't. Moon isn't. That tree over there isn't.
Ah, the "I can't prove, whence you must disprove" logical fallacy. Love this exercise of intellectual dishonesty.
It's not intellectual dishonesty. It's science. Basic fact: science deals with claims that can be falsified.
You cannot disprove God. It's one of the reasons science and God don't mix. You can't do lab tests on an intangible, omnipresent entity. The claim of an all-powerful, omnipresent God isn't falsifiable.
However, to claim that tree over there is a god is entirely falsifiable. That tree over there is tangible, is clearly-defined, is quite easy to observe and study, and is quite easy to test for sentience. This is not only within the field of science, it's what science is great at. Turns out, trees aren't sentient. Neither is the moon. Neither is the sun.
Furthermore, the pagan polytheistic beliefs that you're describing accepted the existence of God. Therefore any attacks against the credibility of my belief in God undermine the credibility of your religion. Note that the reverse does not apply.
Except that the basic arguments for Yahweh also apply to all other gods, like it or not.
No, because saying the sun is a god, the moon is a god, that tree is a god does not work when it is clearly demonstrated that they contain neither sentience, life, nor divinity.
Why do you worship god, then? If it is ethical apreciation, why not Guan Yin? Why not Hestia?
Why is Hestia worthy of worship?
And then there's the Gospel of John.
Wonderfully mistranslated, if you bothered to learn greek.
Your lack of education on polytheism, let alone Christianity, leaves me incredulous as to your position to lecture.
And you have any justification for Christianity? If you don't, then the same applies: you think you're so high and mighty to attack other religions, I feel the same.
And yet, we continue the same ridiculous dance we have since the first page.
The fact of the matter is you have nothing to defend paganism, nothing to discount every other voice on this thread agreeing it is a ridiculous religion. Your petulant attempts at schoolyard insults, your attacking my position instead of producing any adequate defense of your own are all just attempts to deflect attention from yourself and the fact that you have absolutely nothing to justify the claim that your religion has credibility.
So what is the point of you being here, other than to hear yourself? Or was that the end goal?
You will, of course, attempt to dodge the question by saying, "Well I don't believe your faith has justification, so NO U." However, the factual basis of my belief in God is ultimately besides the point, because either it has factual basis or it doesn't, and either way your position is discredited. Assuming my belief in God has factual basis, your religion is discredited. Assuming my belief in God doesn't, you are guilty of a tu quoque fallacy and your religion is discredited.
You have nothing.
You also speak of it as if it was proven fact. Might I ask you then why it isn't an accepted scientific theorem, then?
Presumably because of what science means. We can't reproduce Jesus in a lab, we have no eye witness testimony or first hand accounts.
To mainstream roman religion, yes. To several traditions on Europe and Africa? No, down to a rejection of physical sacrifices.
It's pretty clear at this point that you have no idea what religion you're even arguing about.
For starters, if he did rise from the grave, we would have less inconsistent reccords,
"It's off topic" isn't a good defense when someone simply turns the same logical you are using around.
It isn't the same logic. You are accusing me of special pleading, and it makes about as much sense as accusing someone of saying that a raven is a bird and a piece of asparagus isn't of special pleading. It's not special pleading when they're two different things.
Claiming that God exists is not the same thing as saying that tree over there is divine.
From your own words:
Religions are not all logically equivalent. Thus, logically they shouldn't be treated equally.
Of couse there's always arrogant intolerant people, but I have the impression that non-abrahamic/vedic (aka Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, et cetera) religions are at best not taken seriously or very much hated.
We are discussing how paganism is treated differently from other religions
We are discussing how paganism is not taken seriously. As demonstrated, no one on this thread aside from the OP takes it seriously at all, and we all agree that it is illogical to do so. So since no one is going to take up the idea that the moon being sentient and responding to burning thighbones is something we should defend, including the OP, the thread's original question, "are pagan religions discriminated against," is answered.
The answer is that to dismiss pagan religions as invalid is, depending on your definition, either not discrimination, or is discrimination, but of a completely justifiable and apt variety.
Highroller, if you simply addressed these questions instead of dodging them with a "I don't need to answer" I wouldn't have felt the need to emphasizes my point later on. You addressing those questions of mine would help (strickly speaking, you don't have to answer them, but you could at least address them in detail).
I try always to answer your questions even if I don't think they're strictly on topic. I also am not in the habit of asking questions I don't want answer, yet you seem intent on ignoring or dodging just about every question I ask you--on every thread I ask them--while the reverse is anything but true.
I find this asymmetrical respect unsettling and unsatisfying.
I would also like to note that, while I did say all religions aren't logically equivalent, it is still true they should be treated equally when being analyzed by logic. That is to say, while the conclusions will be different, the system and methods will not be.
The only thing I would find "illogical" would be to hold paganism to a different standard than other worldviews.
Highroller, if you simply addressed these questions instead of dodging them with a "I don't need to answer" I wouldn't have felt the need to emphasizes my point later on. You addressing those questions of mine would help (strickly speaking, you don't have to answer them, but you could at least address them in detail).
I try always to answer your questions even if I don't think they're strictly on topic. I also am not in the habit of asking questions I don't want answer, yet you seem intent on ignoring or dodging just about every question I ask you--on every thread I ask them--while the reverse is anything but true.
I find this asymmetrical respect unsettling and unsatisfying.
Again, I feel that is entirely irrelevant to the topic, and one for another thread. And by for another thread, I mean other threads we've created and discussed this topic, not just another thread in the future.
I would also like to note that, while I did say all religions aren't logically equivalent, it is still true they should be treated equally when being analyzed by logic. That is to say, while the conclusions will be different, the system and methods will not be.
The only thing I would find "illogical" would be to hold paganism to a different standard than other worldviews.
Except it still remains that the claims Mullerornis is making are
A) Falsifiable, and
B) False
The fact remains that the sun, the moon, the stars, that tree over there, that river over yonder, and that rock right there are not sentient. The claim that they are is easily disproven by science. The claim that they respond to thighbone sacrifices, ritual dancing, and other such things are easily disproven by science. These are falsifiable claims, are claims that can be tested, and are claims that have been proven false.
So the OP's question of "why do people dismiss neo-paganism as being silly? Is this discrimination?" is answered. Yes, there may indeed be legitimate hatred and bias, from which stems unfair and unjust treatment of these religions, and this is not to be condoned. But the fact remains that the open-minded have still concluded that neo-paganism is a ridiculous religion. Is it discrimination to meet scientifically disproven, unfactual, and illogical claims with incredulity? If not, then no, neo-paganism is not discriminated against. If so, then yes, neo-paganism is discriminated against, but it is an entirely justified and proper form of discrimination.
The fact remains that calling neo-paganism silly is entirely justified, because it IS silly.
Now, if you want to argue that the same applies to Christianity, I will dispute that, and you will dispute me, and we will have a merry run of an argument. But that's not relevant to this thread's core issue, which is paganism and why people react the way they do. Neither Taylor attacking Christianity nor Highroller praising Christianity will lend any credibility to paganism, and since the OP has never bothered to give any form of defense of paganism, instead trying to snark against other people, it's pretty clear he won't either.
The fact remains that the sun, the moon, the stars, that tree over there, that river over yonder, and that rock right there are not sentient. The claim that they are is easily disproven by science.
How do you prove that something is not sentient? Maybe it's sentient and is just avoiding your tests. That is, after all, how the Judeo-Christian God is supposed to work.
Again, I feel that is entirely irrelevant to the topic, and one for another thread. And by for another thread, I mean other threads we've created and discussed this topic, not just another thread in the future.
So?
Out of respect for you I often answer your questions even when I feel are slightly off-topic. Why don't you feel I'm due the same courtesy? (I guess I should expect these questions here to also go unanswered....)
Again, I feel that is entirely irrelevant to the topic, and one for another thread. And by for another thread, I mean other threads we've created and discussed this topic, not just another thread in the future.
So?
Out of respect for you I often answer your questions even when I feel are slightly off-topic. Why don't you feel I'm due the same courtesy? (I guess I should expect these questions here to also go unanswered....)
To be honest when I see woeful ignorance many of religions more vocal critics have about Christianity then I really doubt if they would have anything constructive to say about some of the more niche cults or religions.
I mean Richard Dawkins once said that atheism is not responsible for communism because atheism has no Dogma yet the The church of Satan is a atheistic cult that by its own admission is atheism with Dogma.
I really wonder what he would have to say about that religion. It embraces many of the ideals he himself stands for.
In the case of discrimination it is not really on a large scale. Most people would not even be aware that these types of things exist.
Actually, it means exactly that. They worshiped all gods. They had no reason not to. They even went so far as to petition the gods of any city they were going to invade to relinquish their protection over the city, on the assurance that prayers and sacrifices would continue to be made to them.
Said petitions were mostly just a quick sign of respect than sincere devotional worship. A roman was expected to held in higher regard the Empire's gods; doesn't mean one couldn't privately worship Horus, but public worship was reserved for established gods.
Uh, no, because we have sapient beings. You're one. I'm one. Sun isn't. Moon isn't. That tree over there isn't.
And again, neither is love, neither is the universe.
It's not intellectual dishonesty. It's science. Basic fact: science deals with claims that can be falsified.
You cannot disprove God. It's one of the reasons science and God don't mix. You can't do lab tests on an intangible, omnipresent entity. The claim of an all-powerful, omnipresent God isn't falsifiable.
However, to claim that tree over there is a god is entirely falsifiable. That tree over there is tangible, is clearly-defined, is quite easy to observe and study, and is quite easy to test for sentience. This is not only within the field of science, it's what science is great at. Turns out, trees aren't sentient. Neither is the moon. Neither is the sun.
1- Same would go for other deities, then, especially ones not related to natural concepts, such as Odin. Oh, and again, you're still using the same logical fallacy: "I can't prove, thus you must disprove". Guess the smurfs must be real too.
2- For someone attempting to justify Yahweh, you sure have a very physical way of looking at spirituality. Souls and such are none-existent, according to your rhetoric.
No, because saying the sun is a god, the moon is a god, that tree is a god does not work when it is clearly demonstrated that they contain neither sentience, life, nor divinity.
We might as well extend it into humanity. After all, free will has been argued to not exist, sapience itself has been argued to not exist.
Why is Hestia worthy of worship?
Not only you have evaded my questions, you still continue with this without offering your input.
Not only are you an utter hypocrite, but also in denial. How charming.
Your lack of education on polytheism, let alone Christianity, leaves me incredulous as to your position to lecture.
Oh, so now we're using exclusively ad hominems, instead of logical argumentation?
BTW, someone who even had to be informed on how Yahweh is described in the OT shouldn't be one to accuse others of lack of research.
It's pretty clear at this point that you have no idea what religion you're even arguing about.
And yet, we continue the same ridiculous dance we have since the first page.
The fact of the matter is you have nothing to defend paganism, nothing to discount every other voice on this thread agreeing it is a ridiculous religion. Your petulant attempts at schoolyard insults, your attacking my position instead of producing any adequate defense of your own are all just attempts to deflect attention from yourself and the fact that you have absolutely nothing to justify the claim that your religion has credibility.
So what is the point of you being here, other than to hear yourself? Or was that the end goal?
You will, of course, attempt to dodge the question by saying, "Well I don't believe your faith has justification, so NO U." However, the factual basis of my belief in God is ultimately besides the point, because either it has factual basis or it doesn't, and either way your position is discredited. Assuming my belief in God has factual basis, your religion is discredited. Assuming my belief in God doesn't, you are guilty of a tu quoque fallacy and your religion is discredited.
You have nothing.
TL:DR version: "I'm describing myself".
Seriously:
1- You're continuously denying arguments against your train of thought, rather desesperately I might add.
2- You're been ignoring the valid statements.
3- You've been using the exact fallacy you're accusing me off, the only difference being that you try to shrug it off.
4- You, too, have no evidence for your god.
I rest my case, hypocrite.
I might also add you're hilariously overemotional over this. Despair, much?
I mean Richard Dawkins once said that atheism is not responsible for communism because atheism has no Dogma yet the The church of Satan is a atheistic cult that by its own admission is atheism with Dogma.
...what?
Yes, atheism has no dogma. LaVeyan satanism is an atheistic religion with dogma, as far as I know it's also true. So what are you implying, exactly?
That a lot of anti religious thought is done by people who are by no means experts on the religions of the world. That is OK everyone cannot be experts on everything. I would just hope that if you are going to write books about how demonstrably false a thing is you would at least take the time to get the most basic of core doctrine about the thing you are disputing under wraps.
Basically that this lack of knowledge about religion in general makes me wonder if the average Joe is even aware that such things exist.
I'm just going to wait for you to actually bother posting anything that would actually establish paganism's credibility, something I've asked you to do since post #3. But you and I both know you aren't going to post anything more substantial than "no u" posts. You've basically admitted that you don't even believe in this stuff anyway. You have nothing to offer here.
I'm just going to wait for you to actually bother posting anything that would actually establish paganism's credibility, something I've asked you to do since post #3. But you and I both know you aren't going to post anything more substantial than "no u" posts. You've basically admitted that you don't even believe in this stuff anyway. You have nothing to offer here.
No my fault you ignore the ethical relevance, already posited several pages ago, and the fact that your argument relies on physical spirituality, which you've been very hypocritical about.
Pray tell how you manage to be a functional member of society, which such a tendency to demonstrate blatant denial and hypocrisy.
You made a post specifically with the intent to establish neo-paganism as credible. Demonstrate this.
I know you're only here to hear yourself talk. I know you have nothing of substance. I know you're just here to get the last word in. Well, I'm going to take that away from you. I will continue to ask you to justify the statement you made in the first post until you actually do.
Which, surprise surprise, over seventy posts later you have yet to even address, with the exception of an empty statement about how if trees aren't sentient then human beings cannot be argued to be which does not follow. So while you're at it, demonstrate a rock's sentience.
I'm an atheist and think Wicca is a joke. It's a bunch of Golden Dawn ritual and beliefs filtered into a weak nature-based system. Can't stand Gardner, dude was a hack.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I believe we are discussing how paganism is treated differently from other religions and whether or not that different treatment is justified.
I agree that in certain situations it is very fair to treat paganism differently, but I don't agree in this case. It should not be held to a different evidence requirement than other worldviews. You should not ask it for anything you--yourself--are unable to provide.
Otherwise it's Special Pleading.
Not all of the west. In the united states I know for a fact that any religion that is not Christianity is discriminated against at least by peers. Some of these sects even discriminate against themselves. Jefferson put it best when he said "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
I wouldn't lean too hard on this argument if I were you.
If we're going to look at actual Christianity, which presumably includes Christ somewhere, then it's only fair to recognize that from the evidentiary perspective, the statement "a man was resurrected after three days dead" and the statement "the sun is a sentient entity" have exactly the same degree of credibility, which is essentially none. Therefore no viewpoint properly describing itself as grounded in evidence can make a distinction between those two things, and of course, any viewpoint that is going to say that one of these things is credible and the other is not can only be described as contemptuous of evidence.
Moreover, the "you can't disprove God" hidey-hole is only available to belief systems that hold that God does not intervene observably in the universe. It is not a knockdown blow or even germane in a typical question of Christianity versus paganism, since those religions tend not to hold their respective deities to be completely physically inert.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Again, that's a tangent. This thread is about paganism.
And what I've gathered from your post, you're claiming that paganism has zero credibility. I am also claiming that paganism has zero credibility. Matter of fact, I don't think anyone has even bothered to argue in favor of it. So this seems to provide a pretty abundant answer as to why no one regards it as credible.
Prove that the sun isn't sentient!
Or, to be less glib about it: our evidentiary support for the non-sentience of the sun essentially boils down to a bunch of observations of the sun, plus inferences from the laws of physics. Similarly, the evidentiary support that a human being can't be resurrected after three days comes from a bunch of observations of human beings plus inferences from those same laws of physics. Medical science and stellar science are both sciences. You can't deny one of these things and accept the other while claiming that you are on the side of the evidence.
People who claim that Christ was resurrected usually say that it was a miracle -- that is to say, an aphysical, ascientific interruption to the normal physical order. But there isn't any reason a pagan couldn't say the same thing about the sentience of the sun. All of the proof that you have against paganism relies on the very techniques you must repudiate in order to get Christianity to come out true.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Plus the fact that burning meat does not feed the sun.
... So you're telling me that I'm claiming Jesus had properties not exhibited in a normal human being?
Otherwise known as the entire point behind the religion?
Invalid. You can scientifically disprove that the sun, the moon, the stars, trees, rivers, and rocks are sentient. You cannot, however, disprove that Jesus rose from the dead.
And again, off topic.
It's also not true.
From the OP:
We are discussing how paganism is treated differently from other religions and whether or not that different treatment is justified. You're claiming paganism is ridiculous because it thinks the sun is sentience and the fundamental forces of nature can be changed by offerings, while YOU think love is sentience and the fundamental forces of nature can be changed by prayer IS very much the point of this thread.
And once again, you ignore that said sources also ignore Herackles birth in favour of his actual function.
Yahweh is not defined as omnibenevolent, he is defined as "creator of light and darkness", of benevolence and catastrophe. He admits cretaing evil as well as good.
You can't fathom the divine without ladders. I recommend the Chaldean Oracles.
We all place values in symbols. A cross is still an eikon, a vesica piscis is still an eikon.
Romans also acknowledged the existence of Horus. Doesn't mean they worshipped him.
Ah, the "I can't prove, whence you must disprove" logical fallacy. Love this exercise of intellectual dishonesty.
Same with the universe. If the Sun is not a sapient being in a spiritual level, neither is anything else, and thus Yahweh cannot exist, especially as The Holy Spirit.
Except that the basic arguments for Yahweh also apply to all other gods, like it or not. Thus, the reverse does apply.
Why do you worship god, then? If it is ethical apreciation, why not Guan Yin? Why not Hestia?
If it is fear, why not anything else?
If it is duty, same?
If it is feelings you cannot describe, same?
Wonderfully mistranslated, if you bothered to learn greek.
And you have any justification for Christianity? If you don't, then the same applies: you think you're so high and mighty to attack other religions, I feel the same.
Oh, so I am the arrogant one now? Funny, I'd think people calling equally valid religious beliefs out of highly stereotypical prejudices would fit the general label for "arrogant", but again, these forums seem to operate on highly hypocritical, alien mentality.
How about the fact that the reccords are wildly inconsistent, and that theurgists were also described as rising from the grave?
You also speak of it as if it was proven fact. Might I ask you then why it isn't an accepted scientific theorem, then?
If by "little customs" you mean "a large influence on localised Christianity", indeed.
Spirituality is stunted by dogma anyways.
To mainstream roman religion, yes. To several traditions on Europe and Africa? No, down to a rejection of physical sacrifices.
For starters, if he did rise from the grave, we would have less inconsistent reccords, evidence of tons of corpses being removed from the graves, as he walked accompanied, more widespread witnesses aside from just the christian sympathisers, et cetera.
Hypocrisy, much?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Actually, it means exactly that. They worshiped all gods. They had no reason not to. They even went so far as to petition the gods of any city they were going to invade to relinquish their protection over the city, on the assurance that prayers and sacrifices would continue to be made to them.
Uh, no, because we have sapient beings. You're one. I'm one. Sun isn't. Moon isn't. That tree over there isn't.
It's not intellectual dishonesty. It's science. Basic fact: science deals with claims that can be falsified.
You cannot disprove God. It's one of the reasons science and God don't mix. You can't do lab tests on an intangible, omnipresent entity. The claim of an all-powerful, omnipresent God isn't falsifiable.
However, to claim that tree over there is a god is entirely falsifiable. That tree over there is tangible, is clearly-defined, is quite easy to observe and study, and is quite easy to test for sentience. This is not only within the field of science, it's what science is great at. Turns out, trees aren't sentient. Neither is the moon. Neither is the sun.
No, because saying the sun is a god, the moon is a god, that tree is a god does not work when it is clearly demonstrated that they contain neither sentience, life, nor divinity.
Why is Hestia worthy of worship?
Your lack of education on polytheism, let alone Christianity, leaves me incredulous as to your position to lecture.
And yet, we continue the same ridiculous dance we have since the first page.
The fact of the matter is you have nothing to defend paganism, nothing to discount every other voice on this thread agreeing it is a ridiculous religion. Your petulant attempts at schoolyard insults, your attacking my position instead of producing any adequate defense of your own are all just attempts to deflect attention from yourself and the fact that you have absolutely nothing to justify the claim that your religion has credibility.
So what is the point of you being here, other than to hear yourself? Or was that the end goal?
You will, of course, attempt to dodge the question by saying, "Well I don't believe your faith has justification, so NO U." However, the factual basis of my belief in God is ultimately besides the point, because either it has factual basis or it doesn't, and either way your position is discredited. Assuming my belief in God has factual basis, your religion is discredited. Assuming my belief in God doesn't, you are guilty of a tu quoque fallacy and your religion is discredited.
You have nothing.
Presumably because of what science means. We can't reproduce Jesus in a lab, we have no eye witness testimony or first hand accounts.
It's pretty clear at this point that you have no idea what religion you're even arguing about.
No, you wouldn't.
It isn't the same logic. You are accusing me of special pleading, and it makes about as much sense as accusing someone of saying that a raven is a bird and a piece of asparagus isn't of special pleading. It's not special pleading when they're two different things.
Claiming that God exists is not the same thing as saying that tree over there is divine.
From your own words:
We are discussing how paganism is not taken seriously. As demonstrated, no one on this thread aside from the OP takes it seriously at all, and we all agree that it is illogical to do so. So since no one is going to take up the idea that the moon being sentient and responding to burning thighbones is something we should defend, including the OP, the thread's original question, "are pagan religions discriminated against," is answered.
The answer is that to dismiss pagan religions as invalid is, depending on your definition, either not discrimination, or is discrimination, but of a completely justifiable and apt variety.
I try always to answer your questions even if I don't think they're strictly on topic. I also am not in the habit of asking questions I don't want answer, yet you seem intent on ignoring or dodging just about every question I ask you--on every thread I ask them--while the reverse is anything but true.
I find this asymmetrical respect unsettling and unsatisfying.
I would also like to note that, while I did say all religions aren't logically equivalent, it is still true they should be treated equally when being analyzed by logic. That is to say, while the conclusions will be different, the system and methods will not be.
The only thing I would find "illogical" would be to hold paganism to a different standard than other worldviews.
Again, I feel that is entirely irrelevant to the topic, and one for another thread. And by for another thread, I mean other threads we've created and discussed this topic, not just another thread in the future.
Except it still remains that the claims Mullerornis is making are
A) Falsifiable, and
B) False
The fact remains that the sun, the moon, the stars, that tree over there, that river over yonder, and that rock right there are not sentient. The claim that they are is easily disproven by science. The claim that they respond to thighbone sacrifices, ritual dancing, and other such things are easily disproven by science. These are falsifiable claims, are claims that can be tested, and are claims that have been proven false.
So the OP's question of "why do people dismiss neo-paganism as being silly? Is this discrimination?" is answered. Yes, there may indeed be legitimate hatred and bias, from which stems unfair and unjust treatment of these religions, and this is not to be condoned. But the fact remains that the open-minded have still concluded that neo-paganism is a ridiculous religion. Is it discrimination to meet scientifically disproven, unfactual, and illogical claims with incredulity? If not, then no, neo-paganism is not discriminated against. If so, then yes, neo-paganism is discriminated against, but it is an entirely justified and proper form of discrimination.
The fact remains that calling neo-paganism silly is entirely justified, because it IS silly.
Now, if you want to argue that the same applies to Christianity, I will dispute that, and you will dispute me, and we will have a merry run of an argument. But that's not relevant to this thread's core issue, which is paganism and why people react the way they do. Neither Taylor attacking Christianity nor Highroller praising Christianity will lend any credibility to paganism, and since the OP has never bothered to give any form of defense of paganism, instead trying to snark against other people, it's pretty clear he won't either.
What about the claim that the Judeo-Christian God responds to prayers?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So?
Out of respect for you I often answer your questions even when I feel are slightly off-topic. Why don't you feel I'm due the same courtesy?
(I guess I should expect these questions here to also go unanswered....)
Why not include "love" on that list?
Ditto
So make another thread and I will.
Would doing so grant paganism a single ounce of credibility?
I mean Richard Dawkins once said that atheism is not responsible for communism because atheism has no Dogma yet the The church of Satan is a atheistic cult that by its own admission is atheism with Dogma.
I really wonder what he would have to say about that religion. It embraces many of the ideals he himself stands for.
In the case of discrimination it is not really on a large scale. Most people would not even be aware that these types of things exist.
Said petitions were mostly just a quick sign of respect than sincere devotional worship. A roman was expected to held in higher regard the Empire's gods; doesn't mean one couldn't privately worship Horus, but public worship was reserved for established gods.
And again, neither is love, neither is the universe.
1- Same would go for other deities, then, especially ones not related to natural concepts, such as Odin. Oh, and again, you're still using the same logical fallacy: "I can't prove, thus you must disprove". Guess the smurfs must be real too.
2- For someone attempting to justify Yahweh, you sure have a very physical way of looking at spirituality. Souls and such are none-existent, according to your rhetoric.
We might as well extend it into humanity. After all, free will has been argued to not exist, sapience itself has been argued to not exist.
Not only you have evaded my questions, you still continue with this without offering your input.
Not only are you an utter hypocrite, but also in denial. How charming.
Oh, so now we're using exclusively ad hominems, instead of logical argumentation?
BTW, someone who even had to be informed on how Yahweh is described in the OT shouldn't be one to accuse others of lack of research.
Neoplatonism, Manichaeism, Eleusian Mysteries, late-egyptian mainstream religion.
TL:DR version: "I'm describing myself".
Seriously:
1- You're continuously denying arguments against your train of thought, rather desesperately I might add.
2- You're been ignoring the valid statements.
3- You've been using the exact fallacy you're accusing me off, the only difference being that you try to shrug it off.
4- You, too, have no evidence for your god.
I rest my case, hypocrite.
I might also add you're hilariously overemotional over this. Despair, much?
...what?
Yes, atheism has no dogma. LaVeyan satanism is an atheistic religion with dogma, as far as I know it's also true. So what are you implying, exactly?
That a lot of anti religious thought is done by people who are by no means experts on the religions of the world. That is OK everyone cannot be experts on everything. I would just hope that if you are going to write books about how demonstrably false a thing is you would at least take the time to get the most basic of core doctrine about the thing you are disputing under wraps.
Basically that this lack of knowledge about religion in general makes me wonder if the average Joe is even aware that such things exist.
Yep, this pretty much sums up the entire thread.
I'm just going to wait for you to actually bother posting anything that would actually establish paganism's credibility, something I've asked you to do since post #3. But you and I both know you aren't going to post anything more substantial than "no u" posts. You've basically admitted that you don't even believe in this stuff anyway. You have nothing to offer here.
No my fault you ignore the ethical relevance, already posited several pages ago, and the fact that your argument relies on physical spirituality, which you've been very hypocritical about.
Pray tell how you manage to be a functional member of society, which such a tendency to demonstrate blatant denial and hypocrisy.
You made a post specifically with the intent to establish neo-paganism as credible. Demonstrate this.
I know you're only here to hear yourself talk. I know you have nothing of substance. I know you're just here to get the last word in. Well, I'm going to take that away from you. I will continue to ask you to justify the statement you made in the first post until you actually do.
Which, surprise surprise, over seventy posts later you have yet to even address, with the exception of an empty statement about how if trees aren't sentient then human beings cannot be argued to be which does not follow. So while you're at it, demonstrate a rock's sentience.
Oh, and for the sake of accuracy:
Which followed The One.
Which was monotheistic and worshiped God.