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.
Hypocrisy does not refute an argument. Highroller could be completely right about paganism and completely wrong about Christianity - the relevant part is that he'd be completely right about paganism.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You made a post specifically with the intent to establish neo-paganism as credible. Demonstrate this.
Again, if you're going to take religions are credible, take all. Paganism stands on the same level as Christianity, as you unwittingly demonstrated. And, more importantly, there's the still ethical relevance mentioned previously. Something that appearently still eludes you, in spite of the fact that it has been repeated constantly, with your own argumentation so far being ignoring and asking the exact same questions.
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.
Says the person who deliberately spent this entire thread ignoring evidence posited and repeating the exact same questions after they've been answered, just like a cornered creationist.
Hypocrisy and evasion seem to be your fetishes, isn't it?
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.
And, once again, you keep spouting the exact same statements without seing both your utter hypocrisy in thinking in imaginary sentient beings whilst ignoring others - at least trees exist -, ignoring that not all pagan gods are nature spirits, dismissing these adressals of your hypocrisy as "not relevant", and committing barely disguised argumentum ad nauseams.
Which followed The One.
Helding it as nonsentient while actually worshipping classical gods. Really, it's bad enough you don't even know about your own theology.
Which was monotheistic and worshiped God.
Except that it also worshipped a variety of intermediate deities.
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.
Hypocrisy does not refute an argument. Highroller could be completely right about paganism and completely wrong about Christianity - the relevant part is that he'd be completely right about paganism.
Depends on the context, but in this case, yes, it does. He/it argues that physical things aren't sapient... whilst still arguing in favour of a being that is either a manifestation of the universe, sapience related to an abstract concept, or outright just a glorified imaginary friend.
Whilst still ignoring that both other deities are also under the same umbrella. On other words, not only a highly hypocritical stance, but fundamentally self destructive credibility wise; it's like me arguing for t. rex scales based on the lack of evidence for feathers while still supporting fur in giant bears in spite of a lack of evidence for fur.
Depends on the context, but in this case, yes, it does.
Assume the claims "Neopaganism is not credible" and "Christianity is credible" are in contradiction. To resolve the contradiction, one of the claims must be false, but it can be either claim. Therefore, pointing out the contradiction does not refute the claim you want to refute. It could with perfect consistency be the case that neopaganism is not credible, and neither is Christianity. This might make Highroller sad, but it would not help your position in this thread in the slightest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Also, neither Neoplatonism and Manicheanism have anything to do with the Norse religion. All three are quite from classical Greek religion. The latter was composed of numerous different cults that different from one another in practices. And, most importantly, all of these are profoundly different from Neopaganism, which even you have agreed can claim no actual root to the religions of antiquity. It seems in your zeal to shift the subject from your own inability to defend your position, you've forgotten what your position even was, or which religion you were actually talking about in the first place.
Or was this deliberate? Are you constantly shifting what religion you speak of in each post in your attempt to obfuscate the fact that you've gone two more posts without making any attempt to grant one iota of credibility to Neopaganism? You've fooled no one. You will have to find more intricate deceptions.
Once again, you have claimed that Neopaganism has credibility. You even went so far to make a thread to try to demonstrate it. Yet you have made no attempts to demonstrate this. Demonstrate this credibility that Neopaganism has.
Depends on the context, but in this case, yes, it does.
Assume the claims "Neopaganism is not credible" and "Christianity is credible" are in contradiction. To resolve the contradiction, one of the claims must be false, but it can be either claim. Therefore, pointing out the contradiction does not refute the claim you want to refute. It could with perfect consistency be the case that neopaganism is not credible, and neither is Christianity. This might make Highroller sad, but it would not help your position in this thread in the slightest.
It's a potential fallacy, yes, but it's intrinsic to the argumentation put forth. The main argument here is whereas pagan gods are less plausible than Yahweh, a premise that renders either all valid or none valid, as both rely on the same principle and, as previously seen, this differentiation results in hypocritical statements.
Also, neither Neoplatonism and Manicheanism have anything to do with the Norse religion. All three are quite from classical Greek religion. The latter was composed of numerous different cults that different from one another in practices. And, most importantly, all of these are profoundly different from Neopaganism, which even you have agreed can claim no actual root to the religions of antiquity. It seems in your zeal to shift the subject from your own inability to defend your position, you've forgotten what your position even was, or which religion you were actually talking about in the first place.
Or was this deliberate? Are you constantly shifting what religion you speak of in each post in your attempt to obfuscate the fact that you've gone two more posts without making any attempt to grant one iota of credibility to Neopaganism? You've fooled no one. You will have to find more intricate deceptions.
Once again, you have claimed that Neopaganism has credibility. You even went so far to make a thread to try to demonstrate it. Yet you have made no attempts to demonstrate this. Demonstrate this credibility that Neopaganism has.
1- Only now does it occur to you to not lump paganism into a single religion, after many pages of using "all pagan religions are focused exclusively on nature spirits"?
2- So accuse me of shifting goal posts... while shifting goal posts? Also, thank you for using the accusation of "deception". Really stereotypical there.
3- Neopaganism, as you yourself implied, is not an unified religion. Some traditions can claim actual roots in ancient religions (greek reconstructionism, por exemplo), while others do their own thing. This is not new: even abrahamic traditions have retconning sects.
4- Thank you, once again, for repeating the fallacy you've committed previously.
No, it IS a fallacy. Tu quoque is a fallacy. And that's if we assume I'm wrong, something that you have done nothing to demonstrate.
but it's intrinsic to the argumentation put forth. The main argument here is whereas pagan gods are less plausible than Yahweh, a premise that renders either all valid or none valid, and, as previously seen, this differentiation results in hypocritical statements.
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.
To reiterate:
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.
No, the main argument is not simply that paganism is treated differently, but that paganism is also PLAUSIBLE.
And so I echo the exact same question I made on post #3: why should we take Neopaganism seriously? Why is this "discrimination" instead of an accurate assessment of Neopaganism? Why do you act as though this is unjust instead of a logical response? If you genuinely believe in Neopaganism, what basis should we acknowledge its credibility?
In fact, why not keep a running tally of your continual refusal to address this issue? I'll be generous and start from this post. You're currently at 5 posts. This is, for those keeping score, a third of the posts you've made on this thread, and you didn't bother to address the question on the other 2/3s either.
Only now does it occur to you to not lump paganism into a single religion, after many pages of using "all pagan religions are focused exclusively on nature spirits"?
Certainly not. I've called you out on this multiple times.
I've just given up on you even bothering to post any semblance of an argument in favor of paganism because I don't actually think you have one, and are instead on this thread to hear yourself talk and to be an... what was your phrasing?
attention whores
Ahhh yes...
Of course, you could actually bother to address the question that's been repeated. You could actually bother to address the very issue you created an entire thread to lend credibility to.
It's a potential fallacy, yes, but it's intrinsic to the argumentation put forth. The main argument here is whereas pagan gods are less plausible than Yahweh, a premise that renders either all valid or none valid, as both rely on the same principle and, as previously seen, this differentiation results in hypocritical statements.
Okay. I'm an atheist. I have no problem saying that none are "valid".
Are you fine with that, or do you want to argue that neopaganism does have some "validity", regardless of whatever's going on with Christianity? Why should I take neopaganism seriously?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Okay. I'm an atheist. I have no problem saying that none are "valid".
Are you fine with that, or do you want to argue that neopaganism does have some "validity", regardless of whatever's going on with Christianity? Why should I take neopaganism seriously?
Not "seriously" in your case as "as serious as other religions". All are illogic to you, so it's a matter of personal integrity.
And that's if we assume I'm wrong, something that you have done nothing to demonstrate.
And once again your response is ignoring arguments already posited. My, isn't cherry picking what you want to hear a wonderful aproach to enlightment?
No, the main argument is not simply that paganism is treated differently, but that paganism is also PLAUSIBLE.
And so I echo the exact same question I made on post #3: why should we take Neopaganism seriously? Why is this "discrimination" instead of an accurate assessment of Neopaganism? Why do you act as though this is unjust instead of a logical response? If you genuinely believe in Neopaganism, what basis should we acknowledge its credibility?
In fact, why not keep a running tally of your continual refusal to address this issue? I'll be generous and start from this post. You're currently at 5 posts. This is, for those keeping score, a third of the posts you've made on this thread, and you didn't bother to address the question on the other 2/3s either
1- You quoted my post - which is about quality in treatment, not about "proof" - and deliberately misinterpreted it for your own disharmonic intent. That's not a positive sign for your, suffice to say.
2- Lets see:
- "Why should we take Neopaganism seriously?" Already explained: both for integrity reasons and fair assessment, and because it is as justifiable as other religions, your flip-flopping hypocritical analysis of divinity nonwitshstanding
- "Why is it discrimination instead of a logical assessment?" Already explained: other religions with equal lack of logic are treated seriously.
- "What basis should we acknowledge it's credibility?" Same as in other religions: ontological argumentation for divinity, et cetera.
I've just given up on you even bothering to post any semblance of an argument in favor of paganism because I don't actually think you have one, and are instead on this thread to hear yourself talk and to be an... what was your phrasing?
Pity I've already stated countless times why it stands on the same ground as other religions, and therefore any argumentation for them also applies to neopaganism.
Of course, you could actually bother to address the question that's been repeated. You could actually bother to address the very issue you created an entire thread to lend credibility to.
My dear, the issue that started this thread is quite frankly a matter of integrity and ethics. If you don't want to be an hypocrite, than don't play favourites randomly. Is that a concept that hard to get for a pseudo-intellectual?
Or can you? I don't think you can.
This actually made me chuckle. Not the actual content, just the tone.
Not "seriously" in your case as "as serious as other religions". All are illogic to you, so it's a matter of personal integrity.
Are you therefore acknowledging that you, in attempting to argue that Neopaganism is justified, have no integrity?
You claim that it is discrimination that Neopaganism is not taken seriously, and have claimed this discrimination is unjust. As demonstrated, no one in this thread takes it seriously, whether religious or not. So are you going to concede that they are perfectly justified in not taking it seriously, thereby invalidating every post you've made here, or are you going to claim that they should take it seriously?
If the latter, demonstrate why.
We are now on post six of the endless excuse-making.
You claim that it is discrimination that Neopaganism is not taken seriously, and have claimed this discrimination is unjust. As demonstrated, no one in this thread takes it seriously, whether religious or not. So are you going to concede that they are perfectly justified in not taking it seriously, thereby invalidating every post you've made here, or are you going to claim that they should take it seriously?
My (charitable) interpretation is that everyone should give other religions the same level of consideration they give their own. To do otherwise is sort of what's called privileging the hypothesis, where you presuppose a hypothesis without any evidence to suggest it might be a good one. (For example, when the Discovery Institute points at the bacterial flagellum and assumes it's evidence for Jehovah rather than any other possible deity, or none at all.) Here's a blog post about this as relates to religion specifically.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
We make fun of fundies too. Fundies are silly. Their thought is shallow, and uninteresting, and thoroughly useless.
But the tapestry of Christianity is rich and textured, and there are many elements of it that do deserve to be taken seriously. And the same is true of the actual pagan cultures of the pre-Christian world. When neopagans produce philosophy on the level of Aristotle or Aquinas, or art on the level of Homer or Handel, they will earn the respect they crave. Until then... they're just another brand of fundie.
You haven't addressed this point at all. So your repeated protestations that "Christianity and neopaganism are exactly the same!" are completely empty to me, and your insinuations that "If you don't treat them the same you're a bad person!" are downright insulting. Attacking a person's "integrity" is no substitute for real debate, and is, in fact, a sign of low integrity - which is another thing I've already told you and that you haven't addressed. Shape. Up.
I find it disheartening how some among us fail to realise that different religions may have varying amounts evidence going for them and that is why some may be false and others not.
The reason may very well be that the reason why wicca is not a mjor religion in the west is because it has less evidence going for it.
I find it disheartening how some among us fail to realise that different religions may have varying amounts evidence going for them and that is why some may be false and others not.
The reason may very well be that the reason why wicca is not a mjor religion in the west is because it has less evidence going for it.
No religions have any evidence going for them. Wicca having disprovable claims is no different than the disprovable claim that the eucharist somehow becomes jesus's flesh and blood.
I find it disheartening how some among us fail to realise that different religions may have varying amounts evidence going for them and that is why some may be false and others not.
The reason may very well be that the reason why wicca is not a mjor religion in the west is because it has less evidence going for it.
No religions have any evidence going for them. Wicca having disprovable claims is no different than the disprovable claim that the eucharist somehow becomes jesus's flesh and blood.
Like what exactly? You seem to speak of some authority on wicca so please inform me of this demonstrably false beliefs they have.
Your understanding of eucharist just emphasise to me the amount of knowledge you indeed have about religion.
So essentially the OP's position can be summed up as:
"I don't have to submit reasons as to why Paganism is a valid religion until Christianity does it first, so I can copy and paste Christianities arguments and say ME TOO ME TOO!"
So in other words, Paganism has no valid reason to be worshipped as a religion, because any defense of it is piggy backed onto Christianity.
Any criticism or inquiry as to the validity of paganism is redirected towards "Ask Christianity first, then I'll give you an answer".
Why should we worship through paganism then, if all the answers Paganism gives us is given by Christianity and MORE?
You have literally abandoned your own faith JUST to try and say that if Christianity can't justify itself, then you don't have to justify Paganism. Which is demonstrably false.
Your intellectual cowardice is the equivalent of a man who stands behind the crowd and says "I will lift the tank off the street, but only if that more popular guy does it first! Then I can show you how it's done! However, if he's not willing or able to lift the tank first, I don't have to share my technique as to how I myself would lift the tank! Haha!"
So you have proven that paganism doesn't have it's own identity in a theological argument without Christianity doing the ground work for you.
Hence, paganism should not be taken as seriously as Christianity, because you are wholly dependent on Christianity to back up your claims for your own religion, while the same is not true for Christianity, which is capable of standing on it's own two feet and arguing it's own existence independent of paganism.
You haven't addressed this point at all. So your repeated protestations that "Christianity and neopaganism are exactly the same!" are completely empty to me, and your insinuations that "If you don't treat them the same you're a bad person!" are downright insulting. Attacking a person's "integrity" is no substitute for real debate, and is, in fact, a sign of low integrity - which is another thing I've already told you and that you haven't addressed. Shape. Up.
Except your quote does equate both. You argument relies on cultural tapestry, which you only seperate due to an argument of discontinuation between classical and mdoern paganism.
I wouldn' attack your integrety if it wasn't blatantly obvious you rely on arbitary distinctions.
"I don't have to submit reasons as to why Paganism is a valid religion until Christianity does it first, so I can copy and paste Christianities arguments and say ME TOO ME TOO!"
Thank you for both ignoring previous arguments and being a mindless parrot.
So in other words, Paganism has no valid reason to be worshipped as a religion, because any defense of it is piggy backed onto Christianity.
Should I quote myself now, since it appears you cannot even bother to acknowledge my arguments for the sake of parroting?
Why should we worship through paganism then, if all the answers Paganism gives us is given by Christianity and MORE?
Now you're just trolling.
Your intellectual cowardice is the equivalent of a man who stands behind the crowd and says "I will lift the tank off the street, but only if that more popular guy does it first! Then I can show you how it's done! However, if he's not willing or able to lift the tank first, I don't have to share my technique as to how I myself would lift the tank! Haha!"
Are you even trying to make a point? You're example is not comparable, especially considering the highly volatile circumstances of such a situation.
Hence, paganism should not be taken as seriously as Christianity, because you are wholly dependent on Christianity to back up your claims for your own religion, while the same is not true for Christianity, which is capable of standing on it's own two feet and arguing it's own existence independent of paganism.
1- Any person who has actually been through the previous pages can see that is blatantly false, as I have offerered ehtical reasons as to why that is the case. Is readinan alien concept to you?
2- The comparations with Christianity are solely ton the basis of theological double standards.
Check mate my friend. The game is over.
Sure, if in your universe the person who mindlessly parrots and ignores the opponent's arguments is the winner.
So, to summarise this thread:
- Arguing for respect for all religious faiths = "foolish"
- Double standards are a-okay
- Ignoring the points brought by the opponent is a-okay
- "NANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" is an acceptable argument
And people wonder why the "playing chess with a pigeon" metaphor still goes strong.
Infraction for multiple instances of flaming/trolling.
-:ER:
Obviously, poeple are more inclined to excuse any inconstancies in a belief they themselves hold. They like that belief better than others, or else they'd switch.
Most people in "the west" are Christian. Unsurprisingly, this belief shares more similarities with other Abrahamic religions than it does with things like Scientology and Paganism. Since people are less forgiving of views different from their own, and Paganism is just that, most people in "the west" are inclined to find Paganism unpalatable.
After the Abrahamic religions, most people in America are "non-religions." Trivially--more often than not--people like that find all religions unwelcome. Thus, such people would agree with the above group in their distast for Paganism.
So, while Pagans might not experience the same level of 'discrimination' that other minorities have experienced in "the west," they can expect a certain level of flack about their beliefs from most.
They also have two other things working against them. First, some people in group one have been conditioned to not like the word "Pagan." Second, Abrahamic religions have had quite a bit of work put into them over the millenniums, and now come in all flavors; from the hyperemotional to the hyperrational. So, even people that don't like any religion and find things in they do like in the Abrahamic religions. This isn't as true with Paganism.
So, to answer the question in the title: Yes.
But, I will agree with others over the case that the OP has done little but throw-out ad hominems on every page, and probably should make some better points than just reciting the platitude that "everyone's a hypocrite" over and over; or--you know--stop talking and all that.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm pretty sure the ambiguity of ancient greek and latin made it so she could be 'the goddess of love,' or 'the goddess that is love.'
Again, if you're going to take religions are credible, take all. Paganism stands on the same level as Christianity, as you unwittingly demonstrated. And, more importantly, there's the still ethical relevance mentioned previously. Something that appearently still eludes you, in spite of the fact that it has been repeated constantly, with your own argumentation so far being ignoring and asking the exact same questions.
Says the person who deliberately spent this entire thread ignoring evidence posited and repeating the exact same questions after they've been answered, just like a cornered creationist.
Hypocrisy and evasion seem to be your fetishes, isn't it?
And, once again, you keep spouting the exact same statements without seing both your utter hypocrisy in thinking in imaginary sentient beings whilst ignoring others - at least trees exist -, ignoring that not all pagan gods are nature spirits, dismissing these adressals of your hypocrisy as "not relevant", and committing barely disguised argumentum ad nauseams.
Helding it as nonsentient while actually worshipping classical gods. Really, it's bad enough you don't even know about your own theology.
Except that it also worshipped a variety of intermediate deities.
Depends on the context, but in this case, yes, it does. He/it argues that physical things aren't sapient... whilst still arguing in favour of a being that is either a manifestation of the universe, sapience related to an abstract concept, or outright just a glorified imaginary friend.
Whilst still ignoring that both other deities are also under the same umbrella. On other words, not only a highly hypocritical stance, but fundamentally self destructive credibility wise; it's like me arguing for t. rex scales based on the lack of evidence for feathers while still supporting fur in giant bears in spite of a lack of evidence for fur.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Or was this deliberate? Are you constantly shifting what religion you speak of in each post in your attempt to obfuscate the fact that you've gone two more posts without making any attempt to grant one iota of credibility to Neopaganism? You've fooled no one. You will have to find more intricate deceptions.
Once again, you have claimed that Neopaganism has credibility. You even went so far to make a thread to try to demonstrate it. Yet you have made no attempts to demonstrate this. Demonstrate this credibility that Neopaganism has.
It's a potential fallacy, yes, but it's intrinsic to the argumentation put forth. The main argument here is whereas pagan gods are less plausible than Yahweh, a premise that renders either all valid or none valid, as both rely on the same principle and, as previously seen, this differentiation results in hypocritical statements.
1- Only now does it occur to you to not lump paganism into a single religion, after many pages of using "all pagan religions are focused exclusively on nature spirits"?
2- So accuse me of shifting goal posts... while shifting goal posts? Also, thank you for using the accusation of "deception". Really stereotypical there.
3- Neopaganism, as you yourself implied, is not an unified religion. Some traditions can claim actual roots in ancient religions (greek reconstructionism, por exemplo), while others do their own thing. This is not new: even abrahamic traditions have retconning sects.
4- Thank you, once again, for repeating the fallacy you've committed previously.
No, it IS a fallacy. Tu quoque is a fallacy. And that's if we assume I'm wrong, something that you have done nothing to demonstrate.
Oh no no no, you've forgotten your first post.
To reiterate:
No, the main argument is not simply that paganism is treated differently, but that paganism is also PLAUSIBLE.
And so I echo the exact same question I made on post #3: why should we take Neopaganism seriously? Why is this "discrimination" instead of an accurate assessment of Neopaganism? Why do you act as though this is unjust instead of a logical response? If you genuinely believe in Neopaganism, what basis should we acknowledge its credibility?
In fact, why not keep a running tally of your continual refusal to address this issue? I'll be generous and start from this post. You're currently at 5 posts. This is, for those keeping score, a third of the posts you've made on this thread, and you didn't bother to address the question on the other 2/3s either.
Certainly not. I've called you out on this multiple times.
I've just given up on you even bothering to post any semblance of an argument in favor of paganism because I don't actually think you have one, and are instead on this thread to hear yourself talk and to be an... what was your phrasing?
Ahhh yes...
Of course, you could actually bother to address the question that's been repeated. You could actually bother to address the very issue you created an entire thread to lend credibility to.
Or can you? I don't think you can.
Okay. I'm an atheist. I have no problem saying that none are "valid".
Are you fine with that, or do you want to argue that neopaganism does have some "validity", regardless of whatever's going on with Christianity? Why should I take neopaganism seriously?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In this case, wouldn't it be pertinent to apply the same logic to Christianity and the other major religions in order to get a fair comparison?
Pretty much, but it seems a concept hard to digest to people here.
Not "seriously" in your case as "as serious as other religions". All are illogic to you, so it's a matter of personal integrity.
And once again your response is ignoring arguments already posited. My, isn't cherry picking what you want to hear a wonderful aproach to enlightment?
1- You quoted my post - which is about quality in treatment, not about "proof" - and deliberately misinterpreted it for your own disharmonic intent. That's not a positive sign for your, suffice to say.
2- Lets see:
- "Why should we take Neopaganism seriously?" Already explained: both for integrity reasons and fair assessment, and because it is as justifiable as other religions, your flip-flopping hypocritical analysis of divinity nonwitshstanding
- "Why is it discrimination instead of a logical assessment?" Already explained: other religions with equal lack of logic are treated seriously.
- "What basis should we acknowledge it's credibility?" Same as in other religions: ontological argumentation for divinity, et cetera.
Pity I've already stated countless times why it stands on the same ground as other religions, and therefore any argumentation for them also applies to neopaganism.
My dear, the issue that started this thread is quite frankly a matter of integrity and ethics. If you don't want to be an hypocrite, than don't play favourites randomly. Is that a concept that hard to get for a pseudo-intellectual?
This actually made me chuckle. Not the actual content, just the tone.
Are you therefore acknowledging that you, in attempting to argue that Neopaganism is justified, have no integrity?
You claim that it is discrimination that Neopaganism is not taken seriously, and have claimed this discrimination is unjust. As demonstrated, no one in this thread takes it seriously, whether religious or not. So are you going to concede that they are perfectly justified in not taking it seriously, thereby invalidating every post you've made here, or are you going to claim that they should take it seriously?
If the latter, demonstrate why.
We are now on post six of the endless excuse-making.
Nonsense. You've never addressed the issue aside from two statements you've never bothered to back up.
1. That either everything is sentient or nothing is.
2. That either every god exists or none does.
Neither of these statements logically follow, both of these statements are false dichotomies.
My (charitable) interpretation is that everyone should give other religions the same level of consideration they give their own. To do otherwise is sort of what's called privileging the hypothesis, where you presuppose a hypothesis without any evidence to suggest it might be a good one. (For example, when the Discovery Institute points at the bacterial flagellum and assumes it's evidence for Jehovah rather than any other possible deity, or none at all.) Here's a blog post about this as relates to religion specifically.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I've already told you what I take seriously about Christianity and why: You haven't addressed this point at all. So your repeated protestations that "Christianity and neopaganism are exactly the same!" are completely empty to me, and your insinuations that "If you don't treat them the same you're a bad person!" are downright insulting. Attacking a person's "integrity" is no substitute for real debate, and is, in fact, a sign of low integrity - which is another thing I've already told you and that you haven't addressed. Shape. Up.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The reason may very well be that the reason why wicca is not a mjor religion in the west is because it has less evidence going for it.
No religions have any evidence going for them. Wicca having disprovable claims is no different than the disprovable claim that the eucharist somehow becomes jesus's flesh and blood.
Like what exactly? You seem to speak of some authority on wicca so please inform me of this demonstrably false beliefs they have.
Your understanding of eucharist just emphasise to me the amount of knowledge you indeed have about religion.
You just stated that wicca has no evidence going for it. Wiccans believe in magic; that's all I need to say.
"I don't have to submit reasons as to why Paganism is a valid religion until Christianity does it first, so I can copy and paste Christianities arguments and say ME TOO ME TOO!"
So in other words, Paganism has no valid reason to be worshipped as a religion, because any defense of it is piggy backed onto Christianity.
Any criticism or inquiry as to the validity of paganism is redirected towards "Ask Christianity first, then I'll give you an answer".
Why should we worship through paganism then, if all the answers Paganism gives us is given by Christianity and MORE?
You have literally abandoned your own faith JUST to try and say that if Christianity can't justify itself, then you don't have to justify Paganism. Which is demonstrably false.
Your intellectual cowardice is the equivalent of a man who stands behind the crowd and says "I will lift the tank off the street, but only if that more popular guy does it first! Then I can show you how it's done! However, if he's not willing or able to lift the tank first, I don't have to share my technique as to how I myself would lift the tank! Haha!"
So you have proven that paganism doesn't have it's own identity in a theological argument without Christianity doing the ground work for you.
Hence, paganism should not be taken as seriously as Christianity, because you are wholly dependent on Christianity to back up your claims for your own religion, while the same is not true for Christianity, which is capable of standing on it's own two feet and arguing it's own existence independent of paganism.
Check mate my friend. The game is over.
Except paganism was here first; so, wouldn't it be the other way around?
Well first of all, he's talking about the OP's actions within this thread.
Second, the thread is about Neo-paganism, so no.
Sorry for my confusion. I hope you can undertand it, since Kraken B. Trippin didn't say 'Neo' once.
But, I'm sure now--as an attempt to piggyback on your post if nothing else-- he will claim he meant 'Neo' all along.
I mean, it's not your fault for the confusion, the OP has switched what religion he's talking about almost every post he makes.
Except your quote does equate both. You argument relies on cultural tapestry, which you only seperate due to an argument of discontinuation between classical and mdoern paganism.
I wouldn' attack your integrety if it wasn't blatantly obvious you rely on arbitary distinctions.
Thank you for both ignoring previous arguments and being a mindless parrot.
Should I quote myself now, since it appears you cannot even bother to acknowledge my arguments for the sake of parroting?
Now you're just trolling.
Are you even trying to make a point? You're example is not comparable, especially considering the highly volatile circumstances of such a situation.
1- Any person who has actually been through the previous pages can see that is blatantly false, as I have offerered ehtical reasons as to why that is the case. Is readinan alien concept to you?
2- The comparations with Christianity are solely ton the basis of theological double standards.
Sure, if in your universe the person who mindlessly parrots and ignores the opponent's arguments is the winner.
So, to summarise this thread:
- Arguing for respect for all religious faiths = "foolish"
- Double standards are a-okay
- Ignoring the points brought by the opponent is a-okay
- "NANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" is an acceptable argument
And people wonder why the "playing chess with a pigeon" metaphor still goes strong.
Infraction for multiple instances of flaming/trolling.
-:ER:
Most people in "the west" are Christian. Unsurprisingly, this belief shares more similarities with other Abrahamic religions than it does with things like Scientology and Paganism. Since people are less forgiving of views different from their own, and Paganism is just that, most people in "the west" are inclined to find Paganism unpalatable.
After the Abrahamic religions, most people in America are "non-religions." Trivially--more often than not--people like that find all religions unwelcome. Thus, such people would agree with the above group in their distast for Paganism.
So, while Pagans might not experience the same level of 'discrimination' that other minorities have experienced in "the west," they can expect a certain level of flack about their beliefs from most.
They also have two other things working against them. First, some people in group one have been conditioned to not like the word "Pagan." Second, Abrahamic religions have had quite a bit of work put into them over the millenniums, and now come in all flavors; from the hyperemotional to the hyperrational. So, even people that don't like any religion and find things in they do like in the Abrahamic religions. This isn't as true with Paganism.
So, to answer the question in the title: Yes.
But, I will agree with others over the case that the OP has done little but throw-out ad hominems on every page, and probably should make some better points than just reciting the platitude that "everyone's a hypocrite" over and over; or--you know--stop talking and all that.