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.
It's foolish not to discriminate between religions. They have different histories and teach different things, and it's never a bad thing to think carefully and exercise your judgment when faced with competing normative claims. So when I say that I think the history and teachings of Wicca are pretty silly, yes, I'm discriminating - in the positive sense. (Then I make fun of them for not even knowing how to pronounce their own religion's name, because the silver lining of something being silly is that you can laugh at it.)
But if you're asking whether neopagan religions face systematic persecution in the West that would justify their feeling historically victimized on the level of American blacks or European Jews... no. Just no.
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,
Erm... Should we take these religions seriously?
I don't know anything about Norse Reconstructionism, but Wicca just seems to me to be a religion that borrows heavily from Christianity, dresses it up in the trappings of Britain's pagan past, and then attempts to claim legitimacy by saying it's authentic to pagan tradition. Except for the part where (A) it isn't at all authentic to pagan tradition, and more importantly (B) we should be very thankful it isn't.
It's also a sport to make fun of the Greek gods and their "depraved" ways,
Dude, everyone makes fun of the Greek gods and their depraved ways. The Greeks made fun of the Greek gods and their depraved ways. There were entire traditions that rejected Homer and claimed he was suffering in Hades for telling lies about the gods because there's no way that gods would be that depraved.
while the genocidal abrahamic god gets scott free.
Are you trying to claim that no one has ever raised a moral issue with regards to God as he's described in the Old Testament?
It's foolish not to discriminate between religions. They have different histories and teach different things, and it's never a bad thing to think carefully and exercise your judgment when faced with competing normative claims. So when I say that I think the history and teachings of Wicca are pretty silly, yes, I'm discriminating - in the positive sense. (Then I make fun of them for not even knowing how to pronounce their own religion's name, because the silver lining of something being silly is that you can laugh at it.)
But if you're asking whether neopagan religions face systematic persecution in the West that would justify their feeling historically victimized on the level of American blacks or European Jews... no. Just no.
Goddamnit, BS, you're such a ninja.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
There have been instances where members of these religions have faced unlawful discrimination, see for example the issue several years back where the VA didn't want to have to put a pentacle symbol of grave markers for Wiccan soldiers. These instances are bad, and shouldn't happen.
There are also, of course, a lot of instances where Wicca gets made fun of. That's fine. Wicca is ridiculous.
People seem to take talking snakes, sky fairies afraid of iron, angels and demons seriously, so why not?
I don't know anything about Norse Reconstructionism, but Wicca just seems to me to be a religion that borrows heavily from Christianity, dresses it up in the trappings of Britain's pagan past, and then attempts to claim legitimacy by saying it's authentic to pagan tradition. Except for the part where (A) it isn't at all authentic to pagan tradition, and more importantly (B) we should be very thankful it isn't.
Wicca is not a centralised religion: while the original gardenian strand was very christian-ish, most modern versions are at best pseudo-Hinduism, and more commonly either highly misinterpreted western occultism or Dianic strands.
Dude, everyone makes fun of the Greek gods and their depraved ways. The Greeks made fun of the Greek gods and their depraved ways. There were entire traditions that rejected Homer and claimed he was suffering in Hades for telling lies about the gods because there's no way that gods would be that depraved.
Indeed, but the problem is that people assume that the greek gods' insane behaviour was both widely accepted as a manifestation of "ancient barbarism" and that it was intrinsinc to their nature. As you yourself put, posterior writers distance themselves from said portrayals and several esoteric sects even went as far as disregard traditional things like sacrifices in favour of very familiar spirituality, instead of simply embracing Zeus' shapeshifting rapes.
Are you trying to claim that no one has ever raised a moral issue with regards to God as he's described in the Old Testament?
While people as far back as ancient jews condemned Yahweh's behaviour, most people are very willing to ignore his monstruousity, whilst condemning other gods for much less severe deeds.
People seem to take talking snakes, sky fairies afraid of iron, angels and demons seriously, so why not?
You're not really getting this argument for credibility concept, apparently.
Wicca is not a centralised religion: while the original gardenian strand was very christian-ish, most modern versions are at best pseudo-Hinduism, and more commonly either highly misinterpreted western occultism or Dianic strands.
So it's either Christianity with the trappings of paganism, faux-Hinduism, or "highly misinterpreted occultism or Dianic" beliefs?
So going back to the original question: why should we take these people seriously again?
Indeed, but the problem is that people assume that the greek gods' insane behaviour was both widely accepted as a manifestation of "ancient barbarism" and that it was intrinsinc to their nature.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, the wording is a bit strange, but it seems like both statements are ones I would agree with.
As you yourself put, posterior writers distance themselves from said portrayals
No, I said some traditions distanced themselves. You cannot apply this to all of them.
and several esoteric sects even went as far as disregard traditional things like sacrifices in favour of very familiar spirituality, instead of simply embracing Zeus' shapeshifting rapes.
They would be exceptions to the norm. Sacrifices were very much a major part of religion in antiquity, and Zeus' rampant debauchery a commonly accepted part of Zeus' character, as well as the character of all of the gods.
People seem to take talking snakes, sky fairies afraid of iron, angels and demons seriously, so why not?
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.
While people as far back as ancient jews condemned Yahweh's behaviour, most people are very willing to ignore his monstruousity, whilst condemning other gods for much less severe deeds.
Honestly, I don't see a lot of Christians condemning other gods for their deeds. They condemn other gods for their not being God.
But even if what you describe were the case, should you really be surprised by it? Most people (in the West) are Christian. Their bias is entirely to be expected. If our society were majority Wiccan, we would no doubt see the same hypocrisy in reverse. People will be people; they will always view clubs to which they belong more favorably than other clubs.
And, heck, it can even be argued that Christians objectively have a better explanation for God's behavior than most other religions, because that behavior was all before Christ, and Christ's sacrifice was a transitional event.
As for the Jews, as you yourself noted, they are certainly aware of how cruel some of God's acts appear. This presents a paradox that, far from being ignored, is one of the central preoccupations of Jewish religious thought.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
While people as far back as ancient jews condemned Yahweh's behaviour, most people are very willing to ignore his monstruousity, whilst condemning other gods for much less severe deeds.
Less severe is debatable.
As to God being genocidal, first of all, he was the tribal deity of the Jewish people in a time when ethnicity and religion were the same word in a time of particular savagery.
Also it's not as though the level of devastation God brings upon people has gone unnoticed. Blinking is correct, asking why God does things or allows horrific events to happen is a major hallmark of Judaic thought since the Babylonian exile, if not before.
Quote from Blinking_Spirit »
Honestly, I don't see a lot of Christians condemning other gods for their deeds. They condemn other gods for their not being God.
Well, the two aren't necessarily separate. The fact that the Greek gods were *******s was certainly commented on, but the root point was, as you say, to highlight the differences between God and those other gods.
Because fairies don't exist, and neither do pagan deities.
Since we're dismissing without evidence that which is presented without evidence...no deities exist.
Which is my point. I would argue that the evidence points to no pagan deities existing, and you would argue that the evidence points to no deities existing. Either way, we're going to agree that there's no evidence for the pagan deities existing, just like there's no evidence for fairies existing, just like there's no evidence for talking snakes existing.
It's like saying, "Well people believe in UFOs, so why do we make fun of the people who believe in chemtrails?" The point is there's no evidence for both, and we do indeed look at both with a confused look.
Because fairies don't exist, and neither do pagan deities.
Since we're dismissing without evidence that which is presented without evidence...no deities exist.
Which is my point. I would argue that the evidence points to no pagan deities existing, and you would argue that the evidence points to no deities existing. Either way, we're going to agree that there's no evidence for the pagan deities existing, just like there's no evidence for fairies existing, just like there's no evidence for talking snakes existing.
It's like saying, "Well people believe in UFOs, so why do we make fun of the people who believe in chemtrails?" The point is there's no evidence for both, and we do indeed look at both with a confused look.
It's hypocritical to point out the lack of evidence in pagan dieties and fairies, and think they're silly, while at the same time believing in another deity for which there is a similar lack of evidence.
Because fairies don't exist, and neither do pagan deities.
Since we're dismissing without evidence that which is presented without evidence...no deities exist.
Which is my point. I would argue that the evidence points to no pagan deities existing, and you would argue that the evidence points to no deities existing. Either way, we're going to agree that there's no evidence for the pagan deities existing, just like there's no evidence for fairies existing, just like there's no evidence for talking snakes existing.
It's like saying, "Well people believe in UFOs, so why do we make fun of the people who believe in chemtrails?" The point is there's no evidence for both, and we do indeed look at both with a confused look.
It's hypocritical to point out the lack of evidence in pagan dieties and fairies, and think they're silly, while at the same time believing in another deity for which there is a similar lack of evidence.
It would be if I accepted your statement that there is a lack of evidence. Clearly I don't, else I would be an atheist right now.
It would be if I accepted your statement that there is a lack of evidence. Clearly I don't, else I would be an atheist right now.
That doesn't -strictly- follow, there are quite a few Christians who are perfectly willing to admit that there's no decent evidence for Christianity, but they believe it anyway.
In any case, you realize where that puts those of us who don't accept your religious claims on face value, right? You're saying, "Sure, dismiss it out of hand unless there's evidence." Well, there are quite a few of us who don't agree that there's any evidence at all for Christianity - and by following your logic, the proper course of action according to you based on our available evidence is to consider your religion silly and dismiss it out of hand.
I mean, I don't think that's surprising to you, of course. You seem well aware of that implication. Just pointing it out explicitly.
It's hypocritical to point out the lack of evidence in pagan dieties and fairies, and think they're silly, while at the same time believing in another deity for which there is a similar lack of evidence.
Let's not stray too far from the topic unnecessarily.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It would be if I accepted your statement that there is a lack of evidence. Clearly I don't, else I would be an atheist right now.
And if a Pagan believed that your religion was silly because it clearly lacked any evidence, but they don't think there is a similar lack of evidence for their beliefs?
You're not really getting this argument for credibility concept, apparently.
Sp you endorse this hypocrisy?
So going back to the original question: why should we take these people seriously again?
Depends on whereas you treat other religions seriously. If not, you don't need to. If you would, it'd be an hypocritical statement.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, the wording is a bit strange, but it seems like both statements are ones I would agree with.
I'm basically stating that greek pagans both didn't universally endorse debauchery and that ultimately it wasn't a relevant part of the deities. Zeus was prayed to as a protector and judge, not as a rapist.
No, I said some traditions distanced themselves. You cannot apply this to all of them.
Yes, but there is a large increase of those that do in posterior decades.
They would be exceptions to the norm. Sacrifices were very much a major part of religion in antiquity, and Zeus' rampant debauchery a commonly accepted part of Zeus' character, as well as the character of all of the gods.
And in turn, Helios Megistos and Apollon became more promenient than him in non-rural worship, being more "ethical" deities.
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.
Your definition of "fundie" seems very loose. A fundamentalist is a christian adhering to the five fundamentals, and now synonimous with insane conservative. Sufice to say, I'm not seeing any neopagans rallying against human rights.
But even if what you describe were the case, should you really be surprised by it? Most people (in the West) are Christian. Their bias is entirely to be expected. If our society were majority Wiccan, we would no doubt see the same hypocrisy in reverse. People will be people; they will always view clubs to which they belong more favorably than other clubs.
Yes, but when christians are considerably less severe in judgement to other religions...
And, heck, it can even be argued that Christians objectively have a better explanation for God's behavior than most other religions, because that behavior was all before Christ, and Christ's sacrifice was a transitional event.
I would make a long text explaining why it doesn't make sense from the Bible's perspective, but I'm just going to say that pagan deities are very dynamic and evolve, to the point that the romans reffered to their religion as "the living one" in part to how cult was modified with time.
As to God being genocidal, first of all, he was the tribal deity of the Jewish people in a time when ethnicity and religion were the same word in a time of particular savagery.
If anything, it makes his worship even less justified, as Yahweh represents an intertwining of politics and religion that is not reasonable in the modern world.
Which is my point. I would argue that the evidence points to no pagan deities existing, and you would argue that the evidence points to no deities existing. Either way, we're going to agree that there's no evidence for the pagan deities existing, just like there's no evidence for fairies existing, just like there's no evidence for talking snakes existing.
The Sun exists. That's more evidence than for any other deity, especially the judeo-christian god.
It would be if I accepted your statement that there is a lack of evidence. Clearly I don't, else I would be an atheist right now.
And many people would argue that there is evidence for pagan deities. Yet, for some reason, only your "evidence" is acceptable.
There's some stuff going on here that seems pretty not cool to me, and I wanted to comment on it. For reference, I am not Christian, Pagan, or Atheist, so I really don't have a dog in this fight.
First, almost everyone in this thread is making comparative value judgments on various spiritual belief structures--most often Christianity vs. Paganism, but also Atheism vs. Christianity. Bottom line, folks: that aint right. The right to freedom of conscientious belief applies to all, and is only meaningful if everyone's right to believe & practice whatever they want, regardless of how weird it might seem to you, is respected and encouraged.
After all, whatever you believe (or don't believe), it was persecuted and disrespected at one point in time as well, and by disrespecting other spiritualities, you're behaving no better than the Romans after the death of Christ (if you're Christian) or Christians in the Middle Ages and Enlightenment (if you're Atheist). Mormonism, for instance, seemed pretty damn weird to most folks when Joseph Smith started it up a couple centuries ago, but it seems a lot less weird to us now.
So, in this discussion, I would like to remind and encourage everyone that treating other peoples' beliefs with disrespect is a reflection on you, not on whatever seeming absurdity you're objecting to.
Now, objectively speaking, there have been some incidences of discriminatory action taken against Pagans of various stripes in the past half-century or so since the religion became a thing. It's not right that this has occurred. However, speaking objectively again, we've got much bigger, more productive fish to fry, in my humble opinion, and the frying of those fish may well alleviate some of the problems that Pagans face. Have a look at the violence stats against trans* people sometime, for instance. Working towards a more equal, respectful society alleviates everyone's complaints, from Atheist to Christian, but it obliges us to accept the legitimacy of diverse opinions which we don't really agree with.
The average lion is approximately 190 cm long and 60 cm wide = 11400 cm2 = 0.00000114 km2
Now, if we take that times a trillion we get 11,400,000 km2 of lion.
Depends on whereas you treat other religions seriously. If not, you don't need to. If you would, it'd be an hypocritical statement.
Religions are not all logically equivalent. Thus, logically they shouldn't be treated equally.
Considering that's an exceedingly sbjective viewpoint (name me one reason as to why genocidal sky Stalin is more believable than Hestia, for starters), I'm not sure what you're trying to convey in a rational manner.
It would be if I accepted your statement that there is a lack of evidence. Clearly I don't, else I would be an atheist right now.
And if a Pagan believed that your religion was silly because it clearly lacked any evidence, but they don't think there is a similar lack of evidence for their beliefs?
But that's just it, no pagan in keeping with the religions of antiquity would deny the existence of God, or refrain from worshiping God.
The ancient world didn't look at religion the way we do. In the ancient world, religion and ethnicity were tied together, and went by the same word, "ethne." Your religion was the tradition of your people. It was like ethnicity.
Also, in antiquity, the belief was that all gods existed, and all gods were to be propitiated. No one wants an angry god after them. So in other words, the Romans worshiped the God of Israel. They thought of him as another god, as Jupiter by another name, or as the God of Jerusalem and the Israeli people. They would have no reason not to worship him.
I see hypocrisy coming from you. You don't believe in any of the list of things you mentioned. So what does that accomplish for you, exactly?
Again, it's like saying, "people believe in UFOs, so why do we make fun of people who believe in chemtrails?" No, the point is that both the people who believe in UFOs and the people who believe in chemtrails are ridiculous, just like the people who believe in fairies and the people who believe in the existence of pagan deities are ridiculous.
Once again, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that there's any credibility to these religions that makes them worth taking seriously. Saying, "No religion is to be taken seriously," does exactly the opposite of this.
Depends on whereas you treat other religions seriously. If not, you don't need to. If you would, it'd be an hypocritical statement.
You still aren't comprehending that (A) not all claims of all religions are logically equivalent and (B) religions may have value in their traditions from a standpoint even to those who are not believers in that religion.
I'm basically stating that greek pagans both didn't universally endorse debauchery and that ultimately it wasn't a relevant part of the deities. Zeus was prayed to as a protector and judge, not as a rapist.
It doesn't change the fact that Zeus, like all the gods, was portrayed as capricious, selfish, and a rapist. (Well, except for the gods who were just capricious and selfish. Artemis never raped anybody.)
The fact of the matter is the Greek gods were beings of incredible scope and might beyond humanity. Their defining quality was their power. In fact, as I understand it, that's what the Roman word numina literally translates to, "power" (someone correct me if I'm wrong). The point is they were beings of another order, just like human beings are beyond the animals, and these beings did not have human interests at heart.
Yes, but there is a large increase of those that do in posterior decades.
Is there a point here?
And, heck, it can even be argued that Christians objectively have a better explanation for God's behavior than most other religions, because that behavior was all before Christ, and Christ's sacrifice was a transitional event.
I would make a long text explaining why it doesn't make sense from the Bible's perspective,
You might want to do that then.
As to God being genocidal, first of all, he was the tribal deity of the Jewish people in a time when ethnicity and religion were the same word in a time of particular savagery.
If anything, it makes his worship even less justified, as Yahweh represents an intertwining of politics and religion that is not reasonable in the modern world.
An intertwining of politics and religion doesn't make sense to the Jewish people, whose defining trait of their ethnicity is their religion? Care to explain that to me?
The Sun exists. That's more evidence than for any other deity, especially the judeo-christian god.
And we can see that the sun is not sentient and does not respond to the blood of human sacrifices. Myth busted.
And many people would argue that there is evidence for pagan deities.
Show me the evidence.
Further, recognize that the Abrahamic faiths do not necessarily claim other gods don't exist, they claim other gods are not to be worshiped. So after you've proven they exist, demonstrate to me why we should worship them.
There's some stuff going on here that seems pretty not cool to me, and I wanted to comment on it. For reference, I am not Christian, Pagan, or Atheist, so I really don't have a dog in this fight.
First, almost everyone in this thread is making comparative value judgments on various spiritual belief structures--most often Christianity vs. Paganism, but also Atheism vs. Christianity. Bottom line, folks: that aint right. The right to freedom of conscientious belief applies to all, and is only meaningful if everyone's right to believe & practice whatever they want, regardless of how weird it might seem to you, is respected and encouraged.
Scientology, the Branch Davidians, The Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon, Family International, and any of these various doomsday cults that form all the time: you would believe we should encourage belief in these?
The right to an individual's freedom of belief is to be maintained and respected, yes, but that sure as heck doesn't mean that we need to respect what they choose to believe, and it certainly doesn't mean we cannot criticize it.
Scientology, the Branch Davidians, The Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon, Family International, and any of these various doomsday cults that form all the time: you would believe we should encourage belief in these?
The right to an individual's freedom of belief is to be maintained and respected, yes, but that sure as heck doesn't mean that we need to respect what they choose to believe, and it certainly doesn't mean we cannot criticize it.
It's a free country, Highroller, and with explicit constitutional protection for freedom of speech. You can criticize puppy dogs and rainbows, if you want. If you do so with regards to religion, I would hope that you do so in light not of what those people believe, but how that belief causes them to act.
With regard to your paralleling of Paganism to doomsday cults, this seems to be a reduco ad absurdum to me; the Pagans I've known have mostly done their best not to bother anyone else, and don't seek to gain financial, political, or social advantage as a result of their religion, as all of your examples have done. It seems like you're making a comparison here which is, if not apples to Volvos in its disparateness, then at least apples to horses.
So, let's talk about actions: doomsday and personality cults, like those you've cited, exploit a belief in the divine in order to make one or several persons rich, politically powerful, or famous. There is a clear and disturbing social reality associated with that behavior, and I can and would criticize it. Pagans, on the other hand, do not appear to my understanding to have an organization of any sort, do not seek to gain financial, political, or social advantage as a result of their beliefs, and do not seek to recruit or subject others to their belief system. Mostly, it seems to me, they go on camping trips and like trees. I really don't see anything to criticize there; they're not hurting anyone, including themselves, and their behavior makes them feel closer to the divine.
Here's where I draw my line. Were I to encounter a member of one of those doomsday cults, I would criticize what the cult does, in a larger socioeconomic sense, but the cultist's right to believe in the basic tenets of the cult is something which I would consider to be off-limits. In essence, trying to proscribe any sort of belief is fundamentally the same as acting as thought police, and that does not and never has washed with me.
Finally, not all marginal religions are cults. There is an important semantic difference, and conflating the two is, in effect, an appeal to popularity which attempts to delegitimize any non-major religious organization.
The average lion is approximately 190 cm long and 60 cm wide = 11400 cm2 = 0.00000114 km2
Now, if we take that times a trillion we get 11,400,000 km2 of lion.
In any case, you realize where that puts those of us who don't accept your religious claims on face value, right? You're saying, "Sure, dismiss it out of hand unless there's evidence." Well, there are quite a few of us who don't agree that there's any evidence at all for Christianity - and by following your logic, the proper course of action according to you based on our available evidence is to consider your religion silly and dismiss it out of hand.
I mean, I don't think that's surprising to you, of course. You seem well aware of that implication. Just pointing it out explicitly.
It's a free country, Highroller, and with explicit constitutional protection for freedom of speech. You can criticize puppy dogs and rainbows, if you want. If you do so with regards to religion, I would hope that you do so in light not of what those people believe,
Why not?
With regard to your paralleling of Paganism to doomsday cults, this seems to be a reduco ad absurdum to me;
I wasn't paralleling Paganism to doomsday cults, I was pointing out the absurdity of your claim that we should endorse and encourage any and all religious beliefs wholesale without scrutiny as to the logical soundness or the ramifications of their claims.
I believe the freedom of religion is to be respected. That does not mean I believe that every religion should be, or every religious person should be.
So, let's talk about actions: doomsday and personality cults, like those you've cited, exploit a belief in the divine in order to make one or several persons rich, politically powerful, or famous.
Except even if they didn't, their beliefs would still be ridiculous.
First, almost everyone in this thread is making comparative value judgments on various spiritual belief structures--most often Christianity vs. Paganism, but also Atheism vs. Christianity. Bottom line, folks: that aint right. The right to freedom of conscientious belief applies to all, and is only meaningful if everyone's right to believe & practice whatever they want, regardless of how weird it might seem to you, is respected and encouraged.
I couldn't disagree with you more. For instance, let’s say you were a parent and you found out that your daughter's best friend was part of some tyrannical cult that held some manner of disgusting ritual that you find disturbing. Do you encourage your daughter's friend to engage in these cult activities? Clearly this is on the far end of the scale. Let's look at something a little tamer.
You find out your child's teacher has taught her that the earth is 6 thousand years old, and that fossils were left in the ground by Satan to lead man astray. Your daughter has been being taught this for some time and believes it contrary to your personal knowledge of the space time continuum. Do you encourage her to believe something you know to be false?
We should not be encouraging people to belief that for which there is no evidence. You never know what you might be encouraging. I feel zero need to respect, and particularly no need to encourage, such behavior.
After all, whatever you believe (or don't believe), it was persecuted and disrespected at one point in time as well, and by disrespecting other spiritualities, you're behaving no better than the Romans after the death of Christ (if you're Christian) or Christians in the Middle Ages and Enlightenment (if you're Atheist). Mormonism, for instance, seemed pretty damn weird to most folks when Joseph Smith started it up a couple centuries ago, but it seems a lot less weird to us now.
Says you…. Mormonism is a cult. It exploits women, and it was the invention of a con-artist. What gives you the impression that we think it's any less strange these days? If you do, you probably don't know anything about the Mormon Bible.
So, in this discussion, I would like to remind and encourage everyone that treating other peoples' beliefs with disrespect is a reflection on you, not on whatever seeming absurdity you're objecting to.
I don't care if you don't like me. The debate forum is not here to make friends and chill. The Water Cooler forum is -> that way. I WANT people to ridicule my beliefs and attempt to dismiss them and disprove them. If they were so easily able to, I would have to re-evaluate my beliefs (as I do on a daily basis anyway).
Now, objectively speaking, there have been some incidences of discriminatory action taken against Pagans of various stripes in the past half-century or so since the religion became a thing. It's not right that this has occurred. However, speaking objectively again, we've got much bigger, more productive fish to fry, in my humble opinion, and the frying of those fish may well alleviate some of the problems that Pagans face. Have a look at the violence stats against trans* people sometime, for instance. Working towards a more equal, respectful society alleviates everyone's complaints, from Atheist to Christian, but it obliges us to accept the legitimacy of diverse opinions which we don't really agree with.
I am in no way obligated to accept or give legitimacy to an idea because it's different, or because it's religious. On the other hand, it's my obligation as a skeptic to say "No, sorry, but I'm not cutting off my daughter's clitoris because you're beliefs say I should, and I'm going to go ahead and stop you from doing it your daughter too, by physical force if I have to". We should be questioning the validity of people's beliefs MORE, not LESS.
Again, I disagree with just about every opinion in your post as it relates to accepting an infinite number of random beliefs. The mere idea makes no rational sense.
I see hypocrisy coming from you. You don't believe in any of the list of things you mentioned. So what does that accomplish for you, exactly?
Again, it's like saying, "people believe in UFOs, so why do we make fun of people who believe in chemtrails?" No, the point is that both the people who believe in UFOs and the people who believe in chemtrails are ridiculous, just like the people who believe in fairies and the people who believe in the existence of pagan deities are ridiculous.
I find it irronic that you feel the exact same way about people that believe in UFOs as I do about people that believe a guy born two thousand years ago, in the desert, in a time when the cities were teaming with prophets, was the son of a God, born of virgin, who could walk on water, cure deases, and who rose from the dead after being dead for three days, to transend into some invisible paradise where he can be worshipped forever.
Because what your believe is much more reasonable than UFOs (rolls eyes).
PS. I personally put the chances of UFO's not existing somewhere in the universe at about zero. It's just too big. On the other hand, there is about zero data to show that Jesus was even alive outside of the bible, and some obscure references to "The Christ".
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Look at the peoples actions and decide if their faith has provided a net benefit to society you live in. If a group of Pagans are making gardens and cleaning up lakes, who cares why they are doing it?, they are saving the city money/making the place look better, let them believe or think what they like, Same deal with a Christan organization that is giving food to the homeless. Just view region as charitable organizations with different "fund raising gimics" When someone break the laws, Punish the people who broke it as the law dictates, but allow them to believe whatever they wish. I would far rather someone wish me a happy solstice/Ramadan/Christmas/insert holiday here then tell me to F off. If faith puts people in better/more charitable moods, Who are we to tell them to stop making our lives slightly better?
If you were sick and a wica practisioner offer you a healing ritual or someone offers to pray for you do tell them "no". ? Best case senareo you trigger the placebo effect, worst case senareo Nothing happens you are where you are.
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.
But if you're asking whether neopagan religions face systematic persecution in the West that would justify their feeling historically victimized on the level of American blacks or European Jews... no. Just no.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Erm... Should we take these religions seriously?
I don't know anything about Norse Reconstructionism, but Wicca just seems to me to be a religion that borrows heavily from Christianity, dresses it up in the trappings of Britain's pagan past, and then attempts to claim legitimacy by saying it's authentic to pagan tradition. Except for the part where (A) it isn't at all authentic to pagan tradition, and more importantly (B) we should be very thankful it isn't.
Dude, everyone makes fun of the Greek gods and their depraved ways. The Greeks made fun of the Greek gods and their depraved ways. There were entire traditions that rejected Homer and claimed he was suffering in Hades for telling lies about the gods because there's no way that gods would be that depraved.
Are you trying to claim that no one has ever raised a moral issue with regards to God as he's described in the Old Testament?
Goddamnit, BS, you're such a ninja.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
There are also, of course, a lot of instances where Wicca gets made fun of. That's fine. Wicca is ridiculous.
People seem to take talking snakes, sky fairies afraid of iron, angels and demons seriously, so why not?
Wicca is not a centralised religion: while the original gardenian strand was very christian-ish, most modern versions are at best pseudo-Hinduism, and more commonly either highly misinterpreted western occultism or Dianic strands.
Indeed, but the problem is that people assume that the greek gods' insane behaviour was both widely accepted as a manifestation of "ancient barbarism" and that it was intrinsinc to their nature. As you yourself put, posterior writers distance themselves from said portrayals and several esoteric sects even went as far as disregard traditional things like sacrifices in favour of very familiar spirituality, instead of simply embracing Zeus' shapeshifting rapes.
While people as far back as ancient jews condemned Yahweh's behaviour, most people are very willing to ignore his monstruousity, whilst condemning other gods for much less severe deeds.
You're not really getting this argument for credibility concept, apparently.
So it's either Christianity with the trappings of paganism, faux-Hinduism, or "highly misinterpreted occultism or Dianic" beliefs?
So going back to the original question: why should we take these people seriously again?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, the wording is a bit strange, but it seems like both statements are ones I would agree with.
No, I said some traditions distanced themselves. You cannot apply this to all of them.
They would be exceptions to the norm. Sacrifices were very much a major part of religion in antiquity, and Zeus' rampant debauchery a commonly accepted part of Zeus' character, as well as the character of all of the gods.
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.
Honestly, I don't see a lot of Christians condemning other gods for their deeds. They condemn other gods for their not being God.
But even if what you describe were the case, should you really be surprised by it? Most people (in the West) are Christian. Their bias is entirely to be expected. If our society were majority Wiccan, we would no doubt see the same hypocrisy in reverse. People will be people; they will always view clubs to which they belong more favorably than other clubs.
And, heck, it can even be argued that Christians objectively have a better explanation for God's behavior than most other religions, because that behavior was all before Christ, and Christ's sacrifice was a transitional event.
As for the Jews, as you yourself noted, they are certainly aware of how cruel some of God's acts appear. This presents a paradox that, far from being ignored, is one of the central preoccupations of Jewish religious thought.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Since we're dismissing without evidence that which is presented without evidence...no deities exist.
As to God being genocidal, first of all, he was the tribal deity of the Jewish people in a time when ethnicity and religion were the same word in a time of particular savagery.
Also it's not as though the level of devastation God brings upon people has gone unnoticed. Blinking is correct, asking why God does things or allows horrific events to happen is a major hallmark of Judaic thought since the Babylonian exile, if not before.
Well, the two aren't necessarily separate. The fact that the Greek gods were *******s was certainly commented on, but the root point was, as you say, to highlight the differences between God and those other gods.
Which is my point. I would argue that the evidence points to no pagan deities existing, and you would argue that the evidence points to no deities existing. Either way, we're going to agree that there's no evidence for the pagan deities existing, just like there's no evidence for fairies existing, just like there's no evidence for talking snakes existing.
It's like saying, "Well people believe in UFOs, so why do we make fun of the people who believe in chemtrails?" The point is there's no evidence for both, and we do indeed look at both with a confused look.
It's hypocritical to point out the lack of evidence in pagan dieties and fairies, and think they're silly, while at the same time believing in another deity for which there is a similar lack of evidence.
It would be if I accepted your statement that there is a lack of evidence. Clearly I don't, else I would be an atheist right now.
That doesn't -strictly- follow, there are quite a few Christians who are perfectly willing to admit that there's no decent evidence for Christianity, but they believe it anyway.
In any case, you realize where that puts those of us who don't accept your religious claims on face value, right? You're saying, "Sure, dismiss it out of hand unless there's evidence." Well, there are quite a few of us who don't agree that there's any evidence at all for Christianity - and by following your logic, the proper course of action according to you based on our available evidence is to consider your religion silly and dismiss it out of hand.
I mean, I don't think that's surprising to you, of course. You seem well aware of that implication. Just pointing it out explicitly.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And if a Pagan believed that your religion was silly because it clearly lacked any evidence, but they don't think there is a similar lack of evidence for their beliefs?
Sp you endorse this hypocrisy?
Depends on whereas you treat other religions seriously. If not, you don't need to. If you would, it'd be an hypocritical statement.
I'm basically stating that greek pagans both didn't universally endorse debauchery and that ultimately it wasn't a relevant part of the deities. Zeus was prayed to as a protector and judge, not as a rapist.
Yes, but there is a large increase of those that do in posterior decades.
And in turn, Helios Megistos and Apollon became more promenient than him in non-rural worship, being more "ethical" deities.
Your definition of "fundie" seems very loose. A fundamentalist is a christian adhering to the five fundamentals, and now synonimous with insane conservative. Sufice to say, I'm not seeing any neopagans rallying against human rights.
Yes, but when christians are considerably less severe in judgement to other religions...
I would make a long text explaining why it doesn't make sense from the Bible's perspective, but I'm just going to say that pagan deities are very dynamic and evolve, to the point that the romans reffered to their religion as "the living one" in part to how cult was modified with time.
If anything, it makes his worship even less justified, as Yahweh represents an intertwining of politics and religion that is not reasonable in the modern world.
The Sun exists. That's more evidence than for any other deity, especially the judeo-christian god.
And many people would argue that there is evidence for pagan deities. Yet, for some reason, only your "evidence" is acceptable.
Can you spell "hypocrite"?
Religions are not all logically equivalent. Thus, logically they shouldn't be treated equally.
First, almost everyone in this thread is making comparative value judgments on various spiritual belief structures--most often Christianity vs. Paganism, but also Atheism vs. Christianity. Bottom line, folks: that aint right. The right to freedom of conscientious belief applies to all, and is only meaningful if everyone's right to believe & practice whatever they want, regardless of how weird it might seem to you, is respected and encouraged.
After all, whatever you believe (or don't believe), it was persecuted and disrespected at one point in time as well, and by disrespecting other spiritualities, you're behaving no better than the Romans after the death of Christ (if you're Christian) or Christians in the Middle Ages and Enlightenment (if you're Atheist). Mormonism, for instance, seemed pretty damn weird to most folks when Joseph Smith started it up a couple centuries ago, but it seems a lot less weird to us now.
So, in this discussion, I would like to remind and encourage everyone that treating other peoples' beliefs with disrespect is a reflection on you, not on whatever seeming absurdity you're objecting to.
Now, objectively speaking, there have been some incidences of discriminatory action taken against Pagans of various stripes in the past half-century or so since the religion became a thing. It's not right that this has occurred. However, speaking objectively again, we've got much bigger, more productive fish to fry, in my humble opinion, and the frying of those fish may well alleviate some of the problems that Pagans face. Have a look at the violence stats against trans* people sometime, for instance. Working towards a more equal, respectful society alleviates everyone's complaints, from Atheist to Christian, but it obliges us to accept the legitimacy of diverse opinions which we don't really agree with.
Magnificent Quote of the day:
Considering that's an exceedingly sbjective viewpoint (name me one reason as to why genocidal sky Stalin is more believable than Hestia, for starters), I'm not sure what you're trying to convey in a rational manner.
But that's just it, no pagan in keeping with the religions of antiquity would deny the existence of God, or refrain from worshiping God.
The ancient world didn't look at religion the way we do. In the ancient world, religion and ethnicity were tied together, and went by the same word, "ethne." Your religion was the tradition of your people. It was like ethnicity.
Also, in antiquity, the belief was that all gods existed, and all gods were to be propitiated. No one wants an angry god after them. So in other words, the Romans worshiped the God of Israel. They thought of him as another god, as Jupiter by another name, or as the God of Jerusalem and the Israeli people. They would have no reason not to worship him.
The term for this is syncretism.
I see hypocrisy coming from you. You don't believe in any of the list of things you mentioned. So what does that accomplish for you, exactly?
Again, it's like saying, "people believe in UFOs, so why do we make fun of people who believe in chemtrails?" No, the point is that both the people who believe in UFOs and the people who believe in chemtrails are ridiculous, just like the people who believe in fairies and the people who believe in the existence of pagan deities are ridiculous.
Once again, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that there's any credibility to these religions that makes them worth taking seriously. Saying, "No religion is to be taken seriously," does exactly the opposite of this.
You still aren't comprehending that (A) not all claims of all religions are logically equivalent and (B) religions may have value in their traditions from a standpoint even to those who are not believers in that religion.
It doesn't change the fact that Zeus, like all the gods, was portrayed as capricious, selfish, and a rapist. (Well, except for the gods who were just capricious and selfish. Artemis never raped anybody.)
The fact of the matter is the Greek gods were beings of incredible scope and might beyond humanity. Their defining quality was their power. In fact, as I understand it, that's what the Roman word numina literally translates to, "power" (someone correct me if I'm wrong). The point is they were beings of another order, just like human beings are beyond the animals, and these beings did not have human interests at heart.
Is there a point here?
You might want to do that then.
An intertwining of politics and religion doesn't make sense to the Jewish people, whose defining trait of their ethnicity is their religion? Care to explain that to me?
And we can see that the sun is not sentient and does not respond to the blood of human sacrifices. Myth busted.
Show me the evidence.
Further, recognize that the Abrahamic faiths do not necessarily claim other gods don't exist, they claim other gods are not to be worshiped. So after you've proven they exist, demonstrate to me why we should worship them.
Scientology, the Branch Davidians, The Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon, Family International, and any of these various doomsday cults that form all the time: you would believe we should encourage belief in these?
The right to an individual's freedom of belief is to be maintained and respected, yes, but that sure as heck doesn't mean that we need to respect what they choose to believe, and it certainly doesn't mean we cannot criticize it.
It's a free country, Highroller, and with explicit constitutional protection for freedom of speech. You can criticize puppy dogs and rainbows, if you want. If you do so with regards to religion, I would hope that you do so in light not of what those people believe, but how that belief causes them to act.
With regard to your paralleling of Paganism to doomsday cults, this seems to be a reduco ad absurdum to me; the Pagans I've known have mostly done their best not to bother anyone else, and don't seek to gain financial, political, or social advantage as a result of their religion, as all of your examples have done. It seems like you're making a comparison here which is, if not apples to Volvos in its disparateness, then at least apples to horses.
So, let's talk about actions: doomsday and personality cults, like those you've cited, exploit a belief in the divine in order to make one or several persons rich, politically powerful, or famous. There is a clear and disturbing social reality associated with that behavior, and I can and would criticize it. Pagans, on the other hand, do not appear to my understanding to have an organization of any sort, do not seek to gain financial, political, or social advantage as a result of their beliefs, and do not seek to recruit or subject others to their belief system. Mostly, it seems to me, they go on camping trips and like trees. I really don't see anything to criticize there; they're not hurting anyone, including themselves, and their behavior makes them feel closer to the divine.
Here's where I draw my line. Were I to encounter a member of one of those doomsday cults, I would criticize what the cult does, in a larger socioeconomic sense, but the cultist's right to believe in the basic tenets of the cult is something which I would consider to be off-limits. In essence, trying to proscribe any sort of belief is fundamentally the same as acting as thought police, and that does not and never has washed with me.
Finally, not all marginal religions are cults. There is an important semantic difference, and conflating the two is, in effect, an appeal to popularity which attempts to delegitimize any non-major religious organization.
Magnificent Quote of the day:
Yes.
Why not?
I wasn't paralleling Paganism to doomsday cults, I was pointing out the absurdity of your claim that we should endorse and encourage any and all religious beliefs wholesale without scrutiny as to the logical soundness or the ramifications of their claims.
I believe the freedom of religion is to be respected. That does not mean I believe that every religion should be, or every religious person should be.
Except even if they didn't, their beliefs would still be ridiculous.
I couldn't disagree with you more. For instance, let’s say you were a parent and you found out that your daughter's best friend was part of some tyrannical cult that held some manner of disgusting ritual that you find disturbing. Do you encourage your daughter's friend to engage in these cult activities? Clearly this is on the far end of the scale. Let's look at something a little tamer.
You find out your child's teacher has taught her that the earth is 6 thousand years old, and that fossils were left in the ground by Satan to lead man astray. Your daughter has been being taught this for some time and believes it contrary to your personal knowledge of the space time continuum. Do you encourage her to believe something you know to be false?
We should not be encouraging people to belief that for which there is no evidence. You never know what you might be encouraging. I feel zero need to respect, and particularly no need to encourage, such behavior.
Says you…. Mormonism is a cult. It exploits women, and it was the invention of a con-artist. What gives you the impression that we think it's any less strange these days? If you do, you probably don't know anything about the Mormon Bible.
I don't care if you don't like me. The debate forum is not here to make friends and chill. The Water Cooler forum is -> that way. I WANT people to ridicule my beliefs and attempt to dismiss them and disprove them. If they were so easily able to, I would have to re-evaluate my beliefs (as I do on a daily basis anyway).
I am in no way obligated to accept or give legitimacy to an idea because it's different, or because it's religious. On the other hand, it's my obligation as a skeptic to say "No, sorry, but I'm not cutting off my daughter's clitoris because you're beliefs say I should, and I'm going to go ahead and stop you from doing it your daughter too, by physical force if I have to". We should be questioning the validity of people's beliefs MORE, not LESS.
Again, I disagree with just about every opinion in your post as it relates to accepting an infinite number of random beliefs. The mere idea makes no rational sense.
I find it irronic that you feel the exact same way about people that believe in UFOs as I do about people that believe a guy born two thousand years ago, in the desert, in a time when the cities were teaming with prophets, was the son of a God, born of virgin, who could walk on water, cure deases, and who rose from the dead after being dead for three days, to transend into some invisible paradise where he can be worshipped forever.
Because what your believe is much more reasonable than UFOs (rolls eyes).
PS. I personally put the chances of UFO's not existing somewhere in the universe at about zero. It's just too big. On the other hand, there is about zero data to show that Jesus was even alive outside of the bible, and some obscure references to "The Christ".
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Not even going to bother with the rest of your trolling post, but this part is false. There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate a historical Jesus.
Infraction for troll accusation.
If you were sick and a wica practisioner offer you a healing ritual or someone offers to pray for you do tell them "no". ? Best case senareo you trigger the placebo effect, worst case senareo Nothing happens you are where you are.