Agnostic Pagans And Athiest Pagans

[willybilly30]

this is too freaking complicated i dont care if i can prove its true or not im going back to paganism and the literal kind i was happier and less annoyed. i cant prove god and goddess exist, i cant prove we reincarnate i cant prove theirs a creator but im sick of trying too and arguing about it. sheesh. and tommorow im doing an ostara ritual blessed be.

[Asimov]

On the surface, yes, it appears to be inherently irrational...hence why I question it based on what I know. If you have a problem with me trying to find out about a specific grouping of ideas then by all means you are not required to answer me.

 

Of course I'm trying to dismantle it in a rational way, how else are ideas found to be coherent or not except by dismantling it and examining all the pieces?

 

Zoe Grace

re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)

n.

 

1.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

<b>4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.</b>

 

Please note that the fourth definition has nothing to do with worship or gods.

 

Please note that the fourth definition is ambiguous and can apply to brushing ones teeth.

 

Contextually, "Asimov brushes his teeth religiously" is how the fourth definition would apply.

 

Also, I've already stated Paganism is NOT a religion, it is an umbrella term for a GROUP of religions. Like you might group theistic religions and nontheistic religions you can also group pagan religions.

 

I don't think that it is a grouping of religions because they seem to be so unrelated to each other. At least we can group the Abrahamic religions together because they are related to each other through Judaism. Where's the relation that we should call them pagan? What is a pagan?

 

I don't understand why you are restating this for me. EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS IS NATURAL. If there is some big sky daddy in the sky that's natural cause it exists. (note I'm not saying there IS a big skydaddy, I'm saying if there is, it somehow has to fit into the laws of physics or there are laws we don't know about yet, or whatever, but it's still natural cause it would exist.) There's no such thing as "supernatural" that's like saying "more than what exists." it's a meaningless concept/term.

 

No, that's not necessarily accurate.

 

Natural pertains to anything that can be empirically studied or tested. Since supernatural claims are outside the empirical view, methodological naturalism states that anything proposed to be supernatural can't be used in the scientific method.

 

Because everything that we can empirically verify is a result of the forces of nature and the laws of physics, natural is associated with these.

 

Otherwise, natural is meaningless.

 

Literal would mean they believe the gods and goddesses of the mythology they have chosen are really real literal spiritual beings.

 

non-literal would mean they believe the gods and goddesses of the mythology they have chosen are NOT real literal spiritual beings. If they don't believe in their deities literally, they might see them as metaphor, energies, archetypes, just good stories, whatever.

 

Then the non-literal group believes in every single God concept ever created. You're saying that pagans just believe these Gods exist as concepts. I believe that too, as do even Christians with specific types of Gods. Doesn't seem to be coherent.

 

 

 

This is a nonsequitor, as nobody worships an archetype, metaphor, or good story, I've also never met anyone that worshipped generic "energies" although it is theoretically possible. Obviously if they don't believe in their deities as literal beings they would be nontheistic which is what started the entire argument of this thread in the first place...

 

 

Well yea...so why separate pagan from theistic and nontheistic? If there are theistic pagan religions and nontheistic pagan religions then clearly they go into the theistic and nontheistic category....what's the point of calling them pagan?

 

 

I know that generally speaking pagan religions are earth based, revolve around seasonal changes, often have some type of rituals associated with that, usually follow some pre-christian mythology whether literally (theistic) or nonliterally (nontheistic).

 

 

What does earth-based mean?

 

Also I don't know why you are redefining theistic and nontheistic for me. I KNOW what these things mean. I've stated that SOME pagans are theistic and some pagans are nontheistic several times in several different ways, but you seem to want ALL pagans to be one or the other, which is a very black and white way of construing things IMO.

 

How is it black and white? When you say there are nontheistic 'pagan' people and theistic 'pagan' people why would I separate them into some weird special 'pagan' category when they clearly are not the same?

 

You're not defining pagan because it's meaningless! If you're arguing for it, yet can't even define it, then why are you arguing at all? All I'm asking is why should we have this "pagan" category?

 

What is an atheist? Atheism is BUILT on negative attributes...Atheism exists as a philosophy defined by what it isn't...so don't tell me a definition cannot be built upon negative attributes.

 

No it isn't...it's one thing, the disbelief in a god or gods. False analogy, since atheism itself isn't a belief system itself, like theism isn't a belief system itself.

 

Buddhism is a belief system that does not include the existence of a God or gods. Therefore it is atheistic. It still has positive attributes to define it.

 

Naturalism is a belief system that does not include the existence of a God or gods. It still has positive attributes to define it.

 

It's meaningful as a way of grouping similiar religions/groups together.

 

Ok, then they can define it.

 

Logical, rational, or meaningful TO YOU. Do you have the market cornered on what is logical, rational or meaningful?

 

Logic and rationality aren't subjective Zoe, they apply objectively. By meaningful I am implying that it has definitional meaning, not aesthetic value.

 

I'm not sure that I believe that you are really trying to understand paganism, so much as you want to rationally try to dismantle it. Your prejudgement of a system you haven't personally studied as "inherently irrational" seems to make that statement for you. We all KNOW you think EVERYTHING is irrational, that's why you are a grand high pooba atheist. So just be happy with that. Sheesh. We truly all bow before your superior logic skills. Yes,I realize I'm in bitch mode here, but I wonder if you are splitting hairs or being purposefully obstinate.

 

 

You're in bitch mode for absolutely no reason.

 

1) You dont' even classify yourself as pagan.

2) You automatically assume I'm attacking something when I am asking questions and making conclusions based on what YOU say.

 

And then you make fun of me for questioning something, for USING MY FUCKING BRAIN, as if it's somehow wrong to adhere to rationality and empiricism. Where did I insult you, Zoe? Where did I do anything except ask questions and point out what I think are flaws in the argument? Hmm?

 

Let's take a look:

 

what the hell is an atheist pagan? Isn't that kind of a contradiction?

 

Ah...ok, that does make sense.

 

Cue and entire page of me being satisfied with what I've been told and then oops...I have another question! Bad Asimov!

 

Just an interesting note...if you don't worship or believe in any God or gods...then why call yourself a pagan?

 

Just from looking up the word, it appears to be pretty much a blanket term for all non-abrahamic religions and beliefs, used in an almost derogatory way by Christians and the like.

 

And then being satifsfied with certain aspects of the explanation given, I focus on what I'm not satisfied with! Oh noes!!! Asimov is asking MORE questions....

 

Don't those focus on worship?

 

Anyways, what's the point of calling oneself a druid, shaman, asatru, wiccan?

 

Based on the definitions for religion, it appears as if it is necessary for a supernatural power to be involved and believed in. As far as I know, those religions you cited do not have specific spiritual leaders.

 

 

And then we have a long explanation, afterwards you bitch at JGJ for stuff he said...then it seems like you morph the two of us into one being you attack...

 

Not once did in this discussion am I aware of anything I said that could be construed as offensive!

[♦ ficino ♦]

I believe "pagan" comes from the Latin word "pagus," which means rural district. The "pagani" were the people who lived in the countryside, away from urban centers of communication. Latin church fathers of the late Roman period used that word to refer to the country people on the periphery of what had become a Christianized empire. Off in the boondocks, many people were still worhsiping the ancestral gods, making fertility prayers and sacrifices, etc. By the late 4th and early 5th centuries, on the other hand, advancement in many spheres of Roman life was much easier if you were Christian. The emperors had been christian since Constantine. So the "pagans" were just the people who adhered to the old religion. Not all "pagans" were poor, even though the name meant country people. Many of the big senatorial families in Rome in the 5th century remained "pagan," i.e. worshiped the traditional Roman gods and were not Christians. Nor Jews, who did not count as "pagan" in this sense because they were monotheists and ancestors of christians (btw they did not generally live out in the countryside either). St. Augustine talks about the rural districts of N. Africa as containing many pagans.

 

The Italian word "paesano" goes back to the Latin "paganus" as meaning a person from your local home district or village ("paese").

 

So I think "pagan" in a western context starts out to mean, polytheist worshipper of traditional cults. By extension it includes sophisticated philosophers like Neo-Platonists who insisted on a plurality of gods, even though The One was at the top of all reality in that philosophy.

 

I don't think I can give a crystal clear definition of pagan. I consider "pagan" any believer in traditional polytheism that traces roots back to before christianity. I have no idea whether by this definition Hindus should be considered pagan; there are many schools of thought within what's loosely called Hinduism. If someone made up a new religion with many gods and goddesses but all of them are newly announced to the world, I guess maybe I'd call that pagan, too. Somehow there seems to be a difference at least in connotation between pagan and polytheist. I wonder if being pagan entails rejecting christianity or judaism (or islam) in favor of polytheism, while being polytheist just implies worshiping many gods? So a pagan who worshiped new gods would get to be called a pagan if s/he consciously rejected christianity and its abrahamic cousin religions.

 

Anyone think this is on the right track?

 

Hi, Zoe - it's been awhile, hope all is well!

[♦ ficino ♦]

I've just loosely assumed that a pagan is a worshiper of many gods. It seems to me that if someone is deeply inspired by the sagas and ethics and divine personages of, say, Norse mythology but doesn not think those deities exist except as literary characters, then I wouldn't have thought of this person as pagan. I would think that person needs to pray to those gods and accord them some sort of worship. If there are liberal pagans who take inspiration from those traditions but don't think their gods really exist, then I'm cool with it if they want to call themselves "pagan." It's just a wider application of the term than what I had been aware of before.

 

I do admit that I've always thought people could be called "pagan" in an accomodated sense. When I was in InterVarsity, I remember all the effort we put into dreaming up schemes for witnessing to what the leadership called "happy pagans." These were the kids on campus who loved partying, just had a good time, lived with gusto in life, and had no sense of sin or the need for redemption from the wrath of a holy god. Unlike kids from a religious background, to whom our evangelistic pitch was more bible-centered. We'd just try to get the "happy pagans" to conclude that their lives were really meaningless and therefore empty without Christ.

 

Sigh. I'm glad no happy pagan took me seriously.

 

But I never thought the above use of "pagan" was a literal application of the word. If some kids on campus literally worshiped Odin & Co. or Zeus & Co. or Isis & Co. or whomever, I would have marvelled at real life pagans in our midst. Wicca, Asatru etc. weren't really around in the 70's, I don't think.

 

Well, off to spend some pagan time walking through the park and then on to my favorite cigar/hookah bar! cheers

[Amethyst]

I've noticed something that I think it's important to point out. Fundamentalists of all stripes be they Christian or Atheist, simply CANNOT deal with ambiguity AT ALL. Nothing can be uncertain ever. It's got to fit in this box or that box. "evil/divine", "logical/illogical" You can't just say you don't know about something. You HAVE to determine whether it is logical or illogical for all people and all time in all.

 

Yeah, good point. One of the defining aspects of fundamentalist behavior of any kind is that there can be no shades of gray. But not everything is black or white. Not all people are easily lumped into boxes. It's like trying to fit a hexagonal peg into a board with only one round hole and one square hole. Sometimes, there's no hole to fit a peg into, but that's okay. You don't need to waste time attempting to sand down the sides of a hexagonal peg to try and fit it into the round hole. Just set it aside and go on with your life.

[Asimov]

It has to do with you splitting hairs, refusing to hear what people are trying to tell you and refusing to ever concede ANY POINT. Also, you shift your argument a lot.

 

What are you talking about? Where have I refused to concede a point?

 

I even showed you my posts in here where I did concede points! How is pointing out flaws in rationality me positioning myself as having superior skills in logic and rationality?

 

Honestly Zoe, your on too much of a defensive position just because I critique a religion. I accept ambiguity to a certain extent. I can't believe that simply asking for a definition of what a pagan is causes you this much grief Zoe.

 

I may be in your face and bitchy when I insult, but as least I'm clear and upfront about it. you insult through a backdoor method, but it doesn't make it less condescending or patronizing. It fucking annoys the holy hell out of people.

 

Well that's too bad if they can't look through the content of my posts and instead whine about perceived insults.

 

I've noticed something that I think it's important to point out. Fundamentalists of all stripes be they Christian or Atheist, simply CANNOT deal with ambiguity AT ALL. Nothing can be uncertain ever. It's got to fit in this box or that box. "evil/divine", "logical/illogical" You can't just say you don't know about something. You HAVE to determine whether it is logical or illogical for all people and all time in all situations forever and ever amen.

 

I've also noticed that anyone who happens to critique any religion/idea besides Christianity is some enemy fundamentalist. We sit here in this site and post about how gay Christianity is and laugh and applaud ourselves on how clever we are to dismantle rationally this idea that is Christianity...yet turn that eye on your own religions/ideas and suddenly it's wrong.

 

I apply the same strict scrutiny of Christianity that I do of any religious idea or belief...INCLUDING MY OWN.

 

I dont' know paganism, that's why I'm asking questions! I want to know paganism, yet all you're doing is whining about me pointing out problems that I see!

 

Why can't you just say: "I don't personally get paganism, it's not my thing, it doesn't make sense to me." and be done with it? Why do you feel it necessary to dismantle anything that you dont' personally follow and label it illogical simply because it's not your drug of choice?

 

Why not be done with it? Yes...I personally don't get the Theory of Relativity, it doesn't make sense to me so I'm just gonna be done with it. That kind of genius thinking really helps further our knowledge base doesn't it? Let's abandon anything we don't get at first and only focus on what we do know currently....

 

This is my last argument on THIS ISSUE:

 

That wasn't even an argument...but oooh, can't point that out. Anything I point out that has no logical meaning is clearly because I'm an asshole.

[greygirl]

Honestly Zoe, your on too much of a defensive position just because I critique a religion. I accept ambiguity to a certain extent. I can't believe that simply asking for a definition of what a pagan is causes you this much grief Zoe.

 

It causes this much grief because it's been explained and defined over and over again in this thread, and you keep ignoring any explanation or definition that you don't happen to like and go on pretending that you never got an explanation or definition in the first place. Everyone else is tired of beating our heads against this particular brick wall, because it's obvious that you're just going to keep asking the same questions over and over, no matter how many times they get answered. I'm sorry you don't like the answers you've been given, but those are the answers we have. There are no more. If you're really interested, there are plenty of sources for you to do your own research.

[willybilly30]

i hate how he calls everything irrational and illogicial. correct me if im wrong but isnt that just a fancy way of saying your nuts.

[Merlinfmct87]

Pretty much.

 

Merlin

[Asimov]

Just reading up on it in wikipedia:

 

""Pagan" is the usual translation of the Islamic term mushrik, which refers to 'one who worships something other than God'."

 

"Ethnologists do not use the term for these beliefs, which are not necessarily compatible with each other: more useful categories are shamanism, polytheism or animism. Often, the term has pejorative connotations, comparable to heathen, infidel and kafir in Islam."

 

Interesting.

 

i hate how he calls everything irrational and illogicial. correct me if im wrong but isnt that just a fancy way of saying your nuts.

 

Yes. However, people seem to get just as offended.

 

It causes this much grief because it's been explained and defined over and over again in this thread, and you keep ignoring any explanation or definition that you don't happen to like and go on pretending that you never got an explanation or definition in the first place.

 

Because the explanation doesn't make sense. Even reading it up on wikipedia, I get the idea that it's just a bunch of crap.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

YOU SAID:

If this is what I think you are saying it is called Pluralism.

 

could you define pluralism more fully (or your understanding of it).

 

Since Monism is the religious or theoligical belief that everything is made up of a mystical energy, the pluralism form of this type is that there are many mystical energies. Pluralism has many definitions depending upon where you use the term.

 

Greygirl seems to have either monistic or pluralistic beliefs but it's not paganism, it is a form of belief that could be in a pagan religion, but greygirl doesn't want to go into her beliefs and I surrendered already.

 

I'd rather call "non-theistic" beliefs practices rather than religions, but that's my cup of tea. Willybilly and Greygirl could be practicing neutral monism or physicalism from the way they describe it, but I don't know enough about what they believe to get picky on it. It just didn't sound like any of the pagan mythos I have ever heard of and luckily Zoe brought me to start studying Paganism. Before I had just looked into parts of it like Shamanism and other mythologies.

 

From what I have learned so far, I think all the confusion before comes from not separating it like this from the get-go.

 

Groups of Comparative Religions

Specific Religon

Forms of Belief

Religios Practices

Attributes

 

Where each one is quite different. Paganism falls under the first, Groups of Comparative Religions.

 

To give an example would be:

Paganism

Celtic Wicca

Pantheism

Meditation, Divination, Magickal Herbalism

 

While some people were talking Attributes others were talking Groups or Forms of Belief.

[willybilly30]

i dont give a fuck what u think. you wont convert me to athiesm so you might as well quit trying.

you are just like the christians on here who try to convert people your an athiest version of daniel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[

 

Because the explanation doesn't make sense. Even reading it up on wikipedia, I get the idea that it's just a bunch of crap.

[Asimov]

i dont give a fuck what u think. you wont convert me to athiesm so you might as well quit trying.

you are just like the christians on here who try to convert people your an athiest version of daniel.

 

Wow dude, where have I said that I want you to convert to atheism? I've told you like 800 times that I don't care what you believe or what you call yourself.

 

Jesus fucking Christ.

 

 

Since Monism is the religious or theoligical belief that everything is made up of a mystical energy, the pluralism form of this type is that there are many mystical energies. Pluralism has many definitions depending upon where you use the term.

 

Greygirl seems to have either monistic or pluralistic beliefs but it's not paganism, it is a form of belief that could be in a pagan religion, but greygirl doesn't want to go into her beliefs and I surrendered already.

 

I'd rather call "non-theistic" beliefs practices rather than religions, but that's my cup of tea. Willybilly and Greygirl could be practicing neutral monism or physicalism from the way they describe it, but I don't know enough about what they believe to get picky on it. It just didn't sound like any of the pagan mythos I have ever heard of and luckily Zoe brought me to start studying Paganism. Before I had just looked into parts of it like Shamanism and other mythologies.

 

From what I have learned so far, I think all the confusion before comes from not separating it like this from the get-go.

 

Groups of Comparative Religions

Specific Religon

Forms of Belief

Religios Practices

Attributes

 

Where each one is quite different. Paganism falls under the first, Groups of Comparative Religions.

 

To give an example would be:

Paganism

Celtic Wicca

Pantheism

Meditation, Divination, Magickal Herbalism

 

While some people were talking Attributes others were talking Groups or Forms of Belief.

 

Wow...that was a really good way of putting it, JGJ. I didn't realise or even think of it that way. I still don't accept that Paganism is really needed at all as a label, though.

[SilentLoner]

Why do I always find out about posts like these so late? Honestly, I don't visit one topic and the next thing I know there is an interesting debate 6 pages long.

 

Anyways, I too consider myself an pagan athiest. I don't like to talk about beliefs normally, mostly because I'm not good at arguing unless I'm angry and becasue I believe in leading by example (in the opinion that if beliefs weren't so outwardly discussed we would have much less problems in the world) but I feel like making a slight exception. I dont believe in any dieties, gods or goddesses. My beliefs are very earth-oriented, the acknowledgement of nothing above or below me, only on an equal level.

 

I agree with all of what Zoe Grace has said so far (very well said, BTW).

 

Really don't care about what anyone else defines or thinks of as "pagan." As there seems to be no single consensus possible on the term of "pagan", the point seems moot.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Technically speaking, I think monism is usually spoken of as a philosophical position which asserts or argues that everything is really one thing. Parmenides is an example of a guy who argued monism. He played around with literal construals of the word "being" so as to deny the possibility of change. He also talked a lot about individuals, though, so it's hard to be sure how rigorous he expected to be about his monism.

 

When I was into vedanta years ago I was taught that Pantanjali was a thorough-going monist.

 

Monism is often consistent with pantheism, for people who are monists tend to say that The One is divine. I think strictly speaking, though, the pantheist claims a little more than the monist. To say everything is god seems to me a bit more ambitious than to say everything is one, but the two positions may easily collapse into one another.

 

I think both suck, actually. Right now I'm on the verge of falling in love with Person X. That's overwhelming. If, on the other hand, The One is just pretending to carry out a pretend interaction within itself, A. that's incoherent, and B. uninteresting.

 

Or, is everything One on some quantum level? I don't know. To say that it is annihilates all discourse and all passion about life. Whatever of value I think I took from my christian days, one thing is the wonder of the I-Thou.

 

"If you’re standing near a precipice, I whispered, and everything is black down below, then you shouldn’t stand alone, then I’ll stand next to you.

Are you standing next to me?

Yes, it’s pitch dark, but we share the darkness, that’s what love is, you’re not afraid...

He wanted to say something, but I hushed him. Keep still. Quiet. And I’ll never leave your side."

 

Per Olov Enquist, "The Story of Blanche and Marie."

[Asimov]

 

I tried telling you about a million times that paganism wasn't a religion, but a GROUPing of religions of a similar type. But you weren't having it. Maybe I didn't lay it out as clearly as JGJ. I'll bring flashcards next time.

 

Laying it out syllogistically like JGJ is usually a much easier way of explaining things than ranting for 6 pages about "grand atheist poobah".

 

In case you think I have it in for atheists, My husband is an atheist, my best friend is an atheist, and since I don't believe in gods I could probably technically call myself one as well. It's the way you present yourself, and you may SAY you don't care how you come off, but you should start caring, unless you want to have a bunch of fruitless yelling with people.

 

I HAVE defined pagan for you over and over and over. I've pointed you to ways you can get an even BETTER definition. Ficino and I had a discussion back and forth about it. You have plenty of information. You can choose to disagree with it or call it "meaningless" because it doesn't fit into your narrow view of the world, but seriously, leave me out of it.

 

You did define it, and I disagreed with the definition. I looked it up on wiki and I still disagree with it. I understood it better when JGJ listed it...and I still disagree with it.

 

I fully understand now what paganism is all about.

 

I know you don't have it in for atheists, I wouldn't care even if you did. It wasn't fruitless yelling, I got a lot out of it and learned just as much if not more about paganism than I would have from reading a website or book.

[Asimov]

heh. fair enough. No one's trying to convert you or make you like it.

 

A discussion is a number of people offering their viewpoints...my criticisms and regard for paganism has no bearing on the belief of paganism just as they have no bearing on the beliefs of Christianity. Yet I still do it for any and all religions.

 

heh. I'm not sure whether or not to take that as a backhanded remark or just straightforward. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not be a psychotic freak about it and assume you mean that exactly how you said it.

 

I did mean it exactly how I said it.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

You think he learned something? You should see the document I am creating for shits and giggles that has every major religion, branch, and sub-branch with beliefs, philosophies, practices, concepts, blah blah blah. I think I'm going nuts. Who knew that every religion has dozens and dozens of splinter groups? How can people follow any religion when I havn't found a single one that has two people that agree? Ok, a bit of an exageration, but you see my point? I just added over 120 different sects of cult religion.