America now has two Pagans in office. One transgender.

[Broomstick]

So pagans aren't as bad as christians, sure, but don't we dispise all religion on the grounds that religion is illogical and athiesm is the Truth?

Some people on this board certainly do that. But not everyone on this board is an atheist, though most probably lean in that direction.

"Despising religion" is not, actually, a requirement of being an atheist.

Another reason might be that Paganism does not require mindless adherence to a Bronze-Age set of scribbles penned by sheepherders in the desert in defiance of scientific evidence. Which is not to say Pagans are scientists or paragons of rational thought, as most of them aren't, just as most other people aren't. Even so, the lack of requirement to believe in scripture being the inerrant Word of God frees them to actually look at the world around them in a different way than a Fundamentalist Christian does. This sort of outlook is more compatible with the atheist viewpoint that fire and brimstone preaching is.

I mean, arguments along those lines are made successfully here all the time; do we stop just because the religious person is an old member of the board and the religion in question isn't christianity? I have a hard time imagining a new member with a post count under 100 trying to show off their paganism and not getting an earful about his irrationality. What's different here, familiarity? That's hardly rational.

Religion isn't that rational to begin with, and while atheism may be entirely rational that doesn't mean the person who is an atheist lacks emotions or doesn't have past baggage along for the ride.

Two reasons I "get away with it": First, we aren't really discussing MY religion here, we're discussing NeoPaganism (and even some not-so-neo) in very broad terms. I am not, myself, Asatru, Druid, Kemetic, Voudoun, etc. I know people who are, and I've studied a little bit about various belief systems. I'm presenting it more as an exhibit or discussion about someone other than myself. Even when we don't agree with someone it's quite typical to try to get inside their head and try to understand their viewpoint even if we don't agree with it, or think it absurd. Second, I have not, do not, and will not ever try to persuade anyone here to change their personal views on religion and I'll happily concede that the atheists may even be correct about the matter. That alone removes a huge element of confrontation right there.

Fact is, I seldom mention Paganism on this board. It would be inappropriate to do so in most instances. The only time I really trot out my knowledge is when someone directly asks about Paganism as I can actually speak with some authority about it. I can also discuss the occult and magic, although I gave up believing in it for the most part a long, long time ago because, again, I have made some study of it and can speak about it in a way most others on this board can't. I can also speak authoritatively on knitting, but oddly enough that particular subject has never come up around here. It is much easier for someone who dislikes or even despises knitted fabrics to discuss them in the abstract than with someone trying to forcibly dress them in a scratchy wool sweater.

[hongi]

What? I thought the Old Testament talked about responsibility to the poor while the New Testament focused more on how much the rich are screwed for their evil ways. Of course Islam gets more explicit on the whole idea of charity.

I was thinking of stuff like Matthew 25:31-46, which to paraphrase really quickly, says that everything a Christian does for a poor, weak or hungry person is being done to Jesus himself. And to top it all off:

45 Then he will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

The reward of eternal life is a pretty compelling reason for Christians to act nice.

Pagans, for the most part, don't have scriptures at all, at least not in the sense of something they believe is the direct word of God(s). So what? They don't believe written scriptures are required for morality or ethics.

Both of the above philosophies can just as easily result in Pagans "helping out in the homeless shelter, feeding the hungry, working with addiction support groups." (Indeed, I am a Pagan who has done all of the above) as can Jesus' direct mandate to Christians to do so. The driving philosophy may be different, but the results can be much the same.

Honestly, I'm an ignoramus about paganism, so if I offended you, I didn't mean to. I just didn't know what sort of ethical system was behind the different forms of paganism. IMPO, as long as the result is the same, that is people being helped, I don't care what motivates people to do it - even the selfish, yay I'm going to heaven! sort of Christians.

[Invictus ChiKen]

BTW for those interested and wanting to no more here is the website for Councilmen Holloran's organization New Normandy LINK it's down for maintenance right now but should be back up soon.

A friend tried to recruit me a few times but I've refused.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I find it very strange that, generally speaking, this board considers all christians dupes and fools, but we eagerly gather around to listen to a pagan. I'm not being judgemental; my girlfriend is pagan, and I find her faith interesting, though I'm a little put out I can't sway her to athiesm. I'm just curious why we're more comfortable with a pagan than with christians.

well lets see, the only person to kill in the name of dog, is the son of sam
killing in the name of Christ, Jehova, Alah etc. pretty damn commonplace.

Pagans didn't fracture my skull when I was just a little kid.

[Simon_Jester]

Back when they had anywhere like as much power as the Christians do now, though, they might very well have tied you up and shoved you in a swamp with your throat cut or something... for scoffing at the gods. That probably beats being tied to a post and set on fire, but not by much.

Atheists tend to have a soft spot for highly nonstandard religions because they're small and harmless and quaint: traditions, not "annoying things that everyone around me does."

[Duckie]

Naturally, you'll provide evidence, that for instance, the Greeks persecuted the Epicureans and that the Romans or Persians had any malice towards non-believers (as opposed to people who refused to take part in state-sponsored emperor-worship and festivals, which is more the equivalent of saying the pledge of allegiance than truly being a patriotic american, to use a metaphor, and which was tolerable for a person (Seneca the Younger) but not for an entire group (Hebrews))

[hongi]

I find it very strange that, generally speaking, this board considers all christians dupes and fools, but we eagerly gather around to listen to a pagan. I'm not being judgemental; my girlfriend is pagan, and I find her faith interesting, though I'm a little put out I can't sway her to athiesm. I'm just curious why we're more comfortable with a pagan than with christians.

*shrug*

I'm an atheist, but I'm pretty comfortable with most religious people whether they're Christian, Muslim or Buddhist. I'm one of those 'softies' you might say, but that may be because all the religious people I know are nice. Honestly, not one fundamentalist or door knocker.

[bobalot]

I find it very strange that, generally speaking, this board considers all christians dupes and fools, but we eagerly gather around to listen to a pagan. I'm not being judgemental; my girlfriend is pagan, and I find her faith interesting, though I'm a little put out I can't sway her to athiesm. I'm just curious why we're more comfortable with a pagan than with christians.

*shrug*

I'm an atheist, but I'm pretty comfortable with most religious people whether they're Christian, Muslim or Buddhist. I'm one of those 'softies' you might say, but that may be because all the religious people I know are nice. Honestly, not one fundamentalist or door knocker.

That's because you are from Sydney. Australia is one of the least religious Western industrialized countries. While 75% of the population claim to be "officially" be apart of some religion , barely 10% actually attend regular services. The culture is generally very irreligious, and this rubs off onto those who are actually apart of a religion (moderating their stances).

[Edi]

I find it very strange that, generally speaking, this board considers all christians dupes and fools, but we eagerly gather around to listen to a pagan. I'm not being judgemental; my girlfriend is pagan, and I find her faith interesting, though I'm a little put out I can't sway her to athiesm. I'm just curious why we're more comfortable with a pagan than with christians.

Part of it is that most people here are already familiar with the sales pitch of Christians. Talking to a pagan about that subject is a learning experience for many. Moreover, most people here have no problem with most Christians, at least moderate ones, but the fundies are a different matter.

[Darth Hoth]

Naturally, you'll provide evidence, that for instance, the Greeks persecuted the Epicureans and that the Romans or Persians had any malice towards non-believers (as opposed to people who refused to take part in state-sponsored emperor-worship and festivals, which is more the equivalent of saying the pledge of allegiance than truly being a patriotic american, to use a metaphor, and which was tolerable for a person (Seneca the Younger) but not for an entire group (Hebrews))

Would Antiochus Epiphanes's persecution of practising Jews count, when circumcision or possession of the Torah was (according to the Books of Maccabees) punished by death?

[MarshalPurnell]

To say the Roman persecution of Jews and Christians for not taking part in the religious ceremonies honoring the divinity of the Emperor was not religious oppression is ridiculous. It may have been done as a matter of suspicion as to the loyalties of the people involved, but Roman sources critical of Judaism and Christianity still stress their impiety and offensive behavior toward the gods. Of course Socrates was sentenced to death by the Athenian Assembly for his own alleged "atheism" so religious persecution was by no means limited to monotheists. The Roman slaughter of the druids in Gaul and Britain is also very well documented, as is their contempt and hatred of the Carthaginian religion, despite the readiness of the Republic to resort to human sacrifice itself in desperate situations such as the aftermath of Cannae. The real pagans of antiquity were by no means an enlightened population of libertarians overwhelmed by an intolerant tide of monotheism.

[Duckie]

That depends. You could make a good argument that oppression of the Jews in all of the classical empires was for what we would nowadays see as state security reasons- the Romans did not want a people who would refuse to assimilate and cooperate in the multiracial and multireligious roman/seleucid/persian society, and they were willing to exterminate any group who would not cooperate. It wasn't really a religious dispute, it was a political dispute- the Jews would not worship the Emperor/participate in Hellenic Religion. I would compare it more to the modern equivalent of saying the pledge of allegience more than a modern religious dispute, although more serious than the pledge- the Hellenic Gods/Emperor Worship/etc. was part of the state and everyone, regardless of their gods, participated.

By not participating they were committing treason and insurrection by setting themselves apart from the greater empire, at least as the Romans would see it. Of course no one is claiming they were enlightened in modern standards, but the pagan mindset in the classical world was very different compared to the Believe or Die monotheism the abrahamic religions brought. The Pagan one was "Submit or Die", and far more intwined with civil society and empire management rather than "You must believe this particular hermeneutic about whether christ was fully man or fully god or in between or both, or else you are a heretic and must die". It's very difficult to look at such things from a modern viewpoint because there's really no way to make logical comparisions to the modern day: It's like asking whether the Optimates were american conservatives or american liberals.

With that said, you can make a case that pagans oppressed some people 2000 years ago. But that has no bearing on the fact that it is indisputable that pagans do and have done less to fuck things up in the past 20 lifetimes.

[Darth Hoth]

The problem with such an idea is that you can justify basically any oppression that way - after all, the oppressors tend to be the majority who want to keep one minority or other down because it is perceived as a threat to the system and the status quo. For example, Catholic persecution of religious dissidents would easily be relabelled as "state security concerns" or a "political conflict" - the Spanish Inquisition comes to mind. For all intents and purposes, Catholicism there was everything you just cited Roman Emperor-worship as, and disagreeing with the Holy Father was viewed as similarly treasonous or at the very least anti-social. Similarly, Antiochus went a bit further than "keep quiet about it and we'll leave you alone" when he went for rooting out the Judaic faith, even if one disregards the more vivid martyr stories in 2 Maccabees as Jewish propaganda. I would rather say that the Romans, Seleucids et al made use of religious oppression for political purposes, since the motivations they cited for their actions were religious, just as later regimes that have failed to separate church and state have been prone to.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Pagans, while occasionally fluffy bunnies (particularly wiccans), haven't done anything in the past few milennias to fuck the world over in any real way, nor are Pagans the ones who are really causing problems nowadays in terms of religious bigotry and stupidity.

I suspect many people in India, Pakistan, and most of Africa would disagree with you.

Unless you have some other definition of 'Pagan' than I.

[Broomstick]

My understanding of the Roman issue about the Jews (which may be imperfect) was that the Jews would not participate in the official Emperor worship. My understanding is that the Romans didn't really care if you believed in any of their gods at all so long as you were willing to at least go through the motions. Paying "lip service" would demonstrate that you accepted Roman authority and would submit to it, rather than any actual belief. So Jews who were willing to go through the motions of the state required veneration were acceptable, but those who weren't willing were not acceptable. The Roman viewpoint didn't understand the problem with this, or why Jews were willing to die rather than play along.

[Simon_Jester]

Naturally, you'll provide evidence, that for instance, the Greeks persecuted the Epicureans and that the Romans or Persians had any malice towards non-believers (as opposed to people who refused to take part in state-sponsored emperor-worship and festivals, which is more the equivalent of saying the pledge of allegiance than truly being a patriotic american, to use a metaphor, and which was tolerable for a person (Seneca the Younger) but not for an entire group (Hebrews))

I cannot, and I know quite well that I cannot. However, not all "pagan" groups were created equal, and there was an enormous diversity of behavior among "pagans," one that the term (itself originally a Christian construct designed to lump "everyone who isn't us" into the same group) does not lend itself to.

Pagans were generally more tolerant of the idea of other gods, or of people not honoring their gods, than monotheists. But this did not reliably translate into what we would consider freedom of thought, speech, or action. Socrates was in fact charged with "corrupting the youth and believing in false gods," and this was an actual death penalty felony. You can say that he was killed for political reasons, or because his habit of wandering around Athens asking people trick questions was annoying, or whatever else, and not really because of religious beliefs. But the point remains that the Athenians did not see anything wrong with the idea that "corrupting the youth and believing in false gods" should be punishable by death in and of itself.

Likewise with the Romans and the Jews: the Romans were clearly willing to devastate your ethnic group if your ethnic group did not go through the motions of worship of their Emperor, and your religious reasons for doing so did not matter. They might be indifferent to all sorts of religious beliefs, but indifference is not quite the same thing as tolerance.

Likewise all the various non-Christian cultures over the years that have sacrificed human beings to the gods, or who have killed people for supposedly practicing witchcraft (this still happens in Africa), or for violating taboos for fear of divine vengeance.

None of this exonerates Christianity from any thing it has done wrong. But I think it's worth keeping in mind before becoming too enamored with any constructed notion of "Christians are vicious, pagans are virtuous." I've met people who are, though I do not for a moment contend that you are one of them.

[LaCroix]

The thing is, no one really practices that Old Time Religion today, even the reconstructionists. The faith(s) ARE tied very much to the planet. It's not just "dirt worship", as you imply. See my above post where I discuss how regional geography affects Wiccan worship. Your "pot of dirt" solution ignores the oceans. Some polytheistic deities are tied to location or fauna or flora. Many of the ritual calendars follow solar/lunar timetables which, on another world, would be different (or for lunar, either nonexistent or in multiples). It's not quite as simple as you imply.

All of which no doubts strikes some of those outside these religions as ridiculous, silly, or much ado about nothing, but I've been saying for years now that religion is more about emotional needs than rational thinking.

Before I turned atheist, I was seriously interested in about any religion, trying to find an appealing one. Celtic/Norse Was the most appealing, but I always went for "real" not what other people tell me to do according to their "interpretation". (You know, I hate modern versions of plays and opera...)

But since most of those deities LIVE on earth according to the known lore, you would have to find the new landlords once you settle for a new world - I doubt Zeus would leave his cosy den at olymp for e.g., Sirus IV.

[Broomstick]

Interesting question, isn't it? If you're a Pagan sort with planet-specific gods how do you got about introducing yourself at the new world?

Though I didn't mean to entirely shoot down your point about a spacecraft being one's world - that's a possible "solution", too, just one not satisfying to many Pagans as it would amount to worshipping your down creation, which is sort of topsy-turvy. Then again, on a multi-generation ship that might happen, particularly one that is, essentially, it's own little world.

All rather abstract at this point. The participants in that discussion ranged from whole-heartedly believing this to be a serious theological question to those who considered it a thought-game not to be taken seriously.

[LaCroix]

I believe that interstellar travel will result in lot's of new religions, since even the christian god is earthbound, according to scripture. Per definition, he lives in the sky above the earth. There is nothing about him hovering over multiple worlds, nor creating them. According to scripture, the stars are only pinprick, so they can't be the actual stars we visit. At the most, he might own the local fiefdom of Sol.

Considering how fast churches split ON earth, I 'd love to see how fast that works once they are systems apart.

[Rye]

Naturally, you'll provide evidence, that for instance, the Greeks persecuted the Epicureans

What were Socrates' death penalty offences again? Corrupting the young and ...? What did Meletus say? That Socrates believed in how many gods at all? Epicurus wasn't oppressed because he made out that the gods existed but weren't concerned, likely because saying they didn't exist would get him horribly treated in response.

Socrates was in fact charged with "corrupting the youth and believing in false gods," and this was an actual death penalty felony.

No, he was charged with corrupting the youth and atheism. He tries to get out of it at his trial by saying he believes in non-Athenian gods and Meletus says that's poppycock and he believes in none at all.

[Simon_Jester]

No, he was charged with corrupting the youth and atheism. He tries to get out of it at his trial by saying he believes in non-Athenian gods and Meletus says that's poppycock and he believes in none at all.

Maybe I'm remembering a crappy translation, then. However, the ancient Athenians may not have distinguished between "atheism," "believing something weird," and "believing in false gods." This was before anything we would really call science or rationalism, and you simply didn't get people saying "the world can be explained without any supernatural beings in it." It was mostly just a question of how abstract the supernatural forces you posited to explain things were.

That said, the critical point here is that the Athenians did in fact sentence someone to death for what amounted entirely to religious reasons: convincing people to believe things that did not go well with the orthodoxy of the time.

[Rye]

No, he was charged with corrupting the youth and atheism. He tries to get out of it at his trial by saying he believes in non-Athenian gods and Meletus says that's poppycock and he believes in none at all.

Maybe I'm remembering a crappy translation, then. However, the ancient Athenians may not have distinguished between "atheism," "believing something weird," and "believing in false gods." This was before anything we would really call science or rationalism, and you simply didn't get people saying "the world can be explained without any supernatural beings in it." It was mostly just a question of how abstract the supernatural forces you posited to explain things were.

That said, the critical point here is that the Athenians did in fact sentence someone to death for what amounted entirely to religious reasons: convincing people to believe things that did not go well with the orthodoxy of the time.

Meletus accuses Socrates of believing the sun and moon not to be gods, but merely masses of stone. Socrates responds not by specifically denying the charge of atheism, but by attacking Meletus for inconsistency: the charge against him accused him of believing in other gods, not in believing in no gods. As I said, Meletus rejects this (and they did recognise that others believed in other gods, not just that their own gods were the only "true" ones like you get in monotheism) and pursues Socrates for believing in none. Socrates doesn't outright deny his "impiety" charge, so this would likely look like a smokescreen argument anyway.

Interestingly, Socrates is one of the philosophical bedrocks that we in the west get the concept "the truth will set you free" from, yet as we see, the truth can clearly get you imprisoned and wilfully poisoning yourself.

Also, while philosophy didn't resemble modern philosophy, you still got unbelievers back then. The same problems applied to religion and the acceptance of it by everyone, because it was still silly and untrue.

[Simon_Jester]

Also, while philosophy didn't resemble modern philosophy, you still got unbelievers back then. The same problems applied to religion and the acceptance of it by everyone, because it was still silly and untrue.

To an extent, but it was a bit trickier from an intellectual standpoint, because while "men were made from clay by Big Sky Man" isn't all that convincing, "men appeared from nowhere" isn't much more convincing in a world that's never heard of Darwin. Likewise "the sun is the face of a god" isn't much worse than "the sun is a huge burning ball of gas" in a world that's never heard of Eddington.

Intelligent humans seem to have a natural desire to have some explanation for the immediate facts of their surroundings, and until ~100 to 200 years ago, no one on Earth could do a decent job of that without invoking what we today would call gods or spirits. Exceptionally phlegmatic people might not desire such an explanation... but a lot of them would also be the type to accept the popular orthodoxy at face value, or at least pay it lip service.

Now, there were certainly relatively secular philosophies at the time, such as Stoicism, but even those tended to invoke spiritual explanations for matters beyond the ken of human civilization at the time.

Hmm... I think I need to go over Stoicism closely. It might do me some good... [wanders off]