atheist too?
Lehar
believe in some other mumbo-jumbo nonsense?
--
(O)((O))(((O)))((((O))))(((((O)))))(((((O)))))((((O))))(((O)))((O))(O)
(O)((O))((( sle...@bucasb.bu.edu )))((O))(O)
(O)((O))((( Steve Lehar Boston University Boston MA )))((O))(O)
(O)((O))((( (617) 424-7035 (H) (617) 353-6425 (W) )))((O))(O)
(O)((O))(((O)))((((O))))(((((O)))))(((((O)))))((((O))))(((O)))((O))(O)
Jan Eric Larsson
>Pardon my ignorance, but is atheism pagan also or do you have to
>believe in some other mumbo-jumbo nonsense?
Pardon me for a possible degrading of a new-formed newsgroup, but
I don't think atheism is just mumbo-jumbo nonsense :-)
Jan Eric Larsson Jan...@Control.LTH.Se +46 46 108795
Department of Automatic Control
Lund Institute of Technology "We watched the thermocouples dance to the
Box 118, S-221 00 LUND, Sweden spirited tunes of a high frequency band."
Sean Casey
|Pardon my ignorance, but is atheism pagan also or do you have to
|believe in some other mumbo-jumbo nonsense?
Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
religion. I consider it a religion.
Sean
--
*** Sean Casey se...@ms.uky.edu, se...@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean
*** "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism
*** in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there
*** is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP
James Seidman
>Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
>religion. I consider it a religion.
In this case, is agnosticism a religion as well? It is based on the premise
that we cannot prove what the underlying premises are. No one has proved
that we cannot prove what the underlying premises are, therefore the premise
that we cannot prove them is itself unproved. Under your definition, this
makes agnosticism a religion as well.
In any case, the original question was whether this group included atheism,
and that subject is independent of whether or not atheism is a religion.
For example, no one denies that Anabaptism is a religion, but I don't
think that it'll come up in this group very often.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Seidman, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711. (714) 621-8000 x2026
DISCLAIMER: I don't even know if these are opinions, let alone those of
anyone other than me.
Andrew L. M. Shalit
In any case, the original question was whether this group included atheism,
and that subject is independent of whether or not atheism is a religion.
<with apologies to any pagans out there who know more about this than
I do. . .>
Modern Paganism centers around a core set of beliefs. It doesn't just
mean "opposed to standard religion". Beyond this core, there is a great
deal of diversity and (hopefull) tolerance.
Pagans tend to believe in nature spirits. They avoid a hierarchical,
patriarchal notion of an "all powerful God" controlling things for us
people down on earth. They espouse egalatarian and anarchistic
(anti-authoritarian) ideals. They believe that the spirit of life
informs all nature, and that the deities of nature (including such
things as river and tree spirits) are worthy of our friendship, and in
some cases devotion or worship.
All spirits, in this sense, have an equal claim to the truth they
find inside themselves. You can't tell me what's right or wrong,
so let's have a party! In this sense, any attempt to define
'paganism' is an anti-pagan exercise.
So, to answer your question, pagans may be 'atheists' (in so far as
they don't believe in God), but they probably aren't atheists in the
sense you meant (i.e. they aren't materialists. They believe in
an unseen (or sometimes seen) world).
If there is a real purpose for this newsgroup, and if there are
some pagans out in net-land who want to use the group, perhaps
one of them could stand up and address the issue.
-andrew
Mikel Evins
In article <SLEHAR.90...@bucasd.bu.edu>, sle...@bucasd.bu.edu
I would think that atheism is as legitimate a form of
mumbo jumbo nonsense as any other. I know it's one of
my favorites, as isms go.
--me
Wonderbitch
(thea, not theo) are both atheist and pagan...
--the Wonderbitch
"The Goddess is a part of us all."
Jeff Daly
how about agnosticism?
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ la...@clutx.clarkson.edu // We've got an unbeatable team! /
/ dal...@clutx.clarkson.edu // -Sauron /
/ bitnet: // /
/ LA...@CLVM.BITNET // /
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Torkel Franzen
>In this case, is agnosticism a religion as well? It is based on
>the premise that we cannot prove what the underlying premises are.
>No one has proved that we cannot prove what the underlying premises are,
>therefore the premise that we cannot prove them is itself unproved.
>Under your definition, this makes agnosticism a religion as well.
Aha! You haven't proved that it cannot be proved that we cannot prove
what the underlying premise are (whatever this may mean). Clearly you
are asserting the tenets of a religion here. Atheism is religion! Agnosticism
is religion! The doctrine that agnosticism is religion is religion!
Everything is religion!
I think it's a good idea to agree on this important observation, so
as to avoid the "atheism is a religion" - "it is not!" - "it is so!"
battle lately appearing in talk.religion.misc.
Creagh Yates
country-dweller.] - American Heritage Dict.
Soooo..., if not one of the three above, you're pagan.
Creagh
Lisa S Chabot
But it's a common mistake these days, especially among the
pseudo-scientific, such as those who dub themselves
"creationists".
---------------------------------
It is the pardonable vanity of lonely people everywhere to assume they
have no counterparts.
Dave Jones
> sle...@bucasd.bu.edu (Lehar) writes:
>
> Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
> religion. I consider it a religion.
If atheism is a religion, then the word religion has lost all meaning.
It seems odd to me that this assertion is usually made by people who
consider themselves religious, and who believe in God or gods. Why are
they so eager to attribute to those who hold different views the same
labels which apply to their views? Why this attempt to deny the very
basis of the other veiw, by fiat of definition?
It is only an underlying belief in absolutes that can support the
equivalence: You claim there is a God. I say there is none. Neither of
us can prove our point, so you say each position is a religion.
But I don't admit that the lack of absolute proof constitutes religion.
When you weight the evidence, and choose the most reasonable alternative,
that is not religion.
It is my belief -- call it a 'religion' is that pleases you -- that the
best we can do is to attempt to devise a theory which best fits the
observed facts. The way I understand the word, religion is at odds with
that belief, in that it places inner feels above reasoned observation.
So what are the facts? The only evidence I see of God is that people say
there is one. (They attempt to offer more evidence, but it all boils down
to their belief, and their inability to imagine that things might have
happened otherwise.)
How can we explain this phenomenon of people saying there is a God?
Is it in some way due to the existance of God? I don't think so.
If there is a God, it seems wildly unlikely to me that people's belief
in God is in any way correlated to that fact. For one thing, there are
so many variations. My theory, which seems to hold up pretty well, is that
they believe in gods because of social conditioning and rewards, and as a
means to deny to themselves their own mortality.
Russell Turpin
> Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
> religion. I consider it a religion.
It depends, of course, on how one defines atheism. My atheism is
not even a belief system, much less one founded on unprovable
premises.
Russell
Mathemagician
>religion. I consider it a religion.
Depending on to whom you talk, atheism is based on the fact that
what is often considered "proof" for the existence of a higher
power fails under scientific analysis (reproduceable results etc.)
Me...I prefer being called a "non-theist" (the original meaning of
"atheist") or an "NRP" (No Religious Preference).
--
--
Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first
bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
Nate Hess
> I think it's a good idea to agree on this important observation, so
>as to avoid the "atheism is a religion" - "it is not!" - "it is so!"
>battle lately appearing in talk.religion.misc.
I think it would be a good idea to agree that alt.pagan can be used to
discuss whatever topics the posters care to use it for. Instead of
using the first 50 postings to discuss what should be discussed, how
about using them to actually discuss?
The content will take care of itself.
--woodstock
--
"What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking
and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes
nh...@dvlseq.oracle.com or ...!uunet!oracle!nhess or (415) 598-3046
A Waterworth
And from the other side of "The Pond"...
pagan (n. & a.) heathen; unenlightened or irreligious (person);
hence ~dom, ~ism, (ns.), ~ish (a.), ~ize (v.t. & i.)
[ ME, f. L paganus civilian (pagus country district; see -an);
sense 'heathen' in Christian L (Tertullion, Augustine) ]
- Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 7th Edition (1982), Reprinted 1988.
Where n. = noun
a. = adjective
ns. = nouns
v.t. = verb (transitive)
v.i. = verb (intransitive)
ME = Middle English
f. = from
L = Latin
So take your pick folks...!
ADW
______________________________________________________________________________
FROM : Adrian Waterworth. JANET : A.Wate...@uk.ac.newcastle
ARPA : A.Wate...@newcastle.ac.uk
PHONE : +44 91 222 6000 UUCP : ...!ukc!newcastle.ac.uk!A.Waterworth
POST : Computing Lab. University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. NE1 7RU.
J I L Gold
>religion. I consider it a religion.
>
>Sean
Oh deary me, not very philosophically sound! You've got to focus on the
word "belief". Ask yourself "why do I believe what I do?" Most "reli-
gious" people will not be able to justify their beliefs in terms of
anything tangible. In fact, I would argue that they can't justify their
beliefs (as BELIEFS, as in "I believe the world is round") AT ALL. I
KNOW that to a large extent I CAN justify MY beliefs at least down to
a level where I am forced to make assumptions about the world, but then
without those basic assumptions life would be impossible anyway (many of
them amount to not being paranoid!). There's a world of difference between
these "belief systems", and to bracket them together is un petit simplistic.
--
# J.Gold | map...@uk.ac.bath.gdr #
# University of Bath , UK | ji...@uk.ac.bath.maths #
Thomas L}ngbacka INF
Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
religion. I consider it a religion.
Sean
---
I agree with your opinion about atheism. However, if religion is based
on the premise that God exists (I assume this is what you mean), then
religion most certainly is not a belief system based on unprovable
premises (at least from the pure logical point of view - i.e. it is
of course logically possible to prove the existence of God even though
it has not been done yet).
--
*******************************************************************************
* Thomas L}ngbacka email: lang...@ibsun.abo.fi *
* Swedish University of Turku (]bo Akademi) *
*******************************************************************************
Mike Morgan/Colorado Springs
In article <LANCE.90F...@clutx.clarkson.edu>, la...@clutx.clarkson.edu (Jeff Daly) writes...
>
>how about agnosticism?
I subscribe to the neo-Pagan naturalistic attitude. I guess
I'm a mystical agnostic. I always think of the agnostic as unable
to understand the question. The definitions of the items questioned
aren't sufficient.
*** As always I speak for myself. ***
Rolf Lindgren
>Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
>religion. I consider it a religion.
According to the Huxley (I don't remember which one, if it was Aldous or T.H.),
an Atheist is a person who doesn't take supernatural powers into account when
making decisions. Where are the unprovable premises here?
So, whoever's an agnostic is an atheist, but not necessarily vice versa.
Michael McClary
>
>|Pardon my ignorance, but is atheism pagan also or do you have to
>|believe in some other mumbo-jumbo nonsense?
>
>Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
>religion. I consider it a religion.
According to (Merriam-)Webster's Seventh New Collegiate, Pagan can
mean either a believer in a non-Christian religion or an unbeliever
in the Christian God.
Root is a Latin word for "country". I therefore suspect that it
refers to whatever the unconverted of the European and Medeteranian
countrysides believed, which would mean it implies followers of
agriculture-related and miscelaneous religions, with a mix of
Atheists, Agnostics, and skeptics. (Can't tell if it was applied
to Moslems, who rated a few specialized epithets of their own.)
So anybody the Christians find offensive should fit right in. B-)
Nico Nierenberg
>
>|Pardon my ignorance, but is atheism pagan also or do you have to
>|believe in some other mumbo-jumbo nonsense?
>
>Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
>religion. I consider it a religion.
Aha! but is agnosticism a religion since it is a non-belief system based
on the provable premise that nobody really knows!
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicolas Nierenberg "No matter where you go,
Unify Corp. there you are."
nico@unify
James Seidman
>I agree with your opinion about atheism. However, if religion is based
>on the premise that God exists (I assume this is what you mean), then
>religion most certainly is not a belief system based on unprovable
>premises (at least from the pure logical point of view - i.e. it is
>of course logically possible to prove the existence of God even though
>it has not been done yet).
This is probably the most fanatical thing I've seen on this group so far.
Not to flame, or anything like that, but what's this "it is of course
logically possible" stuff? Sounds like a statement from a closed-minded
true believer to me.
To start with, it is not possible to logically prove anything without
starting with basic axioms. If you start with an axiom like "The Torah is
completely true" then it's very easy to prove "logically" that a god exists
(actually, multiple ones, since it mentions others besides the Hebrew god).
If you start only with observably true axioms (massed bodies attract, people
tend to form social groups, the sun appears to rise and set, etc.) then it's
much harder.
Could you please, somehow, justify this statement? Since I don't believe in
any gods, being shown that it is "of course" possible to prove the existance
of a god (even without the proof) might cause me to convert.
James Seidman
>In article <41...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> jsei...@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (James Seidman) writes:
> >Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
> >religion. I consider it a religion.
Please work harder to get your attributions correct. It was Sean Casey who
said this, not me.
Brian R. Holt
created alt.atheism for these discussions. Look for it at a newsfeed
near you...
=brian
P.S. Flames will be ignored. This is why we created alt.
br...@ima.isc.com
US 617-661-7474 x206
near the last bend in the Charles River
Matthew Skinner
>Me...I prefer being called a "non-theist" (the original meaning of
>"atheist") or an "NRP" (No Religious Preference).
Hmmmmm... NRP,
I would use that as "No Religion, PLEASE!" :-)
--
Matthew Skinner skinner@ [ nessie | unicorn ].wwu.edu
Werner Uhrig
yep. looks like Sean is trying to disprove my atheistic niche:
my atheism is defined as "not being religious", no pre- or
post-conditions permitted! live and let live, Sean.
---Werner
Thomas L}ngbacka INF
>I agree with your opinion about atheism. However, if religion is based
>on the premise that God exists (I assume this is what you mean), then
>religion most certainly is not a belief system based on unprovable
>premises (at least from the pure logical point of view - i.e. it is
>of course logically possible to prove the existence of God even though
>it has not been done yet).
This is probably the most fanatical thing I've seen on this group so far.
Not to flame, or anything like that, but what's this "it is of course
logically possible" stuff? Sounds like a statement from a closed-minded
true believer to me.
You have misinterpreted me totally. First of all, I'm not a believer
(in fact, quite the opposite).
What I tried to express in my posting was the fact that if religion is
based on the premise that god exists, then it is in fact based on a premise
which is possible to prove. On the other hand, if atheism is based on the
premise that god does not exist, then it is based on a premise that is
non-provable (think about it, how can you prove that god does not exist).
Sean Casey
|In article <14...@s.ms.uky.edu> se...@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
|>Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
|>religion. I consider it a religion.
|In this case, is agnosticism a religion as well? It is based on the premise
|that we cannot prove what the underlying premises are.
Ah the old "everything we experience is belief" argument.
Sorry, try again. That one got old long ago.
Sean
--
*** Sean Casey se...@ms.uky.edu, se...@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean
*** "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism
*** in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there
*** is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP
Sean Casey
| my atheism is defined as "not being religious", no pre- or
| post-conditions permitted! live and let live, Sean.
Then by definition you're agnostic.
Sean Casey
|Aha! but is agnosticism a religion since it is a non-belief system based
|on the provable premise that nobody really knows!
No, agnosticism is more of a scientific stand. Athiesm denies the existance
of gods. Since there is no proof, I consider it the same as religion.
James Seidman
>What I tried to express in my posting was the fact that if religion is
>based on the premise that god exists, then it is in fact based on a premise
>which is possible to prove. On the other hand, if atheism is based on the
>premise that god does not exist, then it is based on a premise that is
>non-provable (think about it, how can you prove that god does not exist).
OK, now that you've clarified that:
Why do you think that existance of a god is possible to prove, while
non-existance is not? As a parallel, consider the belief that there are men
on Mars. It is utterly impossible to prove this (as it is not true), but we
have successfully disproved it.
I don't see that it is impossible to disprove the existance of gods.
Perhaps we just don't have the necessary technology, psychic development,
etc. to do it. On the other hand, it is ABSOLUTELY, TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to
prove the existance of a god unless one exists (which means that I believe
it's impossible).
Christopher Hassell
# In article <14...@s.ms.uky.edu> se...@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
# >sle...@bucasd.bu.edu (Lehar) writes:
# >|Pardon my ignorance, but is atheism pagan also or do you have to
# >|believe in some other mumbo-jumbo nonsense?
# >Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
# >religion. I consider it a religion.
# According to (Merriam-)Webster's Seventh New Collegiate, Pagan can
# mean either a believer in a non-Christian religion or an unbeliever
# in the Christian God.
# Root is a Latin word for "country". I therefore suspect that it
# refers to whatever the unconverted of the European and Medeteranian
# countrysides believed, which would mean it implies followers of
# agriculture-related and miscelaneous religions, with a mix of
# Atheists, Agnostics, and skeptics. (Can't tell if it was applied
# to Moslems, who rated a few specialized epithets of their own.)
Very interessting issue. I discussed this with my roomie once.. and he's a
religious studies major... There is a changing "classification" aspect to the
term "pagan" and so it is not just the Popular term from older older days:
Non-Judeo-Christian-Islamic.
Now... for those who don't know what I think it was intended to mean:
I think it means <gad I wishes I had a rel-studies classification book>
A polytheistic nature/fertility/war-oriented religion with
generaly mystical beliefs with some form of possible Power
invovled.
Santeria, Voodoo, Wicca, Ancient Greek Mythology, Druidism and
many superstitions as well as less sophisticated aspects of
Satanism are candidates for this.
Hinduism can also be considered for this when its larger tenets
are not taken <Oneness of everything, Creation stories,
Soul Transmigration>
One could also include things for "pagan" beliefs such as :
larger, less specific and more philosohpical ideas
about wholeness or blessed naturality or other things
and maybe trim off Santeria and Voodoo.
Pantheism is definately an aspect of many "pagan" beliefs.
Now... for whatever reason (whoever's reason) it generally also refers
to a belief that is "above" or generally more ethereal than tribal
faiths with complicated interrelationships not unlike Greek mythology.
So as for Tribal African or American Indian or Indonesian stuff.. i
dunno.
# So anybody the Christians find offensive should fit right in. B-)
Yuk yuk yuk. Howzabout those that Islams find offensive? Howzabout those that
Hindu's find offensive? Howzabout those that Bhuddists find offsenive?
Howzabout those that atheists find offensive? Or better yet:
Howzabout those that Wiccans/SortaPagans/NewAgers find offensive?
Oh yeah... that means <usually and specifically> Christians.
But you couldn't mean that.
Yeah.. yeah... claim Retaliation for Christian Crimes but that is
merely following the Party Line further... more restrictedly.
Refugees ARE welcome here I would say... but those also who are on the right
"side" of the refugee fence, remember. Any oppressive rejection technique in a
set of people with an unrelatedly defined faith, does not deserve a
consideration as a possible Truth. AND that goes for the Faith of
Anti-NewAgism and Anti-Mysticism and Anti-Christianity and you take it from
there.
ta ta.
### C>H> ### { uunet!rutgers!sunybcs , ncar , nbires } !boulder!tramp!hassell
Christopher Hassell
# In article <14...@s.ms.uky.edu> se...@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
# >
# >Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
# >religion. I consider it a religion.
# >
# >Sean
#
# Oh deary me, not very philosophically sound! You've got to focus on the
Oh deary me.. not very unassured are we?
# word "belief". Ask yourself "why do I believe what I do?" Most "reli-
# gious" people will not be able to justify their beliefs in terms of
# anything tangible. In fact, I would argue that they can't justify their
As the Easternoids <eastern philosophy> notice... one can disavow their faith
in anything AND EVEN THOSE THINGS THAT ARE TANGIBLE. So remember that
Tangibility and Intangibility are also a decidedly arbitrary decision as well.
# beliefs (as BELIEFS, as in "I believe the world is round") AT ALL. I
# KNOW that to a large extent I CAN justify MY beliefs at least down to
# a level where I am forced to make assumptions about the world, but then
# without those basic assumptions life would be impossible anyway (many of
OKay... YOUR lowest assumptions are okay... but theirs aren't?
Yours... as an atheist... are something on the order of Observable and
Repeatible Science? Makes sense... but that is then therefore your faith.
It is your faith especially more if you say Science Disproves God... or just
say that an Unproven Intangible <just past the barely Tangible things like
Quarks and Nutrinos> cannot exist... whereas a Proven Tangible can.
Even though the definitions for those two change with every major discovery...
thank Diety.
# them amount to not being paranoid!). There's a world of difference between
# these "belief systems", and to bracket them together is un petit simplistic.
Yeah yeah. What then... is a religion? Bracketing something apart is a bit
more arbitrary... even if not simplistic.
<that is a stickler for anyone and yes I'm asking to find out... to see the
real division-thingy.. between non and actual religion.>.
Atheists will not like to associate specifically with sets of Religions and in
some ways use that as the basis for their faith <I go here from understood
doctrine .. but I may be wrong on nuances>.
I find Atheism to be in some ways just that, an Anti-Faith. They have
non-faith in things, at least the militant, religion-offended branch does.
And the faith is defined only by the lack of that which they reject... as
opposed to Atheism's analog as a real live faith: Humanism.
Humanism I can understand and back to the point of seeing try to be
constructive. Atheism seems reactionary to me.
# --
# # J.Gold | map...@uk.ac.bath.gdr #
# # University of Bath , UK | ji...@uk.ac.bath.maths #
We all should watch your Intelligencia-style assertions. Simplicity is the
only way to get through the boring, mundane and usless complexities out there.
Christopher Hassell
# <14...@s.ms.uky.edu> se...@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes:
# > sle...@bucasd.bu.edu (Lehar) writes:
# >|Pardon my ignorance, but is atheism pagan also or do you have to
# >|believe in some other mumbo-jumbo nonsense?
# >Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
# >religion. I consider it a religion.
# Aha! but is agnosticism a religion since it is a non-belief system based
# on the provable premise that nobody really knows!
<snicker snicker> Okay okay.. I'll grant ya that that is the asset that
atheists wish they had in their religion: logical provability.
That is a reliable basis then... the I Dunno assertion. It works.
The higher question is what do Agnostics believe... because they may be the
true candidates for having No Religion or having a Null religion... instead of
Atheists as they claim. This would be a hair-thin judgement on the issue, but
it seems valid.
# --
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# Nicolas Nierenberg "No matter where you go,
# Unify Corp. there you are."
# nico@unify
"Well I always say:
There's nothing a good Agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether
he believes in anything or not!"
-- Monty Python <who else?>
Not to knock it.. but at least agnostics are more honest instead of
anti-answering. <that was a knock...slam...bash... what can ya say... sorry>
bye
Doug Bischoff
>Modern Paganism centers around a core set of beliefs. It doesn't just
>mean "opposed to standard religion". Beyond this core, there is a great
>deal of diversity and (hopefull) tolerance.
>Pagans tend to believe in nature spirits. They avoid a hierarchical,
>patriarchal notion of an "all powerful God" controlling things for us
>people down on earth. They espouse egalatarian and anarchistic
>(anti-authoritarian) ideals. They believe that the spirit of life
>informs all nature, and that the deities of nature (including such
>things as river and tree spirits) are worthy of our friendship, and in
>some cases devotion or worship.
Okay: one distinction. According to the dictionary (and I'm not going
to base my entire argument on a dictionary definition like some postings
tend to do. Read: Flame) PAGAN refers to any religion that the Roman Catholics
and Christians and Jews decided weren't the "True Religion" (Read: theirs).
That means ANY religion that isn't "standard" can be called Pagan. What
you described in your posting was just one of (I'm sure) hundreds of "Pagan"
religions. Perhaps Wiccan or Druidism (I'm not too up on their beliefs, but
I think your description falls in their camp) suits your description, but
many others don't.
Don't go against your own policy of tolerance by defining what pagan must
be! There are many other religions out there that fall into that stereotyped
category that don't even RESEMBLE your description.
Just keeping an open mind! (As much as possible, given species anyway!)
/---------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Doug Bischoff | *** *** ====--\ | "Insanity is but |
| DEB110 @ PSUVM | * *** * ==|<>\___ | a state of mind: |
| The Black Ring | *** *** |______\ | but a good one!" |
| -- "Wheels" -- | *** O O | -D. Klementovich |
| -Willy Wassle- | T.R.I. ------------- | C.A.C.P.I. 1987 |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------/
Phil Stephens
> >Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
> >religion. I consider it a religion.
>
>According to the Huxley (I don't remember which one, if it was Aldous or T.H.),
>an Atheist is a person who doesn't take supernatural powers into account when
>making decisions. Where are the unprovable premises here?
Well, you're using the word in a different way than 99% of the population
understands it to be defined. That's where the unprovable premises are,
in the standard definition. Not that they're right and you're wrong, but
that you will have to explain how you are using the word every time you use
it with someone new. Rather like Wiccans and feminists reclaiming the word
"witch"; the popular usage is partly the result of past slanderous propaganda,
and the effort to redefine the word *may* be worthwhile.
I like your definition, and if many or most who call themselves Atheists
agree that it defines them better than the dictionary definition does, that
would increase my respect for them immensely. But I'm not inclined to
enthusiasticly embrace it and say "yes, that means I'm an Atheist, too!";
rather, I would like a different lable to apply that definition to. Sorry!
>So, whoever's an agnostic is an atheist, but not necessarily vice versa.
That's begging the question. Until you persuade an awful lot of people to
use your definition, the word defaults to its most common usage, which is
disbelief in the existance of God. Besides, your statement is not really
accurate anyway, as an agnostic may very well be "hedging bets" mentally,
rather than totally disreguarding supernatural powers. I have always
(well, as far back as I can remember) considered myself an Agnostic, and
I have always hedged my bets by praying to "whoever's out there" and
mentally issuing a blanket apology to the effect of "I'll just do the best
I can, and trust that Deity will understand (if It exists)".
Wishy washy? No, just an Agnostic who is really SERIOUS about not knowing!
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
Seriously, I currently consider myself an Agnostic with Pantheist leanings.
And I regularly pray to The Universe, although lately I have accepted
relating to The Universe via an anthropomorphic image of The Goddess which
appeals to my "younger self" (ie subconscious mind), but which I understand
as more a function of what I am able to relate to than what I BELIEVE that
the Universe is. (More on that if there's interest, I guess. Email or post).
"Confused? You won't be after this episode of Soap!" %^]
--
- Phil (Phil Stephens, Cupertino, CA)
prs@oliven == p...@oliven.atc.olivetti.com
[or if all else fails]: (hplabs|sun|allegra|amdahl)oliveb!oliven!prs
Mark Baranowski
> From article <14...@s.ms.uky.edu>, by se...@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey):
> > Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
> > religion. I consider it a religion.
>
According to my dictionary the word `religion' comes from the Latin
root `religio' meaning taboo or restraint. It's not so much that
religions were originally a system of beliefs, rather, religions were
based on a system of don't do this and don't do that (e.g. don't kill
thy neighbor, don't commit adultery, honor thy mother and father, etc.).
I agree that nowadays the word `religion' has taken new meanings, but
in the early days of Christianity, the followers of Jesus must have
seemed like a bunch of prudes to the licentious Romans. About the only
"fun" a Christian might have been to the Romans was when feeding him to
the lions.
--
Internet: markb%slc.uni...@relay.cs.net | uucp: ...!giga!markb
vi.bar...@science.utah.edu |
Thant Tessman
> In article <11...@goofy.megatest.UUCP>, djo...@megatest.UUCP (Dave
Jones) writes:
> > From article <14...@s.ms.uky.edu>, by se...@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey):
> > > Atheism is a belief system based on unprovable premises, just like
> > > religion. I consider it a religion.
> >
> > If atheism is a religion, then the word religion has lost all meaning.
>
> According to my dictionary the word `religion' comes from the Latin
> root `religio' meaning taboo or restraint. It's not so much that
> religions were originally a system of beliefs, rather, religions were
> based on a system of don't do this and don't do that (e.g. don't kill
> thy neighbor, don't commit adultery, honor thy mother and father, etc.).
>
I don't think this is right. Although it is true that Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam seem to have an almost perverse obsession
with rules, I don't think it is true of religions in general. As noted
earlier, 'yoga' comes from a root with similar meaning to 'religio',
but the "link back" that yoga refers to is the link back with the
divine. Similarly, the whole point of Christianity is to reach
atonement (at one-ment) with God. The common thread among
all religions is that they are (or were) supposed to illustrate the
way to bring yourself in harmony with the universe.
However, I think this point is lost on 99% of everyone who call
themselves religious, because anyone who truly realizes this must
also realize that what was appropriate mythology for a wandering
nomadic tribe two thousand years ago probably has very little to
spiritually say to us now.
This, combined with the Church's insistence on a literal, as
opposed to a metaphorical, interpretation of religious events
(which in the case of Christianity started in the second
century as a political powerplay), and the western attitude
that religion *is* Judaism/Christianity, is why so many people
decide to call themselves atheists.
Most religions know that the gods are just metaphors for basic
psychological energies. (As someone once pointed out, there is no
such thing as a 'fundamentalist Hindu.') 'God' is an attempt to
wrap our only too human thoughts around the naked experience
of life.
thant
"The trouble with YHWH is He thinks He's God."
- Old Gnostic Saying
pa1412
>
>I agree that nowadays the word `religion' has taken new meanings, but
>in the early days of Christianity, the followers of Jesus must have
>seemed like a bunch of prudes to the licentious Romans.
Probably not. The average Roman was not as licentious as the typical
Caesar. Except for the dieties worshiped most of the rules of life
are still in common useage today. Women seen but not heard, virgins
till marriage. All due respect for the dieties. Hard work is good. A
wink at man occassionally going to a prostitute, but condemning a
frequent flier. Etc.
--
John Clark
jcl...@ucsd.edu
pa1...@iugrad2.ucsd.edu
pa1412
.
.I don't think this is right. Although it is true that Judaism,
.Christianity, and Islam seem to have an almost perverse obsession
.with rules, I don't think it is true of religions in general. As noted
.earlier, 'yoga' comes from a root with similar meaning to 'religio',
...........^^^^ Cognate with 'yoke' as in yoking oxen together.
.but the "link back" that yoga refers to is the link back with the
.divine. Similarly, the whole point of Christianity is to reach
.atonement (at one-ment) with God.
Juha Inkari
>of gods. Since there is no proof, I consider it the same as religion.
Atheism denies the existence of gods because theres no proof of the
existence of gods.
Agnosticism doesnt know if gods exist or not because there havent been
evidence if gods exists (like in the case of atheism) but it doesnt
rule out the possibility that such evidence could be and therefore
gods could exist.
IMHO if somebody claims something he should have concrete proof about
it - othervise I dont believe him. That is the scientific stand (:
Now wheres the difference between atheism and agnosticism ?
In the light of current evidence atheist says " I cant see any god ",
and agnostic " If I dont see the god it doesnt prove anything - god
could still exist !"
How can agnostic be convinced to believe that there is/isnt gods?
Only when he sees the god ! So agnostic has to rule out the possibility
that gods dont exist. There is only 2 states : dunno and gods exist.
That doesnt seem to be of a very good scientific base.
Juha Inkari d37...@puukko.hut.fi ink...@batgirl.hut.fi
Scott Fisher
>themselves religious, because anyone who truly realizes this must
>also realize that what was appropriate mythology for a wandering
>nomadic tribe two thousand years ago probably has very little to
>spiritually say to us now.
I think that's an intermediate stage -- that is, if you
interpret that mythology by adherence to:
>the Church's insistence on a literal, as
>opposed to a metaphorical, interpretation of religious events
then the mythology is probably inappropriate. But if you
get beyond that point of belief, to where you can "read
the Bible as poetry instead of as prose," in Campbell's
words, then you can experience the understanding that:
>the gods are just metaphors for basic psychological energies.
The hard part about seeing the applicability of the metaphors
in the Bible is that they have been so ingrained into our
culture, a culture of laws and of prose interpretations if
you will, that it's hard to see the fundamental psychological
truths inherent in the mythology. Much of it is valid;
even more of it is still interesting because of how it was
used to shape Western thought.
Thant Tessman
> In article <39...@odin.SGI.COM> th...@horus.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
writes:
>
> The hard part about seeing the applicability of the metaphors
> in the Bible is that they have been so ingrained into our
> culture, a culture of laws and of prose interpretations if
> you will, that it's hard to see the fundamental psychological
> truths inherent in the mythology. Much of it is valid;
> even more of it is still interesting because of how it was
> used to shape Western thought.
>
Point well made. I thought about this after I sent it.
(And after reading some Philip K. Dick.)
thant
Ake Eldberg (William de Corbie)
"religion". Some have said it must entail the belief in one or
more gods, but where does that leave Hinayana Buddhism? This
is clearly a religion but it does not believe in any god.
One could call atheism a religion, if by that word we mean a
basic approach to reality, a "view of the world" (german:
Weltanschauung). Personally, I don't regard atheism as a
religion because it has no cult, no liturgy, no ceremonies
and no temples. Only on a meta-level can it be interpreted
as a religion.
James Seidman
My pocket dictionary defines "religion" as:
The beliefs, attitudes, emotions, behavior, etc., constituting man's
relationship with the powers and principles of the universe, esp. with a
deity or deities. (From Funk&Wagnalls Standard Dictionary without permission)
Now, inasmuch as atheism does deal with man's relationship with the powers
and principles of the universe, I think it is a religion under this
definition. I don't think the lack of cult, liturgy, ceremonies and temples
precludes a belief system from being called a religion. On the contrary, I
have heard the opinion stated that such things are often introduced while a
religion is in its decline from a meaningful world-view to a popular
movement which has lost most of its (spiritual) significance.
Now, I'm not familiar enough with Hinayana Buddhism to comment intelligently
on it. But I do know that there are many "sects" of paganism which have no
cult, liturgy, etc. but are instead very personal expressions of a belief
system, and do not necessarily involve deities as such. (I don't read
alt.pagan, so I'm not sure what the thought is there on the status of the
forces involved, but I personally know pagans who do not consider them
deities.)
I'm not sure what you mean by a "meta-level" since you never defined what
the normal level is. However, I do consider atheism and paganism as
religions (or, to be precise, as families of religions) since they do
represent coherent belief systems regarding the world and how we fit into
it. In fact, under this definition, many varieties of atheism might well
qualify better than some branches of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity.
Andrew C. Plotkin
> Sei...@jarthur.Cl (2600)
> My pocket dictionary defines "religion" as:
> The beliefs, attitudes, emotions, behavior, etc., constituting man's
> relationship with the powers and principles of the universe, esp. with a
> deity or deities. (From Funk&Wagnalls Standard Dictionary without
> permission)
> Now, inasmuch as atheism does deal with man's relationship with the
> powers
> and principles of the universe, I think it is a religion under this
> definition. I don't think the lack of cult, liturgy, ceremonies and
> temples
> precludes a belief system from being called a religion.
I think part of the problem is the word "religion", singular. Atheism is
certainly not a singular belief pattern, passed down from a central
organization or even a central body of adherents.
Monotheism fits the quoted definition as well as atheism does -- would
you say "monotheism is a religion"?
--Z
James Seidman
>> Excerpts from netnews.alt.pagan: 15-Feb-90 Re: atheist too? James
>> Sei...@jarthur.Cl (2600)
>I think part of the problem is the word "religion", singular. Atheism is
>certainly not a singular belief pattern, passed down from a central
>organization or even a central body of adherents.
>Monotheism fits the quoted definition as well as atheism does -- would
>you say "monotheism is a religion"?
In the part of my article which you didn't quote, I believe I clarified that
atheism and paganism are "families of religions." In the same way,
monotheism is a family of religions, and theism is an even larger family.
I'd like to point out that the same argument you use for atheism can be
equally well applied to Christianity or Judaism. The different sects of
these religions often have widely different beliefs. Especially in Judaism,
almost all adherents do not believe in a central organization which
determines belief patterns. Yet most people have no qualms about saying
something like, "Judaism is a religion."
Andrew C. Plotkin
> Sei...@jarthur.Cl (1439)
> In the part of my article which you didn't quote, I believe I clarified
> that
> atheism and paganism are "families of religions." In the same way,
> monotheism is a family of religions, and theism is an even larger family.
True, and I should have read more carefully. But there *is* a
distinction between a family of religions such as monotheism, and a
"class", say, of religious beliefs like monotheism or atheism. It is
this distinction that gets lost when someone says "atheism is a
religion," and someone else shouts "I'm an atheist, and I'm not a member
of any religion!"
> I'd like to point out that the same argument you use for atheism can be
> equally well applied to Christianity or Judaism. ... Especially in
> Judaism,
> almost all adherents do not believe in a central organization which
> determines belief patterns. Yet most people have no qualms about saying
> something like, "Judaism is a religion."
I would say that the Torah counts as a central thingie from which all of
Judaism derives.
--Z
The Jade Piper,,,
From article <21...@watdragon.waterloo.edu>, by rpj...@violet.waterloo.edu (Rob Day):
> In article <4...@unicorn.WWU.EDU> n874...@unicorn.WWU.EDU (Matthew Skinner) writes:
>>In <15...@ariel.unm.edu> bev...@gauss.unm.edu Brian Evans writes:
>>
>>>Me...I prefer being called a "non-theist" (the original meaning of
>>>"atheist") or an "NRP" (No Religious Preference).
>>
>>Hmmmmm... NRP,
>>
>> I would use that as "No Religion, PLEASE!" :-)
>>
>
> rday
Aaaggghhh!!! No, please! Not again!!! We just finished beating
that subject to death!! Head for the CPU hills!!! "Run awaaaayyyy!"
Jade -- the man who would be king.
schm...@clutx.clarkson.edu
;-]
Rob Day
>
>>Me...I prefer being called a "non-theist" (the original meaning of
>>"atheist") or an "NRP" (No Religious Preference).
>
>Hmmmmm... NRP,
>
> I would use that as "No Religion, PLEASE!" :-)
>
Sorry if I'm hopelessly out of date as I just started reading this
group. The first few messages I have read show a serious misunderstanding
of the term "atheist." For the best definition, I recommend the book
"Atheism: The Case Against God," by G. Smith. The publisher is, I think,
Prometheus.
Anyway, the problem is that the term "atheist" does NOT mean someone
who believes there is no God. This is, unfortunately, the common
thinking which is technically incorrect. Someone who believes in a god,
any God, is considered a "theist." By definition, EVERYONE ELSE is
an atheist. The prefix "a-" means opposite of, or without, as in
a-typical or a-symmetric. By definition, then, you are either a theist
or an atheist. There is no middle ground. To state specifically that
you believe that God does not exist means that you are a particular
flavor of atheist. To state that you hold no belief whatever is also
technically an atheist. Therefore, to say that you are simply an atheist
does not require any proof from you to substantiate your beliefs.
If you state that you believe that God does not exist, then, yes,
you now should cough up some proof.
But wait, you say. What is an agnostic, then? The term agnostic,
coined by Huxley, deals with whether the concept of a supernatural being
is KNOWABLE, not whether it exists. You can be an agnostic atheist,
if you have no belief in a God and also believe that the concept of
a God is unknowable. You can be an agnostic theist, when you believe in
a God but think the concept of incomprehensible (this is actually
quite common). And so on.
To summarize then, the poster above is correct. The correct definition
of atheist is "non-theist," and should be treated this way.
rday
Kenneth Arromdee
>The first few messages I have read show a serious misunderstanding
>of the term "atheist." For the best definition, I recommend the book
>"Atheism: The Case Against God," by G. Smith. The publisher is, I think,
>Prometheus.
> Anyway, the problem is that the term "atheist" does NOT mean someone
>who believes there is no God. This is, unfortunately, the common
>thinking which is technically incorrect. Someone who believes in a god,
>any God, is considered a "theist." By definition, EVERYONE ELSE is
>an atheist. The prefix "a-" means opposite of, or without, as in
"a" "the" "ism".
"a" meaning without, "the" meaning God, "ism" meaning belief.
If you parse it as "(a the) ism" it means belief in the absence of a God.
If you parse it as "a (the ism)" it means absence of belief in a God.
Saying that everyone who isn't a theist is an atheist, is correct under
the second parsing, but not under the first. Unless you have some reason to
prefer one over the other, you can't justify your definition by resorting to
etymology.
--
"Workers of the world, we're sorry!" --Soviet protestor's slogan
Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
INTERNET: arro...@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu)
Ake Eldberg (William de Corbie)
>I don't think that the lack of cult, liturgy, ceremonies and temples
>precludes a belief system from being called a religion. On the contrary,
>I have heard the opinion stated that such things are often introduced
>while a religion is in its decline from a meaningful world-view to a
>popular movement which has lost most of its (spiritual) significance.
Okay, I will buy your first point. But on the other hand, I would say
that if there *is* a cult with ceremonies, temples &c., this makes it
rather probable that we *are* dealing with a religion. By ceremonies
I don't mean such things as the installation of a new president (which
is a political show and a juridical ceremony of oath-swearing) but
such ceremonies that are trying to express something over and above
the actual events in it. A fixed set of symbolical actions.
For example, Transcendental Meditation (TM) claims fervently that it
is not a religious movement (at least it did so in the 60's when it
came to the Western hemisphere). But it does involve a religious
ceremony where the receiver of a mantra offers a flower and a white
handkerchief - so I regard it as a religion. The fact that the
mantras are all names of Indian gods is further proof, of course.
Your second point is not one I recognize. I believe that the need
to express our experiences of life, the Universe and Everything
in a symbolic way is deeply ingrained in all of us. The experience
of being a human and living in this world can never totally be
expressed in words. Liturgy is a way of expressing it. Therefore
it exists in all religions. It also fosters a sens of togetherness
in a group, like the secret ceremonies of freemasons & such.
Ake Eldberg