Neopaganism Is The Worst

[Sheilbh]

I guess I don't see the distinction. I'd say a mental hug is pretty much the definition of a religion.

Religion's not an individual thing.  What marks a religion out is that it could have no believers and through the weight of its thought I could have a reasonable idea of what the religion is like.  That's true of the major faiths like Christianity or Buddhism, they are above the individual.  Neo-paganism and other 'spiritual' movements just seem very self-involved to me.  I don't see how you can have a religion of one.

[Maximus]

Religion's not an individual thing.

I guess we have a fundamental disagreement. I think religion is purely an individual thing.

[Eddie Teach]

I guess I don't see the distinction. I'd say a mental hug is pretty much the definition of a religion.

Religion based on dead white males = good and proper
Religion based on other folks = mental hug

It's all in the memo.

Islam is a religion.

And Mormonism is a cult.

[merithyn]

What the candian, the brit, and the crazy guy said


*edit* the lawery canadian, not the expat canadian married to an apparent wiccan

I have little love for Wiccans in general, and certainly do not subscribe to their philosophy of life nor religion. I do, however, believe that one religion shouldn't be shunted aside simply because it's new. Historically speaking, it seems to take a good two or three centuries for a religion to be considered "valid", and the neo-pagans are only about a century in. I'm just willing to give them some slack while they figure things out.

On top of all of that, I just don't see a reason to belittle another person's faith so long as that faith doesn't harm anyone else.

[merithyn]

Religion's not an individual thing.

I guess we have a fundamental disagreement. I think religion is purely an individual thing.

Same here.

Which is why I left the Catholic church. I didn't do lock-step well, and it was required by them.

[Neil]

I have little love for Wiccans in general, and certainly do not subscribe to their philosophy of life nor religion. I do, however, believe that one religion shouldn't be shunted aside simply because it's new. Historically speaking, it seems to take a good two or three centuries for a religion to be considered "valid", and the neo-pagans are only about a century in. I'm just willing to give them some slack while they figure things out.

On top of all of that, I just don't see a reason to belittle another person's faith so long as that faith doesn't harm anyone else.

The social utility in religion is to bind a society together and to keep people docile.  New religions do none of these things.  Their adherents are usually misfits and malcontents with a sense of grievance whose goal include damaging the social order.  Only old, established religions can bind a nation.  Since all religions are equally false, there is no reason to tolerate any new religions, nor to refrain from mocking anyone who espouses their flawed dogmas.

[merithyn]

The social utility in religion is to bind a society together and to keep people docile.  New religions [like Christianity] do none of these things.  Their adherents are usually misfits and malcontents with a sense of grievance whose goal include damaging the social order.  Only old, established religions can bind a nation.  Since all religions are equally false, there is no reason to tolerate any new religions, nor to refrain from mocking anyone who espouses their flawed dogmas. [circa 50AD]

[Ideologue]

Obviously Christianity is a scourge.  What's your point?

[Sheilbh]

I have little love for Wiccans in general, and certainly do not subscribe to their philosophy of life nor religion. I do, however, believe that one religion shouldn't be shunted aside simply because it's new. Historically speaking, it seems to take a good two or three centuries for a religion to be considered "valid", and the neo-pagans are only about a century in. I'm just willing to give them some slack while they figure things out.

I've no issue with young religions.  I've an enormous amount of love for the Bahai for example.  I find that syncretic Vietnamese faith interesting too.  I've even a grudging respect for the Mormons

But they're all religions, they're all things you can believe in and subscribe to.

[Neil]

The social utility in religion is to bind a society together and to keep people docile.  New religions [like Christianity] do none of these things.  Their adherents are usually misfits and malcontents with a sense of grievance whose goal include damaging the social order.  Only old, established religions can bind a nation.  Since all religions are equally false, there is no reason to tolerate any new religions, nor to refrain from mocking anyone who espouses their flawed dogmas. [circa 50AD]

And they were right in 50AD.  How much social disruption did Christianity create?

I think we can agree that it is no longer 50AD.  These days, we understand the world better and are thus better able to make more rational policy decisions based on the assuption that any religion is false.

[fhdz]

Well, reasoning is more about costs vs benefits.

That's a pretty base definition of reasoning, wouldn't you say? I mean - yes; cost-benefit analysis is a type of reasoning, but I wouldn't say it's the only type by far. Actually I don't know of anyone who has even glanced at a philosophy textbook (even ones comprised solely of religious philosophers) who would suggest that cost-benefit analysis is the only thing meant when someone talks about "reasoning".

Would an act that you previously though morally wrong, but you would greatly benefit from with low chance of negative consequences (or no possible negative consequences), still be wrong?

As I said, it's not just about benefit. Is it your notion that in order to avoid being a moral relativist I must adhere to a system of morality which is supposedly handed down from a higher power? If not, what system of morality would be acceptable in its place? And is it seriously your contention that once one adopts a moral system one must never encounter a situation which cannot be crammed into that system? That once a morality is chosen that morality becomes immutable and incapable of growth?

I can't imagine you'd be arguing those things. And yet here you are, appearing to do that. I'm hoping you'll be able to explain your position with greater clarity.

[fhdz]

I think we can agree that it is no longer 50AD.

I extremely dispute your assertion with extreme prejudice.

[Capetan Mihali]

Few people worship Israel

http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

[Razgovory]

Well, reasoning is more about costs vs benefits.

That's a pretty base definition of reasoning, wouldn't you say? I mean - yes; cost-benefit analysis is a type of reasoning, but I wouldn't say it's the only type by far. Actually I don't know of anyone who has even glanced at a philosophy textbook (even ones comprised solely of religious philosophers) who would suggest that cost-benefit analysis is the only thing meant when someone talks about "reasoning".

Would an act that you previously though morally wrong, but you would greatly benefit from with low chance of negative consequences (or no possible negative consequences), still be wrong?

As I said, it's not just about benefit. Is it your notion that in order to avoid being a moral relativist I must adhere to a system of morality which is supposedly handed down from a higher power? If not, what system of morality would be acceptable in its place? And is it seriously your contention that once one adopts a moral system one must never encounter a situation which cannot be crammed into that system? That once a morality is chosen that morality becomes immutable and incapable of growth?

I can't imagine you'd be arguing those things. And yet here you are, appearing to do that. I'm hoping you'll be able to explain your position with greater clarity.

What sort of growth are we talking about here, then?  Most moral systems have some framework for dealing with new situations, but you really don't come across new moral systems very often in your daily life.  Yours sounds a lot like "Making it up as you go", in which the temptation to do what is easy or simply beneficial well quickly be rationalized as right.

[Razgovory]

Religion's not an individual thing.

I guess we have a fundamental disagreement. I think religion is purely an individual thing.

How odd.  Religion is a bit like law.  You don't personally interpret the law.  Well not if you intend to stay out of jail.  Why would the divine law change person to person?