Neopaganism Is The Worst

[Ed Anger]

I still say we should persecute Anabaptists.

And steal their pies.

[Razgovory]

There are three main types of Athiests. 

1.  Those who don't care.  They are just as often agnostics or nominal believers.  Mostly just irreligious.

2.  The smug know it all.  They are the type of people who enjoy telling little kids there is not Santa Claus.  Their main angle is the feeling of superiority that it Atheism gives them.

3.  Bigots.  Fanatically anti-religious.  Mostly motivated by hate.

There are a few others, but these are the main ones.

[Martinus]

Okay, what do you think neo-pagan beliefs are?

She already indicated.  She thinks they are diverse and depend on the particular tradition that particular neo-pagan is following.

Well, do they have any common threads then?  If someone asked "what do Christians believe", I could equally say "they are diverse".  But there are some common things.

Well, if you consider mormons to be christians for example, there are very little common threads in Christianity beyond feely-goody "Don't do unto others what you do not like to be done to you."

As for neopaganism/wicca, the key features are some form of pantheism, a belief in karma-like reciprocal nature of reality (if you cause harm, you get harm, etc.), and a belief in the need to live in accordance with one's nature. What pointedly differentiates it from Christianity is that divinity is not considered to be external but rather internal and permeates everything - hence good and bad deeds are less a matter of some supernatural justice, but more the case of emotional and psychological health (e.g. a Christian will refrain from abusing drugs because it's a sin for which he will be punished, a Wiccan will refrain from abusing drugs because it causes harm to himself).

[Martinus]

There are three main types of Athiests. 

1.  Those who don't care.  They are just as often agnostics or nominal believers.  Mostly just irreligious.

2.  The smug know it all.  They are the type of people who enjoy telling little kids there is not Santa Claus.  Their main angle is the feeling of superiority that it Atheism gives them.

3.  Bigots.  Fanatically anti-religious.  Mostly motivated by hate.

There are a few others, but these are the main ones.

I don't think it is fair to divide atheists, specifically, by these criteria. They apply to pretty much anyone holding any worldview.

There could be fanatical vegetarians, smug Christians and indifferent pigeon fanciers.

[Razgovory]

Incidentally, you are number 2.

[Malthus]

I still say we should persecute Anabaptists.

And steal their pies.

That goes without saying.

Also, their sturdy hand-made furniture.

[grumbler]

Depends on how public you are about it.  Atheism has the virtue of being true, to be sure, but it's also very socially damaging.  It's not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves.  Atheists who feel the need to preach, like Dawkins or Viking are just as bad as any mother-Earth wiccan weirdos.

Agreed.  Dawkins, Benedict II, Rowan Williams, the Mother-Earth wiccan weirdos, and all their ilk should restrict their preaching to their flock.  Nobody else wants to hear it.  Anglicanism is not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves.  Buddhism is not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves. Etc.

[Razgovory]

I just wish Grumbler would keep what ever personal philosophy he has to himself, cause it is pretty bad.

[grumbler]

I don't think it is fair to divide atheists, specifically, by these criteria. They apply to pretty much anyone holding any worldview.

There could be fanatical vegetarians, smug Christians and indifferent pigeon fanciers.

This is Raz you are talking about.  He is an expert on everything*, and so he can state definitively that there are three, no more and no less, kinds of Atheists*.

*in his basement.


What he says has no bearing on the world outside his basement, but let him pronounce about the world inside it.

[Razgovory]

I don't think it is fair to divide atheists, specifically, by these criteria. They apply to pretty much anyone holding any worldview.

There could be fanatical vegetarians, smug Christians and indifferent pigeon fanciers.

This is Raz you are talking about.  He is an expert on everything*, and so he can state definitively that there are three, no more and no less, kinds of Atheists*.

*in his basement.


What he says has no bearing on the world outside his basement, but let him pronounce about the world inside it.

Your reading comprehension still manages to impress me.

[Neil]

Depends on how public you are about it.  Atheism has the virtue of being true, to be sure, but it's also very socially damaging.  It's not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves.  Atheists who feel the need to preach, like Dawkins or Viking are just as bad as any mother-Earth wiccan weirdos.

Agreed.  Dawkins, Benedict II, Rowan Williams, the Mother-Earth wiccan weirdos, and all their ilk should restrict their preaching to their flock.  Nobody else wants to hear it.  Anglicanism is not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves.  Buddhism is not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves. Etc.

I'm not entirely sure that tribalism and the balkanization of society is a positive development.  Personal freedom is a laudable goal, but social cohesion is extremely valuable.

[Sheilbh]

I still say we should persecute Anabaptists.

Agreed.  I agree with Raz on atheists.

Well, if you consider mormons to be christians for example, there are very little common threads in Christianity beyond feely-goody "Don't do unto others what you do not like to be done to you."

Mormons aren't Christians.  They may not like admitting that because they're running for President but the fundamentals of their theology is so different from Christianity that I don't think you can group them together.  Again I agree with Jeffrey Goldberg, they're to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism.

[Martinus]

Depends on how public you are about it.  Atheism has the virtue of being true, to be sure, but it's also very socially damaging.  It's not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves.  Atheists who feel the need to preach, like Dawkins or Viking are just as bad as any mother-Earth wiccan weirdos.

Agreed.  Dawkins, Benedict II, Rowan Williams, the Mother-Earth wiccan weirdos, and all their ilk should restrict their preaching to their flock.  Nobody else wants to hear it.  Anglicanism is not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves.  Buddhism is not bad as a personal philosophy, but one should keep it to themselves. Etc.

I'm not entirely sure that tribalism and the balkanization of society is a positive development.  Personal freedom is a laudable goal, but social cohesion is extremely valuable.

You cannot keep polishing a turd, though. Social cohesion created by religion is a confidence game. Christianity has lost its ability to create social cohesion for the overwhelming majority of the society, and this is irreversible. You can lament this but you cannot do anything about it.

[Eddie Teach]

Christianity has lost its ability to create social cohesion for the overwhelming majority of the society, and this is irreversible.

Probably won't be reversed but certainly *could* be, given the right set of circumstances.

[fhdz]

Probably won't be reversed but certainly *could* be, given the right set of circumstances.

Yes. Just because we are slouching inexorably toward secularism it would be a mistake to assume that there cannot be pockets of revivalism along the way.