Youtube: How your religion appears to us nonbelievers

a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

I extol your ability to not pay attention sir.

a reply to: Aural

Your right the wording was off as you pointed out but it isn't like the person I was responding to was going to think about it either way.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

I extol your ability to not pay attention sir.
Thanks for the praise.

a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

No problem.

a reply to: Grimpachi
True i suppose.

Some people cant step in other shoes or imagine anything but their views are true.

originally posted by: WeAllDieSoon

originally posted by: haarvik
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Morality is dictated by nature. Without it we as a species would not have survived for as long as we have. Before there was any organized religion, people worshiped forces they could not understand. The sun, wind, rain, etc. They had no "God" and yet they had morality and a sense of community. The analogy that this "God" is what provides morality is completely wrong and flawed. It has been exploited by organized religion, especially the christians.

Nice theory about what ancient people worshiped first. God or his creations. You say creations, but there is no proof for this.

In Christian theology, God ingrains the truth in us (morality). God said people would exploit religion, repeatedly, so basically you are saying that what God said would happen happened as a reason you don't believe in God.

What God? What creations? There isn't an iota of testable evidence proving that God exists or created anything. Men wrote the Bible. You worship the word of men.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
Is there any possibility this thread could not become a believers versus nonbelievers food fight?

What would you propose instead? Be specific, please.

originally posted by: addygrace
So what do you call an Atheist who wants to push their beliefs onto believers?

It's funny to hear atheism being championed as the one belief that's actually non-belief.

So atheists, at least him and the OP, believe they need to help the blindfolded children get out of their cages, which they consider to be "evil"? How is that not exactly like any other religious person? Yeah you don't believe in God, but the above proves at least a few atheists don't believe in God with religious fervor. What's the end game with that? At least a Chtistian can admit if they are evangelical or not. If this is how most atheists feel then I think it's safe to say they can't hide behind the lie, they are not religious, anymore.

As for the Bible thumping comments, I think it's ironic atheists come into this thread that has a video of a guy basically doing the atheist version of Bible thumping, and even mentioning Bible thumping.

Atheism, the position that there is no God or gods, does not exist except as a reaction to exposure to the claim that God or gods exist. Everyone is born a non-believer and has to be exposed to the idea of the existence of a god before taking the position that there isn't one. Solution: Stop claiming that God exists! If you believe that he does exist, keep it to yourself. Problem solved.

originally posted by: Aural


Modern paganism is not an organised religion. Thats why he mentioned them. Its not about god its about religion.

Paganism was never "a" religion. Paganism refers to any of a number of nature-based, polytheistic religions. Neo-pagan religions (contemporary pagan religions) most definitely do exist and some of them are very organized. I'm surprised that you're unaware of them.

a reply to: Tangerine

Paganism is a blanket term as I meant any neo pagan type religion. Some religions do have some order but not in the same way that something like Catholicism has an order of a pope to be the head voice for millions. Neopagan stuff you have a few churches and covens and groves but a central driving force and dogma not so much. I am perfectly aware of wicca, asatru, kemetism and others existing with various groups within then of varying beliefs but I just see it not quite the same. I do not personally know anyone who is both neopagan and part of an organized group or belief and have not extensively researched various groups with the multitude of those out there so sure i could maybe be overlooking something. If i am overlooking something point me to a dogmatic neopagan religion with a hierarchy. That is pretty much the definition of organized religion.

a reply to: Tangerine

I was specific.

a reply to: Tangerine

Actually, not so much.
Atheism is a lack of belief.
It's an umbrella term for unbelievers.
Like theism is an umbrella term for believers.
Now, whether that is simply lacking belief or active disbelief is distinction beyond the term.

originally posted by: Aural
a reply to: Tangerine

Paganism is a blanket term as I meant any neo pagan type religion. Some religions do have some order but not in the same way that something like Catholicism has an order of a pope to be the head voice for millions. Neopagan stuff you have a few churches and covens and groves but a central driving force and dogma not so much. I am perfectly aware of wicca, asatru, kemetism and others existing with various groups within then of varying beliefs but I just see it not quite the same. I do not personally know anyone who is both neopagan and part of an organized group or belief and have not extensively researched various groups with the multitude of those out there so sure i could maybe be overlooking something. If i am overlooking something point me to a dogmatic neopagan religion with a hierarchy. That is pretty much the definition of organized religion.

Thank you for clarifying that you didn't mean structure but, rather, official doctrine and long-established clerical hierarchy.

I would disagree with your contention that Wicca is a neo-pagan religion. In order to be a neo-(ie new) pagan religion, there had to be a paleo (ie. old)-pagan version of the religion.

Wicca is modern religion and nothing about it that distinguishes it as Wicca comes from any pre-Christian religion. For example, paleo-pagan religions were polytheistic (separate, distinct multiple deities) whereas Wicca is duotheistic (exception: Dianic Wicca is monotheistic) and teaches that there are multiple manifestations of a single deity. There was no concept of "THE Goddess" in paleo-pagan religions. THere were many gods and goddesses.

I don't know what you meant by "It's not about god its about religion" in reference to paganism. Can you explain?

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Tangerine

Actually, not so much.
Atheism is a lack of belief.
It's an umbrella term for unbelievers.
Like theism is an umbrella term for believers.
Now, whether that is simply lacking belief or active disbelief is distinction beyond the term.

What do you call people who have never heard of BIgfoot and, for that reason, have never formed an opinion about the existence of Bigfoot? Would they be in the same category as people who have heard of Bigfoot and don't believe in the existence of Bigfoot? I consider atheism to be an active position rather than a default position. It's an ism because it's a belief. How can not ever having considered something be a position taken about it?

a reply to: Tangerine

Umbrella term

Term used to cover a broad number of functions or items that all fall under a single common category.

SOURCE

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God." Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist." Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".

SOURCE

a reply to: Tangerine

To be more specific I think Wicca is a syncretic religion. I see it as more of a simplification and melting pot of pagan ideas turned into something new and simple and yes new things were thrown in there that dont really seem to come from a specific source. Its a nod to old paganism not a continuous continuation or accurate reconstruction of old traditions event hough Gerald Gardner tried to tell people it was but as most people, including many wiccans these days, know his story doesnt check out well with who claimed to come in contact with. Perhaps just the claims alone are enough that it stuck as being called neopagan despite other info. Pagan itself is a fairly obscure loose meaning not well defined term so neopaganism itself will also be fairly obscure but generally it seems to mean european polytheism or pantheism with nature worship. I think it is okay to classify it as neopagan as that is what most do anyway and I dont think many are mislead thinking its old by it called that. It is difficult to speak of wicca in generalities because the beliefs of the godhead structure vary depending on the type of wiccan but as you say it is generally duotheistic but duotheism is not really something I found excluded from the term pagan and as far as I know duotheism is a subset of polytheism, although i could be wrong, but if you want you could argue it but its a bit of semantics to do so and some have just straight up polytheism having more than just two. But yes there is no known old Wicca so the question is if syncretism can count as neopagan or not but either case being duotheistic or polytheistic and from europe it would fall under the loose term paganism by some definitions which can be confusing and just calling it pagan makes it sound older rather than new so that is counter-productive. Things would be better if the term pagan and neopagan stopped being in use as there is little clear meaning to the words but it has continued in use simply because of the predominant presence of Christians who still use the term pagan. I am aware the original meaning of pagan was something more like "country folk". I just go with the flow of what most use the term for and i feel its close enough.

When I said its not about god its about religion, I was not directly referring to paganism but about the videos subject matter is about the big organized abrahamic religions views vs the non-religious and smaller non dogmatic religions and not about theism vs atheism as some interpreted it to be because he included neopagans as part of the "non believers".

originally posted by: Aural
a reply to: Tangerine

To be more specific I think Wicca is a syncretic religion. I see it as more of a simplification and melting pot of pagan ideas turned into something new and simple and yes new things were thrown in there that dont really seem to come from a specific source. Its a nod to old paganism not a continuous continuation or accurate reconstruction of old traditions event hough Gerald Gardner tried to tell people it was but as most people, including many wiccans these days, know his story doesnt check out well with who claimed to come in contact with. Perhaps just the claims alone are enough that it stuck as being called neopagan despite other info. Pagan itself is a fairly obscure loose meaning not well defined term so neopaganism itself will also be fairly obscure but generally it seems to mean european polytheism or pantheism with nature worship. I think it is okay to classify it as neopagan as that is what most do anyway and I dont think many are mislead thinking its old by it called that. It is difficult to speak of wicca in generalities because the beliefs of the godhead structure vary depending on the type of wiccan but as you say it is generally duotheistic but duotheism is not really something I found excluded from the term pagan and as far as I know duotheism is a subset of polytheism, although i could be wrong, but if you want you could argue it but its a bit of semantics to do so and some have just straight up polytheism having more than just two. But yes there is no known old Wicca so the question is if syncretism can count as neopagan or not but either case being duotheistic or polytheistic and from europe it would fall under the loose term paganism by some definitions which can be confusing and just calling it pagan makes it sound older rather than new so that is counter-productive. Things would be better if the term pagan and neopagan stopped being in use as there is little clear meaning to the words but it has continued in use simply because of the predominant presence of Christians who still use the term pagan. I am aware the original meaning of pagan was something more like "country folk". I just go with the flow of what most use the term for and i feel its close enough.

When I said its not about god its about religion, I was not directly referring to paganism but about the videos subject matter is about the big organized abrahamic religions views vs the non-religious and smaller non dogmatic religions and not about theism vs atheism as some interpreted it to be because he included neopagans as part of the "non believers".

I agree that Wicca is syncretic but it's a hodge-podge of non-pagan sources dating to the 18th century at earliest (Masonic and OTO ritual format, English Woodcraft Movement, literary Romanticism, Gerald Gardner's preference for nudity, etc). Wiccans call Wicca pagan because they believed and, sadly, most still believe Gerald Gardner's bogus claim that it was a continuation of an ancient pagan religion and they haven't bothered to do any historical research. To let them get away with calling it a pagan religion is no different from letting a religion with non-Christian origins, tenets, and practices call itself Christian.

Wiccans have done more to distort and malign the image of real neo-pagans than have Christians -- and that's really saying something. You propose that things would be better if the terms pagan and neo-pagan stopped being used. I propose that things would be better if Wiccans stopped misusing those very legitimate words and actually did some serious research. Of course, I'm not holding my breath until that happens. Most of them are fantasists who shy away from serious scholarship.

a reply to: Tangerine
In short response I will just take your word for it but I will likely still ocasionally call it neopagan for convenience and the lack of any change of others using the term in association. I mean he did bring up interest in neopaganism which sprung up legitimate neopagans unless that are other influences that started that trend I am unaware of so i donnt find it too unfair.

Getting off topic so I just will PM you to discuss something.