Quantcast
Are we all becoming pagan again?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Are we all becoming pagan again?

Pemalite said:
mysteryman said:

By it's very unknowable nature, the existence of God cannot be proven. Legitimacy is based on the requirement of faith.

The argument can never be won, because neither side will be deterred from their original stance. Each dismisses the other viewpoint because "they simply don't understand" and the chasm between is too great to bridge.

The flying spaghetti monster can't be proven. - Does that mean it has legitimacy because a few select individuals have faith in it?

No. No it doesn't.

The fact is... Anything that can be substantiated via the scientific method is the only thing that has any kind of legitimacy, religion is far removed from any of that.

Pardon me im no pastafarian, but i again dislike your tone.

Believing or having faith in something even if it cant be proven does make it illegitimate



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Around the Network
kirby007 said:
Pemalite said:

The flying spaghetti monster can't be proven. - Does that mean it has legitimacy because a few select individuals have faith in it?

No. No it doesn't.

The fact is... Anything that can be substantiated via the scientific method is the only thing that has any kind of legitimacy, religion is far removed from any of that.

Pardon me im no pastafarian, but i again dislike your tone.

Believing or having faith in something even if it cant be proven does make it illegitimate

Why is it legitimate to believe something in the absence of evidence?



Pemalite said:
teamsilent13 said:

I’m Christian and only support monogomy. 1 man per woman on the earth and I think it’s the morally responsible position. Im also vegan and straight edge and right wing on most political positions.

If you adhere to the Old Testament (And some Christian denominations do! Especially more extreme right-wing sects!) then the support of Polygamy would well and truly be a thing.

teamsilent13 said:

The divorce rates are unhealthy as well.

Some Christian denominations are very anti-divorce as it was a fairly modern invention.

teamsilent13 said:

Pagans believed in God and reincarnation (or afterlife). Most polygamists are probably atheist so I doubt they have much in common with pagans. Also, a lot of pictures depict pagans with long hair and shaved bears, the opposite of modern times for current trends.

Pagans certainly didn't adhere to the middle-eastern, abrahamic God that the Jews, Christians and Muslims believe... In-fact not all Pagans believed in afterlife or reincarnation either.

Remember Pagan by it's definition is a person who holds religious beliefs outside of the main world religions... So it could be someone who believes in the Egyption Gods, Celtic Gods, Hinduism... And more. In short they are eclectic.

I don't adhere to the Old Testament and neither do most Jews. Most of Judaism today is based on the Talmud not the Torah. I understand the existence of right wing Christian groups that believe in polygamy. Christianity with 2 billion or so adherents is obviously a big tent with a lot of contradiction, a lot of people who might be going to hell. The Old Testament and much of the Bible is filled with sin and people failing to meet God's expectations so human life in the Bible isn't necessarily met with endorsement. Context is super important when reading religious texts.

I will say that some people I follow in right wing politics basically support polygamy as long as its done by a man. Which to me is a huge double standard, but it does technically follow a natural order better which is just simply due to the nature of sex (I want to put gender, but I know that someone will say gender is different). Women of course bear the children, men could theoretically have harems and it would not destroy the natural order. My objection is I see the human population consistently having children at 1 male to 1 female ratios and think it's probably more sane and responsible for all of the reproducing population to adhere to monogamy. I honestly don't care too much about what people do in private, but the reality is that none of this information is being kept private and degenerates tend to flaunt and brag about it. I would not be surprised for pride month to include at a later point. Of course polygamists also tend to not be totally open in their relationships because then the game doesn't work. So I just see a ton of moral flaws and negative movement in society. I've seen polyamory destroy a healthy relationship of my cousin and her husband. Now their children have to live with their divorce and its consequences. Is every child who is born in a broken home, no longer human and doomed to fail. Of course not. I just don't think it's ideal. I look at the rise of degeneracy and the current birthrates of western developed countries as bad not good, especially when their countries are replacing their population with immigrants. What happened in Ireland over the past year was heartbreaking to me, although not shocking. What was surprising was articles stating that 90%-95% of doctors in several studies would refuse to perform abortions.

Maybe being right wing and Christian has little to do with my opposition to polygamy. To be honest, I feel strongly that I believe this separately from my religious  and nationalist beliefs, but I feel it's more honest to at least put this information out there rather than let someone else dictate the conversation towards religion and politics. It's deeply ingrained in my political beliefs because I act on political beliefs, but nationalists believe all sorts of views based on which nation they come from. Religion of course being interpreted and very few Christians actually reading things from the past. Although I believe in my religion so why should I even argue that they are separate. Even if they objectively are separate issues, I ultimately think both are important to me and to separate this is to show sign of weakness. 

Europe paganism did believe in reincarnation and God(s) at a notable majority. I'm not sure what is meant by paganism, but often people are referring to pre-Christian Europe. There is double speak in historical record about paganism to an extent so I won't act like this is undebatable. You can argue Christians or fellow other pagan groups destroyed the integrity of their history. However, I don't see good evidence of it being an atheistic thing in any way and even using paganism more broadly. Wiccans, Thelma, modern day Satanism to me are very LARPy and to me a byproduct of nihilism's influence over society. Pantheism and Unitarian Universalists just seem like ridiculous people when I meet them in person most are drugged up and probably not thinking normal. They aren't pagan in any sense of its original meaning. Hinduism is a large religion and probably too mainstream to be pagan. 

So no, you aren't becoming pagan. You are becoming degenerate and LARPing. This hopefully will not be a long term thing and it doesn't seem sustainable looking at geopolitics so I have hopes things will change. I feel far less confident change will go towards my views which is the mere reason to express my opinions.

Last edited by teamsilent13 - on 11 August 2019

Pyro as Bill said:
@Kapi + Curl (quotes won't work)

Secularism isn't a thing. All humans are 'religious', I'm not even sure it's possible for humans to be irreligious.

C'mon, that's hogwash. Millions of people are not religious, myself included.



JWeinCom said:
kirby007 said:

Pardon me im no pastafarian, but i again dislike your tone.

Believing or having faith in something even if it cant be proven does make it illegitimate

Why is it legitimate to believe something in the absence of evidence?

Because the absense of evidence isnt the evidence of absense



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
mysteryman said:

By it's very unknowable nature, the existence of God cannot be proven. Legitimacy is based on the requirement of faith.

The argument can never be won, because neither side will be deterred from their original stance. Each dismisses the other viewpoint because "they simply don't understand" and the chasm between is too great to bridge.

The flying spaghetti monster can't be proven. - Does that mean it has legitimacy because a few select individuals have faith in it?

No. No it doesn't.

The fact is... Anything that can be substantiated via the scientific method is the only thing that has any kind of legitimacy, religion is far removed from any of that.

What if, instead of a few select individuals, the majority of the planet genuinely has faith in the flying spaghetti monster?



Pemalite said:
mysteryman said:

By it's very unknowable nature, the existence of God cannot be proven. Legitimacy is based on the requirement of faith.

The argument can never be won, because neither side will be deterred from their original stance. Each dismisses the other viewpoint because "they simply don't understand" and the chasm between is too great to bridge.

The flying spaghetti monster can't be proven. - Does that mean it has legitimacy because a few select individuals have faith in it?

No. No it doesn't.

The fact is... Anything that can be substantiated via the scientific method is the only thing that has any kind of legitimacy, religion is far removed from any of that.

the things that really matter in life cannot be substantiated via the scientific method

deep fundamental things like love for a significant other, pride in one's country, gender identity, fear of the unknown etc etc etc

i'd argue that more than anything else these and other intangible aspects of existence are what is most important



kirby007 said:
JWeinCom said:

Why is it legitimate to believe something in the absence of evidence?

Because the absense of evidence isnt the evidence of absense

Well, there are two problems with that.

First of all, the absence of evidence can indeed be the evidence of absence.  Let's say for example, I told you I owned 4 award winning show dogs.  You come to my house.  You see no dog, no dog food, no leash, no fur anywhere, no treats, no dog poop, no bones, etc.  I have no pictures of my dogs and I, can't produce any certificates from the shows they won, and so on so forth.  You talk to everyone I know, and none of them can remember ever seeing me with my dogs.  You'd probably conclude that I lied about owning show dogs. Wouldn't you?  Because if I do own show dogs, their should be evidence of it.  In such cases, the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.  I actually believe that except in rare cases, the absence of evidence is the only way to disprove an existential claim.  

Depending on what god you believe in, there should potentially be evidence.  If you believe in a god that actively intervenes with the universe, then there definitely should be some kind of evidence.  If we can't find that evidence, we have good reason to believe that particular god doesn't exist.  

Secondly, even if we accept that premise for the sake of argument, that still doesn't give reason to believe.  If something cannot be proven to be false, does that mean it is reasonable to accept it as true?  

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 12 August 2019

Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Then Rome fell.

The End

Nothing lasts forever! Also ironic how it fell after Christianity got invented and then got it's claws stuck in...

Pretty sure Rome was on the decline by the time that happen. There was a lack of unity, poorly run government, they started relying on foreigners to fight their battles, etc.

Christianity doesent ruin countries, empires or whatever, atleast not by design. Its not Islam which plays a much bigger role in how countries operate.

Last edited by Mr Puggsly - on 11 August 2019

Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Mr Puggsly said:
Pemalite said:

Nothing lasts forever! Also ironic how it fell after Christianity got invented and then got it's claws stuck in...

Pretty sure Rome was on the decline by the time that happen. There was a lack of unity, poorly run government, they started relying on foreigners to fight their battles, etc.

Christianity doesent ruin countries, empires or whatever, atleast not by design. Its not Islam which plays a much bigger role in how countries operate.

There was a point of time in which the church had way more power.  Like from basically the fall of rome up until the enlightenment.  The reason it doesn't anymore is because it was not working out that well.  

Islam also wasn't as entrenched in government as much as recently.  Sadaam Hussein was actually a fairly secular ruler, likely because the majority of his subjects were not his religion.  Religion was effectively banned in Iran until the late 70s.  Egypt had a secular government under British control.  Lebanon was largely secular as well.