Quantcast
Are we all becoming pagan again?

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

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.

Idolatry, child sacrifice (abortion to improve luck), prostitution is the oldest game there is.

@Jumpin Try going back 5000-2000 years ago instead of 50.

Are you kidding? All western and most westernized nations are secular in nature with a majority of institutions being secular with the exception of the Vatican. While Norway and England have state religions, they are still heavily secular nations and the state religion is nothing more than a ceremonial element, rather than a feature of any true significance. Almost every western and westernized country has 20-75% of an irreligious population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion

You don't think it's possible for my species (the humans you speak of) to be irreligious? And yet here we are, 41% of the world's population has identified as either atheistic, agnostic, or with no religious affiliation. Or about 3 billion irreligious people.

http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf">https://web.archive.org/web/20121016062403/http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
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.

I do agree it's a huge stretch to consider Christianity as a reason for the downfall of the Roman Empire. If anything, the early Christians were the more intellectual class of the Romans. "Pagan" was basically a word that meant "bumpkin" in Latin. The Pagans were the equivalent to today's Christian right-wingers who make all these claims about "God hates f**s" and don't actually read the bible (because the majority of those sorts are functionally illiterate, uneducated, and mentally slow).

Additionally, it was Islamic nations which were the most intellectual, productive, and prosperous in Europe and Western Asia during the Middle Ages. For a time, the majority of Christian Bishops were educated in the Islamic world. But there were several negative right-wing trends that entered the Islamic world following the invasion of the Mongols in Asia, which ended the golden age, and the Invasion of the Spanish in Europe; and it has been especially bad in the last century following colonialism and Imperialism of European powers and the Ottoman Empire.

Any religion can be twisted to varying degrees of power and meaning. The problem isn't so much with Christianity, but right-wing Christians who, ironically, would be the equivalent to the Pharisees of the Gospels (those who judge others and govern using religion as a basis), the primary antagonists against Jesus.

Last edited by Jumpin - on 12 August 2019

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

I don't know where some of you cats get your BS, but I'd like to point out a couple of things....

1. There is PLENTY of scientific, biological, historical, and anthropological evidence that human beings' "natural state" is not, in fact, to have 10+ fuck buddies, or even more than one. There seem to be people who are super into polyamory and/or promiscuity these days, who it really seems like to try and vindicate their own personal lifestyles by believing that "humans are naturally promiscuous". I hate to burst the hedonistic bubble, but there is more than enough evidence that points to that not being true, even in so-called "caveman times".

The vast majority of known, recorded human societies, had institutions of marriage and nuclear families going on. That includes most Native American cultures, African cultures, Asian cultures, ancient European cultures, etc. etc. People seem to love bringing up examples like ancient Greece and Rome, but against I hate to burst the bubble, but that was more the exception of ancient Europe, not the rule. Rome especially was widely known for their levels of hedonism and excess, but more importantly, even in ROME, that was more the exception, not the rule. Meaning, that just like with most societies, there was a huge difference between how the rich ruling minority class lived, and how the vast majority of actual Romans lived. MOST Romans did actually get married, and were fairly monogamous and family-oriented, much like their Italian descendants. Why? Because monogamy, marriage, and focus on family, just like the vast majority of other human cultures out there, were important cornerstones in what for most was a fairly hard-working, agrarian lifestyle.

Furthermore, while humans are often compared even to modern apes, as far as known, recorded history shows, human beings tend to be far more monogamous than pretty much all apes. Some of the oldest known societies, even ancient Syrians and Sumerians, had marriage and societal focus on nuclear families. More than enough psychological evidence exists to show that human beings are actually fairly hardwired to "pair bonding", IE mating for life, and mates staying together not only while raising children, but long after the children are grown. Some try to claim that this is purely "societal norms", nurture not nature, but it's mighty ironic that literally almost EVERY single human society and civilization, has had marriage and a focus on family, in SOME way. There are exceptions, but there is a strong argument to be made that, regarding "human nature", polygamy is more the deviation from our nature, not the adherence to it. While the idea that "humans naturally want to mate with as many people as possible to deepen the gene pool" may sound neat to some on paper, frankly it doesn't hold much water in the face of not only maternal, but natural paternal instinct hardwired into us. The way humans are built, in a more natural, primal setting, females tend to NEED the protection and help of males both when pregnant, and when raising children. Men that fuck and flee, do not exactly fit that bill, and humans likely would not have survived into the modern era if that was how we were wired.

I'm not saying it historically DIDN'T happen. It absolutely did. But that it was naturally, biologically, and culturally, in MORE cases than not, the exception, not the rule.



2. The use of the word "Pagan" is kind of silly to me. Just as one example, when a lot of people use the word "Pagan" these days, they think of people like the ancient Celts, because a lot of "Neo-Pagans" draw heavily on what is known of ancient Celtic culture for their views and beliefs. What IS known as about ancient, pre-Christian Celtic culture, is that they did, by and large, have a fairly monogamous, marriage-based society. In fact marriage was an important part of their culture and traditions. That isn't to say, again, that polygamy or promiscuity DIDN'T happen. But only to say that it wasn't the norm that most Celts subscribed to.

The implication also seems to be that society is moving away from "Christian values", thus becoming more "Pagan", and thus becoming more promiscuous. I find that insinuation insulting on many levels. For one thing, I myself AM "Pagan", for lack of a better word, and I do mostly draw on ancient Celtic views, though not completely. For another, the idea that somehow Christianity has a monopoly on monogamy, marriage, or non-promiscuity, is laughable. As previously stated, marriage and monogamous relationships have been part of MOST human societies, dating back many thousands of years before Christianity was a twinkle in anyone's eye. Secondly, while "The Bible" does indeed feature men with multiple wives, that was not generally the norm in Hebrew/Jewish pre-Christian culture either. Nor is it typically (while not unheard of), the norm in Muslim culture. And good lord, if you want to talk about "conservative", prude, ANTI-promiscuous (at least in belief) religion and culture, don't just point at Christianity, because Islam has that shit on LOCK. And there happen to be some billion or so Muslims in the world. So given that, I'd hardly say that (mostly American) Christians are the only ones shaping world views on sex and relationships.



Ultimately, while I find it kind of funny, I do wonder why this was even brought up. If some of you entertain or seem to like the idea of "fucking around", well then....go for it. I'd suggest it isn't the healthiest attitude (or practice), but live how you want, so long as you aren't hurting anyone. But please, enough with the "it's in human nature to have sex with lots of people", because honestly, not only is that to this day a highly contentious idea, but it also has plenty of evidence that it simply isn't, nor ever has been, true.



mysteryman 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.

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

What the majority believes is ultimately irrelevant... Again. Scientific method.

There have been historical instances where a particular belief was held by the majority and it was false.

The scientific method has flown us to other planets, it has given us advanced medicines that cure all sorts of ailments, has allowed us to travel great distances at speed and all the other modern comforts we enjoy today.

I think we can trust it over baseless religious assertions, it has the better track record in the end.

o_O.Q said:

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

Yes they can.
Love can actually be explained scientifically as everything in our bodies is governed by electro-chemical impulses, governed by our brains.

Other feelings like Pride, Gender and Fear are the same.

But just because you feel pride, love and so on... Doesn't mean God/Gods actually exists.

Mr Puggsly said:

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.

Islam and Christianity are based on the same religious context, same God... Same "rules". (I.E. No eating Pork.)
The blame for one can be leveled against the other in my opinion.

Christianity has been guilty of a ton of historical grievances... I mean. The Crusades and all that.

Jumpin said:

I do agree it's a huge stretch to consider Christianity as a reason for the downfall of the Roman Empire. If anything, the early Christians were the more intellectual class of the Romans. "Pagan" was basically a word that meant "bumpkin" in Latin. The Pagans were the equivalent to today's Christian right-wingers who make all these claims about "God hates f**s" and don't actually read the bible (because the majority of those sorts are functionally illiterate, uneducated, and mentally slow).

Point I was trying to convey was correlation doesn't equate to causation.
Christianity had certainly rose to prominence when Rome fell, regardless if Rome was already in decline... It certainly didn't help the empire!





Pemalite said:
mysteryman said:

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

What the majority believes is ultimately irrelevant... Again. Scientific method.

There have been historical instances where a particular belief was held by the majority and it was false.

The scientific method has flown us to other planets, it has given us advanced medicines that cure all sorts of ailments, has allowed us to travel great distances at speed and all the other modern comforts we enjoy today.

I think we can trust it over baseless religious assertions, it has the better track record in the end.

o_O.Q said:

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

Yes they can.
Love can actually be explained scientifically as everything in our bodies is governed by electro-chemical impulses, governed by our brains.

Other feelings like Pride, Gender and Fear are the same.

But just because you feel pride, love and so on... Doesn't mean God/Gods actually exists.

Mr Puggsly said:

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.

Islam and Christianity are based on the same religious context, same God... Same "rules". (I.E. No eating Pork.)
The blame for one can be leveled against the other in my opinion.

Christianity has been guilty of a ton of historical grievances... I mean. The Crusades and all that.

Jumpin said:

I do agree it's a huge stretch to consider Christianity as a reason for the downfall of the Roman Empire. If anything, the early Christians were the more intellectual class of the Romans. "Pagan" was basically a word that meant "bumpkin" in Latin. The Pagans were the equivalent to today's Christian right-wingers who make all these claims about "God hates f**s" and don't actually read the bible (because the majority of those sorts are functionally illiterate, uneducated, and mentally slow).

Point I was trying to convey was correlation doesn't equate to causation.
Christianity had certainly rose to prominence when Rome fell, regardless if Rome was already in decline... It certainly didn't help the empire!



"Yes they can.
Love can actually be explained scientifically as everything in our bodies is governed by electro-chemical impulses, governed by our brains."

ok, i'm waiting on that explanation

"Other feelings like Pride, Gender and Fear are the same."

ok, i'm waiting on that explanation

"But just because you feel pride, love and so on... Doesn't mean God/Gods actually exists."

prove it, you don't have any evidence that god has not imbued us with these characteristics



Around the Network
Pemalite said: 
Mr Puggsly said:

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.

Islam and Christianity are based on the same religious context, same God... Same "rules". (I.E. No eating Pork.)
The blame for one can be leveled against the other in my opinion.

Christianity has been guilty of a ton of historical grievances... I mean. The Crusades and all that.

Christianity was like a reform to the Jewish rules (does allow pork eating). Islam is something very different, something just awful. I'm not an expert but I've read the Koran, really gives you a better understanding why countries that embrace that religion suck.

There are differing views on the crusades. I don't really see any good guys, but the less land Islam has the better.



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)

Pemalite said:
mysteryman said:

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

What the majority believes is ultimately irrelevant... Again. Scientific method.

There have been historical instances where a particular belief was held by the majority and it was false.

The scientific method has flown us to other planets, it has given us advanced medicines that cure all sorts of ailments, has allowed us to travel great distances at speed and all the other modern comforts we enjoy today.

I think we can trust it over baseless religious assertions, it has the better track record in the end.

What do you do when you reach the limitations of the scientific method? When something is simply not testable?

Likewise how do you determine right and wrong? 



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.

Just a quick note on this point. Rom relied on foreigners in their army since almost the beginning, it was a major way to integrate the people in the newly conquered territories into the Roman society. Many historians think that the inability of the late Western Roman Empire to integrate the germanic tribes, who migrated into the empire and made up large parts of the roman military force, undermined the political system and eventually lead to the downfall of the Westen empire.

Also, many people seem to forget that the Eastern Roman Empire lasted almost another 1000 years after the downfall of the Western Empire.

To your second point, it is true that christianity doesn't ruin countries by design but the same is true for Islam so I wonder what you mean in the second part when you talk about how countries operate.



Locknuts said:
Monogamy is a form of sexual socialism. Allowing men to only have one woman. Otherwise the most powerful men end up with all the women. Women will still usually stick to one man, but men are naturally promiscuous so they end up with multiple women. This means that the most powerful men end up impregnating most of the women. You can even end up in a Ghengis Khan situation eventually where one man is a common ancestor to a massive percentage of the population.

I think monogamy is a great idea.

The reason why so many people are related to Genghis Khan is not because he impregnated hundred thousands of women. Genghis Khan just lived a very long time ago and therefore has many descendants. Just think about how many descendants even your own great great grand father has.

This is a great video that illustrates how this works.

Basically if you go back enough generations you will reach a generation in which every person living at that time is related to you.
For Europeans for example you only have to go back 1200 years to reach that generation. This means that every European today is related with Charlemagne for example.



Monagamy is needed for civilization so men are wanting to invest into this very civilization. The end of any empire is always marked with extreme promiscuity. Just like the demise of the family unit will be the end for the current west.



In the wilderness we go alone with our new knowledge and strength.