If so, why don't you call yourself pagans?

theres a difference........................................ do you just post things for the hell of it sometimes? what do you think the word pagan means?

peace.

Pagan means (according to The New World Dictionary) "a person who has no religion". Well, that's an atheists - is it not?

pa·gan /ˈpeɪgən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pey-guhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.
–adjective
4. pertaining to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim.
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of pagans.
6. irreligious or hedonistic.

So pagan is not as precise a definition as athiest

If so, why don't you call yourself pagans?

Pagan originally meant "country dweller".

Pagans worhsip a variety of various Gods/Goddesses and belief systems(wicca,hellenism,celtic pantheons,etc) and normally recognize the great pantheon of Gods out there. For personal reasons or whatever they may embrace one particular God or Goddess over another.

How does atheist (non belief in God(any God)) equate to this??

Pagan means (according to The New World Dictionary) "a person who has no religion". Well, that's an atheists - is it not?

I follow no particular religion but am not an atheist.

Pagan also means someone who is irreligious. This category includes atheists.

Pagan also means someone who is irreligious. This category includes atheists.you sir are a complete imbecile, no more need be said.

Why, because you don't like the label "pagan"?

Why, because you don't like the label "pagan"?


LOL, I've always be partial to heathen.
I think todays new age pagans are very much different than what the original pagans were.

I lump pagans with druids and wiccans.

Isn't calling yourselves "atheists" really a new age label for paganism? Aren't atheists really just trying to run away from the negative perception on pagans - instead of embracing their ancient heritage?

Man you certainly like reaching.

Let it be said for the record that you can call me anything you like. It wont mean what you call me is accurate, but it does mean that I really have no care what name or label you want to apply.

As for your last question:

"Aren't atheists really just trying to run away from the negative perception on pagans"

I can't personally see anything negative about the word. It isn't an accurate label for atheists but I see no reason for anyone to need run away from it.

O.K. I think "pagan" has negative connotations. Maybe I'm wrong. What do the rest of you think?

I have never thought of athiests as pagans.

A pagan is a hindu or a wiccan or a nature worshipper. A pagan is someone who worships something other than the God of Abraham. A Pagan always has a religion.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Well, you should read the dictionary. Sorry.

Isn't calling yourselves "atheists" really a new age label for paganism? Aren't atheists really just trying to run away from the negative perception on pagans - instead of embracing their ancient heritage?

No pagan is most commonly associated with polytheistic religious belief so it doesn't provide as exact a description as atheist does.

O.K. I think "pagan" has negative connotations. Maybe I'm wrong. What do the rest of you think?

It only has negative connotations for christians or maybe muslims as far as I know.

Well, theists includes all sorts of religions, and yet we group them together? Why not pagans? This is a double standard!

There is a pagan festival here every spring. Those people are seriously weird. It seems like those idiots embrace everything from wicca to goth to druids and have no idea why.
I think it has to do with guilt free sex. ;)

O.K. I think "pagan" has negative connotations. Maybe I'm wrong. What do the rest of you think?

It was given a negative image by "crafty" men who were trying to push their own agenda and image of God upon their people. ;)

Yeah. Why are pagans always associated with orgies? Can't theists have orgies?

O.K. So, I'm not alone in thinking "pagans" have a negative image. Good. Maybe I'm not wrong.

Isn't calling yourselves "atheists" really a new age label for paganism? Aren't atheists really just trying to run away from the negative perception on pagans - instead of embracing their ancient heritage?

the people who were called pagans originally were not athiests. You do know that don't you?

you've heard of the phrase 'pagan religions' perhaps. That ought to be a warning sign.

an atheist calling him or herself a pagan would confuse people.

Yeah. Why are pagans always associated with orgies? Can't theists have orgies?

their religions tend to judge sex and bodies and desire. In fact most religions see the body and sex as obstacles to being holy or compassionate or whatever word they aim at.

Who were the people who were originally called pagans?

O.K. So, I'm not alone in thinking "pagans" have a negative image. Good. Maybe I'm not wrong.

Sure, Christians judged the pagans.

I like pagans.

I am one.

For me it is not negative.

Whites used to judge blacks.

In time people learn.

Who were the people who were originally called pagans?

People not Christians as labeled by the Christians.

Well, Christainity is certainly prudish. But, are all religions so?

Yeah, but "people not Christains" includes atheists. Does it not?

Well, Christainity is certainly prudish. But, are all religions so?

No.

So, which religions out there besides pagans enjoy a good orgy?

Theists= believe in god/gods
pagan= believe in gods or don't

I guess the problem is that it isn't a sufficiently descriptive word.

Yeah, but "people not Christains" includes atheists. Does it not?

Not when the word was first used. No.

This is what you seem to be doing.

Athiests have sometimes been lumped together with pagans. I will try to get the atheists to admit they are pagans and they won't like that because the word is negative.

The word comes from what was the dominant religions view of non-Christians. Who cares what Christians think should be lumped together. You are not winning anything by this argument.

So, which religions out there besides pagans enjoy a good orgy?

Since anything not monotheistic has been called pagan, one could argue

none.

But what are you really after?
What are you hoping to learn here.

...Athiests have sometimes been lumped together with pagans. I will try to get the atheists to admit they are pagans and they won't like that because the word is negative...

I agree. Those guys are freaks.
You call me a pagan and I'm gonna be upset. I'm a heathen! :D

I am not trying to win anything. Just exploring. How do you know atheists weren't among the peoples first described as "pagans"?

Since anything not monotheistic has been called pagan, one could argue

none.

But what are you really after?
What are you hoping to learn here.

He's trolling because he's bored :p

I am not trying to win anything. Just exploring. How do you know atheists weren't among the peoples first described as "pagans"?

Because the Christians were referring to groups that had religions. The Christians did not run a lot of interviews. People were religious when that word came into use.

He's trolling because he's bored :p

It is trolling. Once in a while he asks a good question. But this is like a six year old trying to find a way to prove that him not getting ice cream before dinner is illogical or hypocritical.

I'm not sure what the ice cream is in this case. I think it started with attaching a word to athiests that would irritate them. That was the ice cream at the beginning. Now I think he is just on automatic pilot.

So, I'm just suppose to take your word for that? If you were maybe 2000 years old, I could see your point.

The definition of "pagan" only includes 'irreligious' because of the very hefty and wide-ranging influence of Christianity in the past few centuries.

Athiests by strict definition of the word in correct (historical) context are not pagans. Pagans worship a "higher" "god form". Athiests do not.

You two should read up on the Socratic method.

pagan (from an etymological dictionary - notice how poorly it fits atheists, John)
c.1375, from L.L. paganus "pagan," in classical L. "villager, rustic, civilian," from pagus "rural district," originally "district limited by markers," thus related to pangere "to fix, fasten," from PIE base *pag- "to fix" (see pact). Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (e.g. milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908. Paganism is attested from 1433.

So, you are saying there is a Christian conspiracy to label atheists as "pagans" even though they're not?

It isn't a conspiracy per se, since the move was already successful. The definition was simply introduced into contemporary language and perpetuated.

A dictionary worth its salt nowadays should include the disparity. But it remains that historically pagans were indeed religious, thus athiests and pagans have mutually exclusive ... methods ... shall we say?

So, you are saying there is a Christian conspiracy to label atheists as "pagans" even though they're not?

Where did I say there was a conspiracy?
What does this matter?

You didn't. Enterprise-D did. You use your little known dictionary, I'll use my widely used and popular dictionary.

You didn't. Enterprise-D did. You use your little known dictionary, I'll use my widely used and popular dictionary.

If you are going to ask questions you should be polite enough to read responses. I said 'originally' in a much earlier post and then to substantiate my claim I looked it up in an etymological dictionary. You know, a dictionary that shows word origins.

You are quite right that some people think that athiests can be called pagans. You seem to think that atheists should agree to what some people think the word should include. This is ridiculous. And an adolescent endeavor. It has a real playground feel.

Warning:
Bannan thinks he is engaged in the Socratic method.

Socrates, by the way, was a pagan.

Can I assume that you have respect for pagan activities like this one?

Words can mean whatever people want them to mean. When people use a word to describe another group of people, that tells you something about the people and the word. It also tells you something about the people who don't want to be called by the word. This is not a playground game. This is a thoughtful exercise.

[QUOTE] When people use a word to describe another group of people, that tells you something about the people and the word.

It may tell you nothing at all about the people being referred to.


It also tells you something about the people who don't want to be called by the word.

this is true. It seems like the atheists here made it pretty clear they did not want to be confused with people who follow pagan religions. There, you have your reason. They thought that it would be misleading. Nothing sinister. Nothing negative proven about atheists, or pagans for that matter.


This is not a playground game.

Something similar might not have been. In other words, one could explore with questions and it would not feel like this childish exercise to trap people in something. But here you were trying to trap atheists somehow with what you consider a socratic approach. It was a very indirect way of getting your aggression out.

But again, it's nice to see you using a method developed by a pagan, a pagan who was in fact probably homosexual and clearly accepting of homosexuality in others.

This is very broadminded of you and should be commended.

[QUOTE=Grantywanty;1475712... But here you were trying to trap atheists somehow with what you consider a socratic approach. It was a very indirect way of getting your aggression out....[/QUOTE]


How was he trying to trap people? I said I didn't like to be called pagan, does that mean I was trapped?

I am not trying to trap anybody. Avoiding traps can be used to discover insight. - which by the way is the point of the Socratic method.

I would call myself a pagan just for fun and to irk Christians, however, pagans believe in supernatural things just as much if not more than monotheists. Interestingly, pagans like the Romans called Christians atheists.

Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "an old country dweller, rustic") is a term which, from a Western perspective, has come to connote a broad set of spiritual or cultic practices or beliefs of any folk religion, and of historical and contemporary polytheistic religions in particular.

The term can be defined broadly, to encompass the faith traditions outside the Abrahamic monotheistic group of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The group so defined includes the Dharmic religions (such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism), Native American religions and mythologies and Shinto as well as non-Abrahamic ethnic religions in general.

The term "Pagan" is a Christian adaptation of the "Gentile" of Judaism, and as such has an inherent Christian or Abrahamic bias, and pejorative connotations among Westerners,[2] comparable to heathen, and infidel, mushrik and kafir (كافر) in Islam. For this reason, ethnologists avoid the term "Paganism", with its uncertain and varied meanings, in referring to traditional or historic faiths, preferring more precise categories such as polytheism, shamanism, pantheism, or animism.

Since the later 20th century, however, the words "Pagan" or "Paganism" have become widely and openly used as a self-designation of adherents of polytheistic reconstructionism and neo-Paganism.[3]

Both "Pagan" and "heathen" have historically been used as a pejorative by adherents of monotheistic religions (such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam) to indicate a disbeliever in their religion.

So pagan almost always means a polytheist or some traditional religion. Now, you are correct in that ONE of the definitions of Pagan is a nonbeliever in any religion

"Paganism" is also sometimes used to mean the lack of (an accepted monotheistic) religion, and therefore sometimes means essentially the same as atheism

However, this is not the typical usage. Thus, if atheists were labeled as pagans, how would you differentiate them from the polytheists? Thats like saying the color blue should now be called non-red. Sure, if you are wearing a blue shirt and you tell them it is non-red, one of the definitions will be that you are wearing a blue shirt, but you could also be wearing a green or yellow shirt. Basically, the term pagan is vague and has contradictory defintions, but the widely more accepted version is polytheism and its cousins.

Isn't calling yourselves "atheists" really a new age label for paganism? Aren't atheists really just trying to run away from the negative perception on pagans - instead of embracing their ancient heritage?

LOL. I got another example. When black people call themselves african americans arent they just trying to escape the negative connotation of the N word instead of embracing their anceint heritage?

Pagan is a vague word with contradictory defintions and intent to insult. It should not be used at all both to avoid confusion and insult. How about we just call things what they are, ok John?

Close this idiotic thread

"Pagan" is like the N word? Since when?

You didn't. Enterprise-D did. You use your little known dictionary, I'll use my widely used and popular dictionary.

You should know at least by frequenting these forums that it is a fallacy to accept a statement as true merely via the popular vote.

You can't reference a reference book, then, when discussing the definition of a word?

JJB reminds me of ICEAGECIVS...

...LOL. I got another example. When black people call themselves african americans arent they just trying to escape the negative connotation of the N word instead of embracing their anceint heritage?

Pagan is a vague word with contradictory defintions and intent to insult. It should not be used at all both to avoid confusion and insult. ..

OMG! You mean the n word and the word pagan are on the same level?? I feel so incredibly bad now. :( I did not know that. And I'm sorry to all that I have offended.

So when GrantyWanty said he was one, what does that mean? If you consider yourself one, you get to use the word? Kinda like how some balck peopl euse the n word?

Oh, and John Kerry's wife is more African American than any black person I know.

Isn't calling yourselves "atheists" really a new age label for paganism? Aren't atheists really just trying to run away from the negative perception on pagans - instead of embracing their ancient heritage?

I really dont think we non-believers called ourselves Atheists...
I, for one, dont bother to call it anything. I just dont believe in any God. Its the theists the feel the need to name us.

You have no belief, and yet you feel no need to label it. Kinda makes it hard to communicate than doesn't it?

Isnt Pagan just kinda name-calling by Christians, Jews and/or Muslims towards anyone that is outside their religion ?

You have no belief, and yet you feel no need to label it. Kinda makes it hard to communicate than doesn't it?

I dont feel the need to communicate it. Why ? Do i have to ? :confused:

JJB reminds me of ICEAGECIVS...

Hmmmmm...

I'm not ICEAGECIVS. Let the paranoia end.

I'm not ICEAGECIVS. Let the paranoia end.

Are you an attorney?

Yes. I'm an attorney. Why, was ICEAGECIVS an attorney?

Quote:
There is no generally accepted, single, current definition for the word "Pagan." The word is among the terms that the newsgroup alt.usage.english, calls "skunk words." They have varied meanings to different people. The field of religion is rife with such words. consider: Christian, cult, hell, heaven, occult, Paganism, pluralism, salvation, Witch, Witchcraft, Unitarian Universalist, Voodoo, etc. Each has so many meanings that they often cause misunderstandings wherever they are used. Unfortunately, most people do not know this, and naturally assume that the meaning that they have been taught is universally accepted. A reader must often look at the context in which the word is used in order to guess at the intent of the writer.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism.htm

Therefore the question, are all atheists pagans? Is a non sequitur, it is a loaded trick question.

You're site also says that "The term "Pagan" was widely used by Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, etc. to refer to themselves."

Thank you tablariddim.

You are all getting too bogged down in my comparison of the N word to pagan. Its not saying that they are on the same level at all.

I was merely responding to Johns assertion that it is foolish for atheists to not accept a name for them merely because it has a bad connotation. He painted athiests as cowards becasue they are afraid of this identity as a pagan because it has a bad connotation. That is similar to the bad connotation of the N word, which African Americans also try to escape being called.

Don't take the comparison too literally. Im just making the point that nobody wants to be called by a name with a bad connotation, and its not "denying your heritage" to not want to be called a slanderous vague word.

Now frankly, I dont care what you call me regarding my beliefs, but dont call me a coward for not accepting a name that doesnt identify me correctly.

Wow! Is that what I said? I think not. When did I say it was foolish to run from a negative label? Give a dog a bad name and you might as well hang him. Since when is "pagan" a slanderous word? Last time I checked, slanderous words per se comprised only of crimes, unchastity, contraction of loathsome diseases, and occupational misconduct.

Slander at its broadest is defamation.
Any negative comment could be seen as defamation should the recipient so take it that way.

Allright, It's settled then.
All you atheists here are officially pagans now!!
Welcome!

Let us join together at the temple of Goddess Hathor (Hetheru).
If she was good enough for the SGC ..she is good enough for the rest of us!:D



http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/15/250px-Stargate_Hathor.jpg

Hm, whatever lol

Why, was ICEAGECIVS an attorney?
:roflmao:
Ah, you know not how I laugh! The answer is no, hardly... and no reason for asking other than blind curiosity.

However, I believe it was Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) that said: "The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency."

Seems apt.

Well, you should read the dictionary. Sorry.

So dictionarys are perfect are they? No need to apologise. Wordsmiths can over time change the meanings of words. Its a form of warfare. Have you read 1984..

Yes. I'm an attorney. Why, was ICEAGECIVS an attorney?BS your an attorney, infact absolute BS, your not out of nappies(diapers)yet.
lol,

Words can mean whatever people want them to mean. When people use a word to describe another group of people, that tells you something about the people and the word.
Very sloppy.
It doesn't tell "you" (used in the universal sense) anything - it tells the people WITHIN the group something about how they are supposed to react to a certain other group.

It also tells YOU something about the people who don't want to be called by the word. This is not a playground game. This is a thoughtful exercise.
It tells YOU jj bannan something, but that meaning you perceive may be derived from a miscommunication or misunderstanding, and as such i wouldn't put too much value in it.

The fact that the christian culture uses the word "pagan" as an epithet doesn't apply any universal negative value to the word. Also, defining the irreligious as pagans when the word is better used to describe a loosely defined religion is kind of a christian faux pas. Even if there was a reason for authors of the bible to use the word to describe the irreligious way back in the day, there seems to be reason enough not too now that centuries of religious practice has been classified as "pagan".

Check what Wiki says about atheism. As with so many things, it is not black or white:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

And on paganism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism

Apparantly, christianity was once considered pagan. It is all a question of definition.

:roflmao:
Ah, you know not how I laugh! The answer is no, hardly... and no reason for asking other than blind curiosity.

However, I believe it was Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) that said: "The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency."

Seems apt.

I find it very serendipitous that Benauld would choose to post this quote; Buffalo Roam has provided a link in another thread (Roots of Terrorism Post 33 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1476310&postcount=33)) where a Wisconsin court judged athiesm as a religion, in order to grant a prisoner the right to start a study group. This in no way means atheism and paganism is the same thing.

However, the case seems to me an excellent example of that Thoreau quote.

Personally, I thought it was a constitutional right to pursue whatever goals you'd like...

At any rate, there you go (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874)...

I hope you're not taking that good fortune as evidence of the workings of a higher power!:D ;)

Why are you comparing judges to attorneys? One is an advocate and the other a decision maker. Henry David Thoreau seems to be referring to judges. Enterprise-D also refers to a judge. Practicing lawyers do not act like judges.

Enterprise-D refers to a judgement. Delivered by a court. Not a single judge. Perhaps you would have us do away with the entire judicial process and let one person decide?

Why are you comparing judges to attorneys? One is an advocate and the other a decision maker. Henry David Thoreau seems to be referring to judges. Enterprise-D also refers to a judge. Practicing lawyers do not act like judges.
*************
M*W: Oh, but I tend to disagree. Attorneys do, in fact, and they should anticipate what the judge will say, think or expect, and will advise his client of his assumed expectation accordingly.

Attorneys and judges have different professional responsibilities, of course, but in order to best serve one's client in a legal capacity, the attorney needs to anticipate the judge's responses and relay those possibilities to the client.
In many cases, the judge also acts as an advocate, especially concerning orders into drug or alcohol rehabilitation cases, mental health cases, mediation cases, and for ad litem advocacy cases.

*************
M*W: Oh, but I tend to disagree. Attorneys do, in fact, and they should anticipate what the judge will say, think or expect, and will advise his client of his assumed expectation accordingly.

Attorneys and judges have different professional responsibilities, of course, but in order to best serve one's client in a legal capacity, the attorney needs to anticipate the judge's responses and relay those possibilities to the client.
In many cases, the judge also acts as an advocate, especially concerning orders into drug or alcohol rehabilitation cases, mental health cases, mediation cases, and for ad litem advocacy cases.

Thanks for the PM Medicine Woman.........You got it right.

Klitwo

LOL Honestly I just thought the two separate posts were so similar in subject matter, where athiesm is likened to (a) religion.

The quote seems to say that (lawyers') truth can be context based, or even tailored, as John J seemed to be trying to achieve. Likewise, the judgement passed likened athiesm to a religious movement, in order to achieve the result of allowing the prisoner to continue his study pursuits.

In both cases, this "truth" is strictly speaking incorrect.

The way I read Thoreau's quote is to say that lawyers desire consistency in their judgments regardless of the truth for any particular case, or at least consistency when they judge an exception. This quote is very true of judges - but not attorneys. Sure, attorneys try to guess what the judge is going to do and warn their clients accordingly, but that does not mean the attorney if he/she had the power would judge likewise. Having argued in front of judges on innumberable occasions, I think I would know.

The way I read the quote was that lawyers utilise whichever "truth" is best suited to the benefit of thier client, regardless of whether it portrays events as they actually happened. This was based upon this definition of the word expediency:

The quality of being suited to the end in view.
From: www.dictionary.com

No. I don't think that's right. See http://books.google.com/books?id=hDVF9U7KQrIC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=%22but+consistency+or+a+consistent+expediency%2 2&source=web&ots=ftv-sNwsgU&sig=yyVp5mVowN4V1DVH7ezGfElFK-Q

The way I read the quote was that lawyers utilise whichever "truth" is best suited to the benefit of thier client, regardless of whether it portrays events as they actually happened. This was based upon this definition of the word expediency:


From: www.dictionary.com

I think real life observation supports this

O.K. We'll have to agree to differ. Though it sounds "right" to me:

Still his quality is not wisdom, but prudence. The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency, or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing.
From:http://books.google.com/books?id=hDV...DVH7ezGfElFK-Q

Prudence: Regard for one's own interests.

Consist:Archaic. To exist together or be capable of existing together.
From: www.dictionary.com

The first sentence, I hope, is self explanatory. The third, to me, says that the Truth (i.e. the seqence of events that has actually occurred) is always in accord. However, that this does not always indicate what constitutes fair treatment for any particular perpetrator. (Therefore it is open to interpretation, and becomes "pliable".)

Enterprise-D needs to read the context of the quote before jumping to conclusions. Thoreau is challenging pro-slavery arguments based on the Constitution and The Bible, which he perceives as being done only to stay consistent with those works. Thoreau says the truth, however, is that slavery is morally wrong. Thoreau is not talking about some lawyer who lies just because that benefits his client.

Did I say that the quote should be taken in its original context?

Huh? You want to take the quote out of context to force your perceived meaning onto it? In that case, it hardly would be worth quoting, because it would be your quote not Thoreau's.

Enterprise-D needs to read the context of the quote before jumping to conclusions. Thoreau is challenging pro-slavery arguments based on the Constitution and The Bible, which he perceives as being done only to stay consistent with those works. Thoreau says the truth, however, is that slavery is morally wrong. Thoreau is not talking about some lawyer who lies just because that benefits his client.

But, the fundamental premise of all the situations is the same...each one favours one truth over the other in order to achieve a particular goal, be that goal physical or psychological:

Favour the "truth" of the bible over the "moral truth" to keep slaves.
Favour the "truth" of trend over strict definition to liken atheism to religion
Favour the "truth" of one variant definition of paganism over another to liken it to atheism.

Well, then if Thoreau was only coming up with a convenient "truth" to fit his agenda, then Thoreau is just as guilty as the lawyers he condemns.

Huh? You want to take the quote out of context to force your perceived meaning onto it? In that case, it hardly would be worth quoting, because it would be your quote not Thoreau's.

I feel that when john bannan says it is "hardly worth quoting" something not imbued with it's original context, the word "hardly" means "forcefully or vigorously." (dictionary.com)

Uh, no.

Pagan means (according to The New World Dictionary) "a person who has no religion".
Well, that's a bullshit definition. But, can't blame you. The New World Dictionary is definitely not the best out there.

A pagan is accurately defined as, generally, someone who is polytheistic. Pagan comes from the Latin paganus, meaning "rural, backcountry, rustic". The Romans used it as a term to refer to the ways of the country folk, including the more rustic and naturalist polytheistic religions, in contrast to the strictly-defined and metropolitan life in urban Rome.
In time, it came to mean any polytheistic people, after the rise of monotheistic religion.

Atheism and paganism are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but then again, neither is Atheism and Christianity. But, they are two different things nonetheless. And that needs to be made clear: they are two completely separate concepts.

For example, I am an atheistic eclectic neopagan. Meaning, theologically, I am an atheist. I don't believe in any gods, which is the only thing atheism holds as principle.
But, OTOH, I believe that the Celtic and Norse myths provide good ethics and are a guide to good living. The gods in them, I think, are just exaggerations of historical chieftains. Like in any religion or anything, the stories are there to make a point, not to be taken as literal truth.

But, I am a rarity. For the most part, the two concepts are rarely combined.

That label is way too long Haps. You're an athiest who likes stories, that's all :)

He sure does.

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3006/fakenews2091ap0.png

That label is way too long Haps. You're an atheist who likes stories, that's all
Meh. Well all have the right to define ourselves. I choose to define myself as I did.
Besides, I paraphrased. I didn't want to go into detail.

He sure does.
You actually went and looked up that picture? The one that I posted months ago? Just to prove a point? :bugeye:

How thoughtful. :p :D

Oh I have that thread bookmarked!

LOL Ingenious picture!

I especially like the riot in Rome "turning violent". I suppose up until the rioter pulled out the gun, the riot was quite peaceful? :D

He is quite right about the definition of Pagan though.
What i dont get is how Christianity and Atheism are not necessarily mutally exclusive. :bugeye:

They are mutually exclusive. Except that atheists and christians have to share the same planet...

Well, all that is necessary for someone to be a Christian is to follow Jesus's moral teachings. One can do that without believing in a deity. It's just a matter of viewing the Christian New Testament as a figurative book of parables, built to convey a message rather than anything related to direct theology.
Fuck, by the end of the first century, half of the Christians who existed, were gnostics who believed that Jesus didn't even exist. It's all a matter of interpretation and definition.

So, it's not necessarily mutually exclusive.
It's just mutually exclusive by convention, because the concept of Jesus being a real and deistic character has since been ingrained into Christian doctrine during the time between the first century and now.

Well, all that is necessary for someone to be a Christian is to follow Jesus's moral teachings. One can do that without believing in a deity. It's just a matter of viewing the Christian New Testament as a figurative book of parables, built to convey a message rather than anything related to direct theology.
Fuck, by the end of the first century, half of the Christians who existed, were gnostics who believed that Jesus didn't even exist. It's all a matter of interpretation and definition.

So, it's not necessarily mutually exclusive.
It's just mutually exclusive by convention, because the concept of Jesus being a real and deistic character has since been ingrained into Christian doctrine during the time between the first century and now.

You are missing one thing though... Christians believe Jesus is the son of God.
Therefor they also have to believe in God.

You're half-right. It's conventionally a part of that religion, but not absolutely necessary. All that's required is that they follow the guy's moral and ethical teachings.
The vast a majority of Christians believe he was some kind of deity. So, in practice, that's one of the criteria. But, theoretically speaking, it's not absolutely necessary.

You're half-right. It's conventionally a part of that religion, but not absolutely necessary. All that's required is that they follow the guy's moral and ethical teachings.
The vast a majority of Christians believe he was some kind of deity. So, in practice, that's one of the criteria. But, theoretically speaking, it's not absolutely necessary.

If Jesus wasnt the son of God, what was so special about him ? You could just as easily take any other good-doer to base your faith on. :bugeye:

Neither was Buddha, but his message was good enough to base a religion upon, regardless of any theological aspects.
Same with Yeshua ben Yosef. His message stands out in the context of the time period.

Neither was Buddha, but his message was good enough to base a religion upon, regardless of any theological aspects.
Same with Yeshua ben Yosef. His message stands out in the context of the time period.

Then its just some guy with good ideas that you can adopt, why start a religion then ?

Well, that's really all a religion is- a set of beliefs about how to live one's life. Philosophy and meta-ethics.

Besides, humans just have a tendency to blow historical figures far out of proportion to their historical deeds. Hence why there's the multitudes of gods in all the various religions and such. Real people with good ideas getting mythologised by their later followers.

Well, that's really all a religion is- a set of beliefs about how to live one's life. Philosophy and meta-ethics.

Besides, humans just have a tendency to blow historical figures far out of proportion to their historical deeds. Hence why there's the multitudes of gods in all the various religions and such. Real people with good ideas getting mythologised by their later followers.

I, for one, think theres nothing wrong with for instance the ten commandments. But i refuse to believe in any God or any other holy being.

I think i know what your getting at. You say an atheist can still adopt, for instance, the ten commandsments because he/she thinks they make sense.
But i dont see how that would make you a Christian.

It depends on to what degree they believe in those instructions or philosophical precepts. At it's core, though, it's just a matter of definitions. And definitions of those concepts vary from person to person.

It depends on to what degree they believe in those instructions or philosophical precepts. At it's core, though, it's just a matter of definitions. And definitions of those concepts vary from person to person.

I agree. But, to me, it still seems silly to adopt a religion merely because you like the morals it teaches. Seems more logical to just adopt the morals and nothing more.

Yeah. Very true.

On the other hand, if it's a religion, it generally has its own name, which makes it much easier to label one's given philosophy. :scratchin:

I think it all comes down to whether you want to fully explain your philosophy to someone who asks, or if you want to use a shorthand term to answer the question quickly. It's a matter of laziness, really. :D:p

Yeah. Very true.

On the other hand, if it's a religion, it generally has its own name, which makes it much easier to label one's given philosophy. :scratchin:

I think it all comes down to whether you want to fully explain your philosophy to someone who asks, or if you want to use a shorthand term to answer the question quickly. It's a matter of laziness, really. :D:p

If this really is true it puts religion in a whole new perspective. When i say "i dont believe in God" do the theists take that as "i dont believe in your morals" ?

Some do. It depends on how the different religions view the concept of god. Like, most theistic Christians would probably take that as "I don't believe in your view of morality". But it depends.

I always thought the "irreligious" or "no religion" aspect of pagan was a Christian derogatory term interchangable with "heathen" and "savage". In my corner of the Universe, it's why a lot of my friends who were into paganism were slow to pick up the label. Prevailing cultural ideologies, and all, you know.

Yeah; for many centuries, it has been. But, slowly and surely, modern pagans are taking that word back. Several of my friends are neopagans of various kinds, and use that term as a self-descriptive definition.

Yeah; for many centuries, it has been. But, slowly and surely, modern pagans are taking that word back. Several of my friends are neopagans of various kinds, and use that term as a self-descriptive definition.

I think that's a good way to put the issue. It might have been use for a while to include atheists in pagans, but to do so today would generally be misleading and confusing. Unless it was one fundamentalist Christian to another. Especially in a forum like this using pagan as a term to include atheists is poor communication.

Exactly.
Generally, excluding the rare example of eclecticism or syncreticism (i.e, myself), equating atheism and paganism would be a major misnomer.