Pagan beliefs are "in error". In what way in error and who says so?

[ippy]

Paganism strikes me it's like another one of those beliefs where is it really worth even a minute or twos worth of bother, I very much doubt it is.

ippy

I would have thought that you would have seen that I have posted more often than I can think of that I consider MY religious beliefs to be a matter of faith, not proven reality - I consider your LACK of belief to be equally a matter of faith!

I should have realised that I would not be able to get a straight answer to my OP question from just about anyone on this forum. They will denigrate and dismiss and diss my beliefs but not one of them can tell me why with any specifity!

Sassy, Hope, Censored, and all the rest of you hide-bound Christians - tell me in what way my beliefs are "in error". With the exception, of course, of the flat statement that "the bible says so"!

It would be rational to take absolute proof of anything and accept it.

So give me absolute proof of the non-existence of the deities of my Pagan belief.

Everything I have seen and have heard points to man made, when anyone refers to these superstitious, magical and mythical beliefs such as the beliefs, the ones mentioned on this thread.

I've yet to see or hear anything convincing that would or could support any of these beliefs, all, any of them are able to do is assert the magical, mystical and superstition based parts, that without them, every one of them falls apart.

What beliefs? What magical based parts? What mystical based parts/ What superstition based paarts?

You could call me a man of faith, I do have faith that these rather dated beliefs will eventually go off in the same way as the beliefs or faiths in Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Cargo Cults etc, it's just a matter of time, mind you there'll allways be a few stubborn hangers on, apart from them.

ippy

Which, to any Pagan, demonstrates your abject ignorance.

There are Pagans today who follow the Greek Gods and Goddesses; there are Pagans who refer to their branch of Paganism as Asatru, to themselves as Heathens, and follow the entire pantheon of Norse Gods and Goddesses, including Wotan and Thor.

And I would doubt that anyone except a Christian Missionary would refer to the South Sea Islander's Cargo Cults as being pagan

Owl it looks to me that you may have missed this part of my former post.

"You could call me a man of faith, I do have faith that these rather dated beliefs will eventually go off in the same way as the beliefs or faiths in Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Cargo Cults etc, it's just a matter of time, mind you there'll allways be a few stubborn hangers on, appart from them".

You then said:
"What beliefs? What magical based parts? What mystical based parts/ What superstition based parts"?

All of them, including the classic coming back from the dead myth.

Oh yes, I'm not making any magical, mystical or superstition based claims that need to have any proof to back them up Owl, as if I were making them, in the first place.

ippy 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good old Ippy, if something ain't popular in north London, it ain't popular anywhere.

Umptiddlyumpty ........an' now me gal's me wife.

[Owlswing]

Paganism strikes me it's like another one of those beliefs where is it really worth even a minute or twos worth of bother, I very much doubt it is.

ippy

I would have thought that you would have seen that I have posted more often than I can think of that I consider MY religious beliefs to be a matter of faith, not proven reality - I consider your LACK of belief to be equally a matter of faith!

I should have realised that I would not be able to get a straight answer to my OP question from just about anyone on this forum. They will denigrate and dismiss and diss my beliefs but not one of them can tell me why with any specifity!

Sassy, Hope, Censored, and all the rest of you hide-bound Christians - tell me in what way my beliefs are "in error". With the exception, of course, of the flat statement that "the bible says so"!

It would be rational to take absolute proof of anything and accept it.

So give me absolute proof of the non-existence of the deities of my Pagan belief.

Everything I have seen and have heard points to man made, when anyone refers to these superstitious, magical and mythical beliefs such as the beliefs, the ones mentioned on this thread.

I've yet to see or hear anything convincing that would or could support any of these beliefs, all, any of them are able to do is assert the magical, mystical and superstition based parts, that without them, every one of them falls apart.

What beliefs? What magical based parts? What mystical based parts/ What superstition based paarts?

You could call me a man of faith, I do have faith that these rather dated beliefs will eventually go off in the same way as the beliefs or faiths in Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Cargo Cults etc, it's just a matter of time, mind you there'll allways be a few stubborn hangers on, apart from them.

ippy

Which, to any Pagan, demonstrates your abject ignorance.

There are Pagans today who follow the Greek Gods and Goddesses; there are Pagans who refer to their branch of Paganism as Asatru, to themselves as Heathens, and follow the entire pantheon of Norse Gods and Goddesses, including Wotan and Thor.

And I would doubt that anyone except a Christian Missionary would refer to the South Sea Islander's Cargo Cults as being pagan

Owl it looks to me that you may have missed this part of my former post.

"You could call me a man of faith, I do have faith that these rather dated beliefs will eventually go off in the same way as the beliefs or faiths in Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Cargo Cults etc, it's just a matter of time, mind you there'll allways be a few stubborn hangers on, appart from them".

You then said:
"What beliefs? What magical based parts? What mystical based parts/ What superstition based parts"?

All of them, including the classic coming back from the dead myth.

Oh yes, I'm not making any magical, mystical or superstition based claims that need to have any proof to back them up Owl, as if I were making them, in the first place.

ippy

We do not "come back from the dead"!

We are re-born! It is an entirely different thing - we do not come back as new version of ourselves, it is the spirit within us that returns.

Magic - this is the name given to the use of natiural forces that exist in the world by the power of the will to effect a change in the world, done with the aquiesence or the assistance of a deity - just as Christ was a witch/magician - he effected healing with the assistance of his deity, his magic is called miracles because Christians don't like the competition.

[ippy]

Paganism strikes me it's like another one of those beliefs where is it really worth even a minute or twos worth of bother, I very much doubt it is.

ippy

I would have thought that you would have seen that I have posted more often than I can think of that I consider MY religious beliefs to be a matter of faith, not proven reality - I consider your LACK of belief to be equally a matter of faith!

I should have realised that I would not be able to get a straight answer to my OP question from just about anyone on this forum. They will denigrate and dismiss and diss my beliefs but not one of them can tell me why with any specifity!

Sassy, Hope, Censored, and all the rest of you hide-bound Christians - tell me in what way my beliefs are "in error". With the exception, of course, of the flat statement that "the bible says so"!

It would be rational to take absolute proof of anything and accept it.

So give me absolute proof of the non-existence of the deities of my Pagan belief.

Everything I have seen and have heard points to man made, when anyone refers to these superstitious, magical and mythical beliefs such as the beliefs, the ones mentioned on this thread.

I've yet to see or hear anything convincing that would or could support any of these beliefs, all, any of them are able to do is assert the magical, mystical and superstition based parts, that without them, every one of them falls apart.

What beliefs? What magical based parts? What mystical based parts/ What superstition based paarts?

You could call me a man of faith, I do have faith that these rather dated beliefs will eventually go off in the same way as the beliefs or faiths in Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Cargo Cults etc, it's just a matter of time, mind you there'll allways be a few stubborn hangers on, apart from them.

ippy

Which, to any Pagan, demonstrates your abject ignorance.

There are Pagans today who follow the Greek Gods and Goddesses; there are Pagans who refer to their branch of Paganism as Asatru, to themselves as Heathens, and follow the entire pantheon of Norse Gods and Goddesses, including Wotan and Thor.

And I would doubt that anyone except a Christian Missionary would refer to the South Sea Islander's Cargo Cults as being pagan

Owl it looks to me that you may have missed this part of my former post.

"You could call me a man of faith, I do have faith that these rather dated beliefs will eventually go off in the same way as the beliefs or faiths in Zeus, Wotan, Thor, Cargo Cults etc, it's just a matter of time, mind you there'll allways be a few stubborn hangers on, appart from them".

You then said:
"What beliefs? What magical based parts? What mystical based parts/ What superstition based parts"?

All of them, including the classic coming back from the dead myth.

Oh yes, I'm not making any magical, mystical or superstition based claims that need to have any proof to back them up Owl, as if I were making them, in the first place.

ippy

We do not "come back from the dead"!

We are re-born! It is an entirely different thing - we do not come back as new version of ourselves, it is the spirit within us that returns.

Magic - this is the name given to the use of natiural forces that exist in the world by the power of the will to effect a change in the world, done with the aquiesence or the assistance of a deity - just as Christ was a witch/magician - he effected healing with the assistance of his deity, his magic is called miracles because Christians don't like the competition.

Evidence; of things that don't even sound very likely in the first place.

"We are re-born"! How can you or anyone else possibly know this?

ippy

[ippy]

Good old Ippy, if something ain't popular in north London, it ain't popular anywhere.

Umptiddlyumpty ........an' now me gal's me wife.

Having a Vlad day?

ippy

[Owlswing]

Evidence; of things that don't even sound very likely in the first place.

"We are re-born"! How can you or anyone else possibly know this?

ippy

You know as well as I that evidence cannot be produced for something that is a matter of faith yet you still keep demanding it!

Your atheism is as much a matter of faith as you can produce no verifiable evidence for the non-existence of the various religion's deities.

[Nearly Sane]

Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s) not a belief that goods exists. That said, if a god is defined by a believer in logically contradictory terms it cannot exist, or if it is defined in meaningless terms, talking about it as existing is meaningless.

Btw who said pagan beliefs were 'in error'? What beliefs?

[ippy]

Evidence; of things that don't even sound very likely in the first place.

"We are re-born"! How can you or anyone else possibly know this?

ippy

You know as well as I that evidence cannot be produced for something that is a matter of faith yet you still keep demanding it!

Your atheism is as much a matter of faith as you can produce no verifiable evidence for the non-existence of the various religion's deities.

You give me a reason why I should believe in this rather obviously man made god idea of yours and while you're at it, you prove that gods are not a man made idea. It's not me that wants you to believe.

Provide the evidence, conclusive evidence and I'll join you, looks like it's going to be a long wait.

ippy
 

[Nearly Sane]

Provide me conclusive evidence, outside of my experience of you, that you exist, ippy? You are making a mistake about what Owlswing'sclaims are, and missing that evidence as you refer to it has built in assumptions.

[ippy]

Provide me conclusive evidence, outside of my experience of you, that you exist, ippy? You are making a mistake about what Owlswing'sclaims are, and missing that evidence as you refer to it has built in assumptions.

Now who's being silly?

Ippy

[torridon]

Evidence; of things that don't even sound very likely in the first place.

"We are re-born"! How can you or anyone else possibly know this?

ippy

You know as well as I that evidence cannot be produced for something that is a matter of faith yet you still keep demanding it!

Your atheism is as much a matter of faith as you can produce no verifiable evidence for the non-existence of the various religion's deities.

Doesn't work like that.

Do you have faith in the non existence of the Raven God of Kamchatka as a result of the absence of any evidence to support the belief ?

I think your head must be full to exploding with the number of things you have faith in the non existence of.

[Nearly Sane]

Provide me conclusive evidence, outside of my experience of you, that you exist, ippy? You are making a mistake about what Owlswing'sclaims are, and missing that evidence as you refer to it has built in assumptions.

Now who's being silly?

Ippy

It would appear to.be you given you aren't dealing with fairly basic questions about epistemology

[Owlswing]

Evidence; of things that don't even sound very likely in the first place.

"We are re-born"! How can you or anyone else possibly know this?

ippy

You know as well as I that evidence cannot be produced for something that is a matter of faith yet you still keep demanding it!

Your atheism is as much a matter of faith as you can produce no verifiable evidence for the non-existence of the various religion's deities.

Doesn't work like that.

Do you have faith in the non existence of the Raven God of Kamchatka as a result of the absence of any evidence to support the belief ?

I think your head must be full to exploding with the number of things you have faith in the non existence of.

It doesn't matter which god or gods you are talking about - whether it be a matter of belief in or non-belief in them - I can have faith in the existence of one god and faith in the non-existence of the others because I have no interest whatsoever in them.

If I were a follower of the Raven God of Kamchatka, (which I am not) then, yes, my belief would be a matter of faith.

And no, my head is not full to exploding with the number of things I have faith in the non existence of because I just don't bother to think of them.

I am amazed at the patronising way in which non-believers dismiss the believers yet throw a real hissy-fit if their disbelief is similarly dismissed by the believers.

As I have said before, although my wording may have been in error - the belief in no god is as much a matter of faith as belief in a god or gods.   

[torridon]

You know as well as I that evidence cannot be produced for something that is a matter of faith yet you still keep demanding it!

Your atheism is as much a matter of faith as you can produce no verifiable evidence for the non-existence of the various religion's deities.

Doesn't work like that.

Do you have faith in the non existence of the Raven God of Kamchatka as a result of the absence of any evidence to support the belief ?

I think your head must be full to exploding with the number of things you have faith in the non existence of.

It doesn't matter which god or gods you are talking about - whether it be a matter of belief in or non-belief in them - I can have faith in the existence of one god and faith in the non-existence of the others because I have no interest whatsoever in them.

If I were a follower of the Raven God of Kamchatka, (which I am not) then, yes, my belief would be a matter of faith.

And no, my head is not full to exploding with the number of things I have faith in the non existence of because I just don't bother to think of them.

I am amazed at the patronising way in which non-believers dismiss the believers yet throw a real hissy-fit if their disbelief is similarly dismissed by the believers.

As I have said before, although my wording may have been in error - the belief in no god is as much a matter of faith as belief in a god or gods.   

Logical fallacy.

A faith in the non-existence of something is not the same as having no interest.  The word 'faith' implies some sort of trust, a following, a positive commitment perhaps. The absence of a faith in something does not imply a positive faith in the absence of it.  We define ourselves by the things we believe in, not the (near infinite) set of things that we don't hold beliefs in.

[Owlswing]

You know as well as I that evidence cannot be produced for something that is a matter of faith yet you still keep demanding it!

Your atheism is as much a matter of faith as you can produce no verifiable evidence for the non-existence of the various religion's deities.

Doesn't work like that.

Do you have faith in the non existence of the Raven God of Kamchatka as a result of the absence of any evidence to support the belief ?

I think your head must be full to exploding with the number of things you have faith in the non existence of.

It doesn't matter which god or gods you are talking about - whether it be a matter of belief in or non-belief in them - I can have faith in the existence of one god and faith in the non-existence of the others because I have no interest whatsoever in them.

If I were a follower of the Raven God of Kamchatka, (which I am not) then, yes, my belief would be a matter of faith.

And no, my head is not full to exploding with the number of things I have faith in the non existence of because I just don't bother to think of them.

I am amazed at the patronising way in which non-believers dismiss the believers yet throw a real hissy-fit if their disbelief is similarly dismissed by the believers.

As I have said before, although my wording may have been in error - the belief in no god is as much a matter of faith as belief in a god or gods.   

Logical fallacy.

A faith in the non-existence of something is not the same as having no interest.  The word 'faith' implies some sort of trust, a following, a positive commitment perhaps. The absence of a faith in something does not imply a positive faith in the absence of it.  We define ourselves by the things we believe in, not the (near infinite) set of things that we don't hold beliefs in.

So what then is an atheist if they are not defined by what they do not believe in?

[Udayana]

...
Logical fallacy.

A faith in the non-existence of something is not the same as having no interest.  The word 'faith' implies some sort of trust, a following, a positive commitment perhaps. The absence of a faith in something does not imply a positive faith in the absence of it.  We define ourselves by the things we believe in, not the (near infinite) set of things that we don't hold beliefs in.

You may not believe in the existence or non-existence of God, gods or other metaphysics, but what is it you do believe? Imo, there are always some things that have to be taken "on trust", just to be able to function.

Note, this is not asking what atheists believe as a group, only one individual who happens to be an atheist.

[Maeght]

As I have said before, although my wording may have been in error - the belief in no god is as much a matter of faith as belief in a god or gods.   

If someone says they believe there is no God or gods then that is a belief, yes. But if you say you have no belief in God or gods then that isn't a belief so no. Depends, as ever, how you are defining atheist.  I have no belief in any God or gods, but accept I could be wrong - am I therefore an atheist or something else? Technically anyone with a belief in one God or set of gods is atheistic towards other gods, hence the comment about Raven God of Kamchatka and not being defined by what we don't believe I would think.

[torridon]

Logical fallacy.

A faith in the non-existence of something is not the same as having no interest.  The word 'faith' implies some sort of trust, a following, a positive commitment perhaps. The absence of a faith in something does not imply a positive faith in the absence of it.  We define ourselves by the things we believe in, not the (near infinite) set of things that we don't hold beliefs in.

So what then is an atheist if they are not defined by what they do not believe in?

It might be common, it might be widespread, to characterise atheists that way, casually.  That just means it is a widespread, common, logical fallacy. When I fill in a job application, I don't list all the qualifications that I don't have.  I don't stuff the 'hobbies and interests' section with the facts that I don't play ludo and I don't follow cricket. We define ourselves by the positive things that characterise us, and if we have a belief or follow a faith there has to be some reason for that; conversely there can never be any evidence of non-existence, by definition. If I am an atheist, it is not because I see compelling evidence for something that isn't there, rather it is that I am currently unpersuaded by the claims of theists; its just a default position.

[Owlswing]

Logical fallacy.

A faith in the non-existence of something is not the same as having no interest.  The word 'faith' implies some sort of trust, a following, a positive commitment perhaps. The absence of a faith in something does not imply a positive faith in the absence of it.  We define ourselves by the things we believe in, not the (near infinite) set of things that we don't hold beliefs in.

So what then is an atheist if they are not defined by what they do not believe in?

It might be common, it might be widespread, to characterise atheists that way, casually.  That just means it is a widespread, common, logical fallacy. When I fill in a job application, I don't list all the qualifications that I don't have.  I don't stuff the 'hobbies and interests' section with the facts that I don't play ludo and I don't follow cricket. We define ourselves by the positive things that characterise us, and if we have a belief or follow a faith there has to be some reason for that; conversely there can never be any evidence of non-existence, by definition. If I am an atheist, it is not because I see compelling evidence for something that isn't there, rather it is that I am currently unpersuaded by the claims of theists; its just a default position.

You can call it what you like, you will never convince me that atheism is not a matter of faith, any more than Sassy and Hope will convince me that my faith is "in error".

[Nearly Sane]

So your lack of belief in four sided triangles is a faith? How about your lack of belief in gytihhvvd? Is that that a faith?

[torridon]

Logical fallacy.

A faith in the non-existence of something is not the same as having no interest.  The word 'faith' implies some sort of trust, a following, a positive commitment perhaps. The absence of a faith in something does not imply a positive faith in the absence of it.  We define ourselves by the things we believe in, not the (near infinite) set of things that we don't hold beliefs in.

So what then is an atheist if they are not defined by what they do not believe in?

It might be common, it might be widespread, to characterise atheists that way, casually.  That just means it is a widespread, common, logical fallacy. When I fill in a job application, I don't list all the qualifications that I don't have.  I don't stuff the 'hobbies and interests' section with the facts that I don't play ludo and I don't follow cricket. We define ourselves by the positive things that characterise us, and if we have a belief or follow a faith there has to be some reason for that; conversely there can never be any evidence of non-existence, by definition. If I am an atheist, it is not because I see compelling evidence for something that isn't there, rather it is that I am currently unpersuaded by the claims of theists; its just a default position.

You can call it what you like, you will never convince me that atheism is not a matter of faith, any more than Sassy and Hope will convince me that my faith is "in error".

Why ? 

[Maeght]

You can call it what you like, you will never convince me that atheism is not a matter of faith, any more than Sassy and Hope will convince me that my faith is "in error".

Define atheism.

[Leonard James]

You can call it what you like, you will never convince me that atheism is not a matter of faith, any more than Sassy and Hope will convince me that my faith is "in error".

Why ?

At the risk of repeating myself, it is because once a believer has convinced himself that whatever 'god/s' he believes in is true, it is almost impossible to un-convince him.

Most atheists, on the other hand, are perfectly open to believing in a god once convincing and testable evidence is presented to them.

[Nearly Sane]

What would testable evidence for a god be? What is a god in the first place? As an atheist, I find the idea that you could have some form of testable evidence for something that appears to be defined in purely non testable terms bizarre.

[Owlswing]

So your lack of belief in four sided triangles is a faith? How about your lack of belief in gytihhvvd? Is that that a faith?

How can anything with four of anything be tri-anything?