"The Graveyard of the Gods"

[Saint Frankenstein]

They certainly can be. But if they are mocking paganism, it is only because they want to illustrate that there is no functional difference between polytheism and monotheism. Or as I often heard it put, "Once you understand why you believe in one god instead of three, you will also understand why I believe in none instead of one" or something along those lines. So while it elevates polytheism, it also identifies polytheism as irrational, because monotheism is also irrational.

One caveat: Not simply anti-theist most of the time, but anti-supernatural. Notwithstanding exceptions like Sam Harris, there's not much love for dharmic concepts like karma, samsara, rebirth or reincarnation, etcetera.

Oh, I'm very familiar with that attitude. Good post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And what's wrong with anti-atheism?

Well, it's so prevalent that it gets tiresome, for one thing.

Beyond that, though, it depends what sort of anti-atheism we're talking about. If it's just theists expressing their disagreement with atheism (i.e. the equivalent of the display in the OP), then I have no issue with that at all. It's when the theists want the atheists to pay for special benefits for theists, or when they try to infringe on the rights of atheists that I have a problem.

Remember: when it comes right down to it, you're complaining about the fact that a group of people had the nerve to express disagreement with you. They've done nothing to "pick your pocket or break your leg", as Thomas Jefferson put it.

Now... I don't think a public university is the proper place for a display like that, but so far (AFAICT), you haven't even raised concerns about the secularism issues here, only about the content of the message.

 

[Willamena]

And what's wrong with antitheism?

Bias.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well, it's so prevalent that it gets tiresome, for one thing.

Beyond that, though, it depends what sort of anti-atheism we're talking about. If it's just theists expressing their disagreement with atheism (i.e. the equivalent of the display in the OP), then I have no issue with that at all. It's when the theists want the atheists to pay for special benefits for theists, or when they try to infringe on the rights of atheists that I have a problem.

Remember: when it comes right down to it, you're complaining about the fact that a group of people had the nerve to express disagreement with you. They've done nothing to "pick your pocket or break your leg", as Thomas Jefferson put it.

Now... I don't think a public university is the proper place for a display like that, but so far (AFAICT), you haven't even raised concerns about the secularism issues here, only about the content of the message.

So I don't have the right to express how I feel when my beliefs are spat upon and when ignorance and cultural destruction is celebrated?

I didn't say anything about atheism itself. Do those people speak for all atheists? Nope.

Also, don't act like atheists are some especially persecuted minority. Obviously Pagans and people who do not adhere to an Abrahamic religion in general aren't viewed very highly in America. It's obviously quite fine in our society to mock and deride the beliefs of polytheists.

 

[dgirl1986]

I can see what they were tryng to do, but at the same time it really annoys me when people claim the old gods arent worshipped anymore when they are, it just isnt in your face like monotheistic gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So I don't have the right to express how I feel when my beliefs are spat upon and when ignorance and cultural destruction is celebrated?

Of course you do. And I have the right to respond.

I didn't say anything about atheism itself. Do those people speak for all atheists? Nope.

Also, don't act like atheists are some especially persecuted minority.

I'm not. It's probably more difficult being, say, a Sikh in my society than an atheist. At least I have the option of being quiet and blending in when I don't want to call attention to the fact that I'm not a member of the majority religion.

Obviously Pagans and people who do not adhere to an Abrahamic religion in general aren't viewed very highly in America. It's obviously quite fine in our society to mock and deride the beliefs of polytheists.

... while non-Abrahamic monotheists don't count at all, apparently.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Of course you do. And I have the right to respond.

And I have the right to respond to your attempt to dismiss my issue with this.

... while non-Abrahamic monotheists don't count at all, apparently.

Not sure what you're getting at.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm not going to nit-pick with you. Although, if they do realize what happened to many of those religions, that means they're knowingly mocking victims of imperialism, colonialism and genocide, which is even worse.

That doesn't make a massive amount of sense, from an atheist perspective, at least to my mind.
All religions, and non-religions (eg. atheism) have been subjected to imperialism, colonialism and genocide. Are you suggesting religion can't be criticized?

I'm not an anti-theist, and don't find common cause with the OP as described, although I understand their message. I just don't see it as productive. My take is that we should judge all based on the same actions, and leave it at that, regardless of their motivation for those actions.

Do you see Christianity, Islam or Judaism as exempt from mockery?

 

[Parsimony]

Anubis and Loki shouldn't be there, as neo-pagans still recognize them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And I have the right to respond to your attempt to dismiss my issue with this.

That's right: nobody's exempt from criticism.

Not sure what you're getting at.

I just think that some of the cultural chauvinism that you were complaining about is apparent in your posts, too. You presented a dichotomy of "Abrahamic religions" and "polytheism", apparently with no room for non-Abrahamic monotheistic religions like Sikhism or Zoroastrianism. You complain about people assuming that the Abrahamics are the be-all and end-all of modern-day religion, but it seems like you're doing pretty much the same things, only with your particular niche added.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

To the OP- I'm an atheist and I'd never suggest the worship of the polytheistic gods is dead. In fact, as the monotheistic religions continue to decline, polytheism is sure to see some increase. I'd prefer that in honesty. Pagans are so much less totalitarian.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That doesn't make a massive amount of sense, from an atheist perspective, at least to my mind.
All religions, and non-religions (eg. atheism) have been subjected to imperialism, colonialism and genocide. Are you suggesting religion can't be criticized?

I'm not an anti-theist, and don't find common cause with the OP as described, although I understand their message. I just don't see it as productive. My take is that we should judge all based on the same actions, and leave it at that, regardless of their motivation for those actions.

Do you see Christianity, Islam or Judaism as exempt from mockery?

I didn't say anything couldn't be criticized. But this display is like mocking Native Americans or Native Australians because their native culture isn't as widespread as it was.

Maybe people just don't understand where I'm coming from. Many, or most, modern Pagans are trying to revive indigenous folkways of various cultures that have been persecuted out of existence, driven underground and disrupted. Basically, it's a form of ethnic revival and trying to bring back things that have been lost. That display is like a kick in the teeth and a display of ethno-cultural chauvinism. It's like laughing at us and celebrating that our Gods are "dead" and our people's traditions have been destroyed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I just think that some of the cultural chauvinism that you were complaining about is apparent in your posts, too. You presented a dichotomy of "Abrahamic religions" and "polytheism", apparently with no room for non-Abrahamic monotheistic religions like Sikhism or Zoroastrianism. You complain about people assuming that the Abrahamics are the be-all and end-all of modern-day religion, but it seems like you're doing pretty much the same things, only with your particular niche added.

That wasn't my intention at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To the OP- I'm an atheist and I'd never suggest the worship of the polytheistic gods is dead. In fact, as the monotheistic religions continue to decline, polytheism is sure to see some increase. I'd prefer that in honesty. Pagans are so much less totalitarian.

IMO, it's a lack of political power, not polytheism, that makes a religion not totalitarian.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

IMO, it's a lack of political power, not polytheism, that makes a religion not totalitarian.

No, it's the tenants of the religion and its overall worldview.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

IMO, it's a lack of political power, not polytheism, that makes a religion not totalitarian.

That may be true, but I don't see many polytheists seeking political power in the modern. However, I understood your point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say anything couldn't be criticized. But this display is like mocking Native Americans or Native Australians because their native culture isn't as widespread as it was.

Maybe people just don't understand where I'm coming from. Many, or most, modern Pagans are trying to revive indigenous folkways of various cultures that have been persecuted out of existence, driven underground and disrupted. Basically, it's a form of ethnic revival and trying to bring back things that have been lost. That display is like a kick in the teeth and a display of ethno-cultural chauvinism. It's like laughing at us and celebrating that our Gods are "dead" and our people's traditions have been destroyed.

This doesn't match the argument you gave in the OP. Earlier, you argued that the atheist group was insensitive because they didn't realize that all those Pagan religions never died out at all. Now, you're arguing that the religions DID die out and they're being insensitive to the people who are trying to revive them.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This doesn't match the argument you gave in the OP. Earlier, you argued that the atheist group was insensitive because they didn't realize that all those Pagan religions never died out at all. Now, you're arguing that the religions DID die out and they're being insensitive to the people who are trying to revive them.

Are you even reading my posts? Doesn't seem like it.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

No, it's the tenants of the religion and its overall worldview.

I agree with this only because I understand that polytheism tends toward pluralism- that other worldviews can be valid and meaningful. Its also an interesting fact that wars in the ancient world were rarely on another nation's gods. The conquerors often restored any holy site or temple to a foreign deity they might have damaged in battle.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it's the tenants of the religion and its overall worldview.

How many polytheistic religions practiced human sacrifice when they were the dominant religions in their respective areas?