"The Graveyard of the Gods"

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Tell that to the many people - not just Christians - who were persecuted by the Romans for not worshipping the Roman gods.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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

We don't know. A lot of those accounts were written by enemies, like the Romans writing about the Druids or the Spanish writing about the Mesoamerican peoples.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Tell that to the many people - not just Christians - who were persecuted by the Romans for not worshipping the Roman gods.

Who was persecuted for not worshiping Roman Gods? Don't bring up Christians because we know those stories were largely made up later and didn't happen.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We don't know. A lot of those accounts were written by enemies, like the Romans writing about the Druids or the Spanish writing about the Mesoamerican peoples.

And a lot of it is based on archaeological evidence, such as for the Norse and Egyptian peoples, to give two examples of religious traditions that have been mentioned in this thread.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

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

My studies have tended to suggest this varied widely by religion. The Egyptians following the early dynasties saw it as abhorrent, as did the Romans. The Greeks may have practiced it sporadically, but it was on the whole unheard of.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And a lot of it is based on archaeological evidence, such as for the Norse and Egyptian peoples, to give two examples of religious traditions that have been mentioned in this thread.

Yes, and? Are you trying to turn this into a religion and culture bashing fest?

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Tell that to the many people - not just Christians - who were persecuted by the Romans for not worshipping the Roman gods.

Actually the Romans were pretty pluralistic as concerned other gods, usually insisting that foreign gods were their own under a guise, like associating Thor with Hercules.

Like Lucvfer, I'm dubious about some of the martyrdom accounts from Christians. Many of them like the martyrdom of Polycarp are doubtful because they're miraculous in nature. I question their historicity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Who was persecuted for not worshiping Roman Gods? Don't bring up Christians because we know those stories were largely made up later and didn't happen.

The Druids, for one:

Pliny reports[7] that under Tiberius the druids were suppressed —along with diviners and physicians— by a decree of the Senate, and Claudius forbade their rites completely in AD 54

Religious persecution in the Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, and? Are you trying to turn this into a religion and culture bashing fest?

I'm trying to address your claim that these religions are non-totalitarian because of their tenets and not because of their lack of political power. That might be true for their modern versions, but in many cases, it's certainly not true for the original religion they purport to be based on.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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. I don't really see it that way.
It's weird, though, I'm falling into the trap of defending something I don't particularly like, or see as helpful. I'm going to put it down to defending someone's right to say something I don't agree with, I guess.

Native American and Native Australian religions are a little harder to pin down and define than the polytheistic religions these guys seemed to have targeted, based on the graves I can actually read. I would imagine any literal interpretation of any of these religions is rare, in truth. How many people these days literally believe in an anthropomorphic Poseidon?

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.

Yes. By practitioners of other religions. I'm not an anti-theist AT ALL, but it's hard to make a case that religions have been persecuted out of existence, and therefore we should make more of an effort to respect the revival of old religious traditions, when in fact it was other religions that did the persecuting. It's exactly why anti-theists would argue religion is all fair game, and see it as destructive.

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.

Atheists don't believe in Gods. There are no alive Gods, and there are no dead ones. The graveyard represents the death of belief. I would argue (as you seem to have here) that the revivalist movements are as much cultural as religious. Who, in this case, are 'your people' for example? I could trace my lineage through a bunch of different cultures, and have a pretty good handle on the traditions and religious beliefs of several. I'm also pretty well-read in the history of them. But I don't literally believe a Sun Dance ensures renewal. Neither do the vast majority of the world. Keeping the tradition alive is something I would whole-heartedly support. I respect ancient traditions. I'm not about to live my life beholden to them, any more than I live my life beholden to modern religious beliefs.

One final point. It's worth noting that not all polytheistic beliefs are benign. I've lived amongst tribal cultures, and superstition and belief in magic and sorcery lead to horrific acts, and continue to. Happy to source as much as you like from my experience amongst tribal, non-monotheistic cultures, or from ancient polytheistic traditions as well.

Revivalist movements today pick from the old traditions, in my belief. Thankfully, they don't recreate them part and parcel. There is not an unbroken chain of polytheistic religion with regards to the gods I can see in the OP.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually the Romans were pretty pluralistic as concerned other gods, usually insisting that foreign gods were their own under a guise, like associating Thor with Hercules.

Like Lucvfer, I'm dubious about some of the martyrdom accounts from Christians. Many of them like the martyrdom of Polycarp are doubtful because they're miraculous in nature. I question their historicity.

They had different policies for client states and their own provinces. Client states were generally allowed to do their own thing; the Roman people collectively had religious obligations, which meant that Roman citizens were required to participate in Roman religious rituals to help the Roman Empire continue to enjoy the favour of the gods. To refuse was considered unpatriotic at best and treasonous at worst.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The Druids, for one:


Religious persecution in the Roman Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The Romans were tolerant of various religions as long as they didn't disrupt society. The Romans were at war against the Celts, much like how they fought with and suppressed the Jews at various times. Sadly, all we really know about what happened between Rome and the Druids is what the Romans have said. They say they suppressed the Druids because their customs outraged the Romans. This may be atrocity propaganda during a time of war.

The Romans didn't suppress religions simply because they didn't like their Gods. They were usually already at war with them for other reasons, such as with the Jews.

I'm trying to address your claim that these religions are non-totalitarian because of their tenets and not because of their lack of political power. That might be true for their modern versions, but in many cases, it's certainly not true for the original religion they purport to be based on.

You haven't shown evidence that a historically Pagan culture outlawed and persecuted those who didn't worship their Gods, on that ground alone.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

They had different policies for client states and their own provinces. Client states were generally allowed to do their own thing; the Roman people collectively had religious obligations, which meant that Roman citizens were required to participate in Roman religious rituals to help the Roman Empire continue to enjoy the favour of the gods. To refuse was considered unpatriotic at best and treasonous at worst.

However, we know there were exceptions, like Roman citizens who were Jews. Jews continued to be exempt from the state rites until the dawn of Christendom.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe. I don't really see it that way.
It's weird, though, I'm falling into the trap of defending something I don't particularly like, or see as helpful. I'm going to put it down to defending someone's right to say something I don't agree with, I guess.

I only touched on it briefly so far, but I don't think they should have had the right to do this. Not on the grounds of a public university, anyhow.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Maybe. I don't really see it that way.
It's weird, though, I'm falling into the trap of defending something I don't particularly like, or see as helpful. I'm going to put it down to defending someone's right to say something I don't agree with, I guess.

Native American and Native Australian religions are a little harder to pin down and define than the polytheistic religions these guys seemed to have targeted, based on the graves I can actually read. I would imagine any literal interpretation of any of these religions is rare, in truth. How many people these days literally believe in an anthropomorphic Poseidon?




Yes. By practitioners of other religions. I'm not an anti-theist AT ALL, but it's hard to make a case that religions have been persecuted out of existence, and therefore we should make more of an effort to respect the revival of old religious traditions, when in fact it was other religions that did the persecuting. It's exactly why anti-theists would argue religion is all fair game, and see it as destructive.



Atheists don't believe in Gods. There are no alive Gods, and there are no dead ones. The graveyard represents the death of belief. I would argue (as you seem to have here) that the revivalist movements are as much cultural as religious. Who, in this case, are 'your people' for example? I could trace my lineage through a bunch of different cultures, and have a pretty good handle on the traditions and religious beliefs of several. I'm also pretty well-read in the history of them. But I don't literally believe a Sun Dance ensures renewal. Neither do the vast majority of the world. Keeping the tradition alive is something I would whole-heartedly support. I respect ancient traditions. I'm not about to live my life beholden to them, any more than I live my life beholden to modern religious beliefs.

One final point. It's worth noting that not all polytheistic beliefs are benign. I've lived amongst tribal cultures, and superstition and belief in magic and sorcery lead to horrific acts, and continue to. Happy to source as much as you like from my experience amongst tribal, non-monotheistic cultures, or from ancient polytheistic traditions as well.

Revivalist movements today pick from the old traditions, in my belief. Thankfully, they don't recreate them part and parcel. There is not an unbroken chain of polytheistic religion with regards to the gods I can see in the OP.

You're still not understanding what I'm saying. I'm explaining why I find this offensive. I didn't say atheists should support the revival of anything. But I'm explaining how it looks to people like me when displays like the one in the OP are created.

 

[Gnostic Seeker]

Generally the only thing the Romans would not tolerate was disloyalty or open rebellion. Pliny, Porphyry, and others write of the ways in which Christians often engaged in open rebellion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You're still not understanding what I'm saying. I'm explaining why I find this offensive. I didn't say atheists should support the revival of anything. But I'm explaining how it looks to people like me when displays like the one in the OP are created.

I do understand you, honestly.
Ultimately, though, I'm much more comfortable in a world where religion is subject to light ridicule than one where it's not, and I honestly think that stance would remain regardless of my theistic leanings.
Likewise, I am more comfortable in a world where political figures are subject to light ridicule for much the same reason.

If I tell a Christian that in my opinion their God doesn't exist, they may find this offensive.
If I tell Christians, repeatedly, that their God doesn't exist, I might actually be counter productive to what I am trying to achieve (which is probably my single biggest concern and issue with antitheism).
And if I replace Christian in the above posting with whatever other religion, polytheistic or otherwise, that you wish to substitute, then I would submit that my opinion remains unchanged.

I don't think their display is particularly compelling, but neither would I want it censored. There are plenty of jokes on tv I don't find funny, but I prefer them uncensored as well.
The issue for me is more around the use of public space. I don't see how it can be used for an anti-theistic display any more than it should be for a theistic display, but American laws, etc, are a little different, and I'm not always across how your Uni system works in any detail.

So in short, I see polytheistic religions as every bit fair game, just as monotheistic, or atheistic beliefs are. But the rules have to be fair, and my initial thoughts here are to wonder how I would react if that display was a pro-Islamic message (for example). Probably not a massive fan, and I'd wonder at the use of space. That's where my head's at with this one too.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I do understand you, honestly.
Ultimately, though, I'm much more comfortable in a world where religion is subject to light ridicule than one where it's not, and I honestly think that stance would remain regardless of my theistic leanings.
Likewise, I am more comfortable in a world where political figures are subject to light ridicule for much the same reason.

If I tell a Christian that in my opinion their God doesn't exist, they may find this offensive.
If I tell Christians, repeatedly, that their God doesn't exist, I might actually be counter productive to what I am trying to achieve (which is probably my single biggest concern and issue with antitheism).
And if I replace Christian in the above posting with whatever other religion, polytheistic or otherwise, that you wish to substitute, then I would submit that my opinion remains unchanged.

I don't think their display is particularly compelling, but neither would I want it censored. There are plenty of jokes on tv I don't find funny, but I prefer them uncensored as well.
The issue for me is more around the use of public space. I don't see how it can be used for an anti-theistic display and more than it should be for a theistic display, but American laws, etc, are a little different, and I'm not always across how your Uni system works in any detail.

So in short, I see polytheistic religions as every bit fair game, just as monotheistic, or atheistic beliefs are. But the rules have to be fair, and my initial thoughts here are to wonder how I would react if that display was a pro-Islamic message (for example). Probably not a massive fan, and I'd wonder at the use of space. That's where my head's at with this one too.

I didn't say anything about censorship, either. I prefer it when people are upfront about their bigotries and ignorance.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not really interested in arguing about that. Whatever you want to call those people. The label works for me.



Lol. Sadly not.

Actually the Romans were pretty pluralistic as concerned other gods, usually insisting that foreign gods were their own under a guise, like associating Thor with Hercules.

Like Lucvfer, I'm dubious about some of the martyrdom accounts from Christians. Many of them like the martyrdom of Polycarp are doubtful because they're miraculous in nature. I question their historicity.

Yeah, I think you are right. The Persians seemed to be pretty tolerant and pluralist for many centuries also. Rome could incorporate most notions comfortably, but the Christians represented something rather more fanatical and confronting to their sensibilities.

 

[Erebus]

I actually quite like the graveyard replete with the little "Join Us" sign. It's silly to the point of being weirdly endearing.

 

[Infinitum]

I think it's fair to say that the gods are dead, and that the ones we worship today are their children and grandchildren. In many cases of Pagan belief we have lost a connection to the direct source and must rely on reconstructions made from second hand sources. You can't today walk up to an Athenian and ask them about the Eleusinian Mysteries. There are no yearly public festivals on the Parthenon anymore, they're private gatherings of a handful of the faithful. We have lost a lot of the culture involved in these beliefs and I think most of us agree it's a thing to grieve over.

The point is those gods used to be endorsed and worshipped by the whole society, just like God is now in the US and some other highly Christian countries, and Allah in the Islamic world. As the text in the blog says, entire civilizations are now attached to these gods, but there were others before them who were believed to be just as eternal as Allah is deemed eternal today. Sooner or later God will die. In fact some, like the atheists, could argue he's already started dying.