Hate for the Pagan

[Ali Mujahidin]

Disclaimer:
What follows is a totally biased personal viewpoint which does not pretend to be supported by any kind of research whatsoever. In other words, it is pure conjecture.

Why An Atheist Cannot Accept Allah.

To acknowledge that Allah exists is to accept the truth that there is a power greater than the atheist. This is totally unacceptable to the atheist. To believe in Allah is to totally destroy the myth of the supremacy of the atheist. This is an idea totally alien to the atheist. The atheist has to cling to the myth that the atheist can find the solution to every problem he faces without recourse to the truth that, in the final analysis, it is Allah and only Allah that has the power to make things happen. The atheist can only survive by living on the unfounded hope that someday somehow he will find the truth without ascribing the truth to Allah.

Why A Polytheist Cannot Accept Allah.

To acknowledge that Allah exists is to accept the truth that there is one and only one Allah. The concept of the One and Only Allah is very inconvenient to the polytheist who needs to be able to create, as the need arises, different gods to suit different purposes. The polytheist also needs the freedom to re-invent his gods to keep up with changing times. The polytheist also feels the need, from time to time, to re-write the holy books of his gods to make them palatable to the masses. This is the only way a polytheist can feel that he has control over the situation. To accept that the One and Only Allah is not subject to change is to relinquish this control. Without this control, the polytheist is left floundering in the ocean of chaos because he refuses to grasp the singular truth of the One and Only Allah which will lead him to freedom from his self-induced anxiety.

Please note that I say all this without no malice aforethought whatsoever.

 

[Verdetequiero]

Why An Atheist Cannot Accept Allah.

To acknowledge that Allah exists is to accept the truth that there is a power greater than the atheist. This is totally unacceptable to the atheist. To believe in Allah is to totally destroy the myth of the supremacy of the atheist. This is an idea totally alien to the atheist. The atheist has to cling to the myth that the atheist can find the solution to every problem he faces without recourse to the truth that, in the final analysis, it is Allah and only Allah that has the power to make things happen. The atheist can only survive by living on the unfounded hope that someday somehow he will find the truth without ascribing the truth to Allah.

You make it sound as if there is a dogma attached to atheism. There isn't. One doesn't choose to be an atheist simply because he believes that man is the ultimate power, but usually but not all ways a careful examination of religious claims. Usually the atheist finds them lacking in some way and though a process of elimination arrives at the conclusion that the various religious claims aren't all that they are cracked up to be. Atheists "survive" on far more than just hoping to find truth while desperately trying not to ascribe it to Allah. That is theocentrism. Atheists can survive and enjoy life in many other ways and discover a personal truth though art, music, philanthropic endeavorer, physical fitness, or other methods. Secular systems of unifying disparent realities exist such as humanism, utilitarianism, etc.

 

[IAmZamzam]

ThisOldMan, I have found from my own observations that atheism is typically not so much formed out of egocentrism as a mindset that spurns that idea of things not being concrete. This is a large part of the reason why they tend to be so obsessed with science as a replacement for religion, and why so few of them are not hard matieralists, indeed to the point where atheism is frequently mistaken for a synonym for hard materialism. It's not about the way they perceive themselves, it's about the way they perceive the world around them. They don't like to perceive it in a way that contains more levels or layers or aspects than they can grasp with their senses. I don't know whether subconsciously it repulses or frightens them--maybe both--but either way, they prefer things simple and everything provable, even though life repeatedly shows neither to be the case. That's another way that science is so useful to them: it allows them to think that they're accepting the weird nature of reality. Psychologically it's their substitute or replacement for religion. To understand this, listen and notice how often they use the word "Nature" in a way that seems shockingly interchangeable with "God", sometimes to the point of absurdity. It seems to be an unintentional euphemism with them. But of course there are more types of atheist than this apparent most common type.

As for polytheism I am not so sure, but you may be onto something in terms of it being convenient to be able to switch addressees with your appeals should the need arise. In the end one must be careful to spend substantial time analyzing others only when there seems to be a point to it. I hope there is enough of one here.

That was addressed to ThisOldMan, and to no one else.

 

[Verdetequiero]

As cute as the " this post is addressed to X and no one else is" that is what PMs are made for. If you post you probably need to expect that your post will be addressed.

ThisOldMan, I have found from my own observations that atheism is typically not so much formed out of egocentrism as a mindset that spurns that idea of things not being concrete.

Double negatives aside, there is no "atheistic mindset" any more than there is a "Muslim or Christian or Communist mindset". Reductive statements usually end up in stereotypes and while somewhat useful are usually problematic. philosophy of science, poetry, textual analysis all point to various aspects that appreciate nuance and multiple levels,textures, and interpretations of reality as well as the claim that true absolute concrete knowledge cannot be known.

This is a large part of the reason why they tend to be so obsessed with science as a replacement for religion, and why so few of them are not hard matieralists, indeed to the point where atheism is frequently mistaken for a synonym for hard materialism.

Atheists tend to be "obsessed with science", not as a replacement for religion because the religious experience occupies an area that science does not namely transcendental experiences and a unification of various realities into a cohesive narrative, but as a method of improving mankind's experience, easing the pain in the world and discovering how it works. Obviously this doesn't fulfill the role of religion hence other structures as well such as poetry, music, unifying ideologies such as humanism etc.

It's not about the way they perceive themselves, it's about the way they perceive the world around them. They don't like to perceive it in a way that contains more levels or layers or aspects than they can grasp with their senses.

It doesn't take a theist to grasp the various meanings of a novel, of a human experience, or of a relationship. None of these are truly grasped by the human senses in holistic way.

I don't know whether subconsciously it repulses or frightens them--maybe both--but either way, they prefer things simple and everything provable, even though life repeatedly shows neither to be the case.

Ignoring arm chair psychology, you'll have to be more specific. I doubt you'll find a atheist who thinks everything is provable. Atheists like all people tend to prefer proof of things, though. People's word or "because I said so" doesn't really hold much weight.

That's another way that science is so useful to them: it allows them to think that they're accepting the weird nature of reality. Psychologically it's their substitute or replacement for religion. To understand this, listen and notice how often they use the word "Nature" in a way that seems shockingly interchangeable with "God", sometimes to the point of absurdity. It seems to be an unintentional euphemism with them. But of course there are more types of atheist than this apparent most common type.

Einstein and Spinoza had an idea of "God" as nature or rather "God" was the sum of nature's laws and beauty. Personally I don't think so.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Verdetequiero, you seem to have missed the point of every single thing I said and your response really is a string of non-sequiturs. Not that it matters since, as I said, I was not talking to you. I would never deny you your right to defend your own viewpoint but I do ask that you at least make some sense. I do, however, agree with your averring that "reductive statements usually end up in stereotypes and while somewhat useful are usually problematic," but my aim is simply to correct ThisOldMan on his own reductive thinking, as long as he's going to think that way anyhow.

 

[Verdetequiero]

Verdetequiero, you seem to have missed the point of every single thing I said and your response really is a string of non-sequiturs. Not that it matters since, as I said, I was not talking to you. I would never deny you your right to defend your own viewpoint but I do ask that you at least make some sense. I do, however, agree with your averring that "reductive statements usually end up in stereotypes and while somewhat useful are usually problematic," but my aim is simply to correct ThisOldMan on his own reductive thinking, as long as he's going to think that way anyhow.

I did make sense. I corrected your

atheism is typically not so much formed out of egocentrism as a mindset that spurns that idea of things not being concrete.

that atheists even in their much beloved science ( apparently) build in ambiguity and a realization of different viewpoints, perspectives, and analysis. The philosophy of science itself is built on the idea that there is no 100% verifiable evidence. Then there are plays, literature, theater etc which tell of the complexities, contradictions, and problems of human existence all of which do not have concrete resolutions.

I corrected your

This is a large part of the reason why they tend to be so obsessed with science as a replacement for religion,

in saying that science does not replace religion nor do atheists want it to be because science and religion occupy different but sometimes overlaps places in the human experience. Religion can unify different realities under a narrative as does secular humanism, utilitarianism, and secular ideologies such as fascism and communism both of use have had synergistic abilities that would seem to be on par with religion.

I called this

don't know whether subconsciously it repulses or frightens them--maybe both--

arm chair psychology.

I corrected this

It's not about the way they perceive themselves, it's about the way they perceive the world around them. They don't like to perceive it in a way that contains more levels or layers or aspects than they can grasp with their senses.

by showing various examples of non theistic examples of things that atheists appreciate that have layers and aspects.

and so on.......

In actuality you didn't correct ThisOldMan as really just gave your own version of ham fisted diagnosis characterizing atheists as "spurning the idea that things aren't concrete", seeking religion in science, being frightened and/ or repulsed, and being absurd. I wouldn't call that a correction.

 

[IAmZamzam]

I really am not interested in pursuing this with you, Verdetequiero. If you want to do so then follow your own advice and talk to me about in a PM.

 

[Verdetequiero]

No need to at all.

 

[Amigo]

To the OP:

Idols or gods are about worship of creatures rather than the Creator, this produce a disorder in society that everyone basically hate except perhaps the one making it. You will notice that it is not monotheist who hate paganism, paganism hates itself as illustrated by pagans hating each other based on their gods and idols.

Consider people who worship violence, people who worship food, people who worship sex, people who worship money, people who worship power, people who worship praise, people who worship all these things.
These people can't get along with others because there is always explotation and abuse of fellow humans for the sake of one's idol(s).

So paganism is hated by monotheism because of its abuse and explotation of the human dignity. You will notice that there are many who think they are monotheists yet worship those things. Many monotheists don't seem to realise what idols really are, they think it is a statue here or there. A god is that which you set your heart to. Having many gods then is desordered by its nature because it means loss of integrity. One God basically means integrity of heart and mind and a proper ordering and view of things.

 

[Amigo]

I meant that it is not monotheists alone who hate paganism.

The fact is. We all hate being exploited and some people may not mind exploiting others, but I don't know anyone who enjoy being exploited.
Idolatry always exploites and abuse other creatures including man. This is because no creature can sustain the worship so it ends up being abused.
Consider those who worship women beauty, they will abuse their wives because they won't seem to match some standard. Even if they make it it won't be for long before the worshipper move on the a different variation.
Also consider those holywood stars, they can't contain the worship bestowed on them. They willl abuse themselves trying to keep up the people's expectations so they don't desapoint them. When humans worship each other, they stretch or crash each other in the proccess. Samething when other creatures are worshiped, from the earth, to special material, or animals. This is what idol worship is about. Only in ancient world, they will celebrate what they worship by raising monuments and statues about them.

In few words, idol worship causes imbalance in nature. Monotheism tries to see things as a whole and and knows that their dignity can be kept only by refering to the One who gave them that dignity: God. It is about integrity.

Of course there are monotheists who are so by tradition not by understanding, and so in real life they are just idolators, they just don't know it.

 

[UUSeeker]

I know there are some "New Agers" who exploit others, but the Pagans I know would not fall into this category.

They simply practice another faith, albeit one which has more than one deity.

For those who are monotheists, I can see where this might cause some consternation, but the Pagans I know don't convert or prostylitize (sp?).

Whether or not people of other faiths consider them idolaters would seem to be irrelevant if they are not forcing their beliefs on others.

Nobody has the right to force their beliefs on others and fermenting hatred toward others is rarely beneficial to either the party.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[DippedinJannah]

Here is a slightly different answer, based on the experience of an urban American...

I don't hate pagans. I try not to hate anyone.

I dislike many pagans, however, primarily because they are obnoxiously pretentious.

Here in the US, every city now has their Wiccans, Druids, etc. Wiccans will tell you they trace their beliefs back to the stone age (yeah, right!) They gather here to pretentiously read lists of names from "The Burning Times" (aka witch hunts), which is deeply offensive to people who were holding rituals 30 years ago to read names of those who died in genocides.

All of the modern wiccans, druids, and whatever else are a 20th century recreation at best, and an invention in the most common case. Gerald Gardner and the others made their silly practices up. They cast "spells" which are entirely their own fantasies.

It's one thing if someone is practicing voodoo they learned from their grandfather, or an animist religion in Africa, or aboriginal Australia, or traditional Chinese folk religion, Hinduism, etc. But these neo-pagans are just daft wannabes.

I knew several Wiccans in college. All their books were collections of dopey "spells" (yet they always seemed to be poor and struggling on their tests - some powers!) They had no books that discussed theology, prayer, ethics, etc. They were only interested in "powers," not any kind of true relationship with the divine.

 

[Starrynight]

Hmm... it seems to me that every religion (or all the religion I have studied so far) are about love. So hating someone for their beliefs, whether Pagan, Christian, or Muslim is very wrong. So for Pagans who have had to experience hate for your beliefs I'm sorry.
I read something in one of the books I've read about Islam. I will try to summarize (I don't have it in front of me so if I make a mistake forgive me). I think it was a saying or something. "I do not believe what you believe, you do not believe what I believe. I will never believe what you believe and you will never believe what I believe. You have your religion, and I have mine."

 

[Grace Seeker]

Amigo, if you're going to go back to the OP, I think you have to define paganism, for it was not defined in the OP. I tend to think that once again Wikipedia did a good job with its first two sentences of its article "Paganism":

Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "country dweller", "rustic"[1]) is a blanket term, typically used to refer to polytheistic religious traditions.
It is primarily used in a historical context, referring to Greco-Roman polytheism as well as the polytheistic traditions of Europe and North Africa before Christianization.

But then blew it with its third sentence:

In a wider sense, extended to contemporary religions, it includes most of the Eastern religions and the indigenous traditions of the Americas, Central Asia, Australia and Africa; as well as non-Abrahamic folk religion in general.

...as I don't think of Hinduism and other eastern religions as being pagan. Yet I would once again be in agreement with their next sentence:

More narrow definitions will not include any of the world religions and restrict the term to local or rural currents not organized as civil religions.

One of the key traits that I see in all those religions that I would term as pagan is the use of magic, divination, incantations, and other spells to manipulate the diety. God does our bidding, rather than we doing his. And with that said, I think that some of the world religions (including the Abrahamic faiths) where people tend to invoke God's name to bring about a desired outcome of some sort, have practioners who have adopted pagan attitudes even toward worship of the true God. (I believe one can especially see this in places like Colonial Mexico where ancient Aztec and Mayan and other pre-Columbian religions have been absorbed within the culture of the Catholic faith so that practices have become a synthesis of the two, and it is hard to tell what is pagan and what is Christian.)

But as to the question of hating paganism posed in the OP: One might disagree with the practice of worshipping something other than God, and even despise the way God gets treated like a monkey on a chain to jump at our command. But I see no reason for hating those who practice such forms of religion. What would be the purpose or value of that? Such an attitude has lost sight of what God called those who are his followers to faith for, that we might be a light to the world, drawing all men closer to him. Hate would just get in the way of that reason for our own faith and being.


Oh, and I applaude DippedinJannah for articulating my view toward much of what passes for modern forms of paganism. It sort of like the half dozen kids in the rural Iowa who think they are gangbangers because they all dress alike and flash some sort of made up "sign". They haven't a clue what the real thing is about, they're just playing games -- which can sadly still be serious and get you just as dead if you don't watch out and straighten up before it's too late.

 

[Trumble]

I think you are generalizing somewhat. Modern forms of 'Paganism' are taken quite seriously by many in the UK who are well aware of what their beliefs are about. Such beliefs are usually, IMHO, a fusion of 'local' historical beliefs, some imported ones and some modern ideas (particularly in relation to ecology), but nobody pretends otherwise. We have a 'religion and belief' forum on the works intranet and there are a good spinkle of Pagans of assorted flavours amongst the expected Christians, muslims, Buddhists etc.

The 'modern forms' is essential, though. Paganism as a practised religion (or religions) today has little to do with the realities of history other than absorbing selected parts of a tradition and the label. Which in the case of Druids, say, is probably just as well!

 

[ardianto]

What exactly is a "pagan"?

Village people. "Paganus" in Latin language is Village People.

The first people who embraced Christianity in Rome where people who lived in cities, while Paganus, or people who lived in village areas still in their polytheistic religion. Later Rome Christian people made a stereotype, all Paganus are polytheistic, and they used term Paganus (village people) when they talked or wrote about Rome polytheists.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Village people. "Paganus" in Latin language is Village People.

The first people who embraced Christianity in Rome where people who lived in cities, while Paganus, or people who lived in village areas still in their polytheistic religion. Later Rome Christian people made a stereotype, all Paganus are polytheistic, and they used term Paganus (village people) when they talked or wrote about Rome polytheists.

Yes, this is true. But one must be careful that while knowing the etymology of a word not to automatically equate a word's origins with its present meaning.

Consider the evolution of the term "redneck" in American society which originally was used in the south to refer to a person who worked outside in the sun and had a red neck was now become a reference to a particular type of attitude. So a person who work indoors all day and never sees the sun can still be termed a "redneck" based soley upon presenting that particular type of "redneck" attitude.

In a similar manner I would suggest that, despite its Latin origins, it is obvious the meaning of pagan in English today is not to be equated with a reference to village people or country folk, but rather to the polytheistic beliefs once held by those ancient Latins.

 

[ardianto]

Yes, this is true. But one must be careful that while knowing the etymology of a word not to automatically equate a word's origins with its present meaning.

Consider the evolution of the term "redneck" in American society which originally was used in the south to refer to a person who worked outside in the sun and had a red neck was now become a reference to a particular type of attitude. So a person who work indoors all day and never sees the sun can still be termed a "redneck" based soley upon presenting that particular type of "redneck" attitude.

In a similar manner I would suggest that, despite its Latin origins, it is obvious the meaning of pagan in English today is not to be equated with a reference to village people or country folk, but rather to the polytheistic beliefs once held by those ancient Latins.

What I mean with "Paganus are village people" is actually the original meaning. Same like "Barbaros" in Ancient Greek that means "people outside polis/city" or "non-Greek".

Of course, in this present we cannot use "pagans" or "barbarians" to call village people.

Thanks for remind me, I didn't realized that could makes a misunderstanding.

 

[Grace Seeker]

What I mean with "Paganus are village people" is actually the original meaning. Same like "Barbaros" in Ancient Greek that means "people outside polis/city" or "non-Greek".
Of course, in this present we cannot use "pagans" or "barbarians" to call village people.

Thanks for remind me, I didn't realized that could makes a misunderstanding.

All is good. Though if you were to visit the village in which I live you just might want to start using those terms again.

 

[Futuwwa]

Here is a slightly different answer, based on the experience of an urban American...

I don't hate pagans. I try not to hate anyone.

I dislike many pagans, however, primarily because they are obnoxiously pretentious.

Here in the US, every city now has their Wiccans, Druids, etc. Wiccans will tell you they trace their beliefs back to the stone age (yeah, right!) They gather here to pretentiously read lists of names from "The Burning Times" (aka witch hunts), which is deeply offensive to people who were holding rituals 30 years ago to read names of those who died in genocides.

All of the modern wiccans, druids, and whatever else are a 20th century recreation at best, and an invention in the most common case. Gerald Gardner and the others made their silly practices up. They cast "spells" which are entirely their own fantasies.

It's one thing if someone is practicing voodoo they learned from their grandfather, or an animist religion in Africa, or aboriginal Australia, or traditional Chinese folk religion, Hinduism, etc. But these neo-pagans are just daft wannabes.

I knew several Wiccans in college. All their books were collections of dopey "spells" (yet they always seemed to be poor and struggling on their tests - some powers!) They had no books that discussed theology, prayer, ethics, etc. They were only interested in "powers," not any kind of true relationship with the divine.

Those kinds of folks are referred to as fluffies by more serious Neo-Pagans, who tend to find them at least as obnoxious as you do.