The Pagan Discussion Thread

[Cill Airne]

So out of curiosity, since I noticed a number of the pagans here are of this type: What is Druidry?

If you have the time this is an article I wrote, "A Brief Introduction to Druidry" for my blog, and I have used it to answer questions on Y!A as well as here. For a more in deepth understanding I recommend reading "What Druid's Believe in" By Philip Carr-Gomm. Other books that I recommend are The Path of Druidry: Walking the Ancient Green Way by Penny Billington and The Druidry Handbook: Spiritual Practice Rooted in the Living Earth by John Michael Greer

Perhaps one of the most striking characteristics of modern Druidry is that it has managed to remain, to a high degree, free of dogma, and a fixed set of beliefs or practices. As a result of this, Druidry has been able to establish itself as a spiritual path that avoids many of the problems of intolerance and sectarianism that the established religions of today face.
Druidry does not have a sacred text, or equivalent to the Bible. There is no universally accepted set of beliefs amongst Druids, either. However, there are a number of ideas and beliefs that are commonplace amongst Druidry.
Druidry is a spiritual path – a religion to some, to others a way of life – Druids share a belief in the fundamentally spiritual nature of life. Some druids favour a particular way of understanding the source of the spiritual nature: calling themselves to be animists, pantheists, polytheists, monotheists, and duotheists. Other druids hold the belief that understanding or knowing what a deity is by its very nature unknowable to Humanity and chose to avoid any concept of a deity. This leads to one of the greatest characteristics of modern day Druidry: its acceptance of diversity. This is because Druidry realises that none of us has the monopoly on truth, and that diversity is healthy and natural.
Perhaps one of the key characteristics of Druidry is nature. Nature is an important focus of the Druid’s reverence, that all druids sense Nature as divine or sacred. Druids believe that every part of nature is part of the great web of life, and no part of nature is superior to another part. This is unlike religions that are anthropocentric (believing that Humanity occupies a central role in the scheme of life), Druidry sees humankind as just one part of the wider family of life.
Philostratus of Tyana reported in the 2nd century about what the ancient Celts believed happened after death. Many modern Druids share this belief today. Philostratus of Tyana reported that the Druids believed in the Otherworld, stating that after we died we would be reborn there, and live our life in this world. Then, once we died in the Otherworld, we would be reborn here in this world. The good and the bad went to this Otherworld, as the Celts did not believe in a place of ever lasting torture for those who were wicked in this life. As a result, the Celts were reported to mourn births and celebrate deaths. Other druids believe in reincarnation, as either human or another form of life.
Druids are taught to seek above al the cultivation of wisdom, creativity and love. In the stories of Fionn MacCumhaill (Finn MacCool) of Ireland, and Taliesin of Wales, we are taught to seek wisdom. Both stories begin by elders searching for wisdom, and in both stories a young helper gets to taste the wisdom the elders searched for. Apart from teaching the virtues of innocence and helpfulness, both stories contain instructions to search for wisdom. As exemplified by the Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids (OBOD), Bards and their practice has been part of Druidry during the times of the Celtic Druids, and is today. In the past, Bards are believed to have sung the wisdom of the Druids. And today, many people are drawn to Druidry because it helps develop their creativity. Rather than stressing the idea that this life is only temporary and that we should focus on the afterlife, Druidry conveys the idea that we are meant to participate in life on earth, and that we should express and share our creativity as often as we can. Finally, Druidry teaches us to love the land, Earth, the stars and the wild. Druidry also encourages us to love peace. Historically Druids were known to be peacemakers, and this holds true to this day. Often, Druid ceremonies begin with offering peace to each of the cardinal directions, there is a Druid’s peace prayer, and Druids plant peace groves. Druidry encourages a love of history and a reverence for the ancestors.
Today, many Druidic Orders are divided into three grades: the Bard Grade, the Ovate Grade, and the Druid Grade. The three goals sought by the druid can be related to the work of these three grades. Bardic teachings help to develop our creativity, Ovate teachings help to develop our love for the natural world and the community of all life, and finally the Druid teachings help us in our quest for wisdom.

[Faolinn]

What are some of the big ethical issues or differences between the various Pagan faiths? I know that, stereotypically, most Pagans have a strong concern for environmental issues and that it seems like Asatru and Norse Reconstructionism has a noticeably more conservative bent than most strains of Wicca, which I gather is a more eclectic faith.

Well there are many issues and differences and yes, we tend to be concerned with the environment. Asatru and the Norse reconstrutionist traditions do have some of the more conservative leanings, however I have known some who are as left as any Wiccan or Thelemite. The people involved in the Norse traditions are also quite drawn to the warrior imagery in many cases and often believe that violence can be used for just causes. Many Wiccans on the other hand lean toward pacifism though there are those among them who join the military and learn the martial arts for self defense purposes. Wiccans by comparison though tend to have a more negative outlook on violence. Many pagans believe in reincarnation while others believe in a sort of heaven and hell. I am of the latter camp though my interpretation is rather different.

One of the major disputes is about the use of blood in ritual. Most of us abstain from it since it is bad for our image and is extremely risky in a metaphysical sense. It has been believed since ancient times that blood is a powerful medium for spiritual energies, but is also one of the most risky to use. First there is the fact that there suffering in it's drawing which is a source of taint. This suffering can attract wicked spirits and energies. However, some would see this as a symbol of highest devotion that one might give their own blood in the worship of the divine. The use of drugs is considered a lesser controversy and many I know stand at opposite ends. Some say it can open one's mind to the wider existence while others fear they can cloud the mind even when used for ritual purposes.

On the issue of homosexuality, many of us accept it and consider it as valid as heterosexuality, however, some conservative elements who usually seem to come from the Norse traditions frown upon it quite deeply. However, this opinion is not universal among the Norse believers either.

Though women's rights are often at the top of our list of causes we promote, there is much debate over the Goddess centric views of some sects/traditions. These criticisms range from arguments that it is sexist in it's own way and that one should honor the mother and the father equally while fewer others are in favor of a patriarchal schema. As I said though, the equality of women to men is a widespread belief in much of modern paganism in many if not most traditions.

While transgenders are widely regarded as equal there is much debate over their place since the deities are often imagined in terms of a binary gender schema.The opinions on this vary so wildly I'm not certain I can give you an accurate map of who believes what about them.

Another important debate is about the role of our nature based beliefs in a technological world. Where exactly do they fit? Can they be reconciled? Opinions range from trying to find a spirit in the machine to primitivism.

[Kemaliste]

I have sympathy toward Shamanism, Shintoism and Tengriism. Shamanism and Tengriism also influenced the basics of the sect I belong to pretty much, called Alevism.

[Korintar]

What are some of the big ethical issues or differences between the various Pagan faiths? I know that, stereotypically, most Pagans have a strong concern for environmental issues and that it seems like Asatru and Norse Reconstructionism has a noticeably more conservative bent than most strains of Wicca, which I gather is a more eclectic faith.

Well there are many issues and differences and yes, we tend to be concerned with the environment. Asatru and the Norse reconstrutionist traditions do have some of the more conservative leanings, however I have known some who are as left as any Wiccan or Thelemite. The people involved in the Norse traditions are also quite drawn to the warrior imagery in many cases and often believe that violence can be used for just causes. Many Wiccans on the other hand lean toward pacifism though there are those among them who join the military and learn the martial arts for self defense purposes. Wiccans by comparison though tend to have a more negative outlook on violence. Many pagans believe in reincarnation while others believe in a sort of heaven and hell. I am of the latter camp though my interpretation is rather different.

One of the major disputes is about the use of blood in ritual. Most of us abstain from it since it is bad for our image and is extremely risky in a metaphysical sense. It has been believed since ancient times that blood is a powerful medium for spiritual energies, but is also one of the most risky to use. First there is the fact that there suffering in it's drawing which is a source of taint. This suffering can attract wicked spirits and energies. However, some would see this as a symbol of highest devotion that one might give their own blood in the worship of the divine. The use of drugs is considered a lesser controversy and many I know stand at opposite ends. Some say it can open one's mind to the wider existence while others fear they can cloud the mind even when used for ritual purposes.

On the issue of homosexuality, many of us accept it and consider it as valid as heterosexuality, however, some conservative elements who usually seem to come from the Norse traditions frown upon it quite deeply. However, this opinion is not universal among the Norse believers either.

Though women's rights are often at the top of our list of causes we promote, there is much debate over the Goddess centric views of some sects/traditions. These criticisms range from arguments that it is sexist in it's own way and that one should honor the mother and the father equally while fewer others are in favor of a patriarchal schema. As I said though, the equality of women to men is a widespread belief in much of modern paganism in many if not most traditions.

While transgenders are widely regarded as equal there is much debate over their place since the deities are often imagined in terms of a binary gender schema.The opinions on this vary so wildly I'm not certain I can give you an accurate map of who believes what about them.

Another important debate is about the role of our nature based beliefs in a technological world. Where exactly do they fit? Can they be reconciled? Opinions range from trying to find a spirit in the machine to primitivism.

Considering that ancient Greek and Roman culture were very patriarchal, as was ancient Near Eastern culture, are those who practice Semitic Neopaganism, Hellenic Neopaganism, or Religio Romana more likely to take up a patriarchal schema or non-Goddess centric schema? Or is that something more common with Asatru and Norse Reconstructionism, given the conservative tendencies in some groups- even though the Viking cultures were relatively egalitarian?

[Faolinn]

Well there are many issues and differences and yes, we tend to be concerned with the environment. Asatru and the Norse reconstrutionist traditions do have some of the more conservative leanings, however I have known some who are as left as any Wiccan or Thelemite. The people involved in the Norse traditions are also quite drawn to the warrior imagery in many cases and often believe that violence can be used for just causes. Many Wiccans on the other hand lean toward pacifism though there are those among them who join the military and learn the martial arts for self defense purposes. Wiccans by comparison though tend to have a more negative outlook on violence. Many pagans believe in reincarnation while others believe in a sort of heaven and hell. I am of the latter camp though my interpretation is rather different.

One of the major disputes is about the use of blood in ritual. Most of us abstain from it since it is bad for our image and is extremely risky in a metaphysical sense. It has been believed since ancient times that blood is a powerful medium for spiritual energies, but is also one of the most risky to use. First there is the fact that there suffering in it's drawing which is a source of taint. This suffering can attract wicked spirits and energies. However, some would see this as a symbol of highest devotion that one might give their own blood in the worship of the divine. The use of drugs is considered a lesser controversy and many I know stand at opposite ends. Some say it can open one's mind to the wider existence while others fear they can cloud the mind even when used for ritual purposes.

On the issue of homosexuality, many of us accept it and consider it as valid as heterosexuality, however, some conservative elements who usually seem to come from the Norse traditions frown upon it quite deeply. However, this opinion is not universal among the Norse believers either.

Though women's rights are often at the top of our list of causes we promote, there is much debate over the Goddess centric views of some sects/traditions. These criticisms range from arguments that it is sexist in it's own way and that one should honor the mother and the father equally while fewer others are in favor of a patriarchal schema. As I said though, the equality of women to men is a widespread belief in much of modern paganism in many if not most traditions.

While transgenders are widely regarded as equal there is much debate over their place since the deities are often imagined in terms of a binary gender schema.The opinions on this vary so wildly I'm not certain I can give you an accurate map of who believes what about them.

Another important debate is about the role of our nature based beliefs in a technological world. Where exactly do they fit? Can they be reconciled? Opinions range from trying to find a spirit in the machine to primitivism.

Considering that ancient Greek and Roman culture were very patriarchal, as was ancient Near Eastern culture, are those who practice Semitic Neopaganism, Hellenic Neopaganism, or Religio Romana more likely to take up a patriarchal schema or non-Goddess centric schema? Or is that something more common with Asatru and Norse Reconstructionism, given the conservative tendencies in some groups- even though the Viking cultures were relatively egalitarian?

Well the general tendency is toward egalitarianism these days, at least in the united states.However some followers of the Norse traditions and indeed some Hellenistic pagans alongside some followers of the Religio Romana have patriarchal sympathies. Overall though, there is a tendency toward egalitarian thought in the modern era among the many and varied traditions.

[Dalasysla]

I am an Ásatrúar, but pretty liberal. My good friend, also an Ásatrúar, does not support homosexuality (it is not what the Norse viewed men as, it is more of what a woman should be). I, however, don't share this opinion.

[Korintar]

Considering that ancient Greek and Roman culture were very patriarchal, as was ancient Near Eastern culture, are those who practice Semitic Neopaganism, Hellenic Neopaganism, or Religio Romana more likely to take up a patriarchal schema or non-Goddess centric schema? Or is that something more common with Asatru and Norse Reconstructionism, given the conservative tendencies in some groups- even though the Viking cultures were relatively egalitarian?

Well the general tendency is toward egalitarianism these days, at least in the united states.However the Norse traditions and indeed some Hellenistic pagans alongside some followers of the Religio Romana have patriarchal sympathies. Overall though, there is a tendency toward egalitarian thought in the modern era among the many and varied traditions.

As a Classical Studies major who has learned a fair bit about Greek and Roman mythology and culture and as a preseminary student, that is interesting to learn. Are non-American pagans of a similar mode of thought?

[Korintar]

I am an Ásatrúar, but pretty liberal. My good friend, also an Ásatrúar, does not support homosexuality (it is not what the Norse viewed men as, it is more of what a woman should be). I, however, don't share this opinion.

I know that the Roman conceptualization was that you were a man as long as you were dominant, the penetrator, and on top, regardless of the gender/sex of the partner you were in a relationship with or had sex with.

[Cill Airne]

Well the general tendency is toward egalitarianism these days, at least in the united states.However the Norse traditions and indeed some Hellenistic pagans alongside some followers of the Religio Romana have patriarchal sympathies. Overall though, there is a tendency toward egalitarian thought in the modern era among the many and varied traditions.

As a Classical Studies major who has learned a fair bit about Greek and Roman mythology and culture and as a preseminary student, that is interesting to learn. Are non-American pagans of a similar mode of thought?

I'm Irish, though I was introduced to paganism in America (after moving here). My pagan friends in Ireland and the UK do have similar thoughts described by Faolinn. Theres a general consensus amongst most pagans on topics like same-sex relationships, womans-rights, &c.

[H-Alba]

Like the OP, I am a Druid. Been a Druid for 8 years.

What order do you all belong to? ADF? OBOD? The Druid Order? The Druid Network? RDNA (Reformed Druids of North America)?

[CVT Temp]

I know this question will offend, because it's kind of an offensive question, but that is not my intent. Do pagan reconstructionists really believe that what they're reconstructing is true, or is it just an elaborate form of metaphor and symbolism?

[Cill Airne]

I know this question will offend, because it's kind of an offensive question, but that is not my intent. Do pagan reconstructionists really believe that what they're reconstructing is true, or is it just an elaborate form of metaphor and symbolism?

That would defeat the point of Reconstructionism. Reconstructionists spend years studying and piecing together what ___ culture believed in, to the best of their abilities. It is not a metaphor, they literally piece together the ancient religions.

Theres people like me, who consider themselves Druids with Celtic Recon influences. I piece together the celt's beliefs, but adapt them to a modern setting within my Druid practice.

[CVT Temp]

That would defeat the point of Reconstructionism. Reconstructionists spend years studying and piecing together what ___ culture believed in, to the best of their abilities. It is not a metaphor, they literally piece together the ancient religions.

Theres people like me, who consider themselves Druids with Celtic Recon influences. I piece together the celt's beliefs, but adapt them to a modern setting within my Druid practice.

What I mean is this. How do they decide that X culture must have had true beliefs when it comes to the supernatural, so therefore I must do my best to understand exactly what X culture believed? How can you decide on which thing you're going to believe before you even know what those beliefs are going to be? This is a very strange state of affairs.

[Cill Airne]

That would defeat the point of Reconstructionism. Reconstructionists spend years studying and piecing together what ___ culture believed in, to the best of their abilities. It is not a metaphor, they literally piece together the ancient religions.

Theres people like me, who consider themselves Druids with Celtic Recon influences. I piece together the celt's beliefs, but adapt them to a modern setting within my Druid practice.

What I mean is this. How do they decide that X culture must have had true beliefs when it comes to the supernatural, so therefore I must do my best to understand exactly what X culture believed? How can you decide on which thing you're going to believe before you even know what those beliefs are going to be? This is a very strange state of affairs.

Most pagans, including Reconstructionists, do not share that type of belief. That is a very Abrahamic outlook on things. Most Pagans do not say "my beliefs are right, and everyone else is wrong." Many work with one set of pantheon, but believe all deities are real, or work with one set of beliefs, but believe all are valid. Most reconstructionists start out looking at the history of the people, and then move into the religious aspects of it.

[CVT Temp]

Most pagans, including Reconstructionists, do not share that type of belief. That is a very Abrahamic outlook on things. Most Pagans do not say "my beliefs are right, and everyone else is wrong." Many work with one set of pantheon, but believe all deities are real, or work with one set of beliefs, but believe all are valid. Most reconstructionists start out looking at the history of the people, and then move into the religious aspects of it.

But if all deities exist, then whose creation myth is actually the right one? It seems hard for them to all be valid when many of them make mutually incompatible claims about the universe.

I mean, I get that paganism is more ecumenical and the like, but it just seems less propositional and less a model of the universe and more a lot of people who have different sets of things that they like to pretend to believe in. In this way, it reminds me a lot of "liberal" Christianity.

Being philosophically and scientifically minded, I just don't get it. I get the impulse toward fundamentalist Christianity. They actually believe that their religion is literally true about the metaphysical and physical nature of the universe. I mean, they're incorrect about that, but they have a mistaken belief. I understand the concept of having an incorrect model. I don't understand the concept of "sorta believing." My primary concern is about what's true and what isn't.

[Cill Airne]

Most pagans, including Reconstructionists, do not share that type of belief. That is a very Abrahamic outlook on things. Most Pagans do not say "my beliefs are right, and everyone else is wrong." Many work with one set of pantheon, but believe all deities are real, or work with one set of beliefs, but believe all are valid. Most reconstructionists start out looking at the history of the people, and then move into the religious aspects of it.

But if all deities exist, then whose creation myth is actually the right one? It seems hard for them to all be valid when many of them make mutually incompatible claims about the universe.

I mean, I get that paganism is more ecumenical and the like, but it just seems less propositional and less a model of the universe and more a lot of people who have different sets of things that they like to pretend to believe in. In this way, it reminds me a lot of "liberal" Christianity.

Being philosophically and scientifically minded, I just don't get it. I get the impulse toward fundamentalist Christianity. They actually believe that their religion is literally true about the metaphysical and physical nature of the universe. I mean, they're incorrect about that, but they have a mistaken belief. I understand the concept of having an incorrect model. I don't understand the concept of "sorta believing." My primary concern is about what's true and what isn't.

"But if all deities exist, then whose creation myth is actually the right one?" Most pagans do not have a creation myth. The Norse did not, the Celts did not, the Greek creation myths would allow for other deities to exist, as well as the Roman and Egyptian. They do not state that only one god, or one set of gods can only exist.
"I get that paganism is more ecumenical and the like..." paganism is an umbrella term, not a single religion (which I am under the impression you seem to feel). Pagan belief varies, because it is not a united, dogmatic, faith like say the Catholic Church would be, or the Baptist church, &c. Its a term to describe religions that are a variety of contemporary movements, often times influenced by or derived from the various historical pagan beliefs of pre-modern Europe and the ancient near-east. You can ask the same question to ten wiccans, ten druids, and ten ásatrúars and you will get 30 different answers. Unlike the Abrahamic faiths (and more like religions like Buddhism) there is not a set dogma, and saying its "... more a lot of people who have different sets of things that they like to pretend to believe in" is rather rude. I don't pretend to believe in anything, I do believe in my religion, and this is the attitude many modern pagans are faced with. What I think you don't understand is that most pagans do not believe the gods created the world, they were created, just like us. Out of the many, many, mannny pagans I know, not one of them does not believe in evolution and the big bang theory.
"I don't understand the concept of "sorta believing." I don't get where you got this concept of us having this concept? Because pagans don't "sorta believe" in their gods and religion, we do believe in it. Believing that all gods may be real is not a unique concept to paganism, its called pantheism (1. a doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2. worship that admits or tolerates all gods.). The ancient Hebrews had a pantheistic world view. Many Buddhists do. I know Christians who do, as well.
Again, you are looking at this from a very modern Christian point of view, failing to recognise other modes of thought that exist (and have existed for thousands of years).

[CVT Temp]

"But if all deities exist, then whose creation myth is actually the right one?" Most pagans do not have a creation myth. The Norse did not, the Celts did not, the Greek creation myths would allow for other deities to exist, as well as the Roman and Egyptian. They do not state that only one god, or one set of gods can only exist.
"I get that paganism is more ecumenical and the like..." paganism is an umbrella term, not a single religion (which I am under the impression you seem to feel). Pagan belief varies, because it is not a united, dogmatic, faith like say the Catholic Church would be, or the Baptist church, &c. Its a term to describe religions that are a variety of contemporary movements, often times influenced by or derived from the various historical pagan beliefs of pre-modern Europe and the ancient near-east. You can ask the same question to ten wiccans, ten druids, and ten ásatrúars and you will get 30 different answers. Unlike the Abrahamic faiths (and more like religions like Buddhism) there is not a set dogma, and saying its "... more a lot of people who have different sets of things that they like to pretend to believe in" is rather rude. I don't pretend to believe in anything, I do believe in my religion, and this is the attitude many modern pagans are faced with. What I think you don't understand is that most pagans do not believe the gods created the world, they were created, just like us. Out of the many, many, mannny pagans I know, not one of them does not believe in evolution and the big bang theory.
"I don't understand the concept of "sorta believing." I don't get where you got this concept of us having this concept? Because pagans don't "sorta believe" in their gods and religion, we do believe in it. Believing that all gods may be real is not a unique concept to paganism, its called pantheism (1. a doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2. worship that admits or tolerates all gods.). The ancient Hebrews had a pantheistic world view. Many Buddhists do. I know Christians who do, as well.
Again, you are looking at this from a very modern Christian point of view, failing to recognise other modes of thought that exist (and have existed for thousands of years).

I'm not looking at this from a Christian point of view. I'm looking at it from the point of view of atheistic naturalistic science. I'm trying to see what exactly it is you're saying about the world. I'm trying to figure out what your model is, and I'm confused because it doesn't look like a theory or a set of propositions about the nature of the universe. It seems much more vague than that.

[Cill Airne]

"But if all deities exist, then whose creation myth is actually the right one?" Most pagans do not have a creation myth. The Norse did not, the Celts did not, the Greek creation myths would allow for other deities to exist, as well as the Roman and Egyptian. They do not state that only one god, or one set of gods can only exist.
"I get that paganism is more ecumenical and the like..." paganism is an umbrella term, not a single religion (which I am under the impression you seem to feel). Pagan belief varies, because it is not a united, dogmatic, faith like say the Catholic Church would be, or the Baptist church, &c. Its a term to describe religions that are a variety of contemporary movements, often times influenced by or derived from the various historical pagan beliefs of pre-modern Europe and the ancient near-east. You can ask the same question to ten wiccans, ten druids, and ten ásatrúars and you will get 30 different answers. Unlike the Abrahamic faiths (and more like religions like Buddhism) there is not a set dogma, and saying its "... more a lot of people who have different sets of things that they like to pretend to believe in" is rather rude. I don't pretend to believe in anything, I do believe in my religion, and this is the attitude many modern pagans are faced with. What I think you don't understand is that most pagans do not believe the gods created the world, they were created, just like us. Out of the many, many, mannny pagans I know, not one of them does not believe in evolution and the big bang theory.
"I don't understand the concept of "sorta believing." I don't get where you got this concept of us having this concept? Because pagans don't "sorta believe" in their gods and religion, we do believe in it. Believing that all gods may be real is not a unique concept to paganism, its called pantheism (1. a doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God.
2. worship that admits or tolerates all gods.). The ancient Hebrews had a pantheistic world view. Many Buddhists do. I know Christians who do, as well.
Again, you are looking at this from a very modern Christian point of view, failing to recognise other modes of thought that exist (and have existed for thousands of years).

I'm not looking at this from a Christian point of view. I'm looking at it from the point of view of atheistic naturalistic science. I'm trying to see what exactly it is you're saying about the world. I'm trying to figure out what your model is, and I'm confused because it doesn't look like a theory or a set of propositions about the nature of the universe. It seems much more vague than that.

I am a bit confused as to what you are trying to discover now.

[Multiflow]

I'm not looking at this from a Christian point of view. I'm looking at it from the point of view of atheistic naturalistic science. I'm trying to see what exactly it is you're saying about the world. I'm trying to figure out what your model is, and I'm confused because it doesn't look like a theory or a set of propositions about the nature of the universe. It seems much more vague than that.

My take so far (which I will give a few variations): You are curious about a direct singular belief system or religion. So far none have been directly stated. We have in general stated the broad differences between the Abrahamic traditions and what is lumped together under a pagan umbrella, and also some of the differences between some the systems or personal beliefs under the pagan umbrella. Since this is so broad it can be seen as vague.

Now a semi-rhetorical question (because I will continue, but also expect you to correct me if it seems off): What do you mean in this case as atheistic naturalistic? Atheism is itself a broad umbrella. I will take it to mean in this case as an argument that there is nothing beyond what we already know. And naturalistic I take in this case as an argument for an approach through evidential means. Now because of the way you described it I will infer that you want to ask questions, but in such a way as to get answers that you can also debate or in your opinion disprove. Now I may be incorrect, but that is what I hear in the statement made by you above.

Now to place my own self near the fire.

In my personal opinion, things that are stated as religions are a set of laws, rules, or guidelines for proper behavior under certain conditions. Most were formulated long, long ago, and the language represents that. The biggest thing that most of them have that is not as common in today rules of behavior, is how do we deal with something we don't know? To most people everything that needs to be known is known. We are not going to meet anyone foreign who doesn't speak our language, or that we would not consider human. Now the difference with nature path faiths (I use the word faith here instead of religion because IMO faith is the basic belief, while religion is the guidelines), they look to the natural world around us and don't dismiss the possibility that other living things around us might be as aware or conscious as we seem to be. With this understanding they try to acknowledge these other beings (whether they be a plant, animal, or possibly the air itself) and give respect to them, so that they may receive respect in turn.

One way, you could say it is a general attitude of respect to all things, and a willingness to admit that we do not know everything.

[Goodclark]

Well I actually did get into the Ancient Roman Paganism, then I decided just to stay a Christian. Although the Ancient Roman Pagan myths are very cool.

[Elysium Bay]

I lived with a Druid for around 3 years and I practically became one for around 2, and it has effected the way I see things now and although I'm not Druid anymore; I can't deny the things that being one and living with one taught me and the way that I see things now have influenced my life for the better.

[CVT Temp]

My take so far (which I will give a few variations): You are curious about a direct singular belief system or religion. So far none have been directly stated. We have in general stated the broad differences between the Abrahamic traditions and what is lumped together under a pagan umbrella, and also some of the differences between some the systems or personal beliefs under the pagan umbrella. Since this is so broad it can be seen as vague.

Now a semi-rhetorical question (because I will continue, but also expect you to correct me if it seems off): What do you mean in this case as atheistic naturalistic? Atheism is itself a broad umbrella. I will take it to mean in this case as an argument that there is nothing beyond what we already know. And naturalistic I take in this case as an argument for an approach through evidential means. Now because of the way you described it I will infer that you want to ask questions, but in such a way as to get answers that you can also debate or in your opinion disprove. Now I may be incorrect, but that is what I hear in the statement made by you above.

Now to place my own self near the fire.

In my personal opinion, things that are stated as religions are a set of laws, rules, or guidelines for proper behavior under certain conditions. Most were formulated long, long ago, and the language represents that. The biggest thing that most of them have that is not as common in today rules of behavior, is how do we deal with something we don't know? To most people everything that needs to be known is known. We are not going to meet anyone foreign who doesn't speak our language, or that we would not consider human. Now the difference with nature path faiths (I use the word faith here instead of religion because IMO faith is the basic belief, while religion is the guidelines), they look to the natural world around us and don't dismiss the possibility that other living things around us might be as aware or conscious as we seem to be. With this understanding they try to acknowledge these other beings (whether they be a plant, animal, or possibly the air itself) and give respect to them, so that they may receive respect in turn.

One way, you could say it is a general attitude of respect to all things, and a willingness to admit that we do not know everything.

Science is what admits that it doesn't know everything. When you don't know something, the proper course of action is not to derive conclusions from one's lack of understanding. This is a fundamental fallacy known as argument from ignorance. If you don't know something, simply admit that you don't know and try to investigate what the answer is.

And no, atheistic naturalism is not the position that we know everything there is to know. That's a strawman. Atheistic naturalism is essentially the position that the appropriate way to try and figure out those things we do not yet understand is by the means of empirical inquiry and rational deduction. It is the position that the structure of the universe is to be best understood in logically coherent, rational ways.

[Multiflow]

Science is what admits that it doesn't know everything. When you don't know something, the proper course of action is not to derive conclusions from one's lack of understanding. This is a fundamental fallacy known as argument from ignorance. If you don't know something, simply admit that you don't know and try to investigate what the answer is.

I agree and disagree. I agree that science does admit that it doesn't know everything. Though many who use science forget that fact. The second part I disagree with. Deriving conclusions from lack of understanding, then testing them with the understandings we do have, is science, that is the basics of learning. As for trying to back this up with using the argument of ignorance ...

From wikipedia:

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

You are the one who actually falls into this, by using it in the negative sense of trying to prove that what we are saying is wrong. We are not saying that we are right or wrong. We are not saying that something is true or false. We are saying that this is a possibility that we are exploring and testing. Through our experiences and understandings of these things we continue to probe to find what else there may be. Sometimes people forget that other people may have different understandings of things.

And no, atheistic naturalism is not the position that we know everything there is to know. That's a strawman. Atheistic naturalism is essentially the position that the appropriate way to try and figure out those things we do not yet understand is by the means of empirical inquiry and rational deduction. It is the position that the structure of the universe is to be best understood in logically coherent, rational ways.

I agree with you on this. The problem is ... from what point do you start tracing your argument from, at what point does it (in your opinion), diverge from empirical inquiry and rational deduction? Is it in the use of certain words to embody certain concepts? Is it with a specific concept?

We see that there is the possibility that the world around us has living beings that can be communicated with, or at least learned from. In science it is proven that plants can communicate with each other. In science it is proven that animals can communicate with each other. In science it is proven that humans are animals. If you want to phrase it this way, we are exploring the possibility of communication with life other then humans.

[Multiflow]

I feel I need to apologize. This thread is supposed to be a discussion of various faiths, and I feel that I have changed the tone that this thread started in.

I feel that I have changed it from a place that people can freely state what they think and feel and believe in, into an argument.

Again, I apologize for my aggressive nature, and will try to curb it. I must better learn to curb my tongue.

Peace.

[Faolinn]

Much of modern paganism is not about who is right, but about finding the path that is right for you. We do not seek to prove the superiority of our individual traditions (though there a scant few who think this way) but to find wisdom in whatever path we follow. To find the path that resonates with our souls and follow it in hope that it might lead us to a more just existence and a more mindful way of life. Perhaps because of our past persecution we have created a somewhat united front. No matter what tradition we follow, what differences in theology we have, or how we might practice as individuals, we do have some things in common. Respect for nature, reverence of the old deities, a passion for the old ways, and that we have become strangers even in the lands where the old ones were once so revered. When there are so few of us, it is unwise to steep ourselves in petty sectarian feuds though they some times occur.