Is macroevolution a form of paganism?

[bob b]

Paganism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paganism (from Latin paganus, meaning "a country dweller" or "civilian") is a term which, from a western perspective, has come to connote a broad set of spiritual or religious beliefs and practices of natural or polytheistic religions. The term can be defined broadly, to encompass many or most of the faith traditions outside the Abrahamic monotheistic group of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This group may include the Dharmic religions, which incorporate seemingly pagan characteristics like nature-worship, idol-worship, polytheism and reverence of female deities, and are thus diametrically opposite to the Abrahamic faiths.

 

[JoyfulRook]

It would seem that humanism and eviroNAZIsm would certainly be pagan... :think:

 

[Real Sorceror]

While it is not uncommon for pagans to accept the theory of evolution, the two ideas are not one and the same, and I'm suprised you made such a connection.

 

[Johnny]

Yes.

Macroevolution also requires sacrificing your first born to satan while you put on a hula skirt and worship nature. Thus making macroevolution a form of pagan satanism.

Worst attempt ever.

 

[Phantom]

pagan implies that there is a deity.

There is no god in evolution (unless you adhere to theistic evolution).

 

[bob b]

While it is not uncommon for pagans to accept the theory of evolution, the two ideas are not one and the same, and I'm suprised you made such a connection.

The idea occurred to me that if "nature" was the designer, and if atheists claim that there is a natural tendency for humans to worship something, then the only choices for a person to worship (other than God) would Nature or Man.

Most people would not want to admit that they worship themselves (even if they do), so their "natural" choice would be to worship Nature.

But if a person says that they are too "strong" to worship a god, as the religious weaklings do, they are really admitting that they themselves are the object of their veneration.

 

[Real Sorceror]

The idea occurred to me that if "nature" was the designer, and if atheists claim that there is a natural tendency for humans to worship something, then the only choices for a person to worship (other than God) would Nature or Man.

Most people would not want to admit that they worship themselves (even if they do), so their "natural" choice would be to worship Nature.

But if a person says that they are too "strong" to worship a god, as the religious weaklings do, they are really admitting that they themselves are the object of their veneration.

Alright, so where are you going with this?
Like I said, evolution is accepted by many pagans, but evolutions itself is not a pagan religion, and in fact is not spiritual in any way.

 

[Phantom]

The idea occurred to me that if "nature" was the designer, and if atheists claim that there is a natural tendency for humans to worship something, then the only choices for a person to worship (other than God) would Nature or Man.

Most people would not want to admit that they worship themselves (even if they do), so their "natural" choice would be to worship Nature.

But if a person says that they are too "strong" to worship a god, as the religious weaklings do, they are really admitting that they themselves are the object of their veneration.

Faulty, because you assume that a person must worship something.

A person can choose to worship nothing.

 

[Real Sorceror]

pagan implies that there is a deity.

Not neccassarily, but it definitly implies a belief in the supernatural, something that you won't find in science.

There is no god in evolution (unless you adhere to theistic evolution).

The theory is completely silent on that issue because it is not a religion and doesn't need to address such things.

 

[The New Guy]

Faulty, because you assume that a person must worship something.

A person can choose to worship nothing.

Wrong.

Everybody has a "god". Whether it is a mainstream supernatural deity, or something as bland as TV, it has at least one worshipper.

 

[Newman]

Wrong.

Everybody has a "god". Whether it is a mainstream supernatural deity, or something as bland as TV, it has at least one worshipper.

Very true.

 

[icilian fenner]

Wrong.

Everybody has a "god". Whether it is a mainstream supernatural deity, or something as bland as TV, it has at least one worshipper.

Your assertion is 'everyone has a god' then you say that everything that could be a god has a worshipper.

The second sentence doesn't back up the first one, as your 'whether' implies.

 

[Balder]

I don't know.

But Trinitarian Christianity is an exemplar of Gay Polyamorous Communism if I ever saw one.

 

[Newman]

Your assertion is 'everyone has a god' then you say that everything that could be a god has a worshipper.

The second sentence doesn't back up the first one, as your 'whether' implies.

good one.

Ahem... how's this?

"Wrong.

Everybody has a "god". People's "gods" range from mainstream supernatural deity, to something as bland as TV."

 

[The New Guy]

good one.

Ahem... how's this?

"Wrong.

Everybody has a "god". People's "gods" range from mainstream supernatural deity, to something as bland as TV."

Uhh, thanks?

 

[Newman]

no problem

 

[Phantom]

Uhh, thanks?

hahahaha.

 

[Lighthouse]

I contend that atheism is paganism, solely because it denies the one true God. The fact that it recognizes no other gods is beside the point. Therefore, evolution is one facet of paganism, because it denies the one true God.

 

[Real Sorceror]

I contend that atheism is paganism, solely because it denies the one true God. The fact that it recognizes no other gods is beside the point. Therefore, evolution is one facet of paganism, because it denies the one true God.

:squint:
First, Athiesm is not a religion. An athiest can practice a religion, therefore a pagan athiest is possible, however, athiests themselves are not pagan.
The one and only belief of an athiest is that there are no gods. Evolution is not part of athiesm, although most athiest accept evolution (this was not true in the past).
There is also the fact that many pagans do not accept evolution.
Ergo, your rationalization is inherently flawed.

 

[bob b]

:squint:
First, Athiesm is not a religion. An athiest can practice a religion, therefore a pagan athiest is possible, however, athiests themselves are not pagan.
The one and only belief of an athiest is that there are no gods. Evolution is not part of athiesm, although most athiest accept evolution (this was not true in the past).
There is also the fact that many pagans do not accept evolution.
Ergo, your rationalization is inherently flawed.

Yours may be too..

If as many believe, religion must involve a god and atheists believe there are no gods, then how come you claim an atheist can practice a religion? Does this mean that you believe that a religion does not have to invoke a god?

You claim that atheism is not a religion. Why is that?