Essay talk:Odinism is more rational than atheism

WTF?

May I be the first to say, What The Fuck? Grounded in observation? There is thunder therefore obviously there is Thor? Is this some form of brilliant satire that I'm missing the referent of? Also, I do hope you're aren't including me in the neo-pagan camp, I may joke about it but I don't in any serious way consider these gods to actually exist. --JeevesMkII 04:16, 26 December 2008 (EST)

This essay is not satiric in the least. Thor is "grounded in observation" in the sense that the pagans of ancient time heard thunder and made a God based on it; this is not true of YHVH, born out of an hallucination.

And I am not trying to place anyone in any "camp." I was inspired to write this essay when I was informed that there are disproportionate numbers of Odinists editing this Wiki, though I do not know who all of the others are, and probably not one of them agrees with what I have written. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Wouldn't Odin be based on a hallucination too, since his name suggests he was originally a god of madness, among other things? --Kels 19:59, 26 December 2008 (EST)

(Edit conflict) - "the pagans of ancient time heard thunder and made a God based on it" - so that's only half-grounded in observation: it's imagining something (a god) to explain away what they couldn't observe (the direct cause of thunder). Saying that one religious mythology is based on "observation" while another is based on "hallucination" is a completely arbitrary distinction which you've supplied no evidence to back up.

The primary form of communication between YHVH and humanity was divine visions --- i.e., hallucinations. Other interventions basically constituted violations of natural law (e.g., stopping the sun in the sky). Pagan Gods generally interacted with the world in much more "testable" ways and in conformance with natural law, e.g., thunder, war, conception, sunshine, poetic inspiration... ListenerX^TalkerX 23:04, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Furthermore, if you believe that "the pagans of ancient time heard thunder and made a God based on it", then you are an atheist. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it looks like you just said this Thor guy is a non-existent being who the ancients dreamed up to make sense of the world. Sounds like a classic atheist explanation of religions. Or are you saying that the power of human belief can bring real supernatural beings into existence? wassaiLOId~ 20:06, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Be as harsh as you want, unless you plan to complain about my being harsh at some later date.

Perhaps I am an atheist; certainly I called myself one for quite a time. But in pagan times, it was, I understand, the belief that people were capable of creating Gods, at the least through the process of deification. I am not an atheist just because I believe that "man created God." ListenerX^TalkerX 23:04, 26 December 2008 (EST)

IMHO no religion is "rational" in any way. Atheism is not a religion - discussed elsewhere, can't be arsed to find it, the whole concept is so ludicrous. Toast 20:09, 26 December 2008 (EST)

That is discussed on this Wiki in the article on secular religion. This is a matter of semantics: while some define religion as a belief in the supernatural, I would say it is more accurately a belief about the supernatural. Christianity's disbelief in the pagan Gods, for example, is part of that religion just as much as its belief in YHVH is. Explicit atheism is also a belief about the supernatural, and therefore a religion by this definition.

If, on the other hand, one is an atheist simply because they have not considered the question of the existence of the supernatural, that is not a religion by either definition.

We are, however, in agreement that all religions, including Odinism, have their irrational bits. (Though to say that every religion is completely irrational is overkill; surely Christianity is at least this rational to you?) ListenerX^TalkerX 23:04, 26 December 2008 (EST)

You can't have a belief about something which is non-existent (the "supernatural). If there's no such thing, then you can't have a belief about it, only about its existence. All religions are definitively (is that a word?) irrational - belief in the supernatural is a major disqualification for rationality! (I think you're trolling for the lulz - you're doing a good job). Toast 13:11, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Qualification: what you believe is non-existent. That is a statement you cannot prove by rational means, since any necessary evidence lies beyond the scope of reason and observation. My argument was that it is just as rational to stick the Norse pantheon in that spot as it is to maintain that there is nothing there.

Also, I think you misread my use of the word about. What I meant was that to make a statement such as, "The supernatural doesn't exist," you have to define "the supernatural." Thus, I consider atheism a belief about the supernatural, in particular, about its existence. ListenerX^TalkerX 13:46, 27 December 2008 (EST)

"any necessary evidence lies beyond the scope of reason and observation" - exactly! i.e. is not rational. Atheism, having no such belief, is rational and therefore not a religion. Toast 14:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

I think you may be confusing "rationality" with "rationalism". Common mistake, really. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 13:36, 27 December 2008 (EST)

I can't for the life of me figure out why you should think that deities which are obviously and by your own admission anthropomorphisms of natural phenomena are more real than deities concocted from the whole cloth of pure intellect. Surely, the fact that a religion has a multitude of claims which are demonstrably not true makes the fraud more evident not less? Can you pin this down for me, do you actually believe there is a Thor or not? And if so, do you believe he personally throws his hammer to strike the Earth, causing thunder? --JeevesMkII 21:46, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, I believe there is a Thor. I also believe that we have found out exactly how he acts by finding out exactly what lightning is (electricity). This is the kind of "modification based on observation" I mentioned in the essay. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:04, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Might not be particularly rational, but you've gotta admit the Norse were good at making up entertaining stories. --Kels 20:20, 26 December 2008 (EST)

I used to know a historian who was also an Asatru follower some time ago, and she disputed the name "Odinism" based on the fact that Odin wasn't really the leader of the Gods anyway. He wouldn't have made much of a leader in any case, seeing as he was always nipping off to Midgard for adventures (also ale & whores). Accoding to her, the monks transcribing the old legends just knew from Greek and Roman pantheons, so when they saw "Allfather", they just assumed he was the boss, the way Zeus was. --Kels 20:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Mmm. Yummy stories. Lots of Sex & violence & stuff. (I always say "an historian - quaint ole Brit that I am) Toast 20:27, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Lovely old lady she was, retired by that point, but boy could she make the blood & thunder come alive. --Kels 20:32, 26 December 2008 (EST)

What is not a religion then?

ListenerX, based on your definition of religion, could you give me an example of a philosophy which is not a religion?--Bob^{bing up} 02:35, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Belief in democracy. Indeed, any other philosophical view that does not touch on the supernatural. There are quite a lot of them. ListenerX^TalkerX 12:52, 27 December 2008 (EST)

So you're saying that (in your view) only ideologies that explicitly have some supernatural element are religions?--Bob^{bing up} 13:49, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Touch on or reference some supernatural element. Atheism has no intrinsic supernatural element, but must explicitly reject the supernatural and thereby reference it, making atheism a religion. ListenerX^TalkerX 13:59, 27 December 2008 (EST)

If not believing in a god or gods is a religion, then so is not believing in ghosts, unicorns, vampires, werewolves, dragons, angels, demons, bogeymen, witches, etc. etc. By that logic, everyone must follow a potentially infinite number of "religions" as defined by what they don't believe in. Now does that really make any sense? wassaiLOId~ 14:09, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Yahwe vs. Odin

I should probably mention that rather than being "born out of an hallucination", it is quite likely that Yahwe owes his origins to an ancient polytheistic Canaanite religion that was not terribly different from the Norse one. In other words, you could argue that "Yahwe = local equivalent of Odin + outside influence + a couple of centuries". I don't know which significance this has for your hypothesis. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 09:05, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Even allowing these initial origins, the one religion is not the other. Also, prophets with hallucinations had so much influence that their interpretation probably swamped out any other. ListenerX^TalkerX 13:25, 27 December 2008 (EST)

I was going to ask something similar, but more along the lines of why should Norse gods be regarded as more significant than any other polytheistic mythology? wassaiLOId~ 09:43, 27 December 2008 (EST)

I do not touch on other polytheistic mythologies here, as the Norse is the only one I am very familiar with. From what I have read of the Greek and Roman mythologies, many of the same arguments seem to apply there as well, but I would not like to be quoted on that. There is, however, no reason why the Norse pantheon should have any special significance. ListenerX^TalkerX 13:25, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Oh, and one more thing

Good work on that "ravings of desert rats with heatstroke" thing; that's actually even more tasteless than the usual "illiterate Bronze Age shepherds" shtick that usually gets trotted out. Nice to see some creative development around here. I guess you could make a similar quip about "mead-addled barbarians with frost-bite to the brain" if you wanted to. But I guess I'm supposed to be the historically sensitive guy around here. So I won't. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 10:20, 27 December 2008 (EST) (BTW: "desert rats"? Don't let the JDL catch you on that one.)

I kinda like it, reminds me of Disney's Aladdin. So that makes Yahweh Robin Williams, which is so much cooler. --Kels 11:07, 27 December 2008 (EST)

B****cks

I have not read such a load of crap since this and worth as much attention. Toast 14:20, 27 December 2008 (EST)