Are atheists pagans?

[bsemak]

Check what Wiki says about atheism. As with so many things, it is not black or white:

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

And on paganism:

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

Apparantly, christianity was once considered pagan. It is all a question of definition.

 

[Enterprise-D]

:roflmao:
Ah, you know not how I laugh! The answer is no, hardly... and no reason for asking other than blind curiosity.

However, I believe it was Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) that said: "The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency."

Seems apt.

I find it very serendipitous that Benauld would choose to post this quote; Buffalo Roam has provided a link in another thread (Roots of Terrorism Post 33) where a Wisconsin court judged athiesm as a religion, in order to grant a prisoner the right to start a study group. This in no way means atheism and paganism is the same thing.

However, the case seems to me an excellent example of that Thoreau quote.

Personally, I thought it was a constitutional right to pursue whatever goals you'd like...

At any rate, there you go...

 

[Benauld]

I hope you're not taking that good fortune as evidence of the workings of a higher power!

 

[John J. Bannan]

Why are you comparing judges to attorneys? One is an advocate and the other a decision maker. Henry David Thoreau seems to be referring to judges. Enterprise-D also refers to a judge. Practicing lawyers do not act like judges.

 

[Benauld]

Enterprise-D refers to a judgement. Delivered by a court. Not a single judge. Perhaps you would have us do away with the entire judicial process and let one person decide?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Why are you comparing judges to attorneys? One is an advocate and the other a decision maker. Henry David Thoreau seems to be referring to judges. Enterprise-D also refers to a judge. Practicing lawyers do not act like judges.

*************
M*W: Oh, but I tend to disagree. Attorneys do, in fact, and they should anticipate what the judge will say, think or expect, and will advise his client of his assumed expectation accordingly.

Attorneys and judges have different professional responsibilities, of course, but in order to best serve one's client in a legal capacity, the attorney needs to anticipate the judge's responses and relay those possibilities to the client.
In many cases, the judge also acts as an advocate, especially concerning orders into drug or alcohol rehabilitation cases, mental health cases, mediation cases, and for ad litem advocacy cases.

 

[Klitwo]

*************
M*W: Oh, but I tend to disagree. Attorneys do, in fact, and they should anticipate what the judge will say, think or expect, and will advise his client of his assumed expectation accordingly.

Attorneys and judges have different professional responsibilities, of course, but in order to best serve one's client in a legal capacity, the attorney needs to anticipate the judge's responses and relay those possibilities to the client.
In many cases, the judge also acts as an advocate, especially concerning orders into drug or alcohol rehabilitation cases, mental health cases, mediation cases, and for ad litem advocacy cases.

Thanks for the PM Medicine Woman.........You got it right.

Klitwo

 

[Enterprise-D]

LOL Honestly I just thought the two separate posts were so similar in subject matter, where athiesm is likened to (a) religion.

The quote seems to say that (lawyers') truth can be context based, or even tailored, as John J seemed to be trying to achieve. Likewise, the judgement passed likened athiesm to a religious movement, in order to achieve the result of allowing the prisoner to continue his study pursuits.

In both cases, this "truth" is strictly speaking incorrect.

 

[John J. Bannan]

The way I read Thoreau's quote is to say that lawyers desire consistency in their judgments regardless of the truth for any particular case, or at least consistency when they judge an exception. This quote is very true of judges - but not attorneys. Sure, attorneys try to guess what the judge is going to do and warn their clients accordingly, but that does not mean the attorney if he/she had the power would judge likewise. Having argued in front of judges on innumberable occasions, I think I would know.

 

[Benauld]

The way I read the quote was that lawyers utilise whichever "truth" is best suited to the benefit of thier client, regardless of whether it portrays events as they actually happened. This was based upon this definition of the word expediency:

The quality of being suited to the end in view.

From: www.dictionary.com

 

[John J. Bannan]

No. I don't think that's right. See http://books.google.com/books?id=hD...ts=ftv-sNwsgU&sig=yyVp5mVowN4V1DVH7ezGfElFK-Q

 

[Enterprise-D]

The way I read the quote was that lawyers utilise whichever "truth" is best suited to the benefit of thier client, regardless of whether it portrays events as they actually happened. This was based upon this definition of the word expediency:


From: www.dictionary.com

I think real life observation supports this

 

[Benauld]

O.K. We'll have to agree to differ. Though it sounds "right" to me:

Still his quality is not wisdom, but prudence. The lawyer's truth is not Truth, but consistency, or a consistent expediency. Truth is always in harmony with herself, and is not concerned chiefly to reveal the justice that may consist with wrong-doing.

From:http://books.google.com/books?id=hDV...DVH7ezGfElFK-Q

Prudence: Regard for one's own interests.

Consist:Archaic. To exist together or be capable of existing together.

From: www.dictionary.com

The first sentence, I hope, is self explanatory. The third, to me, says that the Truth (i.e. the seqence of events that has actually occurred) is always in accord. However, that this does not always indicate what constitutes fair treatment for any particular perpetrator. (Therefore it is open to interpretation, and becomes "pliable".)

 

[John J. Bannan]

Enterprise-D needs to read the context of the quote before jumping to conclusions. Thoreau is challenging pro-slavery arguments based on the Constitution and The Bible, which he perceives as being done only to stay consistent with those works. Thoreau says the truth, however, is that slavery is morally wrong. Thoreau is not talking about some lawyer who lies just because that benefits his client.

 

[Benauld]

Did I say that the quote should be taken in its original context?

 

[John J. Bannan]

Huh? You want to take the quote out of context to force your perceived meaning onto it? In that case, it hardly would be worth quoting, because it would be your quote not Thoreau's.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Enterprise-D needs to read the context of the quote before jumping to conclusions. Thoreau is challenging pro-slavery arguments based on the Constitution and The Bible, which he perceives as being done only to stay consistent with those works. Thoreau says the truth, however, is that slavery is morally wrong. Thoreau is not talking about some lawyer who lies just because that benefits his client.

But, the fundamental premise of all the situations is the same...each one favours one truth over the other in order to achieve a particular goal, be that goal physical or psychological:

Favour the "truth" of the bible over the "moral truth" to keep slaves.
Favour the "truth" of trend over strict definition to liken atheism to religion
Favour the "truth" of one variant definition of paganism over another to liken it to atheism.

 

[John J. Bannan]

Well, then if Thoreau was only coming up with a convenient "truth" to fit his agenda, then Thoreau is just as guilty as the lawyers he condemns.

 

[cole grey]

Huh? You want to take the quote out of context to force your perceived meaning onto it? In that case, it hardly would be worth quoting, because it would be your quote not Thoreau's.

I feel that when john bannan says it is "hardly worth quoting" something not imbued with it's original context, the word "hardly" means "forcefully or vigorously." (dictionary.com)

Uh, no.

 

[Hapsburg]

Pagan means (according to The New World Dictionary) "a person who has no religion".

Well, that's a bullshit definition. But, can't blame you. The New World Dictionary is definitely not the best out there.

A pagan is accurately defined as, generally, someone who is polytheistic. Pagan comes from the Latin paganus, meaning "rural, backcountry, rustic". The Romans used it as a term to refer to the ways of the country folk, including the more rustic and naturalist polytheistic religions, in contrast to the strictly-defined and metropolitan life in urban Rome.
In time, it came to mean any polytheistic people, after the rise of monotheistic religion.

Atheism and paganism are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but then again, neither is Atheism and Christianity. But, they are two different things nonetheless. And that needs to be made clear: they are two completely separate concepts.

For example, I am an atheistic eclectic neopagan. Meaning, theologically, I am an atheist. I don't believe in any gods, which is the only thing atheism holds as principle.
But, OTOH, I believe that the Celtic and Norse myths provide good ethics and are a guide to good living. The gods in them, I think, are just exaggerations of historical chieftains. Like in any religion or anything, the stories are there to make a point, not to be taken as literal truth.

But, I am a rarity. For the most part, the two concepts are rarely combined.