NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/pagan/14700

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 3.9 KB | 88 lines

Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!malgudi.oar.net!chemabs!mlr21
From: [e-mail] (Mary Lee)
Subject: Re: The meaning of Pagan
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] ()
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:57:12 GMT
Lines: 76


Hi, Sarah

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sarah Pallas) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Lee) writes:
|> >
|> >Speaking of meanings of words, I hope this is the right place to ask
|> >the following questions (bear with me, much descriptive text before
|> >the actual questions follows):
|> >
|> [Explanation of Northern Exposure episode deleted]
|>
|> >>I had assumed (like Joel) that an atheist did not believe in a supreme
|> >being or perhaps that an atheist did not believe in any deity.
|>
|> >Given that as a definition, is an animist an atheist?
|> >Is a pantheist an atheist?
|> >Can one be both a theist and an atheist as long as one doesn't believe
|> >in Yahweh?
|>
|> As we've seen in these debates on alt.pagan, the meaning of words is
|> not always clear cut.  However, I consider myself to be an atheist
|> (who reads this group occasionally because I'm fascinated by the
|> theory of religion), so I can give you MY definition.
|>
|> Atheist, as in a-theist means one who is not theistic.  That is, one
|> who doesn't believe in a deity of any sort.  This would rule out
|> monotheists such as Christians, Jews and Moslems, and polytheists such
|> as Hindus, pagans of various sorts, and pantheists, whatever that is.
|> If I am correct in assuming that animists worship animals as deities,
|> then they would not be atheists either.  I suppose atheists could be
|> superstitious, or believe in supernatural causes to events (I don't)
|> as long as they didn't worship those supernatural phenomena?


I don't think an animist necessarily worships animals.  I think an
animist may believe that animals (and other things) can possess
individual innate souls.  Animism seems to me to be (ah--this is not exactly
a clear-cut definition either) more of an equality of living things instead
of a hierarchy of living things.  Perhaps in a very simplistic form, it's
going out to the barn, patting one of the horses on the nose, and
saying "Hi, little brother".  (Anybody see "Brother Sun, Sister Moon"?
I have a feeling St. Francis of Assissi may have been an animist.)


|> Maybe Ruth Ann in Northern Exposure didn't get to be a real atheist
|> because the network had reservations about it?  Or the writers are not
|> too good at research?
|>

Perhaps they were trying to cover as many bases as possible:  Joel (Jewish),
Dave (Animist), Shelley (Catholic), Maggie (Some form of Protestant),
and then for some reason they had Ruth Anne cover two opposing beliefs
(atheism and a belief in a superpower who is female but does not take
human form).  Confusing.  I think you're right--they screwed up their
research.


|> The trouble with being an atheist is that we don't have any cool
|> ceremonies, or places to gather together, as you all do.  It's my
|> theory that that is one of the reasons atheism isn't so popular.
|>
|> For what it's worth, my 2 cents,
|> Sarah
|

I think I'm about ready to create my own ceremonies.
Like Joel in NExp, I admire someone who has enough faith, er conviction,
to be an atheist.  Being an agnostic leaves one feeling a bit wishy-washy--
hanging out somewhere between belief and disbelief (i.e., not being able
to prove or disprove either way).  Then the other day, after having lurked
around here for a few months, I decided I was a born-again pagan. :^)
Or maybe an animist.  Anyway, after a little more research, I may be
able to figure it out.

Mary Lee