Norse Paganism

[Korey]

Long time comrades. Anyway I wanted to know what people here think of Norse or other types of Paganism. I myself am a Norse Pagan and I find this religion very liberating. The Norse Gods are not Gods I have to bow to out of fear. They are Allies and even friends.

[redSHARP]

yeah...about that. no offense comrade, but the norse gods have been adopted by many nazi groups. so you could put that one the list of things the nazis ruined.

things nazi's ruined:
the swastika
norse religion
a lot of other cool symbols
skinhead culture
alabama

but beyond that i think it is cool for you to adopt an interesting religion like that, even though i am anti-religous.

[Sentinel]

I don't see what was so good about the Norse religion to begin with, so that it could be 'ruined' by anybody. Like all religions, it was in essence a pathetic superstition, a childish attempt by a primitive society to collectively understand the world around them -- without the help of the advanced science and technology we modern human beings master and enjoy.

It's thus really not a surprise that the believers of a pseudo-scientific, irrational ideology such as National Socialism find it compelling.. It also often glorifies physical strength, masculinity and 'courage', much like fascism generally does -- those who die in battle get into a better 'next world' ('Valhalla') than those who die in their beds, etc.

So, in conclusion: the nazis didn't as much ruin Norse paganism as they were influenced by it in their thinking.

[Dimentio]

Well, norse paganism like other forms of "paganism" has that thing which is that it is'nt proselytising. Moreover, it is a misrepresentation that most asa-believers believed in Odin. Rather, he was only the good of the elite. Most people worshipped Thor or Frey.

[Louis Pio]

The biggest cult by far was around Thor.
Anyway it's a typical religion for society like we had in Scandinavia back then, each god is mostly connected to parts of everyday life: Frey: farming, Thor: storms and power, Njord: seafaring, trade, property etc etc.
Fun to read but why the hell take it up today? Anyway I like the names and are going to name my kids after some but other than that I really don't see the point

[professorchaos]

I like the names and are going to name my kids after someNo one would fuck with a kid named Thor or Odin.

[Dros]

Have fun during Ragnorok!

Also what Sentinel said. Norse Paganism is as totally absurd and backwards, as drenched in patriarchy and reaction, as any other religion in the world.

[Dean]

Wow, just more elitist statements about how someone having specific worldviews and philosophical views is ignorant, childish and what else? Pathetic?

I find it pathetic how so-called marxists can't get over their mud-slinging at the majority of the population for being so "below" them. Classism indeed, but the wrong type altogether.

Comrades who can criticise religion without resorting to base insults against one's very intellect get mad props.

As for Norse Paganism, I don't know a lot about it, except that it was similar to the other multitheisms present when it was popular (plus a few gods, legends etc). So could you maybe post a link or something explaining what particular beliefs you subscribe to? Also, how is it liberating to you?

[BobKKKindle$]

The Norse Gods are not Gods I have to bow to out of fear. They are Allies and even friends.Do you have evidence to show that these gods actually exist?

You may find it liberating to profess faith in this religion, and yet this does not mean that your religion is rational, because a distinction should be made between the use value of a belief system, and its truth value. It is possible for something to be useful (give people a sense of moral direction etc.) even if that "thing" does not exist - for example, it could be argued that it is useful for children to have imaginary friends (imaginary friends possess use value) to provide a source of comfort when a child is separated from parents or does not have any real friends, and yet no one with a basic level of intelligence would ever argue that imaginary friends exist (truth value) as it is the fact that they do not exist that makes them imaginary. The same distinction should also be applied to religion - the fact that you derive benefits from belief is not sufficient evidence to show that your gods exist or that your belief is rational. You are suffering from a delusion which confers certain benefits.

[Kami]

I find it pathetic how so-called marxists can't get over their mud-slinging at the majority of the population for being so "below" them. Classism indeed, but the wrong type altogether.
I find it pathetic how some so-called "marxists" believe that only the elite few can handle the absence of religion, and all those plebs need to be babied and given their gods, for what would they do without these irrational beliefs? (though of course those are only for those below them -.-). THAT is classism.
[Inappropriate flaming at Dean removed- Pablo Ibbieta]

[Dean]

I find it pathetic how some so-called "marxists" believe that only the elite few can handle the absence of religion, and all those plebs need to be babied and given their gods, for what would they do without these irrational beliefs? (though of course those are only for those below them -.-). THAT is classism.
[Flaming removed]

No, I just don't like the condescending tone that the religious receive here. It is clear that you have nothing to say, that you simply want to promote the asinine insults that get flung at the religious here. How you conclude that I think people "need to be babied and given their gods" is a mystery to me, becuase I pointed out in my post that I support criticism of religious beliefs when it is not elitist.

People like you love to think that your very intellect is sharper than someone else just because they are religious. And believe me - your criticism means nothing by the way of stopping people from being religious. Technocracy is more irrational than religious belief, you crazy bastard, and most people can see that.

Go troll elsewhere.

[BobKKKindle$]

No, I just don't like the condescending tone that the religious receive here. It is clear that you have nothing to say, that you simply want to promote the asinine insults that get flung at the religious here.There is an unspoken assumption that people should make an effort to respect religious belief - and yet if someone made a claim which has the same lack of rational basis as religion but is not accepted by a large number of people (for example, that unicorns exist, or that there are fairies which live in my garden) they would be mocked as foolish - why is it that religious people should have special privileges when it comes to criticism of what they believe?


Technocracy is more irrational than religious belief, you crazy bastard, and most people can see that. This is a silly statement. Religious belief is belief in the existence of a supreme being who is responsible for creating the universe (in addition to other common features) and yet even though there are many people who would profess religious belief, such a belief is fully irrational (and hence a form of faith) because there is no evidence to support the existence of god - this is what makes religion so different from a scientific theory, which provides us with an explanation of how the natural world functions, supported by empirical evidence gathered through observation and controlled experiments. Technocracy is a set of ideas concerning how society should be organised, and there are arguments which can be made in favor of technocracy to show that technocracy would be an efficient system which can meet the needs of humans, and as such it makes no sense to suggest that technocracy is less rational than religion, as religion is entirely lacking in any degree of rationality.

[Dean]

There is an unspoken assumption that people should make an effort to respect religious belief - and yet if someone made a claim which has the same lack of rational basis as religion but is not accepted by a large number of people (for example, that unicorns exist, or that there are fairies which live in my garden) they would be mocked as foolish - why is it that religious people should have special privileges when it comes to criticism of what they believe?

They shouldn't, and I have addressed this in past threads. The distinction religion gets is unfair, it should be treated with the same respect as any other belief.


This is a silly statement. Religious belief is belief in the existence of a supreme being who is responsible for creating the universe (in addition to other common features) and yet even though there are many people who would profess religious belief, such a belief is fully irrational (and hence a form of faith) because there is no evidence to support the existence of god - this is what makes religion so different from a scientific theory, which provides us with an explanation of how the natural world functions, supported by empirical evidence gathered through observation and controlled experiments. Technocracy is a set of ideas concerning how society should be organised, and there are arguments which can be made in favor of technocracy to show that technocracy would be an efficient system which can meet the needs of humans, and as such it makes no sense to suggest that technocracy is less rational than religion, as religion is entirely lacking in any degree of rationality.
No, technocracy is a fantasyland where robots take care of all our needs and we give the power over the mechanized economy to a few specialists. In political science, it refers to a class of bureaucrats who act as specialists. The exact same thing is true in the political movement, and nobody bothers to think about it.

I said this to Kami because he really doesn't like me just because I take a stance against this Technocracy. I don't know why he has to do this, maybe he can't reconcile the differences, but it is telling that I get along just fien with all the other Technocracts here.

[BobKKKindle$]

They shouldn't, and I have addressed this in past threads. The distinction religion gets is unfair, it should be treated with the same respect as any other belief.You are clearly adopting a special standard for religion, because you have argued that people should not use insults against members who profess religious faith, and yet you have not been able to give examples of the insults which have been made, suggesting that you aim to discourage criticism by making it seem as if religious believers are being unfairly treated, when they are not. If viewed critically, it is clear that religion has the same degree of rationality as beliefs which most people who reject as absurd, and religion only receives special respect because there are so many people who are religious, and this numerical strength gives religion the appearance of legitimacy.


No, technocracy is a fantasyland [etc]Religion is fully irrational (it exhibits a total lack of rationality) and so how could a political ideology for which there are supporting arguments be less rational than religious faith? Although there are criticisms which can be made of technocracy, the world envisaged by the proponents of this theory does not violate any scientific laws, and there are some features of technocracy which already exist in the world we currently inhabit (the extensive use of robots in the manufacture of cars, and the advances which are being made in artificial intelligence) such that arguably technocracy could be implemented.

It could also be argued that religious belief and supporting technocracy are fundamentally different in epistemological terms and so any comparison of rationality between the two is meaningless. Technocracy is an opinion concerning a subjective issue (how the world should be organised) and as such it is impossible to say whether technocracy is "true" or "false" as there are only arguments which can be made in favor or against, to show that technocracy is better or worse than alternative systems, and there is no consensus on which criteria should be used to judge the value of rival systems (Is efficiency more important than sustainability? etc.) Religion is an attempt to explain how the world came to exist and so can be treated as a positive (as distinct from normative) statement which can be verified as either true or false. There is no evidence for the existence of god and advances in science have conflicted with many of the claims contained within religious texts (for example, concerning the age of the earth) and thus religion is objectively false.

[Dystisis]

No one would fuck with a kid named Thor or Odin.
These are not uncommon names in Scandinavia. In Norway they are quite normal.

[Dean]

You are clearly adopting a special standard for religion, because you have argued that people should not use insults against members who profess religious faith, and yet you have not been able to give examples of the insults which have been made, suggesting that you aim to discourage criticism by making it seem as if religious believers are being unfairly treated, when they are not. If viewed critically, it is clear that religion has the same degree of rationality as beliefs which most people who reject as absurd, and religion only receives special respect because there are so many people who are religious, and this numerical strength gives religion the appearance of legitimacy.
You are clearly disassociated from the discussion. First off, here is a sentiment I ahve expressed in the past:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1161235&postcount=20
So no, I don't think religious ideas should be divorced from other thigns we criticise. Secondly:


Like all religions, it was in essence a pathetic superstition, a childish attempt by a primitive society to collectively understand the world around them -- without the help of the advanced science and technology we modern human beings master and enjoy.


Also what Sentinel said. Norse Paganism is as totally absurd and backwards, as drenched in patriarchy and reaction, as any other religion in the world.

Are you telling me those aren't insults?


Religion is fully irrational (it exhibits a total lack of rationality) and so how could a political ideology for which there are supporting arguments be less rational than religious faith? Although there are criticisms which can be made of technocracy, the world envisaged by the proponents of this theory does not violate any scientific laws, and there are some features of technocracy which already exist in the world we currently inhabit (the extensive use of robots in the manufacture of cars, and the advances which are being made in artificial intelligence) such that arguably technocracy could be implemented.

It could also be argued that religious belief and supporting technocracy are fundamentally different in epistemological terms and so any comparison of rationality between the two is meaningless. Technocracy is an opinion concerning a subjective issue (how the world should be organised) and as such it is impossible to say whether technocracy is "true" or "false" as there are only arguments which can be made in favor or against, to show that technocracy is better or worse than alternative systems, and there is no consensus on which criteria should be used to judge the value of rival systems (Is efficiency more important than sustainability? etc.) Religion is an attempt to explain how the world came to exist and so can be treated as a positive (as distinct from normative) statement which can be verified as either true or false. There is no evidence for the existence of god and advances in science have conflicted with many of the claims contained within religious texts (for example, concerning the age of the earth) and thus religion is objectively false.

No, certain aspects of religous belief are irrational. Others are just political, many are very socialist. Look at the Jewish traditions.

Technocracy is worse because its post-modern crap. At least religion has some basis in philosophy and humanism.

[Demogorgon]

Regarding technocracy, which in the form you get it here is worse than religion, it is probably fair to look at it charitably. At the sane end of the scale are those who simply advocate energy accounting. There is nothing particularly stupid about that. It wouldn't work of course, you can't accurately quantify abstract values like they think you can, but that is a fairly common mistake.

Of course the version of technocracy you often see here is utopian dreamers telling us of a society where robots will do all the work and there will b an unlimited supply of everything we want and heaven knows what else. For such people to criticise those of religious faith is pretty rich.

As for Norse Paganism, I don't care to discuss it. The image that comes straight into my head at its mention is that of Varg Vikernes. However I am aware that the vast majority of its followers reject racism in general and Nazism in particular, so it is unfair to tar this member with that brush.

That said, I have never understood the appeal of digging up old religions and trying to follow them in a setting where they clearly do not fit. It seems to me that in the context of modern Scandinavia (to say nothing of other places, if you ever want a laugh, check out the various Israeli groups who follow it, there are quite a few of them) it must be impossible to genuinely believe in it.

[Kami]

I said this to Kami because he really doesn't like me just because I take a stance against this Technocracy. I don't know why he has to do this, maybe he can't reconcile the differences, but it is telling that I get along just fien with all the other Technocracts here.No, I said this, as someone who is entirely intolerant of the harmful irrationality that is religion, experienced first-hand. I apologise if you thought this was personal (and considering the latter of the post, I can see how), but this has absolutely nothing to do with you. I believe I've made this stance known before, in fact.
edit: I do wonder why exactly you felt the need to bring Technocracy into this at all, though.



Of course the version of technocracy you often see here is utopian dreamers telling us of a society where robots will do all the work and there will b an unlimited supply of everything we want and heaven knows what else. For such people to criticise those of religious faith is pretty rich.Who on earth has said that? give them a slap from me.

[Unicorn]

Norse pagans are a bunch of racists.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=236

[Dean]

No, I said this, as someone who is entirely intolerant of the harmful irrationality that is religion, experienced first-hand. I apologise if you thought this was personal (and considering the latter of the post, I can see how), but this has absolutely nothing to do with you. I believe I've made this stance known before, in fact.
edit: I do wonder why exactly you felt the need to bring Technocracy into this at all, though.

I don't want to continue with this flame war, and I don't apprectiate the curt tone you have with me.

The point of bringing technocracy up was because I remembered the antagonistic tone you had with me in the transhumanism thread.

Don't think you have some monopoly of religious victimization. I lost everything I owned and all of my mother's inheritance beacuse my father became a pentecostal nut. I'm well aware of what religion can do, but I'm not so dense as to call all religious people idiots. I've grown up with some very intelligent, very religious people, and this is exactly why I don't appreciate such narrow-minded intolerance.

[Kami]

Don't think you have some monopoly of religious victimization. I lost everything I owned and all of my mother's inheritance beacuse my father became a pentecostal nut. I'm well aware of what religion can do, but I'm not so dense as to call all religious people idiots. I've grown up with some very intelligent, very religious people, and this is exactly why I don't appreciate such narrow-minded intolerance.
You seem to have misinterpreted my point; treating the religious like idiots is exactly what I oppose; the eLiteist attitude that atheism is something for us "enLightened" Leftists. I don't ever recaLL caLLing aLL reLigious "Idiots". (I may have caLLed them deLuded, but that's another matter entireLy)

Forgive the upper case "L"s, I'm having some keyboard troubLes

[Random Precision]

I've trashed the off-topic exchange between Who's world is it and Dean, and edited the flames out of Kami's earlier post.

Who's world is it and Kami, consider yourselves formally warned for flaming.

[al8]

The revival of Norse paganism is all the more silly when you realize that documentation of the actual religion and corrollary practices are surprisingly scant. Norse neo-pagans rely near exclusively on the Edda. Which was written well after the suppression of paganism by a christian scholar.