Re: Pagan Scouts

"zsars" <zsars@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:8538f$4828f882$18012@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jim wrote:
>> "zsars" <zsars@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:6fd4$482793a4$6400@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Jim wrote:
>>>> "zsars" <zsars@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>> news:a9c1c$48273cae$23383@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Jim wrote:
>>>>>> "zsars" <zsars@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:89802$4824e6ed$19721@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> Midwinter wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Jim" <stonelodge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Atheists are surrounded, I tells ye!
>>>>>>>>>> What - between 'religious people' and 'atheists'?
>>>>>>>>> Pagans aren't atheists.
>>>>>>>> Pardon?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Atheists are surrounded".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If there're atheists on one side, and religious people on the
other 
>>>>>>>> (because apparently we have to have sides), I'm trying to work
out 
>>>>>>>> who's doing the surrounding.
>>>>>>> <sigh> I didn't mean to start anything. The use of the prefix 
>>>>>>> 'multi' is often employed to indicate a desire to promote 
>>>>>>> inclusivity. (if there's exclusivity, there ought to be 
>>>>>>> inclusivity -- comment on vocabulary/spell checkers)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was being a smart-ass by pointing out that 'multifaith' usually 
>>>>>>> excludes atheists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> zsarnok
>>>>>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
>>>>>> And all this time I thought it was a lack of faith.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            :-)
>>>>> There's the humorous aspect of claiming to be all inclusive while 
>>>>> still defining the inclusion with respect to following a faith. A 
>>>>> restrictive inclusion. Faith here (as I read it) actually referring
to 
>>>>> living in accordance to what you believe with regard to God or gods
--  
>>>>> whether organized or free-wheeling.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was playing on the words. In part. Trying to make a point with 
>>>>> minimal abrasion.
>>>>>
>>>>> A lack of faith? I don't lack faith. I do not believe in God. I
apply 
>>>>> my faith to other (non-religious) things.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't mean to split hairs, especially since you seem to get the 
>>>>> joke, but it seems to be necessary for at least some, so I have.
>>>>>
>>>>> zsarnok (feeling utterly pedantic now)
>
>>>> You have your head screwed on straight.
>>>>
>>>> You would make a lousy pagan.
>>>>
>>>> You may well be the quintesential heathen however.
>>>>
>>>>          :-)
>
>>> Robbie the Robot?
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robby_the_Robot
>>> Lost in Space?
>>> http://www.lostinspacetv.com/ART/home/robotanim.gif
>>> And just because:
>>> http://www.the-robotman.com/
>>>
>>> See, again I'm splitting hairs, but not acknowledging something
implies 
>>> willful blindness to what exists. It doesn't exist, is my POV.
>>
>> Legally speaking, the burden of proof lies with those who claim the 
>> creator gods do exist.
>>
>>             :-)
>
> The definition of a heathen says they refuse to acknowledge God. That is

> the cause of my hair splitting.
>
> I thought that approach to proof was a philosophical approach.
>
> zsarnok
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**

I hold three third degrees in very ligitimate BT Wicca and was a Druid for

years.

Always saw the gods only as metaphores.

Generally speaking anyone who defines themselves as pagan are believers.

I for one am clearly not.

For years now I have been a thorn in the side of the pagan religionists,
as 
they must have their supposed gods in order to have their silly religions.

It really upsets them when I ask that they show me proof that their gods
do 
exist.

Am I the fool for not hanging my own hat on a supposition. I think not.