The atheist bus

[rdhopeca]

I see rob how that sounds logical. I just think it breaks down somewhere. Some things aren't on equal footing. For instance, if a belief system said the world sat on a turtle, then we found out it didn't, that belief system is called into question. I guess, some truths can be determined to be false. Others can't be determined to be false, or true. Those 2 distinctions are not on equal ground.

Fair enough. But the same applies if a belief system said that God existed, and we found out he didn't....or if a belief system said "there is no God" and we found out there was....I am saying those belief systems that can't be determined to be true or false, are no more true or false than any other that can't be determined to be true or false. And those are generally on equal ground, ie Islam v Catholicism v Agnostic v Atheist v Anglican v Presbyterian...

And I've never said "there is no God" either, I've said that there has been no occurrance in my life to cause me to believe that there is one.

[Cybrweez]

fist and rob, I think rus would just say that IF one of those were true, then the rest are wrong. So, if one believes he has the evidence to trust in one, then that one would "know" the others are wrong.

Now, I think if someone thinks truth is subjective for each person, then you have no ground to be offended by the one that claims they know the truth. In truth, you can't really even say they are wrong, b/c you're putting your truth on them, right?

It makes me think of the common refrain - you can do anything, as long as you don't hurt others. But why that condition? Aren't they legislating their morality on others? But I don't mean to derail into that. But I guess I just did. Sorry.

[rusmeister]

I see rob how that sounds logical. I just think it breaks down somewhere. Some things aren't on equal footing. For instance, if a belief system said the world sat on a turtle, then we found out it didn't, that belief system is called into question. I guess, some truths can be determined to be false. Others can't be determined to be false, or true. Those 2 distinctions are not on equal ground.

Fair enough. But the same applies if a belief system said that God existed, and we found out he didn't....or if a belief system said "there is no God" and we found out there was....I am saying those belief systems that can't be determined to be true or false, are no more true or false than any other that can't be determined to be true or false. And those are generally on equal ground, ie Islam v Catholicism v Agnostic v Atheist v Anglican v Presbyterian...

And I've never said "there is no God" either, I've said that there has been no occurrance in my life to cause me to believe that there is one.

If a creationist believer says that ID and evolutionary science are on an equal (scientific) footing, we would hasten to point out that while both stands have valid points and even evidence, the weight in our time is surely in favor of evolutionary theory and that the problem the creationist has is his lack of in-depth knowledge of the specifics of evolutionary theory, if nothing else. (I say this as someone who actually doesn't believe that human evolution is true, but my objections are philosophical, not scientific. Not going to argue that here.)

The same thing holds true for beliefs, generally speaking. The major world religions have (to varying degrees relative to each other) a much stronger basis for being seriously considered as propositions of truth than astrology or the belief that the moon is made of green cheese. The theology has been hammered out for millenia and is generally far deeper than unbelievers know, whereas green cheese moon theology (for example) rests on one or two sentences. Atheism does not have a theology per se, of course, as it rests on denial, on a negative, and agnosticism rests on a belief in an inability to know (they set empirical proof as the criterion for belief and deny/ignore other aspects of human experience), and the philosophies are therefore necessarily based on the experience of the individual. Even the ancient Greek philosophers were wiser than that. Not having a basis of collective experience and tradition to base a philosophy on, the footing for atheist/agnostic belief, philosophically speaking, is much weaker than that of the major world religions. Even paganism has a better footing. And that doesn't even touch Christianity yet.

It's probably beating my head against a wall. But statements that "all beliefs are on an equal footing" display a lack of knowledge of the depths of the faiths that have survived for millenia - if they were mere artificial constructs they should have 'bought the farm' a long time ago. My points about ignorance of Church history, the writings of saints such as Ignatius, Chrysostom, the Catholic Aquinas, etc, Christian apologetics (which explain the rationality of faith), etc simply gives one no basis to make a claim of equal footing, any more than the creationist believer can make it about his beliefs on the sciences.

[rusmeister]

fist and rob, I think rus would just say that IF one of those were true, then the rest are wrong. So, if one believes he has the evidence to trust in one, then that one would "know" the others are wrong.

Now, I think if someone thinks truth is subjective for each person, then you have no ground to be offended by the one that claims they know the truth. In truth, you can't really even say they are wrong, b/c you're putting your truth on them, right?

It makes me think of the common refrain - you can do anything, as long as you don't hurt others. But why that condition? Aren't they legislating their morality on others? But I don't mean to derail into that. But I guess I just did. Sorry.

Yes, and thank you, Andy.
(The things we would quibble about are so much smaller by comparison, eh? )
It's ironic that they (speaking generally) claim that moralities are different and individual, and then turn around and appeal to a common standard of morality. Just like Lewis said in MC ch 1...

If we express morality as a compass, it is clear that the variations in morality still point in mostly the same direction, even if the needle wavers to a degree. One thing the needle does NOT do is point south.

[rusmeister]

Again, on the charge of arrogance over being convinced of a single truth rather than multiple truths, all I can do is point out how silly that would be to say to a mathematician regarding a mathematical sum or calculation.

But, again -- mathematical truths can be proven. The only way for any of us to prove whether there is a God, or whether there is an afterlife, or whether the Christian church has it right, is by dying and moving on to the next world (assuming there is one). You can assert that there is one Truth -- and in fact, you do! But unlike with a mathematical proof, logical people, using logical reasoning, don't all arrive at the same answer regarding religion. In math, there are underlying definitions that we all agree on; in religion, there are no such definitions -- we are told that we must take those things on faith. That's why your analogy doesn't work here.

Also, I find it self-contradictory to speak of multiple truths and then to refer to

the truth of that

that I should acknowledge. By your own logic, that should work for you, but does not need to apply to me. (Not that I accept your reasoning there, but you certainly should.)

I don't think it's contradictory at all to talk about the truth (not Truth, mind you ) that there are multiple truths. I accept that there are multiple truths, and I accept that that doesn't work for you. I said so in the last sentence of my post. You seem to crave certainty; you're not in a mental or emotional place where you could be comfortable with there being more than one path to the Divine.

On neopagans... GKC sums it up (in a postable format!):

Neo-pagans have sometimes forgotten, when they set out to do everything that the old pagans did, that the final thing the old pagans did was to get christened.

(ILN, “The Return of the Pagan Gods,” 3-20-26)

Ah! Finally, an argument worth having! Christened they may have been, but converted? Not so much.

Much of the peasantry practiced both Christianity and the old ways. This has been a constant problem for the Church. From Wikipedia (admittedly not the most definitive of sources, but the most accessible -- and I have seen these assertions in printed texts as well):

As various Slavic populations were christianised between the 7th and 12th centuries, Christianity was introduced as a religion of the elite, flourishing mostly in cities and amongst the nobility. Amongst the rural majority of the medieval Slavic population, old myths remained strong. Christian priests and monks in Slavic countries, particularly in Russia, for centuries fought against the phenomenon called dvoeverie (double faith). On the one hand, peasants and farmers eagerly performed ancient rites and worshipped old pagan cults, even when the ancient deities and myths on which those were based were completely forgotten; yet on the other hand, they still stubbornly persisted at baptism, masses, and the new Christian holidays.

This was because, from a perspective of a Slavic peasant, Christianity was not seen as the replacement of old Slavic mythology, but rather an addition to it. Christianity may have offered a hope of salvation, and of blissful afterlife in the next world, but for survival in this world, for yearly harvest and protection of cattle, the old religious system with its fertility rites, its protective deities, and its household spirits was taken to be necessary. This was a problem the Christian church never really solved; at best, it could offer a Christian saint or martyr to replace the pagan deity of a certain cult, but the cult itself thrived, as did the mythological view of the world through which natural phenomena were explained.

For example, Perun, the Slavic thunder god (who might or might not have been the Slav's major deity), was conflated with St. Elijah the Thunderer. Kupalo, the summer solstice festival, became associated with John the Baptist (Ivan Kupala).

(Same deal with Native Americans, btw. I recall reading somewhere -- maybe Vin Deloria wrote it? -- that when presented with the Christian's tripartite Godhead, they equated it with their own gods, practiced both Christianity and their own religion, and didn't understand why the missionaries were upset. )

Stepping away from the Slavs, Dec. 25 was originally the birthday of Mithras, the son of the Persian sun god; the Christian church co-opted the date for the birth of their own Son of God (Jesus' actual birth having been in either the spring or the fall, depending on who you talk to, but it pretty much definitely wasn't in the winter). Also, popular Easter symbology -- eggs and bunnies -- are pagan, hearkening back to the holiday's roots as a fertility festival.

Half the fun of reinventing Paganism is going through the old legends and stripping out the Christianization that's been overlaid on them, to find the original religious practices underneath. Members of Ar nDraiocht Fein are putting effort into using comparative mythology to reconstruct the various pantheons and belief systems.

Most Neopagans today, I think, are honest enough to have moved away from the claims that we're resurrecting the Old Religion. Too much time has passed, and too much of the source material has been destroyed and/or hopelessly conflated with Christianity. The best we can do is reconstruct what we can, and honor the gods in our own ways.

Hi, Ali.

I didn't mean to say that religion can be empirically proven - the analogy was only intended to illustrate the concept of a single truth regarding the creation and nature of the universe, and on that level, it does work.

As to religion (and at various times I can expand that to mean the major world religions, at times, I have to narrow it down to Christianity (and at times even to Orthodoxy, but we aren't anywhere near there yet, I think),
logical reasoning is indeed used - the dogma merely provide the framework or base philosophy from which the religion operates - in a similar manner to the scientific dogma of the scientific method or the necessity of evidence. If all men are sinners, and if sin (selfish behavior, if you like) is destructive, then logically speaking, we must refrain from sin (as a primitive example that will fit into posting format), and furthermore, because we do not usually refrain, are doomed to destruction and a final death.

Again, if the world was definitely created then there is a definite truth about that creation that is not dependent on my desires, moods or whims. The world existed before I did and can get along quite well without me. Therefore, speaking of "my truth" or "your truth" about the nature of that objective world makes no sense, any more than it does about mathematical truths.

Your assumption that there are multiple paths to the divine is merely your belief. The question is one of who is right. "Comfort" has nothing to do with it. I find Orthodoxy to be distinctly uncomfortable at times. The mental and emotional place that I am in is interested in truth, not comfort.

On Slavic religion (you're talking to the rusmeister here - or did you think my name is actually "Rus"? )... I have an MA in Russian (including college coursework on Russian mythology, byliny, etc), am married to a Russian, live in Russia, and in general am familiar with Perun, et al (and not merely thanks to internet links)...
The article you post has inaccuracies and false assumptions (no doubt written by a pagan editor). I am ready to accept what a pagan has to say about pagan beliefs as authoritative. I am not prepared to accept what they have to say about Christian beliefs.

First inaccuracy: some Slavs were baptized in the first century. (See St Andrew) A minor point, but worth considering.)
Second inaccuracy: The faith was introduced on a large scale BY the elite, but not FOR the elite. It was for everybody. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that it was not accepted instantly and everywhere at once - but it was eventually accepted everywhere.

On the one hand, peasants and farmers eagerly performed ancient rites and worshipped old pagan cults, even when the ancient deities and myths on which those were based were completely forgotten;

This appears to be a clumsy attempt to describe the problem of superstition, which DID persist as a legacy of paganism - but it was no longer connected to the pagan beliefs.

This was because, from a perspective of a Slavic peasant, Christianity was not seen as the replacement of old Slavic mythology, but rather an addition to it.

A generally unsupported statement; a falsehood, as is what follows.

Associations of pagan gods with christian saints ; false, false, false. There I'll go so far as to say that it is a lie. The nature of the relationship between saint and believer is fundamentally different from pagan god and believer. The saints are merely people that have gone over before us, and are part of the same family we are - and so are brothers and sisters - not gods. They have no special powers that are not given to them by God according to Christian beliefs. In our prayers, we ask them to pray for us - to ask God to do things for us, not for them to do magic for us.

There is no accurate basis for placing Christ's birth in any season. The season is not recorded in Scripture. It could've been any season. The charge of "co-opting the date" is spurious and wishful thinking on the part of pagans.

The "popular Easter symbology" you describe is precisely that which has nothing special to do with Christianity - there IS no "Easter Bunny" and never has been in the East - it is a creation of the 20th century and so cannot be applied at all to historical Christianity as an argument against it.
And the egg symbolism is universal, but is not an essential part of the Christian Pascha experience (as the holiday is called in Orthodoxy - and that underlines the fallacy of the 'Eostre argument', as that is a phenomenon limited to early English history and language, but the argument broad-brushes it to cover the entire Christian world). The grain of truth in that, I would say, is that paganism did foreshadow Christianity. As Lewis put it, God kept sending the world hints. So paganism is not entirely wrong and is certainly closer to the truth than atheism. But the idea that Christianity invented itself from paganism is nonsense. It was precisely the differences that caused the explosion of Christianity in the Roman Empire even as the pagan world was dying. (Again, reams of posting could be saved if you guys would read TEM. Then we could talk intelligently about it, even if you wished to refute the ideas.)

Your final comments only underline that you are attempting to reinvent the wheel. Only that wheel was invented and turned out to be the wrong shape. Learning from the fact of the death of paganism as to WHY it died makes a great deterrent to attempting to repeat it. For all that was good, noble and wise in paganism really does survive. In Christianity.

But all of this is probably more beating of head against wall.

Please understand that I am not saying a word against you or anyone personally. In a very real sense you (all of you) are better people than me.

[rdhopeca]

Atheism does not have a theology per se, of course, as it rests on denial, on a negative, and agnosticism rests on a belief in an inability to know (they set empirical proof as the criterion for belief and deny/ignore other aspects of human experience), and the philosophies are therefore necessarily based on the experience of the individual.

I have to disagree with this. Atheism is not based on a denial, any more than Christianity is based on a fantasy. You may choose to present it as such based on semantics, but I choose to believe that the world is as science presents it, and no proof has been shown me to say that there is an otherwordly presence. You can wrap it up as a negative and a denial if you like. But then from my point of view that would allow me to say that all religions are based on delusion and fantasy derived from an inability to accept the world for what it is.

But statements that "all beliefs are on an equal footing" display a lack of knowledge of the depths of the faiths that have survived for millenia - if they were mere artificial constructs they should have 'bought the farm' a long time ago.

Many artificial constructs have bought the farm down through the milennia. Longevity is not a claim for truth. For how many centuries was the world flat? A lot more than when it was round, that's for sure. Just because you've managed to build and maintain your belief system over time is not proof of its truths. It's just proof that your message was sufficient enough to appeal to the masses. And again, you are attacking my "lack of knowledge"...knowledge which is I feel is irrelevant to the basis for my beliefs.

FTR, I spent two years taking my wife to church in the US to help her feel comfortable there even though I didn't believe - although I did eventually convert

I find this interesting. My sister, who is a Muslim convert, has always been much more intense and "traditional" in how she practices her faith when compared to her "born and raised" Muslim husband. Her husband claims that people who convert tend to be much more serious about proving their faith than those who have always been raised in the faith. As an example, she was much more strict about her attire (covered in public etc) than most modern Muslim women would be. I find myself wondering if the fact that you converted has any effect on your intensity here. Which, by the way, I admire, even though I don't agree with you. I certainly would not dedicate the time to research that you have seemingly done.

[Fist and Faith]

Again, if the world was definitely created then there is a definite truth about that creation that is not dependent on my desires, moods or whims. The world existed before I did and can get along quite well without me. Therefore, speaking of "my truth" or "your truth" about the nature of that objective world makes no sense, any more than it does about mathematical truths.

Your assumption that there are multiple paths to the divine is merely your belief. The question is one of who is right. "Comfort" has nothing to do with it. I find Orthodoxy to be distinctly uncomfortable at times. The mental and emotional place that I am in is interested in truth, not comfort.

It is possible that the universe was not created, and that my beliefs are correct. That is, we are all finding answers to the questions of meaning that satisfy our individual psyches. Your individual psyche's needs, fears, etc, are not the same as mine, so the same things do not satisfy us.

But I'm not arguing that at the moment. My point is this. It is possible that the universe was created, and that the creator set it up so that there are multiple paths to the divine. You have no way of ruling out that possibility. No, you don't believe it, but it could be true. A created universe and multiple paths to the divine are not mutually exclusive.

[[Syl]]

My sister, who is a Muslim convert, has always been much more intense and "traditional" in how she practices her faith when compared to her "born and raised" Muslim husband. Her husband claims that people who convert tend to be much more serious about proving their faith than those who have always been raised in the faith.

I find this to be true as well. I grew up Mormon, and by and large, Mormons are very friendly people. After I left the church, almost all Mormons I knew or met were fine with it when I told them I was no longer Mormon. But there were exceptions, and every time I found myself getting a lecture (or even yelled at), it was by someone who had converted. And sure, there's the whole missionary thing, but they're still polite about it. But when I see someone being very aggressive and announcing their Mormon faith on public forums, I find they've also converted. It's strange.

[Cail]

Interesting observation Syl. I've noticed similar things, to the point that I've actually said, "but you seem so normal" to more than one Mormon.

[Avatar]

*shrug* It's like non-smokers and ex-smokers.

--A

[Cail]

Nothing worse than a reformed whore.....

[[Syl]]

Actually, I used to work with an ex-prostitute (Bunny Ranch). She was really nice. Sadly, she died from complications during child birth.

[Cail]

Leave it to Syl to have a dead hooker story......

OK, not exactly the archetype, but.....

[aliantha]

Hiya, Rus. (Jeez, how do I follow the "dead hooker" line? Thanks a lot, Cail! )

As to religion (and at various times I can expand that to mean the major world religions, at times, I have to narrow it down to Christianity (and at times even to Orthodoxy, but we aren't anywhere near there yet, I think), logical reasoning is indeed used - the dogma merely provide the framework or base philosophy from which the religion operates - in a similar manner to the scientific dogma of the scientific method or the necessity of evidence. If all men are sinners, and if sin (selfish behavior, if you like) is destructive, then logically speaking, we must refrain from sin (as a primitive example that will fit into posting format), and furthermore, because we do not usually refrain, are doomed to destruction and a final death.

Right there, at the bolded words, is where it falls apart. Not everybody takes your premise as a given. I don't believe in sin and I don't think all men are sinners. Ya can't make an if/then statement work if we don't agree on the "if".

With your other example, on the creation of the world, I agree with you that we got here somehow. But neither one of us knows, of a certainty, how it happened. Scientists have theories; religions have dogma. Nobody on this plane of existence knows which is the capital-T Truth. So we agree on the "if" but not on the "then."

Your assumption that there are multiple paths to the divine is merely your belief.

Granted. And your assumption that there's only one path is merely *your* belief. There's no way to prove who's right, especially when we don't agree on the "if".

On Slavic religion (you're talking to the rusmeister here - or did you think my name is actually "Rus"? )... I have an MA in Russian (including college coursework on Russian mythology, byliny, etc), am married to a Russian, live in Russia, and in general am familiar with Perun, et al (and not merely thanks to internet links)...

<bows> Actually, I *did* kind of think your name was Russ. The power of the intarwebs, huh?

The article you post has inaccuracies and false assumptions (no doubt written by a pagan editor). I am ready to accept what a pagan has to say about pagan beliefs as authoritative. I am not prepared to accept what they have to say about Christian beliefs.

Well, the victor always gets to write history. It kind of stands to reason that pagan writers would have a different take on what happened. And it also makes sense to me that the Church would demonize the Green Man (to use another, non-Slavic example) by calling him Satan, and call the tenets of an earlier religion sinful superstitions -- how else do you get people to stop practicing the old ways? Other than on the point of a sword, that is (which, btw, happened as well, and I daresay it has happened to adherents of many religions throughout time; Christianity doesn't have a lock on martyrdom).

(Hmm, I thought Eostre was a Germanic goddess. I guess you can extrapolate that to English tradition eventually...)

Associations of pagan gods with christian saints ; false, false, false. There I'll go so far as to say that it is a lie. The nature of the relationship between saint and believer is fundamentally different from pagan god and believer. The saints are merely people that have gone over before us, and are part of the same family we are - and so are brothers and sisters - not gods. They have no special powers that are not given to them by God according to Christian beliefs. In our prayers, we ask them to pray for us - to ask God to do things for us, not for them to do magic for us.

From my perspective, miracles *are* magic.

The whole thing with pagan god worship/saint intercession happened in other countries, too, one example being Ireland's St. Brigid, who was worshipped much the same way as the pagan goddess of the same name. The Roman church eventually made the St. Brigid cult extinguish the eternal flame at the monastery bearing her name. Altho I believe it's been relit since then.

There is no accurate basis for placing Christ's birth in any season. The season is not recorded in Scripture. It could've been any season. The charge of "co-opting the date" is spurious and wishful thinking on the part of pagans.

I originally saw this in "Secular Humanist" magazine. I guess they're pagan, kinda.

For all that was good, noble and wise in paganism really does survive. In Christianity.

In your opinion. Again, I'm glad you have found a faith that works for you.

Speaking of reading lists , I haven't read the book that this blog mentions, but I think the entry does a nice job of explaining what makes these dialogues between Christians and non-Christians so difficult.

Which isn't to say that books like "Beyond the Burning Times" aren't important, they are, but both sides must acknowledge the large hurdles to overcome before we reach something that resembles mutual respect and trust. We need to get to a point where Pagans don't feel that efforts at dialogue from missional Christians aren't "an attempt at domination", and Christians don't think Pagans are asking them to "give up the centrality of Christ". Monotheism and polytheism have had throughout history at best an uneasy truce, and at worst, attempts to eradicate the other. It may take decades of "baby steps" before we reach a point of mutual understanding and a general sense of improved relations.

[rusmeister]

As to religion (and at various times I can expand that to mean the major world religions, at times, I have to narrow it down to Christianity (and at times even to Orthodoxy, but we aren't anywhere near there yet, I think), logical reasoning is indeed used - the dogma merely provide the framework or base philosophy from which the religion operates - in a similar manner to the scientific dogma of the scientific method or the necessity of evidence. If all men are sinners, and if sin (selfish behavior, if you like) is destructive, then logically speaking, we must refrain from sin (as a primitive example that will fit into posting format), and furthermore, because we do not usually refrain, are doomed to destruction and a final death.

Right there, at the bolded words, is where it falls apart. Not everybody takes your premise as a given. I don't believe in sin and I don't think all men are sinners. Ya can't make an if/then statement work if we don't agree on the "if".

I had hoped it was obvious, but I was only attempting to demonstrate the aspects of the faith that ARE rational, rather than get you to agree at this point with the base premises. So the if/then statement, IF the premise is accepted, is quite rational and logical. I was refuting the idea of lack of reason in religion, that's all.

[aliantha]

As to religion (and at various times I can expand that to mean the major world religions, at times, I have to narrow it down to Christianity (and at times even to Orthodoxy, but we aren't anywhere near there yet, I think), logical reasoning is indeed used - the dogma merely provide the framework or base philosophy from which the religion operates - in a similar manner to the scientific dogma of the scientific method or the necessity of evidence. If all men are sinners, and if sin (selfish behavior, if you like) is destructive, then logically speaking, we must refrain from sin (as a primitive example that will fit into posting format), and furthermore, because we do not usually refrain, are doomed to destruction and a final death.

Right there, at the bolded words, is where it falls apart. Not everybody takes your premise as a given. I don't believe in sin and I don't think all men are sinners. Ya can't make an if/then statement work if we don't agree on the "if".

I had hoped it was obvious, but I was only attempting to demonstrate the aspects of the faith that ARE rational, rather than get you to agree at this point with the base premises. So the if/then statement, IF the premise is accepted, is quite rational and logical. I was refuting the idea of lack of reason in religion, that's all.

Oh, okay, I get it. Yes, you're correct. If everybody's on the same page with the "if", you can reason your way to the "then".

[rusmeister]

I suppose I should start by saying that I do not expect you to agree. I only hope that you can understand why intelligent and rational people could adopt such a stand. Again, it is always a question of "who's right, if anybody". I've given up convincing. I can only attempt to explain.

The article you post has inaccuracies and false assumptions (no doubt written by a pagan editor). I am ready to accept what a pagan has to say about pagan beliefs as authoritative. I am not prepared to accept what they have to say about Christian beliefs.

Well, the victor always gets to write history. It kind of stands to reason that pagan writers would have a different take on what happened. And it also makes sense to me that the Church would demonize the Green Man (to use another, non-Slavic example) by calling him Satan, and call the tenets of an earlier religion sinful superstitions -- how else do you get people to stop practicing the old ways? Other than on the point of a sword, that is (which, btw, happened as well, and I daresay it has happened to adherents of many religions throughout time; Christianity doesn't have a lock on martyrdom).

(Hmm, I thought Eostre was a Germanic goddess. I guess you can extrapolate that to English tradition eventually...)

Here the salient point is that the only place in Christendom where a pagan name had any influence on the naming of the holiday was in ancient England.
Like I said, in Orthodoxy the holiday is specifically NOT called Easter, even in English. It is called "Pascha". Orthodox Christians in the English-speaking world use the term largely as a convention to communicate with non-Orthodox.
It's very commonly raised as an argument, but when examined, turns out to be false.

It would also make sense to call practices sinful superstitions if that is what they actually were.
The 'point of sword' thought is addressed below.

Associations of pagan gods with christian saints ; false, false, false. There I'll go so far as to say that it is a lie. The nature of the relationship between saint and believer is fundamentally different from pagan god and believer. The saints are merely people that have gone over before us, and are part of the same family we are - and so are brothers and sisters - not gods. They have no special powers that are not given to them by God according to Christian beliefs. In our prayers, we ask them to pray for us - to ask God to do things for us, not for them to do magic for us.

From my perspective, miracles *are* magic.

The whole thing with pagan god worship/saint intercession happened in other countries, too, one example being Ireland's St. Brigid, who was worshipped much the same way as the pagan goddess of the same name. The Roman church eventually made the St. Brigid cult extinguish the eternal flame at the monastery bearing her name. Altho I believe it's been relit since then.

On saints - the idea that saints simply copied/replaced pagan gods, again, is false. The theology, in Orthodoxy at least, is a logical development of what Christian teaching on the nature of life and death is. For example, a central Orthodox teaching is that all are alive in God. Christ said, referring to a statement of God (the Father)'s that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", that He is the God of the living, not of the dead. Therefore, after death, there is a state of life (that it is possible to 'die' from - referred to as 'the second death', but this is only at the end of time). IOW, they are not finally dead, they are merely passed over to the other side (The words of 'Miracle Max' from 'The Princess Bride' come to mind: "He's not really dead - he's only 'mostly' dead' - and mostly dead is somewhat alive..." ). In short, we can talk to the saints and ask them to pray for us, not because they are demigods (as the pagan understanding you seem to describe views it), but because they are alive in God. The saints (and we can't even know who is not a saint in God's eyes - we can only know who it has been given to the Church to declare a saint - thus there could be pagan saints - but only God would know that. But for those that we DO know to be saints, we can talk to them (it's called 'prayer', and the understanding here differs radically from the Protestant understanding of prayer as 'worship' - to us, it's reverent speech - talking). The saints are those righteous people who have found special favor in God's eyes, and because "the prayers of a righteous man availeth much" we can ask them to pray for us just like we can ask our friends and family to pray for us - for their sakes God may move the things that are outside of human free will (when it is truly to our eternal benefit) to work in our favor (you might say that the saints have 'more clout' - they lived lives of repentance and deed that we usually/mostly fail to live up to). And thus miracles performed by saints. But it is not the power of the saint, but the power of God. And unlike magic, it is not manipulation. For those who have read the Chronicles of Narnia, there is a point in the beginning of "The Silver Chair" where Jill says to Eustace, "Shouldn't we draw a magic circle or something?" and Eustace replies - "No - HE would think that was just rot, like we were trying to force him to do something." And that's what magic in the human understanding is - an imposition of our will; a forcing of events. The Christian submits (often struggles to submit) his will to God's ("Let Thy will be done" as opposed to "Let my will be done").

Speaking of reading lists , I haven't read the book that this blog mentions, but I think the entry does a nice job of explaining what makes these dialogues between Christians and non-Christians so difficult.

Which isn't to say that books like "Beyond the Burning Times" aren't important, they are, but both sides must acknowledge the large hurdles to overcome before we reach something that resembles mutual respect and trust. We need to get to a point where Pagans don't feel that efforts at dialogue from missional Christians aren't "an attempt at domination", and Christians don't think Pagans are asking them to "give up the centrality of Christ". Monotheism and polytheism have had throughout history at best an uneasy truce, and at worst, attempts to eradicate the other. It may take decades of "baby steps" before we reach a point of mutual understanding and a general sense of improved relations.

It seems like the ultimate goal is to reach "improved relations" as if it were a matter of secular politics. On a human and political level there are certainly points where that is the case. However, the Christian goal is beyond this life - this life is a necessary stage of our existence - and a critical one - we can 'blow' everything, we can, in a sense, save or damn or souls - although the Christian would add that we can only do what is required of us and that it is Christ that saves us - but the damnation we do to ourselves, so 'God damn this-or-that-person' is a theological fallacy.
Since this life is not the be-all and end-all of existence, the Christian's goal in it is to do what may be done to make first of all himself pleasing to God, and then to create an environment that is pleasing to God. FWIW, a great many Christians skip the first part and jump right to the second part - making it a vain exercise. But still, where possible, we should strive to make laws, government, in short, society, one that God can bless. When it's not possible we go into the catacombs. But in a spiritual sense, it is war, and the real enemy is Satan - and we are potential victims to be claimed by him (so people are not really our enemies in that sense and the war is not to be interpreted as a corporeal war).

But that's not what I really wanted to write. What I wanted to say is that from that perspective, pluralism - which attempts to get diverse and opposing beliefs to live together in peace - is ultimately impossible for the Christian, because the upshot of pluralism is that what you believe doesn't matter; it should not affect your politics or how you live your life in the world in general - and for a Christian this negates their faith as true (and this is the extreme that dominates in our world today - while calling itself a golden mean and identifying any other stance as 'extreme').

The other extreme that sometimes happens in history - forced or imposed conversion, is also in conflict with the Christian faith - it may be politically expedient, but it is not true faith unless it is willingly accepted. Thus, the 'Christianized' nations were/are really only Christian to the extent that the faith is voluntarily accepted and practiced. Whenever it is forced, it is already political, and not Christianity.

But there is a point between these two extremes - and that is a determination of what truths shall be used to establish and implement a just society - in other words, to determine what is good. As Chesterton says - and it is such a pity you guys won't read him - we would agree about the evil - about what is wrong - it is the question of what is good over which we would tear each others' eyes out. To paraphrase - we all (used to) agree that prostitution is bad - we do not agree that purity is good. It is here that we must struggle and ought not to compromise - one side or the other will win - but then, only for a while. It is God who will really save us (the ideas eviscerated from the film "Prince Caspian" - but they're in the book all right), but we are to do what we can while we are here.
You cannot take 'baby steps' away from truth and towards falsehood. That is regress, not progress.

People who still think in terms of decades don't know much about Christian history or theology - or likely any of the major world religions in-depth. The smallest unit in Orthodoxy could be said to be "the century".

Again, either monotheism or polytheism is true (for people who have progressed that far). They can't be both true. One excludes the other. You can't build a society that includes the principles of both (except by saying that none of it is really true or really matters - or that that is 'your path to the divine', which is the same thing.

Hopefully the POV makes a little more sense now, even if you disagree. At least it could be acknowledged that it's not irrational, however wrong you think it is.

[rusmeister]

My sister, who is a Muslim convert, has always been much more intense and "traditional" in how she practices her faith when compared to her "born and raised" Muslim husband. Her husband claims that people who convert tend to be much more serious about proving their faith than those who have always been raised in the faith.

I find this to be true as well. I grew up Mormon, and by and large, Mormons are very friendly people. After I left the church, almost all Mormons I knew or met were fine with it when I told them I was no longer Mormon. But there were exceptions, and every time I found myself getting a lecture (or even yelled at), it was by someone who had converted. And sure, there's the whole missionary thing, but they're still polite about it. But when I see someone being very aggressive and announcing their Mormon faith on public forums, I find they've also converted. It's strange.

I do think being a convert plays a role in attitude. The person born in a faith is more relaxed, because they take everything for granted. The convert knows how he could see things differently, because he DID see them differently. As a result, he is more capable of understanding people of the background from which he came. The person born in the faith doesn't have this advantage. It is something of a source of wonderment for him how people could not see these things. The faith is like breathing. For the convert, I think there is a sharper awareness of the possibility of falling away from the faith.

That said, I think I could identify this as a fourth dodge (to add to the other three). if you can't attack the ideas, attack the person. Portray them as a fanatic, and we can stop considering the ideas.

[rusmeister]

Atheism does not have a theology per se, of course, as it rests on denial, on a negative, and agnosticism rests on a belief in an inability to know (they set empirical proof as the criterion for belief and deny/ignore other aspects of human experience), and the philosophies are therefore necessarily based on the experience of the individual.

I have to disagree with this. Atheism is not based on a denial, any more than Christianity is based on a fantasy. You may choose to present it as such based on semantics, but I choose to believe that the world is as science presents it, and no proof has been shown me to say that there is an otherwordly presence. You can wrap it up as a negative and a denial if you like. But then from my point of view that would allow me to say that all religions are based on delusion and fantasy derived from an inability to accept the world for what it is.

I'm speaking of a philosophical denial, not a scientific one. It denies the mass of human experience, the claims of miracles, visions, after-death experiences reported throughout history, dogmatically asserts them to be universally delusion and usually assumes materialism as its base philosophy. It doesn't look like you are an exception. ("All there is is what I see"; "I'll believe it when I see it")
Thus, the reliance on science to reveal truth. And it does reveal truths - about the material world. But it does nothing to explain anything about the human being other than the body - the material functions and is helpless before large scale and repeated reports of the phenomena that I described.

But statements that "all beliefs are on an equal footing" display a lack of knowledge of the depths of the faiths that have survived for millenia - if they were mere artificial constructs they should have 'bought the farm' a long time ago.

Many artificial constructs have bought the farm down through the milennia. Longevity is not a claim for truth. For how many centuries was the world flat? A lot more than when it was round, that's for sure. Just because you've managed to build and maintain your belief system over time is not proof of its truths. It's just proof that your message was sufficient enough to appeal to the masses. And again, you are attacking my "lack of knowledge"...knowledge which is I feel is irrelevant to the basis for my beliefs.

But these religions have NOT 'bought the farm'. Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are alive and kicking. The longevity does make for a stronger case - the fact that millions of people over thousands of years accept as true the idea of a creator and superior deity makes the atheist the historical exception - and the atheist has never dominated a civilization.

Again, if I apply your argument (on lack of knowledge) to creationism/Intelligent Design I'd have Lord Mhoram and Malik howling
Also, you seem to speak of "the masses" as something that you are separate and superior to. It also doesn't explain the enormous number of intelligent people throughout history who did accept faith - Isaac Newton, Samuel Johnson and George Washington, to name just a few (English speakers). Its message had to be sufficient to appeal to them, too. Or are they just part of "the masses"?
It does mean that over time the truths claimed that are testable are found to be true. Time certainly does play a role, just as it plays a role in weeding out bad literature, leaving us a significantly smaller body of print that we call "classics"; that generation after generation find truth and value in.

FTR, I spent two years taking my wife to church in the US to help her feel comfortable there even though I didn't believe - although I did eventually convert

I find this interesting. My sister, who is a Muslim convert, has always been much more intense and "traditional" in how she practices her faith when compared to her "born and raised" Muslim husband. Her husband claims that people who convert tend to be much more serious about proving their faith than those who have always been raised in the faith. As an example, she was much more strict about her attire (covered in public etc) than most modern Muslim women would be. I find myself wondering if the fact that you converted has any effect on your intensity here. Which, by the way, I admire, even though I don't agree with you. I certainly would not dedicate the time to research that you have seemingly done.

Thank you!
I addressed the convert question briefly above.
I don't see myself as being so smart. What amazes me is that it took me nearly forty years to begin thinking about it. My research was based on being interested in the topic. The more I learned the more obvious it became to me that all of the stale arguments repeated against the faith (that I had used myself, as well) were based on a) fallacy and/or b) a rather limited understanding of what the faith must have been throughout history - the only basis I have for believing that it is true now is that it was true then, as well - that there must have always been a Christian Church. The Baptists I grew up with were very skimpy on history and just sort of assumed that believers met in houses and did what they were doing. An actual study of history revealed something quite different.
Finally, the problems with history itself - that the histories are written by...historians and have specific biases. Just as earlier histories were written by pagan and Christian historians, the modern texts - especially school texts - are written by unbelievers, and they all interpret history according to their base philosophy and this leads to falsification, very often verifiable when held up to primary sources.

This is totally on the side, but my great discovery of the past year is how often legends myths and folk tales contradict the histories we are taught now. I don't mean in their description of the marvelous, but in their description of the ordinary. If it were true, for instance, that women were subjugated cowering second-class creatures who were beaten by their husbands for millenia until Emmeline Pankhurst came along to wake up those silly women, then descriptions of the sharp-tongued, hen-pecking domineering wife would not exist in the folk tales. In short, certain conditions peculiar to the 19th century English speaking world (and only certain ones at that) were extrapolated to have been the general truth of history rather than exceptions and that is what is now taught in our schools.

In summa, our knowledge is limited, incomplete and wrong. It is possible to correct that to a degree, but takes a good deal of personal effort and critical examination of what we think we know. Everything has to be re-examined - especially what we learned in school.

[rdhopeca]

My sister, who is a Muslim convert, has always been much more intense and "traditional" in how she practices her faith when compared to her "born and raised" Muslim husband. Her husband claims that people who convert tend to be much more serious about proving their faith than those who have always been raised in the faith.

I find this to be true as well. I grew up Mormon, and by and large, Mormons are very friendly people. After I left the church, almost all Mormons I knew or met were fine with it when I told them I was no longer Mormon. But there were exceptions, and every time I found myself getting a lecture (or even yelled at), it was by someone who had converted. And sure, there's the whole missionary thing, but they're still polite about it. But when I see someone being very aggressive and announcing their Mormon faith on public forums, I find they've also converted. It's strange.

I do think being a convert plays a role in attitude. The person born in a faith is more relaxed, because they take everything for granted. The convert knows how he could see things differently, because he DID see them differently. As a result, he is more capable of understanding people of the background from which he came. The person born in the faith doesn't have this advantage. It is something of a source of wonderment for him how people could not see these things. The faith is like breathing. For the convert, I think there is a sharper awareness of the possibility of falling away from the faith.

That said, I think I could identify this as a fourth dodge (to add to the other three). if you can't attack the ideas, attack the person. Portray them as a fanatic, and we can stop considering the ideas.

This is in no way intended as a "dodge". It was intended as a compliment and an observation, at least from my vantage point. Certainly not an attack on anyone. But if you choose to take it as such, I can only surmise that you are actively looking for reasons to say that people are only dodging.