Derren Brown: Faith Killer?

[Mister_T]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

So, your argument is "it's right because it's popular"?
What about Hindus? What makes Shiva more credible than Zeus? Because there are more Hindu's than Hellenic Pagans?

While popularity is part of it, my argument is consistency = more credible. Not that one particular way is right or even true. As far Hinduism goes....Hinduism is the worlds oldest religion as well as being the third largest and from what I can tell has been pretty consistent throughout history up until present day. Therefore, I would say Hinduism is more credible than a belief in Zeus.

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

Just because you don't get out much doesn't mean such people don't exist. I know plenty of Kemetics and Hellenics. And, I believe C1 happens to be a Kemetic.

Nor did I say that me not meeting one, meant that they didn't exist.

As for "me not getting out much," apparently a lot of people aren't getting out much since such religions don't even get a category in global religion statistics:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_B...ml#NotIncluded

Ones not included in the graph:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_B...ml#NotIncluded

So next time someone chastizes you for not knowing about a small religious movement that get little or no recognition, we all know it's because you don't get out much.

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

Who determines what stories of supernatural beings are "myth" and which are "true"?

Beats me. I'm just going off of what they're labeled as based on information provided for them. If people are starting to see Greek and Egyptian gods again, then maybe they shouldn't be called myths after all.

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by Mister_T

While popularity is part of it, my argument is consistency = more credible. Not that one particular way is right or even true. As far Hinduism goes....Hinduism is the worlds oldest religion as well as being the third largest and from what I can tell has been pretty consistent throughout history up until present day. Therefore, I would say Hinduism is more credible than a belief in Zeus.

What exactly is consistency, though? Because people in Europe converted to Christianity and abandoned Pagan worship means that those Gods are far less likely to be real than any other?
I really don't see how that's much different from saying "The Deity with more worshipers is more likely to exist", and frankly I think that's unfair. My Gods are just as real to me as Jesus is to Christians. Just because there aren't millions of Celtic Recons doesn't mean that our Gods and religion are less credible.

Nor did I say that me not meeting one, meant that they didn't exist.

To me, that was clearly the implication.

As for "me not getting out much," apparently a lot of people aren't getting out much since such religions don't even get a category in global religion statistics:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_B...ml#NotIncluded

Ones not included in the graph:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_B...ml#NotIncluded

So next time someone chastizes you for not knowing about a small religious movement that get little or no recognition, we all know it's because you don't get out much.

Ah, well, I'm sorry. I had assumed that anyone with a passing familiarity with Paganism knew it involved belief in and worship of ancient Gods of polytheistic societies. Next time I'll know better and assume nobody knows anything about Paganism.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_B...l#Neo-Paganism is #19 on the list at the top, BTW.

Beats me. I'm just going off of what they're labeled as based on information provided for them. If people are starting to see Greek and Egyptian gods again, then maybe they shouldn't be called myths after all.

We can label all the stories and legends of supernatural beings, including Gods, as myths, or we label none of them as myths. It makes no sense to say "the stories of my God(s) are true, but those other ones over there....those are just myths".

[Mister_T]

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

What exactly is consistency, though? Because people in Europe converted to Christianity and abandoned Pagan worship means that those Gods are far less likely to be real than any other?
I really don't see how that's much different from saying "The Deity with more worshipers is more likely to exist", and frankly I think that's unfair. My Gods are just as real to me as Jesus is to Christians. Just because there aren't millions of Celtic Recons doesn't mean that our Gods and religion are less credible.

The number of worshipers is indeed an element of credibilty. My thing is not so much the worshipers as the consistent encounters with such deities. How many people have documented their encounters with Greek gods since ancient Greece? How consistent has these beliefs been through the ages? I'm sure there are some of these encounters out there, but not enough to make a noticiable blip on the radar.

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

Ah, well, I'm sorry. I had assumed that anyone with a passing familiarity with Paganism knew it involved belief in and worship of ancient Gods of polytheistic societies. Next time I'll know better and assume nobody knows anything about Paganism.
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_B...l#Neo-Paganism is #19 on the list at the top, BTW.

Anyone with a passing familiarity should also know that Pagainsim covers a vast number of religions and beliefs and in some instances (such as Christianity) includes all but one. It is a very broad term (and continues to grow even broader with the ever-growing number of new religious movements) and I seriuosly doubt even the most devout Pagans can name every single religion or belief that is covered under that label .

Originally Posted by MaddLlama

We can label all the stories and legends of supernatural beings, including Gods, as myths, or we label none of them as myths. It makes no sense to say "the stories of my God(s) are true, but those other ones over there....those are just myths".

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.