NationStates Jolt Archive

What exactly is Wicca? Besides the vague term "Paganism"?

Look it up?

Here's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca

Look it up?

Here's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Kinda learned that in 9th grade...

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Kinda learned that in 9th grade...

Wrong, Wikipedia is a very reliable source. That you choose to dismiss it without looking at the references that they've clearly summarized shows your lack in using an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Kinda learned that in 9th grade...

It's not a reliable academic source, no, but it is reliable enough for basic information, especially on things that really aren't controversial.

It is a religion invented in the former century that draws heavily upon concocted and demonstrably false ties to "paganism" and "witchcraft" from pre-Christian Europe. Most of its followers are new age flakes and/or emo-esque teenagers who think it's "cool" because they discovered it on-line or watched television shows like "Charmed" or films like "The Craft". Nonsense like all religions.

It's not a reliable academic source, no, but it is reliable enough for basic information, especially on things that really aren't controversial.

Religion is not one of those things.

Kinda learned that in 9th grade...
Well, today you can learn how to read an article with a sense of scepticism, and how to follow links at the bottom of pages.

Wrong, Wikipedia is a very reliable source. That you choose to dismiss it without looking at the references that they've clearly summarized shows your lack in using an encyclopedia.

I can write a book and get it published. That doesn't mean that the book is an automatically reliable/accurate source.

I've discovered that books such as that are used 90% of the time for controversal articles.

I can write a book and get it published. That doesn't mean that the book is an automatically reliable/accurate source.

I've discovered that books such as that are used 90% of the time for controversal articles.

Then how about you use it as a source of research?

Instead of dismissing it outright, find the good parts, because they are far more numerous than in encyclopedia brittanica, which is a reputable source.

It is a religion invented in the former century that draws heavily upon concocted and demonstrably false ties to "paganism" and "witchcraft" from pre-Christian Europe. Most of its followers are new age flakes and/or emo-esque teenagers who think it's "cool" because they discovered it on-line or watched television shows like "Charmed" or films like "The Craft". Nonsense like all religions.

The part before the bold section is true, from my experience, but there are exceptions.

That bold part is uncalled for.

I agree with you, it isn't a reliable source. It is a plethora of information all of which you should always check against other sources. The ability for anyone to edit wikipedia is what discredits it.

Exactly, it's a second-hand source, the type you use to find out what Wicca is or the type you use to find the first-hand sources about Wicca.

Religion is not one of those things.

It's controversial, yes, but not in the way you suggest.

The controversy about religion is on whether the religious beliefs are true or not. There is little controversy, generally, on what the beliefs of a given sect are-- because such controversies tend to form new sects with their own beliefs.

That bold part is uncalled for.

Not really. It's not an ad hominem and it's certainly a subject that is quite frequently debated on NSG. It may not be nice to you, but that's just too bad, isn't it?

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Kinda learned that in 9th grade...


I agree with you, it isn't a reliable source. It is a plethora of information all of which you should always check against other sources. The ability for anyone to edit wikipedia is what discredits it.

Not really. It's not an ad hominem and it's certainly a subject that is quite frequently debated on NSG. It may not be nice to you, but that's just too bad, isn't it?

Yeah, I guess. I just pointed out there was no reason to say that.

But, since we are taking pot shots at people's beliefs:

Having no religion is nonsense. Atheism is nonsense. Agnostics' are half nonsense.

How do you like them apples?

A lame-arse excuse for a religion, with about as much historical background as Scientology.

That bold part is uncalled for.

The truth is never uncalled for, it is however often volitionally ignored or found unpleasant.

In short:

A new age religion that combines various aspects of pre-christian pagan religions.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Kinda learned that in 9th grade...considering the level of your inquiry, ("wtf is this shit") wikipedia will be more than reliable for your purposes.

Wicca is revivalist paganism founded near the turn of the century - it has strong elements of romanticism (usually, but not always celtic) and politically its followers tend to be environmentalists concerned with gay rights who have been marginalized by traditional religious communities. it's philosophical structure is influenced by traditional european occultism from groups like the OTO, (Ordo Templii Orientis) Masons, and Golden Dawn - ultimately stemming from renaissance neo-platonism, itself based in jewish mysticism and medieval christian thought. the mythology of the movement holds that it is, rather than a reconstructionist revival, an ancient religion that has been practiced in secret since christianity came to the british isles and drove it underground. Wicca tends to focus on feminine spirituality - its only real dogma is non-violence "An it harm none, do what ye will". its followers are mostly younger people, but again not always - the social structure centers around "covens" which are small groups of practitioners who practice ritual "magick" (the k has a specific meaning) as adopted from OTO/Golden Dawn rituals, though with the advent of the internet solitary practitioners are becoming extremely common (there are probably more of them than coven members). wicca is related to the new age movement and bears certain similarities to the Völkisch movement.

as you've gathered, it catches a lot of flack from people (both secularist and other religions, including other pagans) because statistically speaking, most of its followers are probably teenaged girls...atheists hate on it because it helps inflate their egos to denigrate other belief systems in general, and other pagans dislike it because there actually *are* a few pre-christian polytheistic traditions that have survived christian imperialism as "meso-pagan", rather than "neo-pagan" (stregheria, ab'orisha religions, arguably curanderismo and the cult of la santissima muerte and other catholic-veneered folk movements) that don't appreciate being associated with the revisionist stuff.

like it or not, though, it's a pretty fast-growing tradition and reflects a statistically significant trend in society - an ideological void that self-assured cynics haven't filled. the most ridiculous stuff will continue to pop up to fill that void as long as the conditions which produced this and similar movements remain unchanged.

The truth is never uncalled for, it is however often volitionally ignored or found unpleasant.

But it is not the truth

Yeah, I guess. I just pointed out there was no reason to say that.

But, since we are taking pot shots at people's beliefs:

Having no religion is nonsense. Atheism is nonsense. Agnostics' are half nonsense.

How do you like them apples?

Atheism is a religion, it's the belief in no God.
Do you know of anywhere that has no religion at all?
It seems the areas with higher extreme religious activity suffer from alot of violence, whether this is a cause or a by product is hard to say, but having seperate religions does not help conflict.

But it is not the truth

See? Volitionally ignored. Thank you for reinforcing my point by telling yourself that, until you've convinced yourself your version of superstition is special and not at all as nonsensical as the others.

Yeah, I guess. I just pointed out there was no reason to say that.

But, since we are taking pot shots at people's beliefs:

Having no religion is nonsense. Atheism is nonsense. Agnostics' are half nonsense.

How do you like them apples?

You do know why I said what I said right? It's Fass... what would you expect for him to say?

Because it's Fass, there was every reason for him to say it ;)

Atheism is a religion, it's the belief in no God.
Do you know of anywhere that has no religion at all?
It seems the areas with higher extreme religious activity suffer from alot of violence, whether this is a cause or a by product is hard to say, but having seperate religions does not help conflict.

Atheism is not a religion.
A, meaning not. Theism, meaning a belief in a deity.
Atheism - belief that there is no deity.

Religion = the service and worship of God or the supernatural.
Since atheists demonstrably do not believe in the worship of God, god, or the supernatural, they are not religious.

Source for your second statement, please.

Atheism is a religion, it's the belief in no God.
Do you know of anywhere that has no religion at all?
It seems the areas with higher extreme religious activity suffer from alot of violence, whether this is a cause or a by product is hard to say, but having seperate religions does not help conflict.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby, or that bald is a hair color.

Atheism is a religion

Just like bald is a hair colour, eh? Not believing != believing, just like not having a car != having a car. Of course, this is but logical, and that's not exactly your ilk's forte, so I can understand why such a simple concept is difficult for you.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Kinda learned that in 9th grade...

Wikipedia, for purposes other than academic essay writing and the like, is an excellent source to gain a passing understanding of something. However if you are intransigently opposed to it, allow me to advise you; TRY A FUCKING LIBRARY! How do you think information was learned before the repository of sages known as NSG was created?

See? Volitionally ignored. Thank you for reinforcing my point by telling yourself that until you've convinced yourself your version of superstition is special and not at all as nonsensical as the others.

Have ever said that everyone else's views are wrong (religious views)? I have my beliefs, and other people have theirs. Even if someone else's beliefs are right, and mine aren't, or vice versa, as long as someone is a decent person, they should be fine in the afterlife.

Also, what if more than one religion is true? What if the differing religions compete for souls?

Also, what if more than one religion is true? What if the differing religions compete for souls?

See: Computer games such as Sacrifice.

Quite neat concept.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that that bald is a hair color.

but is black a hair colour? (and I guess under the same logic white?)

what about if I had hair that was so thin it was clear ;)

Atheism is not a religion.

Source for your second statement, please.

Christianity is a theism.
Atheism is a theism a theory of religion, therefore it is a religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel
Scroll down to religious tensions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/791014.stm
Difference of US forces religion, and Iraqi religion, and culture.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

Northern Ireland, Rwanda, Sudan need i go on?

A lame-arse excuse for a religion, with about as much historical background as Scientology.



Why was Fass's comment unneeded but this one some how got free pass? Is it because it only insults a minority religion instead of Christianity and Islam?


I find pagan religions, even those that are "revitalized" to be just as relevent if not more relevent to the story of the human religious experiance than Christianity, as it is thousands of years older.

Religion = the service and worship of God or the supernatural.
Since atheists demonstrably do not believe in the worship of God, god, or the supernatural, they are not religious.

re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

From the American Heritage Dictionary

See: Computer games such as Sacrifice.

Quite neat concept.

Never heard of it.

I was just trying to point out that we don't know. I don't discount people's religious views, though I view atheism with much skepticism because it goes against so much of human history.

So does tolerance of those different from us, so we should be skeptical of tolerance too right?

Nope.

I just don't think atheists are correct, and I never will.

Why was Fass's comment unneeded but this one some how got free pass? Is it because it only insults a minority religion instead of Christianity and Islam?

no its because its a new age religion and is thus beyond the normal lies and more along the lines of self replicating nano-lies

for an example see Satanism

I find pagan religions, even those that are "revitalized" to be just as relevent if not more relevent to the story of the human religious experiance than Christianity, as it is thousands of years older.

I'm sorry but young girls calling themselves wicca and spending their parents money on this trash (http://www.pagandreams.co.uk/default.aspx?gclid=COqrx5HklJECFR9WMAodSU9qGQ) is more relevant how?

also no paganism generally died out, especially in western Europe

Never heard of it.

I was just trying to point out that we don't know. I don't discount people's religious views, though I view atheism with much skepticism because it goes against so much of human history.



So does tolerance of those different from us, so we should be skeptical of tolerance too right?

See? Volitionally ignored. Thank you for reinforcing my point by telling yourself that, until you've convinced yourself your version of superstition is special and not at all as nonsensical as the others.

It's times like this that I'm actually glad to have your caustic charms around here. :)

Nope.

I just don't think atheists are correct, and I never will.

What exactly are you (religion/philosophy-wise)?

Never heard of it.

I was just trying to point out that we don't know. I don't discount people's religious views, though I view atheism with much skepticism because it goes against so much of human history.

Basically, you're a wizard, there are a number of gods (five, I think) and you fight for two things: Souls, which the gods give you the power to turn into faithful servants, and magical power, which allow you to turn souls into faithful servants as well as cast spells. Once creatures die, their souls escape and are free to be captured. Essentially, if you can get a majority of the souls, you can get a majority of the creatures and the battle turns in your favour, giving you more souls, etc...

I don't honestly care. It's not exactly a subject I discuss in real life (I avoid it as much as possible, in fact). This is mostly because I know that logical arguments will not work and theist arguments will not work either. When it comes to religion, people believe whatever they want to believe and it's always the strangest things that get people to change their opinion.

This is also why I hate evangelists. Don't see them often, but they are such a nuisance.

And many of us dont think Christians are correct, and never will.


Theres the rub, no?

Ehehe, I'm not Christian, either.

In response to Jayate:

I'm an Asatruar. Old Norse Paganism.

no its because its a new age religion and is thus beyond the normal lies and more along the lines of self replicating nano-lies

for an example see Satanism



I'm sorry but young girls calling themselves wicca and spending their parents money on this trash (http://www.pagandreams.co.uk/default.aspx?gclid=COqrx5HklJECFR9WMAodSU9qGQ) is more relevant how?

also no paganism generally died out, especially in western Europe




There are actually more adult pagans than teenage girls whom are Wiccan. The teenage girls you speak of are the Wiccan equivalent to people who wear the "Jesus is my Home Boy" shirts.

And actually, just so you know, the pagan religion revilitalizations all started in Western Europe, and are actually growing rapidly as an "alternate spirituality".

Dont get me wrong, I dont believe the whole wiccan thing either, Im just trying to point out that you cant be one religion which requires the suspension of facts and logic and call bullshit on another.

Nope.

I just don't think atheists are correct, and I never will.



And many of us dont think Christians are correct, and never will.


Theres the rub, no?

Christianity is a theism.
Atheism is a theism a theory of religion, therefore it is a religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel
Scroll down to religious tensions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/791014.stm
Difference of US forces religion, and Iraqi religion, and culture.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

Northern Ireland, Rwanda, Sudan need i go on?

ATHEISM is a belief that there is no such thing as god or religion. Therefore, it is not a religion. But please, do continue to abuse the English language, it's quite amusing.

Now please: where in the wikipedia article on Atheism you posted do they define atheism as a religion? They don't. It's defined as a philosophy, unless in your books philosphy = religion.

Where under religious tensions in your second article does it say anything about Atheism being a religion?
Where is atheism even mentioned in the profile of Iraq? It's not.
Where is atheism even mentioned in the religious tolerance article on current wars being fought, and the religions involved? It's not.
How are the religious tensions in Northern Ireland (Protestant v. Catholic), Rwanda (where religion was NOT a major component as cited on your link to religioustolerance.org), and in the Sudan connected to atheism? It's not.

When you post links, one should try to make sure they at least support what one is saying, because when people go to read them and they don't, it makes one look completely ridiculous.

Ehehe, I'm not Christian, either.

In response to Jayate:

I'm an Asatruar. Old Norse Paganism.


I just picked Christianity because its the most popular.


Really? Asatruar? I have a buddy whos really into that. Its kinda cool.

ATHEISM is a belief that there is no such thing as god or religion. Therefore, it is not a religion. But please, do continue to abuse the English language, it's quite amusing.

Well Atheists must be pretty blind, because religion is real, regardless if god(s) are real or not.

The part before the bold section is true, from my experience, but there are exceptions.

That bold part is uncalled for.

But it is not the truth

Nope.

I just don't think atheists are correct, and I never will.

All that's fine, but you must be able to see that someone's negative opinion or dismissal of Christianity is no more valid or invalid that your negative opinion or dismissal of other religions. So "that bold part" is just as "called for" as all of your opinions.

I'm afraid that's something you're just going to have to live with. Either that, or go mad trying to hold contradictory ideas in your head. I'd prefer you try the former, though the latter can be entertaining.

Well Atheists must be pretty blind, because religion is real, regardless if god(s) are real or not.

And you've hit it square on the head, haven't you? Of course religion is real -- how else would a select group of people gain such power and wield it at will over so many for so long? Your assertion that it doesn't matter if "god(s)" are real or not" is very telling.

Well Atheists must be pretty blind, because religion is real, regardless if god(s) are real or not.



*is reminded of a scene from Metalocalypse*


lol...well, that was indeed a crappy definition. Athiesm is the denial of all forms of a higher power.

Wiccan is a religion that does draw on other Pagan practices and belief. I mean comon, which religion hasn't done that? Christianity drew on Judaism, and Islam drew on both Christianity and Judaism. From the dawn of time man has been building their belief on top of another belief. Hell Christians get most of their practices from Paganism as well. Anyways, Wiccan is a religion that does center around a Goddess, but it also includes a God. Unless you're in the Diana sect where you don't believe in the God. Most Wiccans really pull their belief from different religious path, they're call Elective Wiccans. While others prefer to stay on one path. Celtic, Seax, Fairies, Dragons (no I'm not making that up). etc. Wiccans do follow the Rede which is:

An it harm none, do as thou wilt
Do what you will, so long as it harms none
An it harm none, do what thou wilt
That it harm none, do as thou wilt
Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill, An it harm none do what ye will.

Wiccans celebrate Eight Sabbath, which follows the Wheel of the Year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_of_the_Year). They also do a celebration during a Full Moon and/or a New moon. Depending on which path you talk about you'll be using a variety of tools, Wands, Sword, Athames. Every Wiccans do use an Alter, the Pentacle, candles, as well as Chalice. They use a book known as the Book of Shadows, which is basically a collection of Spells. Some Wiccans buy their book from a bookstore, others combine a store brought one with their own, and others tend to just create an entire one from scratch.

Now, yes many teenage girls get interested in Wicca, mainly because it's "Rebellious" and they want to be an individual, etc. However, from what my friends have told me, most of them don't last a year because it's just a phase. However, Wiccan does seem to have a strong base of dedicated followers here in the United States and in the UK, and it is growing fast.

And you've hit it square on the head, haven't you? Of course religion is real -- how else would a select group of people gain such power and wield it at will over so many for so long? Your assertion that it doesn't matter if "god(s)" are real or not" is very telling.

Hey now, I all I was saying is that regardless atheists belief that religion isn't real, it is. Religion has been abused by those in power, there is no denying that. But that is no reason to discard religion.

I'm an Asatruar.

And thus the same ilk as Wiccans. Sure, we Scandinavians tell our children the old Norse tales and stories and folklore along with the Brother's Grimm and HC Andersen as a sort of cultural background, but actually believing them? In gnomes and the Aesir and shit? Haha, that's just ridiculous - you may as well start believing a bull raped Europa and satyrs are jumping around playing their pipes. Or realise you're not six any more and they're just stories...

All that's fine, but you must be able to see that someone's negative opinion or dismissal of Christianity is no more valid or invalid that your negative opinion or dismissal of other religions. So "that bold part" is just as "called for" as all of your opinions.

I'm afraid that's something you're just going to have to live with. Either that, or go mad trying to hold contradictory ideas in your head. I'd prefer you try the former, though the latter can be entertaining.

I'm not Christian, but I see your point.

If Fass hadn't taken that pot shot at religion on the first page, when all the OP was asking for was info on Wicca, then I wouldn't have made my comments.

But oh well, its NSG. This is what we expect, isn't it?

Wiccan is a religion that does draw on other Pagan practices and belief. I mean comon, which religion hasn't done that? Christianity drew on Judaism, and Islam drew on both Christianity and Judaism. From the dawn of time man has been building their belief on top of another belief. Hell Christians get most of their practices from Paganism as well. Anyways, Wiccan is a religion that does center around a Goddess, but it also includes a God. Unless you're in the Diana sect where you don't believe in the God. Most Wiccans really pull their belief from different religious path, they're call Elective Wiccans. While others prefer to stay on one path. Celtic, Seax, Fairies, Dragons (no I'm not making that up). etc. Wiccans do follow the Rede which is:



Wiccans celebrate Eight Sabbath, which follows the Wheel of the Year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_of_the_Year). They also do a celebration during a Full Moon and/or a New moon. Depending on which path you talk about you'll be using a variety of tools, Wands, Sword, Athames. Every Wiccans do use an Alter, the Pentacle, candles, as well as Chalice. They use a book known as the Book of Shadows, which is basically a collection of Spells. Some Wiccans buy their book from a bookstore, others combine a store brought one with their own, and others tend to just create an entire one from scratch.

Now, yes many teenage girls get interested in Wicca, mainly because it's "Rebellious" and they want to be an individual, etc. However, from what my friends have told me, most of them don't last a year because it's just a phase. However, Wiccan does seem to have a strong base of dedicated followers here in the United States and in the UK, and it is growing fast.



Thank you.

And thus the same ilk as Wiccans. Sure, we Scandinavians tell our children the old Norse tales and stories and folklore along with the Brother's Grimm and HC Andersen as a sort of cultural background, but actually believing them? In gnomes and the Aesir and shit? Haha, that's just ridiculous - you may as well start believing a bull raped Europa and satyrs are jumping around playing their pipes. Or realise you're not six any more and they're just stories...

Yay! Do Buddhism next!

*claps* :)

And thus the same ilk as Wiccans. Sure, we Scandinavians tell our children the old Norse tales and stories and folklore along with the Brother's Grimm and HC Andersen as a sort of cultural background, but actually believing them? In gnomes and the Aesir and shit? Haha, that's just ridiculous - you may as well start believing a bull raped Europa and satyrs are jumping around playing their pipes. Or realise you're not six any more and they're just stories...

Keep on taking pot shots.

I don't care what an atheist homosexual does to try and insult me.

Yay! Do Buddhism next!

*claps* :)

Buddhism is hardly even worth it since it's not even a religion per se, just a third rate a knock off of Hinduism, and you don't need me to explain to you how preposterous Hinduism is - just rent a Bollywood movie. That way you'll also get to ogle Aishwarya Rai.

Keep on taking pot shots.

Those aren't potshots, those are the truth. Seriously, to in today's Scandinavian society believe in "Asatro"... that's an instant road to public ridicule. It really is like someone just deciding to believe in the Little Red Riding Hood.... tell me, do you believe in house gnomes? Have you fed yours porridge lately? If not, what exactly was their retribution? And do you go around destroying every wretched, murderous mistletoe you can find?

I don't care what an atheist homosexual does to try and insult me.

You don't have to, the shits and giggles you invoke in me are in no way contingent on your caring.

Keep on taking pot shots.

I don't care what an atheist homosexual does to try and insult me.
Interesting. Is that a cumalative effect? Like, if he was only one of the two you'd care? Or does one have more weight? I would guess it's the homosexual thing, because there's no discussion at all with out the atheist thing. Like, alright, you're an atheist but that still hurts, but since you're gay, too, well, then I'm okay. I wonder why that is. Well, not wonder so much...
re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən)
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

From the American Heritage Dictionary

Why does this make Atheism a religion? Your conviction does not have to neccisarily reflect equally on me. You can really really really really believe, but it doesn't take the same effort for me to not believe in something that has no evidence. And don't give me the 'you can't disprove it, either!!!' I don't have to. If you're going to believe in something because someone said so, that's your conscientious devotion. Not doing that is status quo.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13400900&postcount=45

You do realize not one of his links proves that atheism is a religion, and that outside of the Wiki entry on the article about atheism, none of the other articles mentions it at all?

Hey now, I all I was saying is that regardless atheists belief that religion isn't real, it is. Religion has been abused by those in power, there is no denying that. But that is no reason to discard religion.

It most certainly is, if religion is unwilling to see itself for what it really is and alter its course.

What exactly is Wicca? Besides the vague term "Paganism"?

Wikipedia or google. I only know basic stuff from a movie I saw (hosted by a Wiccan named Starstream) and what I've seen from a few pamphlets. They have multiple gods, believe in something called the Wicca, and follow either the Mayan or the Celtic pantheon. Or maybe both, I can't remember. The movie wasn't very informative, Starstream spent most of the time trying to convince the audience that Wiccans don't eat their own children.

Why was Fass's comment unneeded but this one some how got free pass? Is it because it only insults a minority religion instead of Christianity and Islam?

Scientology is as much a religion as NationStates nations are real nations with living, breathing citizens.

Scientology is a dangerous, malignant cult that uses coercion, abuses the legal system, and has been known to kidnap and cause the deaths of members who have attempted to leave the Church of Scientology or who have attempted to bring to light the evils of the so-called Church. (see: Lisa McPherson, Arnie Lerma, et al)

Scientology preaches that psychiatry is a farce and that, by paying enough money to the cult and becoming a high-ranking church member, you have the ability to perform miraculous acts.

L. Ron Hubbard, the creator of Scientology, has been quoted as saying, "If you want to get rich, you start a religion."

Scientology is as much a religion as NationStates nations are real nations with living, breathing citizens.

Scientology is a dangerous, malignant cult that uses coercion, abuses the legal system, and has been known to kidnap and cause the deaths of members who have attempted to leave the Church of Scientology or who have attempted to bring to light the evils of the so-called Church. (see: Lisa McPherson, Arnie Lerma, et al)

Scientology preaches that psychiatry is a farce and that, by paying enough money to the cult and becoming a high-ranking church member, you have the ability to perform miraculous acts.

L. Ron Hubbard, the creator of Scientology, has been quoted as saying, "If you want to get rich, you start a religion."



Uuuuuh I dont get the relevence of Scientology being broght up. We're talking about Wicca. Everyone knows scientology isnt a religion, its a business.

I have a Psych minor, trust me, I know scientology is absurd.

And thus the same ilk as Wiccans. Sure, we Scandinavians tell our children the old Norse tales and stories and folklore along with the Brother's Grimm and HC Andersen as a sort of cultural background, but actually believing them? In gnomes and the Aesir and shit? Haha, that's just ridiculous - you may as well start believing a bull raped Europa and satyrs are jumping around playing their pipes. Or realise you're not six any more and they're just stories...

Do Swedes still tell each other those stories? I honestly thought most knowledge of Norse Mythology died out until the discovery of the Elder Eddas or whatever its called.

That way you'll also get to ogle Aishwarya Rai.

Yay Hinduism! *ogles*

Thank you.

You're welcome. I learn a lot from my Wiccans friends. I also learn a lot from my Pagan friends as well. :)

Uuuuuh I dont get the relevence of Scientology being broght up. We're talking about Wicca. Everyone knows scientology isnt a religion, its a business.

I have a Psych minor, trust me, I know scientology is absurd.

Someone asked why a comment regarding Wiccanism as an illegitimate religion was slammed but a comment regarding Scientology as an illegitimate religion wasn't. I was clarifying for him.

Do Swedes still tell each other those stories?

Of course we do - children love them. In fact, when Scandinavia was Christianised, a lot of the old stories ended up surviving by being embraced by the Christian churches so as to appeal more to the natives. That's why the Scandinavian "santa" is depicted as a gnome (and literally called "Tomte", which means "gnome") and not as for instance in the USA where they have the Coca Cola version. It survived as such superstitions and whatnot.

I honestly thought most knowledge of Norse Mythology died out until the discovery of the Elder Eddas or whatever its called.

Nope. Children have been told to beware all sorts of Norse magical creatures that could come get them if they were disobedient; Astrid Lindgren herself drew heavily on these ubiquitous fairytales in stories like "Ronia the Robber's Daughter".

Someone asked why a comment regarding Wiccanism as an illegitimate religion was slammed but a comment regarding Scientology as an illegitimate religion wasn't. I was clarifying for him.


That was me. I was asking why slamming Wiccanism was ok but slamming other religions ie Christianity werent.


The poster I was quoting just mentioned scientology but I chose to ignore it;)

Keep on taking pot shots.

I don't care what an atheist homosexual does to try and insult me.fass being gay has nothing to do with his being a prick. they are entirely unrelated.

and fass, shut up about hinduism - it's not even necessarily a theistic philosophy, and I doubt you know shit about it. go develop a measure of cultural literacy and try to refute adi shankara or sri basavanna before you start spewing your imperialist self-centered rubbish on a subject you know nothing about. you don't get a free pass on being a eurocentric prick because you're whitewashing other cultures with western secularism instead of the western christianity it allowed to shape its focus and philosophical framework. don't think because you can hold your own in an argument against a brainless calvinist that you know anything about real religious philosophy. how exactly would you go about refuting Pratītyasamutpāda? or do you even know what that means? I doubt it.

Buddhism is hardly even worth it since it's not even a religion per se, just a third rate a knock off of Hinduism, and you don't need me to explain to you how preposterous Hinduism is - just rent a Bollywood movie. That way you'll also get to ogle Aishwarya Rai.

Having been both a Hindu and a Buddhist, I would say that you have as much knowledge about either of these religions as a 2 year old has about turbines.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13400900&postcount=45

You do realize not one of his links proves that atheism is a religion, and that outside of the Wiki entry on the article about atheism, none of the other articles mentions it at all?

True.
But the other links were to prove that religion doesn't help violence, as you asked for sources on my second point. Nothing to do with atheism but one of them, after searching through some sites i realised that athiesm isn't really a religion more a philosophy, if you really didn't believe in religion at all you'd go for anti-theism i think.
It seems you misread what i was getting at. Which was that having seperate religions can make voilence worse, that's why i had so many links on it.

Having been both a Hindu and a Buddhist,

My condolences; I guess Hinduism just wasn't zany enough for you.

I would say that you have as much knowledge about either of these religions as a 2 year old has about turbines.

You would be wrong, as seems to be your eternal lot, though.

after searching through some sites i realised that athiesm isn't really a religion more a philosophy, if you really didn't believe in God you'd go for anti-theism i think.

One doesn't have to actively oppose theism just because one is not a theist. Further, explain your implication that atheists don't really disbelieve in God, please.

One doesn't have to actively oppose theism just because one is not a theist. Further, explain your implication that atheists don't really disbelieve in God, please.

yeah i noticed that i've changed my post.
Atheists don't believe in God, as it's a philosophical viewpoint on religion.
anti-theism argue against religion at all.

yeah i noticed that i've changed my post.
Atheists don't believe in God,
Correct
as it's a philosophical viewpoint on religion.
Eh.....what?
anti-theism argue against religion at all.
Just against theism. Not all religions are theistic. Buddhism, for example.

You would be wrong, as seems to be your eternal lot, though.

You should probably stop while you're behind.

You should probably stop while you're behind.

And you should probably watch so your snout doesn't get pinched in between those sliding doors, yenta.

And you should probably watch so your snout doesn't get pinched in between those sliding doors.

I find this hilarious, I do. Because it just shows how big of a hypocrite you really are. You're pissed at the Christian Church for their treatment of homosexuality and what the Bible says about your sexuality, and some Christians do act like their better than Homosexuals yes. However, what we have seen here today is you acting like you're better than the people who believe in a religion.

How...very.....Christian of you.

All we need now is Zilam give you a fluffle and my day would be completely made.

I find this hilarious, I do. Because it just shows how big of a hypocrite you really are.

I find it hilarious that you don't seem to know what "hypocrisy" means. Sad, but also hilarious in that tragic sense... but, that has been my thought of you for most of the time, no?

All we need now is Zilam give you a fluffle and my day would be completely made.

It takes simple things for such simple people, I suppose.

I find it hilarious that you don't seem to know what "hypocrisy" means. Sad, but also hilarious in that tragic sense... but, that has been my thought of you for most of the time, no?

Hypocrisy means saying one thing but doing the exact opposite yes? So you hate Christianity because they believe that they are better than Homosexuals and pretty much put Homosexuals on par with Satan. However, what you're doing in this thread is you acting like Atheistism is better than all Religion and you're putting Religion on par with Children's story.



It takes simple things for such simple people, I suppose.

Every time I read your post Fass, I just think of The Merovingian, I just do. I bet you got the French Accent and snooty attitude down too! :)

Having been both a Hindu and a Buddhist,

Can you really say that you were/are a buddhist? I mean when you believe that the self isn't real, then there's really nothing left to be called a 'buddhist,' is there?

I am noticing a common theme, that one particular person derails a thread by making a callous and irrelevant statement which is nothing to do with the OP. I get tired of looking at threads and having to read through pages of one person turning the thread into his own 'talk about me' topic, and if I had one wish I would wish that person could learn how to answer the original topic and stay on topic. Or maybe I would wish that everyone else would stop taking the bait and responding to him. Please note... I have not stated anyones name, thus people can make up their own mind who I am referring to.

The question in the OP was basically "What is Wicca". It was not "Do you believe in religion". Nor was it anything to do with the definition of atheism.

Anyway.....
In response to the OP, Wicca is an offshoot of Paganism. It tends to differ around the world, as some sects practice different belief systems to others. Then, in all honesty, that can be said of Paganism in general. (I am Pagan myself, though not Wiccan). And it can also be said of Christianity, though that religion benefits from having 'original' written documentation for its followers to read from.
To properly explain Wicca, it would take a lot of explanation of the differences in Paganism around the globe. However, I would generalise it in the way that Wiccans believe more in 'magic' than other pagan beliefs, and less in the spirituality or nature aspects which other pagans focus upon.

Some people have given some very good explanations of Wicca on previous pages. All you need to do is cut through the irrelevant chatter about sidetracked issues, and you will get the answer you originally sought.

I would also recommend wikipedia, as was mentioned on the first page, as it is not overly unreliable in this instance. Maybe also do a google search for online wiccan sects, who tend to be very good at explaining their views on their faith to those who are willing to read it. You might notice differences between different covens, but that is to be expected.

Can you really say that you were/are a buddhist? I mean when you believe that the self isn't real, then there's really nothing left to be called a 'buddhist,' is there?

The question of whether the Buddha meant that there is no self at all or simply that there is no self in the way that we generally conceive of it is not one that has been settled, so far as I can tell.

What exactly is Wicca? Besides the vague term "Paganism"?

As a former Wiccan I can tell you:

It is the belief in a God and a Goddess, it's basically an offshoot of Neopaganism, which in my opinion isn't totally fluffy. Also, Wiccans believe in witchcraft and stuff, I got out of it because it was far too fluffy for me. I do have a lot of good sites that will teach you about Wicca. A lot of focus is put on spirituality and "the Craft", whereas Neopaganism focuses more on nature and spirituality.

But yeah, most Wiccans tend to be New Agers or "gawthik" teenage girls, which kind of turned me off and so I went back to my regularly scheduled atheism.

I am noticing a common theme, that one particular person derails a thread by making a callous and irrelevant statement which is nothing to do with the OP. I get tired of looking at threads and having to read through pages of one person turning the thread into his own 'talk about me' topic, and if I had one wish I would wish that person could learn how to answer the original topic and stay on topic. Or maybe I would wish that everyone else would stop taking the bait and responding to him. Please note... I have not stated anyones name, thus people can make up their own mind who I am referring to.

The question in the OP was basically "What is Wicca". It was not "Do you believe in religion". Nor was it anything to do with the definition of atheism.

Anyway.....
In response to the OP, Wicca is an offshoot of Paganism. It tends to differ around the world, as some sects practice different belief systems to others. Then, in all honesty, that can be said of Paganism in general. (I am Pagan myself, though not Wiccan). And it can also be said of Christianity, though that religion benefits from having 'original' written documentation for its followers to read from.
To properly explain Wicca, it would take a lot of explanation of the differences in Paganism around the globe. However, I would generalise it in the way that Wiccans believe more in 'magic' than other pagan beliefs, and less in the spirituality or nature aspects which other pagans focus upon.

Some people have given some very good explanations of Wicca on previous pages. All you need to do is cut through the irrelevant chatter about sidetracked issues, and you will get the answer you originally sought.

I would also recommend wikipedia, as was mentioned on the first page, as it is not overly unreliable in this instance. Maybe also do a google search for online wiccan sects, who tend to be very good at explaining their views on their faith to those who are willing to read it. You might notice differences between different covens, but that is to be expected.

Also, Jayate, this poster has a lot of good information. STAY AWAY FROM WICCAN SITES THAT TALK ABOUT THE POOR WITCHES BURNED AT SALEM VILLAGE! They're mostly unreliable. Wikipedia in this case isn't totally unreliable, you can click the links at the bottom (I haven't been to the page lately so I don't know if the links are reliable or even there). Googling Wicca will help lots, there aren't too many unreliable sites. I am warning you, many sites are directed at teens.

It is a religion invented in the former century that draws heavily upon concocted and demonstrably false ties to "paganism" and "witchcraft" from pre-Christian Europe. Most of its followers are new age flakes and/or emo-esque teenagers who think it's "cool" because they discovered it on-line or watched television shows like "Charmed" or films like "The Craft". Nonsense like all religions.

I actually agree with everything said here.

The question of whether the Buddha meant that there is no self at all or simply that there is no self in the way that we generally conceive of it is not one that has been settled, so far as I can tell.

I was under the impression that coming to terms with one's own non-ness was central to reaching enlightenment and one-ness with all things.

But as these are buddhist concepts, of course words are 'imperfect' and 'a poor shadow' of the true nature of things. At least the Buddhists admit they're talking nonsense.

I was under the impression that coming to terms with one's own non-ness was central to reaching enlightenment and one-ness with all things.

But as these are buddhist concepts, of course words are 'imperfect' and 'a poor shadow' of the true nature of things. At least the Buddhists admit they're talking nonsense.

Unfortunate that others aren't so honest, no?

Some wacko religiony culty thing, but not in an evil way like Scientology. They don't try to convert you and it's mainly made up of hippies and such.

I am noticing a common theme, that one particular person derails a thread by making a callous and irrelevant statement which is nothing to do with the OP. I get tired of looking at threads and having to read through pages of one person turning the thread into his own 'talk about me' topic, and if I had one wish I would wish that person could learn how to answer the original topic and stay on topic. Or maybe I would wish that everyone else would stop taking the bait and responding to him. Please note... I have not stated anyones name, thus people can make up their own mind who I am referring to.


:rolleyes: Please.

The problem isn't with "who you're referring to", but with how others react to that person. Honestly, if you've been here for more than a few weeks and haven't figured out that the key to that person is to sit back, relax, and enjoy the show, then frankly, you deserve to waste all the energy you waste on that person.

I find it so strange that the old saw about "ignore them" that worked so well in school gets completely forgotten online.

:rolleyes: Please.

The problem isn't with "who you're referring to", but with how others react to that person. Honestly, if you've been here for more than a few weeks and haven't figured out that the key to that person is to sit back, relax, and enjoy the show, then frankly, you deserve to waste all the energy you waste on that person.

I find it so strange that the old saw about "ignore them" that worked so well in school gets completely forgotten online.

Especially with the convenient "Ignore" function provided by Jolt.:rolleyes:

The problem isn't with "who you're referring to", but with how others react to that person. <snip>
I find it so strange that the old saw about "ignore them" that worked so well in school gets completely forgotten online.

I quite agree. If you notice, I did also state something similar as an option when I made reference to 'not taking the bait by responding'. It just frustrates me to see topics derailed, which ironically I am in danger of doing. Oh, the fickle web we weave with our actions.;)

When I saw this topic was about Wicca, I was interested to see what people would say on the subject. It was disappointing to see that several pages were dedicated to talking about atheism or arguing with 'the individual' over semantics, and thus nothing to do with the topic at all.

One point I would like to make, is that Wicca was not 'invented' in the last century as has been stated previously. It was around a lot earlier, but not in the form that it is now. It was, however, revived around then and has evolved into the Wicca we see now. For example, many modern Wiccans dabble in things such as Tarot or Ouija which historically have absolutely nothing to do with the 'religion'. One example of earlier Wiccans was the Pendle Hill Witches, a coven in Englands history who alledgedly dabbled in the darker 'blood' magicks which most modern wiccans shun.
I do also agree with what was said earlier about many teenagers dabbling in Wicca because they have seen it referred to on television programs such as Charmed. But, mostly they lose interest when they realise that real Wicca is nothing like those stereotyped portrayals and the wiccan magicks will not allow them to suddenly take flight or whatever else those Halliwell sisters do.

One point I would like to make, is that Wicca was not 'invented' in the last century as has been stated previously. It was around a lot earlier, but not in the form that it is now. It was, however, revived around then and has evolved into the Wicca we see now. For example, many modern Wiccans dabble in things such as Tarot or Ouija which historically have absolutely nothing to do with the 'religion'. One example of earlier Wiccans was the Pendle Hill Witches, a coven in Englands history who alledgedly dabbled in the darker 'blood' magicks which most modern wiccans shun.I do also agree with what was said earlier about many teenagers dabbling in Wicca because they have seen it referred to on television programs such as Charmed. But, mostly they lose interest when they realise that real Wicca is nothing like those stereotyped portrayals and the wiccan magicks will not allow them to suddenly take flight or whatever else those Halliwell sisters do.

To the bolded: NO. Wicca and all forms of Paganism were almost unheard of until the last centruy thanks to Christianity. What you're referring to in the first part is Paganism itself, which almost didn't survive but was reinvented in the last century, which with the addition of witchcraft became Wicca. I've never heard of the Pendle Hill witches, but if they were practicing "darker blood magic" then they weren't practicing Wicca but something else entirely, as Wiccans don't believe in dark magic (or the ridiculously mispelled version, "magick"). I'll edit later once I have more information.

However I do agree with you about the stereotypes. It's amazing how many other girls I have met on the internet who are stereotypical Wiccans: wear black constantly, babble on about love spells and astral prjection (which has nothign to do with Wicca) and then they realize :eek: It's actually a RELIGION! and then go back to their regularly scheduled Christianity so that their parents don't throw them out of the house. Myself, I was super depressed over the summer which pretty much led me to Wicca, I needed a god (or goddess) by my side, or something.

Edit: According to Wikipedia, the Pendle witches appeared to have suffered from schiznophrenia or something. You have to remember that the Pendle Hill witches lived during the reign of James I, who was obsessed with witchcraft after soem witches were accused of sending a storm to pound and batter the ship James and his wife returned to England on. Though Christianity apparently wasn't big there according to authorities, I doubt that whatever the Pendle residents practiced was an early form of Wicca. Wicca is a religion founded in the 20th century in order to revive Paganism and witchcraft, NO form of it ever existed prior to that though I will say that many Pagan traditions had survived since the spread of Christianity. So even if they were practicing any sort of witchcraft or Pagan tradition (unlikely, since in those days most witchcraft trials focused on the Devil rather than Paganism), it wasn't Wicca and they were mostly likely sacrificed so Lancashire officials could gain the favor of James I.

I'm not a historian, but I really don't think Wicca was around in the 1600s.

One thing to keep in mind when comparing Wiccans and Witches is that Not all Wiccans are Witches and not all Witches are Wiccans. :)

One thing to keep in mind when comparing Wiccans and Witches is that Not all Wiccans are Witches and not all Witches are Wiccans. :)

Indeed. Tell the Wiccans that. :p

(all of the ones I've met called themselves Witches and all of the Wicca sites I've been to seem to think Witch is synonymous with Wiccan and vice versa.)

Like some others here I am a non-Wiccan pagan (by which I mean polytheist). I don't know all the details of what Wicca is nowadays, though I am familiar with its history.

To the very good explanations given by some posters already, I would just add that Wicca is a relatively new pagan religion (new meaning 100 years or less old), as are most of the named/organized pagan religions active today. The religion that eventually became Wicca was created by a somewhat fractious group of British occultists who claimed (sincerely, I think) to be trying to reconstruct old Celtic religious forms, and who (contradictorily) incorporated forms of occultism tied to Jewish mysticism, Renaissance-period occult philosophies, and Italian magic beliefs, but that is not really all that relevant anymore. What was to become Wicca was quickly taken up by those who came after, and reworked, altered, fragmented, and redirected, as is done with all fairly new ideas.

Wicca is also a religion that a lot of people like to bash. Newness is one of the things they like to bash it for, but newness is not a weakness in pagan religions. The new religions may be new, but the tradition of inventing new religions goes back thousands of years, across many, many cultures, and is rather a hallmark of paganism/polytheism/animism, all that sort of stuff. We like to be up to date. ;)

Indeed. Tell the Wiccans that. :p

(all of the ones I've met called themselves Witches and all of the Wicca sites I've been to seem to think Witch is synonymous with Wiccan and vice versa.)

I read a beginners guide to Wicca not too long ago, and the author stated that. I think Wicca does draw on Witchcraft, but it's not synonymous with Witchcraft.

I read a beginners guide to Wicca not too long ago, and the author stated that. I think Wicca does draw on Witchcraft, but it's not synonymous with Witchcraft.

I've read many beginners' guides to Wicca, and several websites. Teh beginners' guides say that, the websites do to but then you have those who go on the sites and make the two synonymous, and then babble on about the poor witches burned in Salem Village because the ebil Christians didn't like old Pagan traditions.

I've noticed that Wiccan fundies, like Christian fundies, don't know freaking history.

Like some others here I am a non-Wiccan pagan (by which I mean polytheist). I don't know all the details of what Wicca is nowadays, though I am familiar with its history.

To the very good explanations given by some posters already, I would just add that Wicca is a relatively new pagan religion (new meaning 100 years or less old), as are most of the named/organized pagan religions active today. The religion that eventually became Wicca was created by a somewhat fractious group of British occultists who claimed (sincerely, I think) to be trying to reconstruct old Celtic religious forms, and who (contradictorily) incorporated forms of occultism tied to Jewish mysticism, Renaissance-period occult philosophies, and Italian magic beliefs, but that is not really all that relevant anymore. What was to become Wicca was quickly taken up by those who came after, and reworked, altered, fragmented, and redirected, as is done with all fairly new ideas.

Wicca is also a religion that a lot of people like to bash. Newness is one of the things they like to bash it for, but newness is not a weakness in pagan religions. The new religions may be new, but the tradition of inventing new religions goes back thousands of years, across many, many cultures, and is rather a hallmark of paganism/polytheism/animism, all that sort of stuff. We like to be up to date. ;)

I used to be Wiccan. I still find Wicca to be a nice religion. It;s just the immature teenage girls who get wrapped up in it just to rebel. I got in it for the religion itself, but got out after realizing that religion was not the way to deal with my problems at the time. Most other teenage girls just want to be different and don't even consider that :eek: Wicca is a religion!

It's really not that it's new. Wicca is basically pre-Christian pagan traditions that have been revived in the last 60 years. Scientology (which people for some reason like to compare to Wicca) is pure and outright BS-- it's not founded on any sort of philosophical thinking, its founder created it solely to make money, it's based on fiction that was new at the time. Wicca isn't a business enterprise that grossly violates human dignity, it is an earth-based religion that while somewhat fluffy still has some credibility.

I've read many beginners' guides to Wicca, and several websites. Teh beginners' guides say that, the websites do to but then you have those who go on the sites and make the two synonymous, and then babble on about the poor witches burned in Salem Village because the ebil Christians didn't like old Pagan traditions.

I've noticed that Wiccan fundies, like Christian fundies, don't know freaking history.

A fundie is a fundie, regardless of what religion they follow.

I've read many beginners' guides to Wicca, and several websites. Teh beginners' guides say that, the websites do to but then you have those who go on the sites and make the two synonymous, and then babble on about the poor witches burned in Salem Village because the ebil Christians didn't like old Pagan traditions.

I've noticed that Wiccan fundies, like Christian fundies, don't know freaking history.

Yea, I think all form of Fundamentalism need to just shut up and sit down at the back of the room. As for the Salem Witch Trials. It has less to do with Paganism vs. Christianity and more to do with various disputes that the citizen of Salem were having, and what's better way to get rid of a neighbor you were having a dispute with than to claim that he/she was a witch!

A fundie is a fundie, regardless of what religion they follow.

QFT.

Yea, I think all form of Fundamentalism need to just shut up and sit down at the back of the room. As for the Salem Witch Trials. It has less to do with Paganism vs. Christianity and more to do with various disputes that the citizen of Salem were having, and what's better way to get rid of a neighbor you were having a dispute with than to claim that he/she was a witch!

Indeed. Salem Village was mostly about class more than religion or religious practices. But you won't believe how many Wiccan fundies go around crying "Salem Village is a perfect example of persecution of Pagans! The poor witches they burned were just innocent early Wiccans, and the evil Christians were tryign to subjugate them!"

Most Wiccans however know that Salem Village and Wicca are even more distantly related than the Crusades and Native Americans.

True.
But the other links were to prove that religion doesn't help violence, as you asked for sources on my second point. Nothing to do with atheism but one of them, after searching through some sites i realised that athiesm isn't really a religion more a philosophy, if you really didn't believe in religion at all you'd go for anti-theism i think.
It seems you misread what i was getting at. Which was that having seperate religions can make voilence worse, that's why i had so many links on it.

Let's be clear here. Here is what you wrote and what I was responding to.

Christianity is a theism.
Atheism is a theism a theory of religion, therefore it is a religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel
Scroll down to religious tensions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/791014.stm
Difference of US forces religion, and Iraqi religion, and culture.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/curr_war.htm

Northern Ireland, Rwanda, Sudan need i go on?

Atheism cannot be a theism, as a theism is a belief in god.
Yay for once again answering a post of mine with something unrelated to what I had asked.
Yay for you saying "Atheism is a religion!" and with no other explanation throwing up a bunch of unrelated links.
Yay for me reading exactly what you posted properly, but your not being capable of making it clear what you were talking about.

I used to be Wiccan. I still find Wicca to be a nice religion. It;s just the immature teenage girls who get wrapped up in it just to rebel. I got in it for the religion itself, but got out after realizing that religion was not the way to deal with my problems at the time. Most other teenage girls just want to be different and don't even consider that :eek: Wicca is a religion!

It's really not that it's new. Wicca is basically pre-Christian pagan traditions that have been revived in the last 60 years. Scientology (which people for some reason like to compare to Wicca) is pure and outright BS-- it's not founded on any sort of philosophical thinking, its founder created it solely to make money, it's based on fiction that was new at the time. Wicca isn't a business enterprise that grossly violates human dignity, it is an earth-based religion that while somewhat fluffy still has some credibility.
I'm not going to argue about that at all, because you are right, even though I am also right. As a distinct religion, Wicca is less than 100 years old. The old Celtic traditions have existed in British culture, without much break, forever. However, I happen to know the other kinds of sources that the originators of what is now Wicca added to it, and which a lot of current Wiccans are pretty interested in weeding out again -- though that Italian folk magic seems hard to get rid of. I don't know why. Maybe it's because the Romans/ancient Italians were fairly urbanized, and most modern people are urbanized, whereas the Celtic traditions are almost 100% agrarian or forest oriented.

Yea, I think all form of Fundamentalism need to just shut up and sit down at the back of the room. As for the Salem Witch Trials. It has less to do with Paganism vs. Christianity and more to do with various disputes that the citizen of Salem were having, and what's better way to get rid of a neighbor you were having a dispute with than to claim that he/she was a witch!
Yes, I'm pretty tired of fundies only taking a break from yelling at each other to yell at me, too.

And as for the Salem trials -- it was SO about social feuds and land disputes. Almost every accusation was spun directly from a long-standing, on-going feud between two families, one in Salem, the other based mostly in neighboring Danvers. The Danvers folks lost. Their enemies made the right accusations at the right time, bribed the right crooked judge and sheriff, and the result was that all their property was taken by those who killed them. "Witch" takes on a whole different connotation in regards to Salem. Those trials had nothing at all to do with the accused doing anything, but everything to do with the accusers working their own kind of "black magic."

I live near Salem and like to visit that town because it's nice and has a fantastic museum and great restaurants, and because I like to see the Wiccans, goths, and other people who usually get crapped on by society put their stamp on a place. I also like to visit the memorial to the victims of the craze at the Old Burying Ground, watch the crowds of people solemnly wandering through it, and be aware that just over the wall is the gravestone of the judge who killed them, broken and unvisited -- a man so reviled that his most famous descendant, the writer Nathaniel Hawthorne, changed the spelling of his name to distance him and his family from the Hanging Judge Hathorne. Salem to me is a lesson in historical justice that all Americans should learn, but it will teach you nothing about Wicca.

Yay for once again answering something I did not ask about.

Yay for you saying "Atheism is a religion!" and with no other explanation throwing up a bunch of unrelated links.

Welcome to Debates: NSG Style! :D

Indeed. Salem Village was mostly about class more than religion or religious practices. But you won't believe how many Wiccan fundies go around crying "Salem Village is a perfect example of persecution of Pagans! The poor witches they burned were just innocent early Wiccans, and the evil Christians were tryign to subjugate them!"

Most Wiccans however know that Salem Village and Wicca are even more distantly related than the Crusades and Native Americans.

Salem Village had nothing to do with witchcraft, so much as it did with greed, jealousy, and trying to off all rivals to steal their land and power.

Salem Village had nothing to do with witchcraft, so much as it did with greed, jealousy, and trying to off all rivals to steal their land and power.

Indeed. It had almost nothing to do with religion, other than the idea of witches. It was all about rivalry and greed.

Salem Village had nothing to do with witchcraft, so much as it did with greed, jealousy, and trying to off all rivals to steal their land and power.

and the fact that they were all most likely tripping on some hardcore fungus.

and the fact that they were all most likely tripping on some hardcore fungus.
The ergot theory has been floated, but I don't think so in the Salem case. I think it was just good old whipped up hysteria ftw. What you lack in proof you can always make up in drama.

The ergot theory has been floated, but I don't think so in the Salem case.

You don't think it has been proposed in the salem case? or don't think that was what actually happened? I have read information on it, seems rather likely to me.

You don't think it has been proposed in the salem case? or don't think that was what actually happened? I have read information on it, seems rather likely to me.

I never heard of this theory before....got any links?

It is a religion invented in the former century that draws heavily upon concocted and demonstrably false ties to "paganism" and "witchcraft" from pre-Christian Europe. Most of its followers are new age flakes and/or emo-esque teenagers who think it's "cool" because they discovered it on-line or watched television shows like "Charmed" or films like "The Craft". Nonsense like all religions.

I grant that some of the followers are "new age flakes" and "emo-esque" teenagers. And I grant that the religion is largely a mish-mash of various pagan religions - much like the Bible is a mish-mash of various Middle Eastern (e.g. Assyrio/Babylonian) mythologies and wishful thinking. Most religions seem to be a combination of hostile takeover, outright plagiarism, wishful thinking and cultural prejudice. This does not, however, make their hold on the human imagination any less powerful or their effect any less dangerous.

Wicca is (at least until it gains more political power) less dangerous than most because it's first precept is to do no harm, unlike the "people of the book" whose first precept is "convert or die."

Wicca is (at least until it gains more political power) less dangerous than most because it's first precept is to do no harm, unlike the "people of the book" whose first precept is "convert or die."

Yea, I think Wicca comes ahead in that respect. The first message they preach is do no harm, and respect others. Where as Christian is "You're going to Hell for this...this...this...Oh that's a big one....and this....but Jesus can save you! As long as you follow our strict moral code and even if you don't, just ask for forgiveness and you'll get it!" At least Wiccans believe in Retribution in this life (instead of the next).

Wicca and all forms of Paganism were almost unheard of until the last centruy thanks to Christianity.
Nonsense. Like anything that is forbidden or persecuted, it does not cease to exist but instead moves into places where it can not be observed.

What you're referring to in the first part is Paganism itself, which almost didn't survive but was reinvented in the last century, which with the addition of witchcraft became Wicca.No, I was not referring to Paganism. I was definately referring to Wicca. As a Pagan myself, I am fully aware of the distinctions between the two completely different religions.

I've never heard of the Pendle Hill witches, but if they were practicing "darker blood magic" then they weren't practicing Wicca but something else entirely, as Wiccans don't believe in dark magic (or the ridiculously mispelled version, "magick"). I was referring to the earlier form of witchcraft, which Wicca used to be, and still can be depending on the mindset of the individual and/or the coven to which they belong. Wiccans rarely use the term 'witch' now, but when they do you will note that they are eager to call themselves 'WHITE witches' so as to distance themselves from those who practice the darker arts. Also, if you do some research on the word 'magick', you will discover that it is neither ridiculous nor misspelt.

Edit: According to Wikipedia, the Pendle witches appeared to have suffered from schiznophrenia or something. You have to remember that the Pendle Hill witches lived during the reign of James I, who was obsessed with witchcraft after soem witches were accused of sending a storm to pound and batter the ship James and his wife returned to England on.
Schizophrenic? Possibly. It would not surprise me if one or two of them had some mental issues to explain their wickedness, which incidentally leads me to mention that the word wicked is a Middle English alteration of wicke which came from the Old English word 'wicca'.
I have studied the Pendle Witches in much greater depth than merely browsing wikipedia. Old Demdyke, the most feared of the coven, used to sacrifice animals and children so as to perform spells to protect herself and curse her enemies. In fact, some of her coven were so scared of her that they joined the coven so they would not be her victims. To this day, many with spiritual beliefs still claim to feel the malevolent presence of the coven in the dwellings which remain. Of course, that is open to debate on its relevance to historical facts.
An interesting twist on the witch-hunters is that the most famous (whose name ashamedly escapes me due to lack of sleep) was probably practicing the dark arts himself and actually gathering a coven whilst disposing of innocent people.... and being paid while he did it. I hasten to add that there is no documented evidence to back that theory up, though there are documented implications to that end.

I'm not a historian, but I really don't think Wicca was around in the 1600s. As I said, modern Wicca is not what it was back then. So theoretically, you are quite right. But taking into account that Wicca is where the words Witch and Wicked derived, historically, you are not.

Nonsense. Like anything that is forbidden or persecuted, it does not cease to exist but instead moves into places where it can not be observed.in most cases, that means that people who (by and large) consider themselves to be very devout catholics (sometimes muslims, in africa) probably carry on old pagan traditions - like scottish people sacrificing chickens when setting up a new foundation for a building, or the russian orthodox making poppets as protective talismans, or mexicans sincerely petitioning the vatican to make an aztec death goddess a saint...however, in the UK, the protestant reformation destroyed the vast majority of that, and it is highly, highly doubtful that modern Wicca is in any way a continuation of ancient traditions...and as an aside, most of the ancient traditions that *did* survive in this way generally do not consider themselves non-christian. tell a mexican curandera who is practicing pre-christian folk magic that probably goes back as far as egypt that she isn't catholic, and she might slap you.But taking into account that Wicca is where the words Witch and Wicked derived, historically, you are not.taking into account that the people who invented Wicca at a time when romanticism and an interest in folk traditions and the occult were sweeping across europe were well educated and entirely capable of looking up old english words in the dictionary to make themselves sound more legitimate, this is not any sort of proof of Wicca's authenticity as an ancient tradition. it's perfectly fine as a relatively modern innovation - that doesn't detract from its depth in the least, in my opinion, but it's ridiculous to claim it's anything else. I could just as easily write out a "transcript" of a "scroll" I "found" in latin...and indeed people have done that sort of thing for centuries. if you read a scholarly commentary on the bible, it will mention that the book of Deuteronomy was very likely forged by king Josiah's priests in exactly this manner, which as a political move allowed what we now recognize as "orthodox", monotheistic judaism to be spread throughout Israel. there are a huge number of fakes that use archaic language, that means nothing whatsoever.

Taking this post out of order:

Scientology is a dangerous, malignant cult that uses coercion, abuses the legal system,

Sounds like quite a few religions I know. To name but one example, when the BBC broadcast 'Jerry Springer: The Opera' they received death threats from Christian groups and were almost prosecuted for blasphemy.

and has been known to kidnap and cause the deaths of members who have attempted to leave the Church of Scientology

Islam?

or who have attempted to bring to light the evils of the so-called Church. (see: Lisa McPherson, Arnie Lerma, et al)

Ever heard of Salmon Rushie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Both have suffered death threats for criticising/insulting Islam.

Scientology preaches that psychiatry is a farce

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that blood transfusions are evil, Christian Science denies germ theory (and thus basically all modern medecine) in favour of prayer.

and that, by paying enough money to the cult and becoming a high-ranking church member, you have the ability to perform miraculous acts.

L. Ron Hubbard, the creator of Scientology, has been quoted as saying, "If you want to get rich, you start a religion."

Granted most major religons frown on blatant Simony, but the idea of giving money in return for divine favours is a popular one. Televangelism anyone?

Scientology is as much a religion as NationStates nations are real nations with living, breathing citizens.

Scientology is as much a religon as any other religion...

Hypocrisy means saying one thing but doing the exact opposite yes? So you hate Christianity because they believe that they are better than Homosexuals and pretty much put Homosexuals on par with Satan. However, what you're doing in this thread is you acting like Atheistism is better than all Religion and you're putting Religion on par with Children's story.

Do you genuinely fail to see the difference between telling somebody that they deserve to be tortured for all eternity because of who they are (whether because of their race, sex, or sexuality), and telling somebody that one of their beliefs is unsupported by evidence? You must make quite a stir at debating competitions...

And what is 'Atheistism' by the way? 'Belief in atheists' or 'non-belief in theists'?

Nonsense. Like anything that is forbidden or persecuted, it does not cease to exist but instead moves into places where it can not be observed. Pagan Tradition survived, yes. However NO form of Wicca was practiced in Britain nor anywhere else until the 20th century, when it was founded to revive the old pagan religions. If any form of Paganism did survive it was not Wicca.

No, I was not referring to Paganism. I was definately referring to Wicca. As a Pagan myself, I am fully aware of the distinctions between the two completely different religions.
You might be aware of the distinctions, but you're not aware of your history. The traditions that Wicca is based on may have been practiced. Was it actually Wicca? No, because Wicca did not exist until Gerald Gardner founded it.

I was referring to the earlier form of witchcraft, which Wicca used to be, and still can be depending on the mindset of the individual and/or the coven to which they belong. But no actual form of witchcraft had survived outside folk tradition. And that was not Wicca itself, it was ancient Pagan folk tradition that the Christians hadn't managed to stamp out. Also, Wicca isn't entirely witchcraft.

Wiccans rarely use the term 'witch' now, but when they do you will note that they are eager to call themselves 'WHITE witches' so as to distance themselves from those who practice the darker arts. Wiccans CONSTANTLY use the word "witch". I have never, ever seen a single Wiccan NOT use the word to describe themselves. However no Wiccan uses the term "white witch" and they don't believe in "darker arts" as magic/magick is neutral and can be manipulated either way; there is no "white magick" or "black/dark magick".

Also, if you do some research on the word 'magick', you will discover that it is neither ridiculous nor misspelt. That was an opinion. I still think it's ridiculous.

Schizophrenic? Possibly. It would not surprise me if one or two of them had some mental issues to explain their wickedness, which incidentally leads me to mention that the word wicked is a Middle English alteration of wicke which came from the Old English word 'wicca'. Their "wickedness"? Also, the Pendle witches most likely weren't witches at all. I am aware of the etymology of the word "wicked", but funnily enough "wicca" meant "wise". However, thanks to the spread of Christianity, "wicked" now means "evil or sinful."

I have studied the Pendle Witches in much greater depth than merely browsing wikipedia. Old Demdyke, the most feared of the coven, used to sacrifice animals and children so as to perform spells to protect herself and curse her enemies. In fact, some of her coven were so scared of her that they joined the coven so they would not be her victims. To this day, many with spiritual beliefs still claim to feel the malevolent presence of the coven in the dwellings which remain. Of course, that is open to debate on its relevance to historical facts. Interesting. Care to give me your sources?

An interesting twist on the witch-hunters is that the most famous (whose name ashamedly escapes me due to lack of sleep) was probably practicing the dark arts himself and actually gathering a coven whilst disposing of innocent people.... and being paid while he did it. I hasten to add that there is no documented evidence to back that theory up, though there are documented implications to that end. Again, care to give me a source? And if there is no documented evidence to back it up, it may well just be a myth.

As I said, modern Wicca is not what it was back then. So theoretically, you are quite right. But taking into account that Wicca is where the words Witch and Wicked derived, historically, you are not. Back then? Modern Wicca certainly has evolved since Gerald Gardner. But taking into account that "Wicca" is the Old English word for "wise" rather than "A religion based on ancient Pagan belief and folk magic". Wicca did NOT exist until about 60 years ago. Soem of my details may be fuzzy (I'm a 16 year old high school sophomore, not a historian) but I know for a fact that Wicca is not the ancient paganism/folk magic itself but in fact a modern religious movement BASED on pagan beliefs and folk magic.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.And we are? Haha :D

Do you genuinely fail to see the difference between telling somebody that they deserve to be tortured for all eternity because of who they are (whether because of their race, sex, or sexuality), and telling somebody that one of their beliefs is unsupported by evidence?

One can but laugh and, boy, do I... :)

And we are? Haha :D

I think you've just won the thread. :p

Wicca/Wicke did not mean wise in Old English, that is a misconception. It actually meant 'sorceror', hence the word later altered to become witch as a derogatory term. What you have to consider is that, in those olden days, anyone whom had a claim to knowledge beyond the understanding of the general population (such as magic) they would have been labelled as 'wise' or a sage. Consider the sword in the stone legend for example, which claimed that someone could pull a sword from a stone. Then factor into the legend that, in those days, swords would have been fashioned in stone casts by only a few with the knowledge of smelting ore. The ancient clans of Breton would never have understood such things, wheras the germanic and norse people DID. It is interesting (but on the whole irrelevant to the topic) to note at this point that the legendary 'King Arthur' who pulled the sword from the stone was not even a Breton, but in fact came from the germanic areas. To break open a stone cast and produce a metal sword, could have been percieved by those with no understanding of the craft as magic. After all, many things which man does not understand are simply classified as magic or supernatural.
The fact that Wicca existed as a word which was associated with a sorceror or magic user in Old English is proof enough that , in some form or other, the basis of Wicca (or belief in magic)existed. All Gerald Gardner did was reserach and revive 'Wicca' in his own shape, hence my constant mentioning that old wicca (sorcery) was nothing like its modern representation.

Yes, magic in itself is neutral. However, I never claimed that it was anything other. It is the person who uses it who shapes it for good or bad deeds. The very nature of wiccan beliefs resides in the fact that everything has an opposing force or element. Sun/Moon. Fire/Water. Air/Earth. Light/Dark. It is like claiming guns are evil, when in fact they are neutral tools which are capable of doing good or bad deeds depending upon the wielder.

Maybe American Wiccans are content to call themselves witches, but I have many wiccan friends and associates who find the word unfavorable due to the image it conjures up (much due to the negative imagery placed upon witches over centuries of persecution). A couple even find the term insulting.

If you want my sources for the Pendle Witches, then unfortunately you would need to visit England and go to the libraries of the local council records offices. There you will discover a wealth of information about them, and indeed most other people who have lived in the area since recorded history began. Also, by visiting the actual site where they lived, you can gain local information about them. I benefit from not living too great a distance from there, thus they have been one of my topics of research during my numerous decades on this planet. You see, I find British History fascinating and relish delving into topics such as this. Everywhere I have lived, I have visited the local records department and tried to discover as much as I could... though admittedly certain eras (such as post-1900) do not hold interest for me.

It seems I am being misunderstood on the relevance of my claims that Wicca existed centuries ago, so I will try to state it clearly. The modern 'religion' known as Wicca was definately constructed in more modern times. However, the real 'wicca', the belief of magic and the use of such, sorcery, witchcraft whatever you wish to label it... has existed for centuries. The distinction of 'what is new and what is not' is made so much harder due to the incorporation of, as you have said, pagan traditions such as handfasting, and centuries of negative propoganda which has been used to manipulate public opinion of what 'witches/wicca/whatever' actually is.

Darknovae, I do not mean to sound as though I am targetting your posts and dismantling them. Nor do I wish to appear patronising, However, as a 16 year old who, by your own claims, only delved into wicca for a short while, you have fallen into the stereotype which was mentioned on the first page. To truly know what Wicca is, and where it comes from, you need to look at where Gerald Gardner got his sources from. Otherwise, you are simply admitting to blindly following something which was 'made up' by 'some guy'. Look at how badly it turned out for many people who have blindly followed 'some guy' and ended up dying for his beliefs. Research is good. The history and the information is out there, if you are willing to look for it. Take it from someone over twice your age who has studied this topic and mixed in circles of people who dedicate their lives to paganism/druidism/wicca for as long as you have been on the planet. Hmm, that didsound a little patronising, but it is not intended as such.

Do you genuinely fail to see the difference between telling somebody that they deserve to be tortured for all eternity because of who they are (whether because of their race, sex, or sexuality), and telling somebody that one of their beliefs is unsupported by evidence? You must make quite a stir at debating competitions...the difference between telling people who make claims like "all religious people believe there are people who deserve to be tortured for all eternity because of who they are" that their generalization is unsupported by evidence and...that a claim is unsupported by evidence, is substantially less. don't be melodramatic.

the difference between telling people who make claims like "all religious people believe there are people who deserve to be tortured for all eternity because of who they are" that their generalization is unsupported by evidence and...that a claim is unsupported by evidence, is substantially less. don't be melodramatic.

I can't remember generalising the beliefs of everybody who considers themselves to be 'religious', perhaps you'd care to show me where I did so? At most, you could accuse me of generalising the beliefs of Christians, as the post I was responding to specifically focussed on Fass's emnity towards Christianity and the concept of an eternal hell is largely limiited to Christianity and Islam.

This isn't exactly an unfair generalisation: over half of the world's Christians belong to the Roman Catholic church, which tends to view gay sex as a mortal sin, and many of the Protestant denominations are even stricter.

This isn't exactly an unfair generalisation: over half of the world's Christians belong to the Roman Catholic church, which tends to view gay sex as a mortal sin, and many of the Protestant denominations are even stricter.

Oh, but you have to remember that Vegan Nuts is an apologist for Christianity. He'd like to pretend that the Abrahamic religions don't call for the oppression of gay people and don't view us as subhuman, which their holy books of course do and the overwhelming majority of their organisations do, too (never mind the constant ignoring of history). Of course pointing that out, and pointing out that when one chooses one of these religions that is exactly what one is supporting, this view that being gay is bad and sinful and evil, no matter how much one would like to pretend that it isn't so... well, one is mean.

I don't mind that, especially as I want to see religions wiped out and have nothing against meeting their calls for my death or oppression with the strongest of scorn... I don't want them wiped out in the way the religions would like to see gay people wiped out, though (of course, religions aren't in any sense of the word like sexual orientations as religions are nothing but ludicrous and stupid opinions, and those are fair game), through murder and oppression, but by public criticism and education efforts and the advancement of science and knowledge, and the never-ending marginalisation of them from every recess of the political process.

So, it doesn't much bother me that I am viewed as "mean" by the religionists - I am mean to phenomena that argue that I am subhuman and will not sit silent when they air their bull.

Wicca/Wicke did not mean wise in Old English, that is a misconception. It actually meant 'sorceror', hence the word later altered to become witch as a derogatory term. What you have to consider is that, in those olden days, anyone whom had a claim to knowledge beyond the understanding of the general population (such as magic) they would have been labelled as 'wise' or a sage. "wicca" did indeed mean wise. I have a reliable source for this. Consider the sword in the stone legend for example, which claimed that someone could pull a sword from a stone. Then factor into the legend that, in those days, swords would have been fashioned in stone casts by only a few with the knowledge of smelting ore. The ancient clans of Breton would never have understood such things, wheras the germanic and norse people DID. It is interesting (but on the whole irrelevant to the topic) to note at this point that the legendary 'King Arthur' who pulled the sword from the stone was not even a Breton, but in fact came from the germanic areas. To break open a stone cast and produce a metal sword, could have been percieved by those with no understanding of the craft as magic. After all, many things which man does not understand are simply classified as magic or supernatural. It wouldn't have been perceived as magic. It would have been perceived as a skill.

The fact that Wicca existed as a word which was associated with a sorceror or magic user in Old English is proof enough that , in some form or other, the basis of Wicca (or belief in magic)existed. All Gerald Gardner did was reserach and revive 'Wicca' in his own shape, hence my constant mentioning that old wicca (sorcery) was nothing like its modern representation. "wicca" meant "wise", and yes, the belief in folk magic existed. However Wicca was not the religion practiced back then, and it shouldn't be described as those beliefs, as Wicca itself is more than that.

Yes, magic in itself is neutral. However, I never claimed that it was anything other. It is the person who uses it who shapes it for good or bad deeds. The very nature of wiccan beliefs resides in the fact that everything has an opposing force or element. Sun/Moon. Fire/Water. Air/Earth. Light/Dark. It is like claiming guns are evil, when in fact they are neutral tools which are capable of doing good or bad deeds depending upon the wielder. You're right there. However Wiccans do not have a belief in light or dark magic, just the way it is used.

Maybe American Wiccans are content to call themselves witches, but I have many wiccan friends and associates who find the word unfavorable due to the image it conjures up (much due to the negative imagery placed upon witches over centuries of persecution). A couple even find the term insulting. There are a few American witches who don't like the term. I however have had internet contact with British Wiccans and they call themselves witches too.

If you want my sources for the Pendle Witches, then unfortunately you would need to visit England and go to the libraries of the local council records offices. There you will discover a wealth of information about them, and indeed most other people who have lived in the area since recorded history began. Also, by visiting the actual site where they lived, you can gain local information about them. I benefit from not living too great a distance from there, thus they have been one of my topics of research during my numerous decades on this planet. You see, I find British History fascinating and relish delving into topics such as this. Everywhere I have lived, I have visited the local records department and tried to discover as much as I could... though admittedly certain eras (such as post-1900) do not hold interest for me. So there are no links on the Internet? Wonderful. :rolleyes:

It seems I am being misunderstood on the relevance of my claims that Wicca existed centuries ago, so I will try to state it clearly. The modern 'religion' known as Wicca was definately constructed in more modern times. However, the real 'wicca', the belief of magic and the use of such, sorcery, witchcraft whatever you wish to label it... has existed for centuries. The distinction of 'what is new and what is not' is made so much harder due to the incorporation of, as you have said, pagan traditions such as handfasting, and centuries of negative propoganda which has been used to manipulate public opinion of what 'witches/wicca/whatever' actually is. No, I'm understanding you perfectly. But I'm saying you're incorrect. The beliefs that make up Wicca have been around for centuries in different cultures and times. Wicca itself has only been around for 60 years.

Darknovae, I do not mean to sound as though I am targetting your posts and dismantling them. Nor do I wish to appear patronising, However, as a 16 year old who, by your own claims, only delved into wicca for a short while, you have fallen into the stereotype which was mentioned on the first page. How so? Because I lost all interest in the religion? Most teenage girls who go to Wicca do so to be different, to rebel. When I came I was already an atheist. I didn't need to rebel, I had already abandoned the religion of my Christian parents. Did I turn to Wicca to piss them off? No. Did I do it because I saw Charmed or The Craft? I've never, ever seen either one. I turned to Wicca because of the religious beliefs which I found fascinating. I didn't care much about the witchcraft. I was in it for the religious aspects, more than what other teenage girls are in for. I didn't fall into the stereotype.

To truly know what Wicca is, and where it comes from, you need to look at where Gerald Gardner got his sources from. Otherwise, you are simply admitting to blindly following something which was 'made up' by 'some guy'. I actually looked into several sources about Wicca. I hardly blindly followed it. I did muchbetter with Wicca than I ever did Christianity, whichis why I was an atheist pre-Wicca and post-Wicca.
Look at how badly it turned out for many people who have blindly followed 'some guy' and ended up dying for his beliefs. Research is good. The history and the information is out there, if you are willing to look for it. Take it from someone over twice your age who has studied this topic and mixed in circles of people who dedicate their lives to paganism/druidism/wicca for as long as you have been on the planet. Hmm, that didsound a little patronising, but it is not intended as such. I've researched Wicca very well. I've researched the history. These are the answers I got.

You don't think it has been proposed in the salem case? or don't think that was what actually happened? I have read information on it, seems rather likely to me.

It has been proposed in the Salem case, but I think it is not the likely answer in that case.

Sorry for not being clear before.

I never heard of this theory before....got any links?

Some articles about ergot poisoning:

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/ergot.htm

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/wong/BOT135/LECT12.HTM

http://www.hulford.co.uk/ergot.html

As you'll see, the symptoms of ergot poisoning are similar to the "symptoms" of "bewitchment" claimed by the accusers in the Salem cases. However, these symptoms had been standard in the cultural tales and legends that the Salem residents had grown up in, and were always associated with witchcraft, so it is possible that they were merely mimicking effects they had been raised by their culture to expect, rather than actually being exposed to ergot. In addition, the history of the cases gives too many hints that this was probably not a spontaneous outbreak of "symptoms" that were then "explained" as bewitchment. Rather there was a whole foundation of motive behind the accusations and the people who were targeted and who did the targeting.

Although ergot would be a reasonable explanation, I believe that in the Salem case it is more likely that it was hysteria whipped up to vent pent-up social tensions and hostilities.

http://www.pendlewitches.co.uk/content.php?page=myths - In depth examination of the witch trials, and some discrepencies discovered in their conduct.
http://www.pendlewitches.co.uk/content.php?page=demdike - Pendle Witch, Elizabeth Southerns 'aka Demdike' confession (though probably a falsified or forced confession) I should note that The Pendle Witches followed many of the rituals now followed by modern wiccans, though obviously the Wiccan Rede was not adhered to as they clearly 'did harm'.

http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/amethystbt/howwiccastarted.html - The origins of Wicca. (please note how it mentions that Gardner published the teachings of a pre-existing coven, against their will. Thus implying that wicca predates Gardner. He merely gave it the publicity, and chose a name from history to label a religion which already existed. Sort of like putting M&M's in a different packet and calling them something else...but with religion instead of chocolate covered peanuts)

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Wicca_-_Definition/id/599744 -The definition of the word 'Wicca' from Old English.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Wicca - Plus several more
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/wicca - and another example of the Old English meaning.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/witchAnd one final example which states both 'middle english' and 'old'.

It is interesting to note that when Gardner chose the Old English word 'Wicca' (which he spelt Wica), he actually chose the masculine version. The feminine version being Wicce.

I also noted whilst doing my research that the word 'wizard', which does mean wise, does not seem to have been used until the middle ages. Thus the word Wicce/Wicca predates it and any reference to wizards is probably a link to their magical nature rather than their wisdom, seeing as alternative examples are sorcerer and necromancer.

I must thank you Darknovae, as during my research I came across the confessions of Demdike which was something I had not previously seen. I found it fascinating, and I owe that discovery to you.

Do you genuinely fail to see the difference between telling somebody that they deserve to be tortured for all eternity because of who they are (whether because of their race, sex, or sexuality)...

Eastern Orthodox Christians state that Hell is simply being in the presence of God, but hating it. Heaven is being in the presence of God, and enjoying it.

Fire is just a metaphor.

Religion is not one of those things.

True, but basic information about religions is far less controversial on the whole.

Example: Who was Mohammed to Islam? A prophet of Allah.

What is the main figure of the Christian Church? Jesus, who is called their Messiah.

Is the word 'Jew' in English spelled with a 'J'? Yes.

A question one could ask about each of the three Abrahamic religions, it explains the answer, without being very controversial. If in answer to questions 1, or 2 I extol the virtue or truth of said person/ideal that could lead to controversy, however, to get information on a belief is not often that controversial.

This isn't exactly an unfair generalisation: over half of the world's Christians belong to the Roman Catholic church, which tends to view gay sex as a mortal sin, and many of the Protestant denominations are even stricter.

Ummm, pick up a book maybe? Any sin is mortal... that is, in fact, what sin is. Regardless, how is it fair to generalize all people who hold some religious belief to feel that everyone should go to hell merely because of some sects of one religion?

Also, Christianity does not advocate, nor support to the going to hell by anyone, to the Christian perspective it is a very real place, but you are suggesting that Christians condemn, however, if you read what Jesus said in the NT you would see that to be a real Christian, a follower of Christ one needs to be accepting, and tolerant, and not damning, judgemental, to condemning. I as a Christian wish no one hell, however, I understand that it is a very real fate for a very real majority, which saddens me, I do not, however make any decisions on where people themselves go after life is extinguished.

Yes, it was a grossly unfair generalization. You fail.

http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/amethystbt/howwiccastarted.html - The origins of Wicca. (please note how it mentions that Gardner published the teachings of a pre-existing coven, against their will. Thus implying that wicca predates Gardner. He merely gave it the publicity, and chose a name from history to label a religion which already existed. Sort of like putting M&M's in a different packet and calling them something else...but with religion instead of chocolate covered peanuts)


A myth to give creadence to his new religion. Nothing more.

The website linked to isn't particuarly great. For starters is fails in putting wicca in the context of the time it was created. Which is my general gripe about wicca, that it utterly fails at history and tradition and culture.

"wicca" did indeed mean wise. I have a reliable source for this. It wouldn't have been perceived as magic. It would have been perceived as a skill.

Would you care to give your reliable source?

I've studied and learned a bit of Old English. Admittedly not as deep as I would have liked, but there are only so many hours in the day. Anyway, I have never come across anything suggesting that it means wise. I am away from my books so I can't confirm by suspicions though.


An interesting twist on the witch-hunters is that the most famous (whose name ashamedly escapes me due to lack of sleep) was probably practicing the dark arts himself and actually gathering a coven whilst disposing of innocent people.... and being paid while he did it. I hasten to add that there is no documented evidence to back that theory up, though there are documented implications to that end.
Again, care to give me a source? And if there is no documented evidence to back it up, it may well just be a myth.


I believe it is a garbled version of the Matthew Hopkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins) story.

(Incidentally, Witchfinder General is a great film, dispite the tractors)



I'm not a historian, but I really don't think Wicca was around in the 1600s.

I'm a historian of sorts (I have the certificate and all). But I think you're right. IIRC you are also correct that James I was obsessed with witchcraft.

Vaguely recalled from my studies, in England at the time the practice of witchcraft wasn't banned. Just harmful (or dark) witchcraft. As I said, vaguely recalled.

Would you care to give your reliable source?

I've studied and learned a bit of Old English. Admittedly not as deep as I would have liked, but there are only so many hours in the day. Anyway, I have never come across anything suggesting that it means wise. I am away from my books so I can't confirm by suspicions though.
It is mentioned thrice, in some way, in etymology online (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=wicca&searchmode=none)

Under wicca we find:
Gardner seems to have first used it in print in 1954, in his book "Witchcraft Today" (e.g.: "Witches were the Wica or wise people, with herbal knowledge and a working occult teaching usually used for good ....").and
In the late 1960s the term came into use as the title of a modern pagan movement associated with witchcraft. The first printed reference in this usage seems to be 1969, in "The Truth About Witchcraft" by freelance author Hans Holzer:

If the practice of the Old Religion, which is also called Wicca (Craft of the Wise), and thence, witchcraft, is a reputable and useful cult, then it is worthy of public interest. However, there is no mention where these two authors got the idea, if anywhere. It might just have been an association they wished to make, and the superficial similarity between the words helps there.

But, under witch there's:
"At this day it is indifferent to say in the English tongue, 'she is a witch,' or 'she is a wise woman.' " [Reginald Scot, "The Discoverie of Witchcraft," 1584] So there is a little to say in favour of the connection, although the words aren't derived from a common source (wise (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=wise&searchmode=none) has completely different roots.)

It is mentioned thrice, in some way, in etymology online (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=wicca&searchmode=none)

Under wicca we find:
and
However, there is no mention where these two authors got the idea, if anywhere. It might just have been an association they wished to make, and the superficial similarity between the words helps there.

But, under witch there's:
So there is a little to say in favour of the connection, although the words aren't derived from a common source (wise (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=wise&searchmode=none) has completely different roots.)

That is all very interesting. Thanks.

However I hardly think it is a smoking gun. There seems to be a continuation of folk etymology (something I have noticed wicca and assorted other new-agers seem to like) and evidence that a more modern (i.e., decidedly post-reformation) usage of the word "witch" is, well, more modern :)

Any sin is mortal... that is, in fact, what sin is. SIN is the willful disobedience of the wishES of "God".
Irrelevant of your mortality. Unless, of course, Satan is dead.

I have alway like having witches around. It gives me a good comparison for just how cold the weather is. (in fact, each witch gives me two).:cool:

It seems to me, upon digging through all of the various posts, that perhaps the value and or purpose of religion has been forgotten (possibly ignored). Devling into the role of spirituality or religion in the average human's life might shed some additional and comparative light on this subject.

In essence, is it the age or membership of a religion that gives it value or its ability to fullfill a meaningful purpose? To illustrate, Wicca is certainly fairly young and a bit - haphazzard, yet it is the rituals and the belief that are core to its popularity. Rituals and traditions are comforting and practiced in many ways. Be it Christmas, birthday celebrations, the yearly gift of a Chia pet that I always give my sister, the insense spread about during devotions, or caring for the family cemetary; they all serve to comfort, control and even guide us.

I shall not try to convince my aunts or sisters that their belief in an ultra orthodox spirituality is wrong because it comforts them, gives purpose to their lives and they are ultimately the ones that need to make the choice to stay or be shunned.

Ummm, pick up a book maybe? Any sin is mortal... that is, in fact, what sin is.

Here's a tip for you: if you're going to insult other people's education, it's a good idea to make sure that you're right first. Catholicism distinguishes between 'Mortal Sins' and 'Venial Sins'. According to Catholic dogma, Venial sins if left unconfessed only equate to penance in Purgatory.

Why don't you come back once you've educated yourself? You can pick up a book if you like, or look it up on the internet. Frankly, with access to an internet connection, you have no excuse for your ignorance.

Regardless, how is it fair to generalize all people who hold some religious belief to feel that everyone should go to hell merely because of some sects of one religion?

Astonishing, apparently you didn't even read my post beyond the small section you quoted. Here it is again, try to concentrate:

I can't remember generalising the beliefs of everybody who considers themselves to be 'religious', perhaps you'd care to show me where I did so? At most, you could accuse me of generalising the beliefs of Christians, as the post I was responding to specifically focussed on Fass's emnity towards Christianity and the concept of an eternal hell is largely limiited to Christianity and Islam.

This isn't exactly an unfair generalisation: over half of the world's Christians belong to the Roman Catholic church, which tends to view gay sex as a mortal sin, and many of the Protestant denominations are even stricter.

Try reading the first paragraph.

Also, Christianity does not advocate, nor support to the going to hell by anyone, to the Christian perspective it is a very real place, but you are suggesting that Christians condemn, however, if you read what Jesus said in the NT you would see that to be a real Christian, a follower of Christ one needs to be accepting, and tolerant, and not damning, judgemental, to condemning. I as a Christian wish no one hell, however, I understand that it is a very real fate for a very real majority, which saddens me, I do not, however make any decisions on where people themselves go after life is extinguished.

More laughably poor reading comprehension. Allow me to quote myself again:

Do you genuinely fail to see the difference between telling somebody that they deserve to be tortured for all eternity because of who they are (whether because of their race, sex, or sexuality), and telling somebody that one of their beliefs is unsupported by evidence? You must make quite a stir at debating competitions...

And what is 'Atheistism' by the way? 'Belief in atheists' or 'non-belief in theists'?

How does this in any way translate to 'supporting' (unless you are one very sick puppy...)?

Yes, it was a grossly unfair generalization. You fail.

And just when I thought the inanity couldn't get any worse we get this...