Talk:Asatru/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Very nice

Thank you. Very nice. (While I worship the Norse, I'm not Asatru, but have a great deal of respect. I like this.) Researcher 03:53, 15 January 2008 (EST)

RationalWiki is wrong again. Most Asatru followers are white supremacist, and the "militsant racist" faction makes up the largest group. Considering there are only a few thousand followrs in the country, yet a relatively large number of the white power movement follow these beliefs, it is obvious that most followers are racist. Furry 23:12, 15 January 2008 (EST)

Nah, it's not. Remember, No True Scotsman (the part which can correctly be applied - there is a definition of what Asatrists believe and do, and that's not it). I've actually spent hours repeatedly slamming my head into a brick wall (read - arguing with real life white supremacists on Stormfront and related sites), and the ones who don't claim to be Christian (note - claim) normally follow beliefs that are closer to that of manifest destiny, than Asatru. It's like the way that groups like al-Qaida put a religious gloss on what's quite plainly a non-religious goal. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Until recently, most of the racists didn't claim to be Asatru, even though Asatru existed. They used terms like "Odinist" (which no Asatru heathen would ever use). Researcher 11:53, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Wow that is the most biased piece of garbage. With a little bit of surfing on the internet a 3rd grader could have came up with a more thought provoking artical. The one about Asatruar falling over drunk at the end of thier services is probably coming from one who has never witnessed a real blot.If your going to make an attempt to look at things with a sense of "reason" or even a sense humor it would better if you peppered it with a sense of intelligence to. ^{— Unsigned, by: 72.218.11.59 / talk / contribs}

It's hyperbole, for heaven's sake. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:51, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

Ethics

1. The Norse myths contain ethical and social teachings. Everyone agreed on that?
2. The statement in the first paragraph of the article is too grossly inaccurate to be justified as hyperbole or snark, as much of the rest of the article is.
3. The statement also assumes that one cannot have a religion without ethical or social teachings, which is of course patently false; most pagan religions put more heavy emphasis on proper behavior towards the Gods than on proper interpersonal behavior. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I just think you're too heavily invested in Asatru to discern valid criticism from invalid criticism. Does everyone agree that you have a grave conflict of interest with respect to the topic of Asatru? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have stated several times, Odinist religious beliefs are irrelevant to this particular question about the Norse myths. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have said, you're too invested in Odinism to weigh these questions rationally. It is very much relevant, and this is a concern many of us have expressed. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If we are to make this a question of personalities instead of the actual merits of the claim in question (which have been consistently ignored throughout the dispute except by Researcher and myself), I will point out that the claim was added in bad faith and that the editor who added it is not here to contribute to the Wiki, but to wind me up. He is the one with the conflict of interest, not I. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your continued denial of a serious conflict of interest with respect to the topic of Asatru is worrying. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you define "conflict of interest" for me, please? ListenerX^TalkerX 18:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not chasing the herring, sorry. Could we just move the article to an essay space and it can be as glowing an appraisal as you want it to be? Most people wouldn't notice the difference in namespace and Asatru isn't terribly important anyway. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am only interested in the factual accuracy of this article. If I were interested in removing mockery and criticism, the changes would be much more drastic. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are not interested in a critical examination of your religion, you should be doing your work in the essay space. A biased and uncritical pro-Asatru exploration is not in-line with the mission. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this article pro-Asatru? I must have missed that. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

EXACTLY. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic there... ListenerX^TalkerX 20:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say this, LX, but you're not special. We tear into every other religion and treat them with outright contempt and hostility, yet you expect us, as a community, to protect the sanctity of your little cult's article. Why should we treat you better than all the Christians, Muslims and Hindus? Why do you deserve a whitewashing, when you care little if we tear into them with gusto? Half the things I'm posting could even be backed up, if you knew anything about actual Norse mythology instead of the neo-pagan whitewashing, but you must defend your little cult against e-assaults. If we come for Allah, we're coming for Odin, too. Get used to it.UncleHo (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Odinism is not a special case; I have removed many inaccurate statements about Christianity and the Bible from the Wiki as well, as I spot them. I myself have gotten more information from the Edda than from the (justly named) neo-pagan whitewash; you would probably get further on this if you ceased to make this a question of personalities. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, you shouldn't oppose to my mentioning that the Norse gods are portrayed as a bunch of morally bankrupt assholes with no qualms about rape, murder, theft, lying or anything else necessary to get themselves ahead, as this is well supported by the Eddas.UncleHo (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not object to it. However, I dispute that this has any bearing on the merits of the ethics themselves; I, at least, do not accord them any special merit because they are in the Norse myths. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As a Norse Neopagan, perhaps no one will listen to me either, but I'm with LX on this one. There is a code of ethics in many of the Eddas and other Norse neopagan writings. Whether it's a good code of ethics or a shitty code of ethics (which can be debated, and I'll welcome any criticism of it right along with criticism of Christian ethics), to say it doesn't exist is just silly. That would be like saying the Bible doesn't contain a code of ethics, completely ignoring certain books that are nothing but said code. Researcher (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Classifying Asatru

Asatru, by our definition, is a crank idea. If you are not interested in analyzing and refuting Asatru, your work should be done in the user or essay namespace. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not; there is, by definition, none of the required evidence to the contrary. Odinism is not like creationism or a conspiracy theory, where definite claims about the natural world are made. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, we've never just dismissed religion as a whole as crank. If the collected body now wants to make all religions, by definition, crank ideas, than let us be absolutely clear on that. Is that the wiki's policy? Researcher (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to look at the definition harder. Is Asatru extremely unorthodox (like, say, .04% of the US population, for example) and is it held by those who are very vocal about these opinions? Yes, and yes. That appears to be the lemon test. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you notice, all of the examples are people who hold ideas that are scientifically demonstrable as false. None of them are people who just hold to unpopular religions. Moreover, other than ListenerX, I've never met an Asatruar who was particularly vocal about their opinions. In fact, all of the Asatruar I've met tend to be rather reserved about it, only talking about it with people who share some of their views. I reject your application of the term "crank." Researcher (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on now, Asatru will be held to the same standards as any other religious belief on this website - stupid and lacking evidence. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That the examples are of a particular kind of crank is irrelevant because they are only examples (perhaps it does suggest that we need varied examples). Asatru is unorthodox. We have vocal proponents. Your rejection of being a crank is expected, but irrational. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC²) That is true; I am more vocal than most, at least on the Wiki here. And even I am not trying to convert anybody.

Neveruse, if population figures are to be used in that way, might I suggest looking at the proportion of atheists in the population?

Ace, since we do not claim any "evidence," as creationists do, that is immaterial. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

PJR isn't trying to convert anyone, either. He's desperately trying to justify an irrational system of belief. Asatru is an irrational system of belief. It will be analyzed and refuted or it will be ignored. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me. PJR is trying to convert people. And before you go throwing out claims of "irrationality," wherever are these astounding scientific proofs that falsify Odinism in the same way that PJR's creationism is falsified? ListenerX^TalkerX 20:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, but that's beside the point. And before you lecture me on "irrationality", do you even have the type of falsifiable claims that would form a rational system of belief? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You are sounding very precious now LX. But we have fought enough so I'll leave you to it. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what sucks, Ace. Because LX is so heavily invested in Odinism and because he is so prolific in his editing of this wiki, he has free reign to control this article with a complete conflict of interest, perpendicular to the missions of this site. He practically gets a free pass, if only because he is truly pathetic. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that at no time have I threatened to remove myself from the Wiki over the content of this article. I shall not control it to any more extent than I can defend. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I call straw man. That is the criterion for a scientific hypothesis, not a rational proposition. I do not claim, as PJR does, that my religion is supported by science. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And so your rational basis consists of...? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that the only argument you make on this page in favor of Odinism being irrational is an argument by assertion. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that you have proffered no argument for Odinism being rational. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have: that for a belief to be irrational there must be evidence or arguments contradicting it. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Any chance I can cite Occam's razor and be done with your nonsense? And is your rational basis for Odinism seriously that there is no evidence contradicting the unfalsifiable claims it makes? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence or arguments. There is such a thing as the reductio ad absurdum, after all. Do you have any better basis for strong rationalism? (Hint: That has been falsified.) ListenerX^TalkerX 20:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your rational basis is that there is no evidence against your unfalsifiable claims, correct? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Take two: Evidence or arguments. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And how do you justify that criterion? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

By something called logic. Heard of it? ListenerX^TalkerX 20:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and you're abusing the fuck out of it. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A proposition, if inconsistent/irrational, will entail a contradiction by way of reductio ad absurdum. Put up an argument or shut up about it being irrational. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You're the one claiming it's rational. Put up an argument for it being rational (which does not consist of there being no argument that it is irrational) or shut up. The burden is on you if you want other people to consider Asatru a rational system of belief. Also, I forgot if we talked about this awhile ago, but do you believe that last thursdayism is a perfectly rational system of belief? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

First, you go ahead and give me an argument that strong rationalism is rational. The intent of this exercise is to demonstrate the stupidity of your own challenge. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

H₀: No one believes Odinism is rational.

H₁: Odinism is a rational system of belief.

Knock yourself out. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked for an argument about strong rationalism. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Red herring. If you mean to undermine rationalism, what's the point of this conversation? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Put up an argument or shut up about how strong rationalism has a rational basis that Asatru does not. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfair standard

Ace, I have a lot of respect for you, so I want to point out that it's pretty apparent that Asatru is actually being held to an unfair standard. I won't argue that any religion is defensible from a rationalist point of view, but to say that the ancient Norse writings do not have an ethical system or that all Asatruar are neo-Nazis is an entirely different matter. Researcher (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Blinded by conflict of interest, that's all. You're unable to see the double standard you're enforcing. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with you when the asshole editor was trying to tie you in with Neo-Nazis however you must see that on RW your religious beliefs will, like all others, be held up for scrutiny and ridicule. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ace, I ridicule my own beliefs and my co-religionists all the time! All I ask is that factually wrong things not be said, such as the bit about there being no ethical standards in the old Norse texts. (And for proof of my own ability to take criticism, I added some of the criticism in this piece my own self.) Researcher (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ditto; I have added more than one joke to this article myself. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Claims by Asatruar that Asatru has such a basis

I have [a rational basis for Odinism]: that for a belief to be irrational there must be evidence or arguments contradicting it. - User:ListenerX

You claimed that your rational basis for Odinism was the lack of evidence or argument against it. That's exactly what I put in the section. What about this do you not understand? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You have not established, as stated in the removed section, that this is not in fact a rational basis (by which I do not mean "an argument that it is true," in case you were confused about that). ListenerX^TalkerX 21:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The rational basis is that there is no irrational basis. That could be even funnier. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is also a pile of bunk. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Felidae Asatru lives another day

If only because LX is a pathetic fuck with nothing better to do and I have to go. Seriously, this article is a problem and the neo-paganists here are perpetuating it. Something needs to be done. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate to agree with a person such as Neveruse, who is a like cancer eating out the rational and good-natured heart of this project, but perhaps LX should be banned from editing this article, much as User188 is banned from editing the Moonies article @ WP. He's obviously too close to it to be subjective. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I know someone better figure out how the page is supposed to look, I'm tired of looking at reversion after reversion (and most recently deletion), and none of the new information being added is referenced in any way. It seems that every bit of new information is opinion. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 21:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I have done nothing even remotely controversial to this page except revert disruptive point-making and remove demonstrable untruths. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that, and I'm not pointing fingers. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 21:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that some consider me biased (as a non-Asatru Norse Neopagan), but I'll gladly do my best (especially now that I've cooled off a bit) to make this fair and readable. But not without the blessing of a few other editors first. Researcher (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole article (and talk page) is going down the crapper pretty fast. Everyone just needs to step the fuck back from the keyboard for a few hours, and give it a break.-- 21:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with TheEgyptian here. Personally, I have no stake in the matter, and am sadly unfamiliar with Asatru, so I hope to learn something from this. But make sure it is factual and well referenced. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 22:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This precludes the argument that there should even be an Asatru article. Granted the Asatruar who patrol this article will never admit it's a crank idea and neopaganism is by nature not fundamentalism, it has no purpose on RationalWiki. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Asatru - Mission Relevant

I think this page is relevant to the mission of RW. Religion is a factor in many of things we discuss, and no one here would deny that Asatru is relevant to the debate over political theories that invoke northern european ethnic/cultural and religious identity, and discussing such movements is certainly a part of RW's mission. I'm not saying we should go easy on Asatru, I am saying we should be willing to have an informed article on it. -- 00:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a big part of Asatru (not all of Asatru, but a big part) that does fall under the mission, due to their connections with Neonazi and other racist ideologies. This page could acknowledge that, and try to debunk that, without going so far overboard as to slander all Asatruar. Researcher (talk) 06:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the neo-Nazi element is mostly in the Anglosphere, and the Scandinavian groups are not very racially-oriented. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, but it does exist in American Asatru. However, the "folkish" element is present in all variations I believe, and that is also explicitly racist, and deserves explication (particularly as, once again, it's not nearly as prevalent as the racists want others to think.) Researcher (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We could put in a section on Stephen McNallen's "meta-genetics" (a theory dealing on the Spiritual Dimension of Heredity). I would not call the folkish currents racist per se so much as a smokescreen for racism, like the idea of "White Pride." ListenerX^TalkerX 07:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, it's racialism, even if not explicitly racist. Researcher (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Asatru makes no psuedo-scientific or anti-scientific claims, right?

Neopagans who patrol this article are unwilling to see it labeled a crank idea. Given.

Asatru is inherently not authoritarian or a form of fundamentalism. Agreed?

This article is clearly not on mission. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither is Manitoba. Or Kentucky. Or analytical chemistry. Researcher (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not a logical argument for keeping this article. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Asatru's association with neo-Nazis, which is acknowledged, qualifies it. There are also some pseudo-scientific claims made by individual Asatru adherents, but they do not claim them for the religion's dogma, as, e.g., Christian Scientists do. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) ::::My point is that we have traditionally allowed editors to keep up articles (that are not stubs or legally questionable) just for the lolz. Some of us are very interested in Asatru, and there have been non-Asatruar editors who have expressed an interest in the topic. Unless we are going to go out and start rigidly enforcing "mission" on every single article, there is enough of a reason to keep this here. Researcher (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) It qualifies it as what? Crank? If the psuedo-scientific claims are not made on behalf of the religion, they are irrelevant. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as you're not making shit up so you can keep it and you're admitting that we're keeping this, basically, because you and ListenerX are neopagans, that's better than trying to shoehorn this article into the mission. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Qualifies it as an exploration of authoritarianism. We are not loath to explore Christianity's connections with Nazism either.

I personally care little if the article stays or goes. I will, however, be objecting to bad-faith and fallacious attempts to declare it off-mission. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As I object to the bad-faith and fallacious attempts to keep it out of personal interest. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC)We have articles on all the other religions (or should have, I don't see cao dai anywhere) so why not this. the questioin is not whether it should exist, but who should edit it. At the moment it reads too much like a reasonable article, but this is RationalWiki, we don't do reasonable encyclopedia articles. It needs more jokes and a bit more on the racism controversy - what, for instance, is Asatru doing in-house to deal with the racists? It also needs some critical views to stop it looking like a puff piece. people who are too close to the subject shouldn't be working on the article, except to correct glaring errors. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that ListenerX attempted to address the issue of racism, but his bias led it to read more like apologia than an exploration. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Insofar as they are not making schisms left and right, they are doing the same thing Christian churches do in that case: stating that their religious doctrine does not endorse racism. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that they are not endorsing racism? Neopaganism doesn't have much of a doctrine, and what it does have is arguably influenced by racism from what I understand. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Neo-paganism tends to be an orthopraxy rather than an orthodoxy (i.e., almost no doctrine). Modern-day Asatru interpretations of the myths do tend to be racially tinged, especially the Odinic Rite's stuff. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)