If the "Pagan" question - i.e. who's Pagan and who isn't - were a political issue, it would decide elections. It's grown that large. It's come to a point where posts don't just reference others, they form catalogs of references to others. It's even spurred sub-issues: the "Christo-Pagan" question and the "Atheist Pagan" question (I have an obvious vested interest in the latter).
But in all this endless talk, few seem to have the balls to say in no uncertain terms what's really going on:
In the last post, I suggested naturalists can connect to something greater than themselves. Without literal belief in deity or afterlife, they can achieve transcendence. How?
There are myriad ways of naturalistic transcendence, but I'm going to concentrate on three major ones: through nature, community, and mind. I'll illustrate each with a story or example, then tie them together at the end.
Last time, we met some of today’s most publicly visible naturalists. Now, let’s get down to brass tacks. Exactly what does it mean to be a naturalist, and what do naturalists have in common with other Pagans?
Down to terms
You’ll hear a variety of different terms describing roughly the same circles of people: Naturalistic Pagans, Humanistic Pagans, Atheist Pagans, Agnostic Pagans, Existential Pagans, Secular Pagans, etc.
The current most popular term seems to be “Naturalistic