"Atheist Wiccan"?

[Rae'ya]

Re: "Atheist Wiccan"?

Wicca began in the early 1950s and was a goddess based practice. Part of the mystery of the three primary forms of Wicca is the names of deity which they use. I don't know what you are calling "neo-Wicca" but if you read the first two chapters of "Bucky's big blue book" there is a most accurate history of Wicca to be found. (Buckland's complete Book of Witchctaft)

I've read Buckland's big blue book, along with a dozen other seminal works on Wicca from various authors. I've also read enough works to understand the controversies inherent in some neo-Wiccan authors' opinions and presentations of their ideas. Buckland's work is not quite the infallible authority some like to think of it as being.

The common theme in early Wiccan works is that working with deity is not EXPLICITLY theistic. Most early authors are soft-poly or pantheistic at best. Many were working with deities as Archetypes and manifestations of the Higher Self. Explicit dogmatic theism is a relatively new addition to what is now called Wicca.

Anyone can put a label on anything. They can call their practice anything they want but it can be confusing when they use a name that is already associated with a particular practice. I know that you can be a practicing Jew and be atheist from discussions I have had with Rabbis so how different is any other religion. The Jew only has to follow the law of the religion to be a good Jew. What is required to be Wiccan? In the latter part of the last century one had to be Gardnerian, Saxon or Alexandrian to be a Wiccan. You had to be initiated into one of the three to be "Wicca". Today there are as many practices that call themselves Wiccan as there are "stars in the skies" and very few have been initiated or done more than read the published books on the subject. The BTW do not consider any but the first three as Wiccan and the elders that I have met are very vocal about it.

I assume that by 'Saxon' you mean 'Seax Wicca'?

I define 'Wicca' as Gardnerian or Alexandrian Wicca, and any other tradition (including Seax) as 'neoWicca'. This is not my personal language invention, but one that I adopted following years of research and discussion with pagans of all walks.

Can you actually practice Wicca without a deity involved? Most of the religion is based in the belief of goddess and the cycle of regeneration through the image of the gods who die semiannually and are replaced by their son who is the reincarnation of their father. (that is purely my understanding and I have no actual experience with Wicca outside of a few public rituals. Isn't it about the same as calling oneself non-pantheistic Greek or Egyptian practitioner?

Yes, you can. Corbin answered this one already but I'll second him. Wiccan deity work is not explicitly theistic, and is highly symbolic and heavy on the imagery rather than the reality. Think of the way the ceremonial magicians of the HOGD worked with deity names... most of them were actually Christian but used the names and imagery of pagan deities as focal points for Archetypes and tapping into personal and collective unconsciousness. Gardner was heavily influenced by the work of earlier CMs and that clearly shows in the early works about deity.

And just so that you know, DF... unlike yourself, I actually do have personal experience with Wicca. I was neoWiccan for several years, about 15 years ago. Several of the other voices in this thread were also Wiccan or neoWiccan at some point in their spiritual evolution.

And can I ask what you mean by 'non-pantheistic Greek or Egyptian practitioner'? Is that a typo or did you truly mean 'non-pantheistic'?

[thalassa]

[Clive]

Re: "Atheist Wiccan"?

Again, people can think whatever they want, but I cannot accept the idea that Wicca is "whatever you want it to be." Anybody can revere nature, it doesn't necessarily make them a Wiccan. I can accept that there are Wiccans who do not see God/Goddess as literal (although I personally don't see a necessary correlation between soft polytheism and atheism), but there are indeed core beliefs that make Wicca what it is, regardless of tradition. I suppose my bare-bones question in this matter is, how many elements can you strip from a thing before it is no longer that thing? I wouldn't make miso and call it chili con carne. They're both soups and both are delicious, but made of entirely different ingredients.

[thalassa]

Re: "Atheist Wiccan"?

Shrug, I was Wiccan in the 90's and early 2000's, before people on the internet got their panties in a wad about how literally other people did or did not believe in what they practiced. There are really only about 3 or 4 things you need for a religious practice that is Wiccan (using this as an adjective here). Whether or not you (or I or my great-aunt Mary-Rose) considered that Wicca (noun) is largely immaterial. And none of those three or four things have anything to do with the precise nature of how one believes in deity.

And, TBH, these aren't dichotomies or mutually exclusive ideas. A sufficiently complex thinker can hold multiple seemingly-contradictory ideas with logic and integrity quite easily, and without being hypocritical.

[Clive]

Re: "Atheist Wiccan"?

Certainly. It's not even a viewpoint regarding Deity that bothers me; we all have varying ideas about that, and even BTWs are not unknown to play around with paradox. I suppose it can be chalked up to me being something of a purist, albeit a very loose one. I'm hardly suggesting laying down any sort of dogma, I just don't think a specific religion, be it Wicca or any other, should be so vague as to be meaningless.

That said, the whole reason I started this thread was because the idea of "atheistic Wicca" was brand-new to me and seemed blatantly contradictory, though thanks to the many enlightening responses I've gotten here, I understand the idea behind it. As I say, I never really thought of soft polytheism as a form of atheism before, but that's a matter of semantics, I reckon.

I think, at least for me, the tendency to make sort of snap judgements in cases like these stems from the tendency of some to use Wicca as a system of snideness and hatred, particularly against Christians.

[Rae'ya]

Re: "Atheist Wiccan"?

Certainly. It's not even a viewpoint regarding Deity that bothers me; we all have varying ideas about that, and even BTWs are not unknown to play around with paradox. I suppose it can be chalked up to me being something of a purist, albeit a very loose one. I'm hardly suggesting laying down any sort of dogma, I just don't think a specific religion, be it Wicca or any other, should be so vague as to be meaningless.

That said, the whole reason I started this thread was because the idea of "atheistic Wicca" was brand-new to me and seemed blatantly contradictory, though thanks to the many enlightening responses I've gotten here, I understand the idea behind it. As I say, I never really thought of soft polytheism as a form of atheism before, but that's a matter of semantics, I reckon.

I think, at least for me, the tendency to make sort of snap judgements in cases like these stems from the tendency of some to use Wicca as a system of snideness and hatred, particularly against Christians.

I don't consider soft-polytheism to be atheist either... but it's just ONE of the expressions of 'deity' that early (and modern) Wiccan and neo-Wiccan authors discuss. The point is that something which is not explicitly theistic allows for an atheistic interpretation to fit well within it's defining guidelines. Belief in the 'God' and 'Goddess' does not necessarily need to be belief they literally exist as entities... it can be a belief in them as personification of archetypes and concepts. That doesn't necessarily make them deities. And if they aren't necessarily deities, then they can be 'believed' in as non-deity, conceptual tools that can fit into an atheistic worldview in a logical manner. Ergo, Atheistic Wicca is not half as contradictory as it would initially seem.

[Clive]

Re: "Atheist Wiccan"?

I don't consider soft-polytheism to be atheist either... but it's just ONE of the expressions of 'deity' that early (and modern) Wiccan and neo-Wiccan authors discuss. The point is that something which is not explicitly theistic allows for an atheistic interpretation to fit well within it's defining guidelines. Belief in the 'God' and 'Goddess' does not necessarily need to be belief they literally exist as entities... it can be a belief in them as personification of archetypes and concepts. That doesn't necessarily make them deities. And if they aren't necessarily deities, then they can be 'believed' in as non-deity, conceptual tools that can fit into an atheistic worldview in a logical manner. Ergo, Atheistic Wicca is not half as contradictory as it would initially seem.

I can accept that. In the end, I truly do wish everybody could just get along and treat their paths as tools of peace rather than sources of dissension and hatred.

[Azvanna]

Re: "Atheist Wiccan"?

I can accept that. In the end, I truly do wish everybody could just get along and treat their paths as tools of peace rather than sources of dissension and hatred.

Here, here! I was listening to a podcast the other day and the speaker made so many gold remarks about this exact thing. One example: 'You can be right and still be wrong at the top of your voice.'

[anunitu]

Re: "Atheist Wiccan"?

This very idea is why I am so bothered by "Dogma" in any form,in any religion or path. Dogma is very "My way or the highway".

Spiritual belief should enrich your life and allow you to grow,not tie you to a stone and limit your movement.

[Clive]

Re: "Atheist Wiccan"?

Here, here! I was listening to a podcast the other day and the speaker made so many gold remarks about this exact thing. One example: 'You can be right and still be wrong at the top of your voice.'

Oh, yes. Fred Phelps and Donald Trump can attest to that.

This very idea is why I am so bothered by "Dogma" in any form,in any religion or path. Dogma is very "My way or the highway".

Spiritual belief should enrich your life and allow you to grow,not tie you to a stone and limit your movement.

Indeed. It's not so much dogma I have a problem with; I do believe that there's something to be said about tradition, should one choose to follow it. It does become a severe problem when it leads to stagnation, this lame idea that something having been the same for a long time means it should never change, and when it's used as a tool of mind control and abuse. If dogma were given the freedom to grow and change as wisdom develops over time, that would be fantastic. If people weren't so thick-headed as to refuse to grow and learn, that would be even more fantastic.