So Golarion has a place called Rahadoum where the "laws of man" are in place and everyone is "atheist."
I'm trying to make then most fedora tipping, m'lady-ing, euphoric, intellectual checkmate placing atheist neckbeard possible.
For the class I'm going with samurai because "muh superior eastern philosophy" and "muh glorious Minkain steel folded 1000 times"
The rest of the party are a NG pacifist oracle powered by a god, a lore oracle ex priest, a celestial bloodline sorcerer who wants to be a paladin of Iomedae and a slutty kitsune swashbuckler who uses a wakazashi.
This is a backup character, in case my current character dies. I want to be well prepared.
I've already prepared to argue rhetorically against the evils of organized religion and the callous detachment of the so called "good" gods who let atrocities be committed in their names, and I'll use boots of the earth for out of combat healing.
He is going to be white knighting, so lawful good seems appropriate for alignment, what are some other things I can work into the character?
How do I make him the most neckbeard arch-atheist?
>>47757418
Just take a deep breath, relax, and be yourself, OP.
>>47757418
>not playing the fighter from there that gets a Sr to divine spells.
Come on now.
>>47757418
Have him constantly try to get into a debate with everybody who is religious.
Also, make him lecture people about how they deserve bad things to happen to them.
>>47757644
Source on this? Cause that sounds fucken rad.
>>47757681
What should the justification be for why bad things should happen to them?
>>47757418
Make him fight for feminism and gay rights and constantly berate anyone who doesn't understand his advanced atheist egalitarianism.
When faced with the shortcomings of atheism, always claim the example "wasn't real atheism but a corrupted version".
>>47757418
Why? That character sounds just needlessly antagonistic, considering the other players.
>>47757767
"Well your religion says that its okay for x to happen to other people, so you deserve it when things like that happen to you!"
Or have it be "Religious people are biggots who deserve bad things happening to them."
Also, have him completely misinterpreting huge chunks of the religions he's bashing and ignore all the good things they do, like charity.
I'd be coming in at level 10+ so I'm considering STR investigator as a 4 armed gargoyle, since they just released some atheist investigator talents.
But ideally I'd be some kind of fat fuck with a flying rascal scooter.
>>47757804
Yeeessss, delicious "not real atheism" defense.
>>47757828
DM will prolly love it given that he originally had to shoot down the "all paladin party" the other players were tying to grief him with at the start of the campaign.
>This character is a dumb caricature of a group of people i dislike in real life
Genius OP, i'm sure everyone will appreciate your wit and creativity.
Actually no, those characters are never interesting.
>>47757681
>Also, make him lecture people about how they deserve bad things to happen to them.
Isn't explaining why bad things happen literally the purpose of religion?
>>47758028
>Isn't explaining why bad things happen literally the purpose of religion?
Yes, which is why atheism is like a religion. Which is IRONY.
>>47757444
I kekked a bit
>>47758003
This
I bet OP makes whiny ">the church is actually evil" threads too
>>47757931
Right, time for some metadetails here.
There's a series of 3 books in the Golarion setting, which were written by an Angel, Tabbris, who was tasked with learning the truth of the planes and putting it to paper.
In learning of Heaven he wrote on the subject of good, the exalted and beauty, then he left to learn of the rest of the planes and was lost.
Aeons later he returned a changed, fallen creature and threw down before the gods themselves two other books, which make a mockery of the truth of the first and was banished from Heaven for fulfilling his task and duty (And for tearing a piece of himself free to guard/power the evil book).
The books were called The Chronicles of the Righteous (The Good Book), The Concordance of Rivals (The Betweeny book) and The Book of the Damned (Take a guess)
Supposedly these books between them contain the nature of the planes, of good, of evil and how all gods, not just the evil aligned ones make a mockery of anything even resembling justice, the BotD contains in its pages the Truth of Reality, a secret so foul and vile that learning it can shatter the good in even the purest of hearts and cause them to lose faith, if this secret ever got out it could damage the fabric of reality itself.
What you need to do my nigger, is play a character that wants to read the shit out of all three books and then reveal to the world the foul secrets of the gods themselves and their secret agreements with the forces of Darkness.
Be the Snowden of Fedora-tippers, learn the truth, leak it to the world and take a huge, steaming turd on all sides of the Great Game by showing everyone whats happening behind the screen.
No need to rant about how the gods are all evil, after all then the Gods'll know you're planning something, just manipulate events constantly and do neverending research towards your goal of finding all three books.
Seek the Knowledge that they hide from mans eyes and then tip your Fedora so hard it breaks reality.
>>47758068
It's just that I've never heard any atheists say anything like that. Maybe have him be incredibly fatalistic with a "shits going to happen anyway so why bother" attitude would fit better while still ironically mirroring the attitude of religious types
>>47758028
Some atheists (the crazy ones) think that christians being murdered is a good thing. They're the same people who sitck (DIE BIGOT) stickers next to those fish things people have on the backs of cars.
>>47758218
Gross, I guess I just don't know enough assholes then.
>>47757767
I believe it's in that God-aweful "Fighters of Glorarion" supliment, you play as a fighter from said Not!Greece Athiest land and get spell restive to ALL divine spells, including healing spells and magic items.
It really sucks in the long run, but could work for someone like the character you want.
>>47758144
That is a delicious endgame and I am all for it. The DM wants to work in our back stories so he would probably let me go down that path. The best part is the pacifist oracle wants to prove that the "Iron Gods" are "false gods" and thus not worthy of worship.
So I would be "helping."
>>47758003
I'm not trying to make a straw man, I'm making the iconic neckbeard weeb atheist. Based on an actual subculture.
------------
Im still not sure what the MLP analog should be. Maybe a series of morality parables written for little girls?
>>47758388
I think that's a cavalier archetype, so I could see if the DM would be willing to adapt it to samurai.
>>47758471
My Enlightenment Pony?
Oh, I've got it! My Little Brownies. Big eyed fae used in fairytales. Perfect.
I still need a name though. What's a name that screams iconic atheist neckbeard?
>>47758531
Probably is, truth be told, I never paid too much attention to the splat books for Golarion, mostly because they usually weren't worth it as much as the "advanced x guide", "Ultimate Y" or "Inner Sea Z" books.even after I sold all my Pathfinder stuff I still have inner sea gods just because the pantheon is pretty cool.
>>47758685
Jon TrueSeer. Get it?GET IT, YOU PLEB?!? I don't know why I bother. *rolls eyes*
>>47758531
I actually do remeber the book, it's called "inner sea's combat."
>>47758685
Fenyr Ar'dura.
>>47757418
>Tips crucifix
>>47757931
>not real atheism
I don't understand what that means, I have never seen someone use that defense against.... Something? I'm atheist and everyone I have met is just cool with it because I'm not a dick about it and I don't judge them or even really care.
I have seen asshole atheists claim that religion is inherently evil or wrong because of bad thing X. Is "not real atheism" a defense against "atheism is evil because of bad thing X"?
>>47757418
>"atheist."
They aren't though
They realize deities exist, they just refuse to allow their worship in the country.
Less atheist, more militantly non-religious.
>>47757804
>When faced with the shortcomings of atheism
What shortcomings?
Atheism isn't a belief structure, it's a lack of a belief. Atheism literally just means 'without god', as in, without belief in god or gods. You can be a gnostic atheist, I guess, though the vast majority are agnostic atheists, but even then, the only thing any two atheists would have in common is that they lack belief in a deity.
>>47760430
Antitheists
>>47760430
"Anticlerical", I think, would be the proper term.
Better question; how would you make an extreme religious character, but also extremely unspiritual? An atheistic religion, if you will.
>>47760451
Atheism makes you an asshole would be an example but that's based on experience with fedora tippers not steming from some objectionable fundamental spect of atheism, essentially the same kind of falacious argument a fedora would use to point out the short comings of religion. Not suggesting atheism makes people assholes just giving more ammo for OP to use, since he should definitely use the same argumentation for religion which would be hypocritical and therefore hilarious.
>>47760959
Atheistic religions exist in real life.
Jainism, Buddhism (deva is often translated as 'god', but that's not its meaning), etc. There are Hindu sects that treat their scripture as pure allegory, refuting the idea that actual gods exist.
>>47761144
>atheistic religion
That's a fucking philosophy/metaphilosophy.
Holy shit you kids fail so hard at simple language.
>>47757418
When you see an attractive woman, immediatly dote on her and treat her like royalty.
When she rejects your advances for being creepy and unwanted immediatly start screaming misogynistic slurs and her.
Crawl back to your party shit-faced and whine endlessly about how nice guys finish last.
>>47761186
Religion is defined as the structured belief in a superhuman force. Not belief in god/gods.
You're free to tell Jains and Buddhists that their religion isn't a religion, but you're not going to be convincing anyone.
>>47758210
>It's just that I've never heard any atheists say anything like that.
Clearly you haven't met a recent-Atheist convert from evangelical Christianity.
The Christianity goes away, but the evangelism doesn't.
>>47760370
>I'm atheist and everyone I have met is just cool with it because I'm not a dick about it and I don't judge them or even really care.
See >>47761352. Many atheists, at least from firsthand experiences growing up in white, suburban Houston, are typically just as "religious" about being atheist as religious people are about their religion. These are the types of people who form atheist clubs, organize anti-religion events and meetings, have book talks aboutthat ponzi-scheming Not!PreacherRichard Dawkins and how he's the best thing since Jesus, and generally tell people who they're idiots for believing in "bronze-age cults that worship a sky god made of clouds"Fuck you Micheal just thinking about you makes me mad even ten years laterwhile ignoring the fact that they're shitting on other people for their religious beliefs.
It's such a specific and prevalent type where I live that we've subconsciously created two different categories of Atheist - "Atheists" are what I described above, while "Non-Religious" is anybody who, simply put, just doesn't believe in religion.
Of course, your results may very.
>>47760370
Yeah, basically. Whenever a non-religious regime commits crimes it's because of their atheism, but whenever a theocratic regime does the same thing it's a perversion of the religion.
Ironically, it's the atheists that are accused of using a "no true Scotsman" argument
>>47760451
>it's a lack of a belief.
The concept of "Nothing" is still something, anon.
>>47761442
Yeah, but atheists don't have some shared belief about a great nothing that created everything. They might believe in big bang theory, or in some other model for the universe's creation, but that is a separate issue from their lack of belief in a god.
Atheists do not put faith in and worship nothing. They just don't believe in a god. Atheism is not a belief.
>>47760370
As it turns out, every belief system in the world have a bunch of dumb fucks (not you,btw) ruining it for everyone else.
>>47761436
>Whenever a non-religious regime commits crimes it's because of their atheism,
If you're referring to the Soviet Union and other Communist regimes systemically wiping out religious groups, that's not really a great example, because it was flat-out stated that WAS the reason by those regimes on multiple occasions.
>but whenever a theocratic regime does the same thing it's a perversion of the religion.
Depends on the religion (Sometimes yes, sometimes no), but when your argument is "Religion v. No Religion," the concept of religion in and of itself doesn't lend itself to violence against non-believers. On the same coin, neither does non-religion, either.
>Ironically, it's the atheists that are accused of using a "no true Scotsman" argument
Both sides get accused pretty heavily by each other, and they're both as right as they are wrong.
>>47757418
Have some hypocrisy and double standards. If a religious man says something, it's wrong. If a philosophically illiterate biology professor says something, endlessly suck that man's cock.
>>47761532
>If you're referring to the Soviet Union and other Communist regimes systemically wiping out religious groups, that's not really a great example, because it was flat-out stated that WAS the reason by those regimes on multiple occasions.
Consider: communism is not atheism.
Communist governments have been atheist. However, it's not their atheism that propels them to perpetrate acts of violence, as atheism is not an ideology - it is quite the opposite, it is a void of a certain ideology.
The acts of violence perpetrated by communists are motivated by communism.
Everyone's talking about religion or atheism, and here I am just simply not caring.
Is there a term for people like me who just simply doesn't care either way?
>>47761430
Oh god I'm having flashbacks.
> atheist clubs
Maximum shame.
>>47761594
A good player.
>>47761594
Atheist.
I mean, if you don't care, you don't believe in god, right?
>>47761594
Lurker. Should have kept at it.
>>47761614
How can there be non-belief if I don't even care?
>>47761581
Considering how it was state policy that atheism be enforced, I say there's plenty linking their atheism & some of their actions.
>>47761430
This is a very USA thing.
It's pretty much what happens when you have people realizing they've been lied to (from their perspective) their entire lives and find themselves suddenly in a minority that is often hated by the majority - which may include their families, friends, etc.
People who feel isolated like that tend to form clubs, societies, etc.
>>47761639
...Because you don't believe?
Atheism isn't a belief in nothing. It's a lack of belief. If you don't care enough to believe, you simply don't believe.
Specifically, you're an agnostic atheist. Agnostic, as in without knowledge (you don't claim to know anything for sure or care to find out), and atheist, as in without god (you don't believe in god).
>>47761581
>Consider: communism is not atheism.
Correct. But atheism is, and always has been, a hefty part of Communist doctrine. Communist doctrine justified violence against religious individuals by citing the idea that atheism is the "correct" belief.
>The acts of violence perpetrated by communists are motivated by communism.
True. As stated, however, atheism, by their own admission, was a crucial tenet of Communism, and was used to justify their actions.
I totally agree that atheism isn't inherently violent, or condones violence, or what have you. Just saying that it HAS been used as a justification for violence in the past. It is therefore, for all intensive porpoises, no different from religion when it comes to inciting violence.
>>47761647
However, atheism does not teach that state policy. Atheism does not teach anything. It's not an ideology.
Communism teaches that policy.
You don't believe the mass-scale taking of slaves and their atrocious treatment by the Ottoman Empire to reflect in any way on Christians because Muslims and Christians are both theists, do you?
>>47761694
Huh, I've never heard it mentioned with atheism combined, but I remember being told that my grampa was agnostic.
I still don't feel like calling myself an atheist though, I just don't care.
OP I hope you're taking notes. Just have your character spew all the self righteous bullshit in this thread and you're golden
>>47757418
Have him confuse religious people with the setting's equivalent of flat earthers. My friend's dad is exactly this kind of atheist and it kills me every time I meet him.
>>47761767
>I just don't care.
Literally what atheism means bro.
If you don't want to say "I'm atheist" to people because you're afraid they'll treat you differently, that's valid, though. But if you don't actively believe in a higher power, that's atheism. It's what the word means.
>>47761744
>atheism does not teach that state policy
Irrelevant. Doesn't directly teach =/= can't influence.
>It's not an ideology.
It's an opinion/stance/something people think. I can think there are no black swans. I can think that belief in black swans is harmful & justify doing harm to said people through said belief.
>it's communism not atheism
Communist enforced state atheism is still atheism. Their atheism had influences on their policy. Not all forms of atheism but it's a form.
>>47761828
>actively
I've never even spent any time in taking the effort to determine whether or not I believe or not. I just don't care.
>>47761705
I see your point.
I would argue that instances of religious violence have their basis in scripture, however, which is a component of the religion itself. Whereas communist violence is not given justification by atheism, which has no core literature intrinsic to it, it's given justification by communism.
You're also incorrect in some regards when it comes to communism, by the way. Communism does not object to theism, it objects to organized religion, on the rather unseemly basis that all organized religion is a means by which the proletariat is deprived of what is supposedly his. It's anti-religious, not anti-theist. A communist can believe in god all they want, and many did/do.
>>47761694
>It's a lack of belief.
Time to jump down the philosophical rabbit hole:
Atheism is defined as a lack of belief. This is correct.
However, if you have any understanding of a concept, you therefore, by extension, have some sort of belief on the matter - the human mind must make associations and link ideas together to remember a concept or idea.
You can't NOT have a belief about something you comprehend, as you have to belief SOMETHING about it in order to understand it.
Therefore, you can only "lack belief" if you've never been exposed to religion as a concept. IF you've been exposed to it at some point in your life (and if you're in this thread you already have), you must have made a choice in order to understand it.
TL;DR You can't lack a belief in something unless you don't know about the concept at all, because otherwise you have to choose what to believe in.I'm not saying Atheism is wrong or anything, just saying that "lack of belief" isn't an accurate applicator for the belief system
>>47761828
>>47761767
>If you don't want to say "I'm atheist" to people because you're afraid they'll treat you differently, that's valid, though.
To piggyback here, just say, "I'm not very religious." Has nowhere NEAR the connotation of "I'm Atheist," which implies you're anti-religion and anti-God (correctly or not).
>>47761916
This is incorrect, as choice =/= belief.
An atheist who understands the god concept can be said to believe, yes, that there is not enough evidence to convince them. In which case, this has no bearing on the matter of an actual object of belief - either way, their atheism does not place their belief in anything specific.
Alternatively, they can be like >>47761883
and have simply never given enough of a shit to really think about it. A lot of atheists raised in atheist households are like this. They've never had the concept pushed to them, and so they've never even really considered it seriously.
I was probably this kind of atheist until I really got into mythology and theology and started to actually evaluate stuff and look for signs of validity in a few different faiths. The idea that god could really exist did not even occur to me while I was a child. It was just something other people believed in, something that occupied the same sort of space in my head as stories about Thor or whoever.
It feels like nerds scrambling to distance themselves from nerdy stuff makes them look even more autistic
There was a sperglord in my CS class who'd flip out of you mentioned anything related to 40k, Anime, Atheism, or MLP even as a joke
Just made a spectacle of himself
>>47757418
>How to play the most neckbeard, worst kind of atheist
Act like a theist.
>>47761943
Yeah, I'm aware, which is why I said that's a valid choice.
There's no reason to shout anything from the rooftops, and wanting to avoid being ostracized is perfectly understandable. I'm lucky to live somewhere where that's never been an issue for me, but I'm aware that a lot of people don't really know what atheist means and are looking for any old reason to have beef with their fellow man.
>>47762016
>They've never had the concept pushed to them, and so they've never even really considered it seriously.
I wonder if this were to imply that animals & plants can be called atheists.
>>47761744
>atheism does not teach that state policy
And theism altogether doesn't teach anything like that either. Forms of theism do. The definition of religion is that it's a personal belief of divinity & such, nothing else. There's so much diversity in the number of different theists that it's virtually impossible to find something all theism does aside from being theism. The Soviets' form of atheism was very anti-religious. Not all atheism is but their form is.
>>47762093
Hah, I suppose you're right, in the purely technical sense.
The Hi'aiti'ihi people, who were utterly without the god concept until discovered (but not areligious - they practice a form of animism), would be considered atheist. They had about as much knowledge of 'god' as an idea as your average otter, though, obviously, a much greater ability to learn.
>>47762138
>And theism altogether doesn't teach anything like that either. Forms of theism do.
Completely correct. If you tell someone that theism itself is responsible for the crusades you're being a super dumb-dumb.
The ideological conflict between Christians and Muslims, compounded by grievances on both sides about farming rights and a few other economic clashes, were to blame.
>>47762182
That's my issue with the thing, I say, with my unprofessional opinion, that though atheism & theism as a whole aren't guaranteed to have a "hate these guys" rule, individual forms of atheism & theism can. Atheism doesn't say imprison people in gulags but the USSR's more violent form of atheism, which I've seen atheists be ashamed of, says it's okay to do so to the religious. One bad apple (USSR state atheism) doesn't spoil the entire barrel (atheism as a whole) but that doesn't mean the bad apple doesn't exist.
>>47762235
I think we may have been arguing sideways of each other here.
I'm saying that atheism is fundamentally different from something like, say, Islam, because Islam is an actual belief structure with rules and tenets. You don't have to change Islam at all to justify murder with it. Atheism is not so, as it is not a belief. By itself, it has no tenets. Communism has tenets and rules.
I'm not saying atheism is different in this respect to theism. I'm saying it's different in this respect to religions. Communism has its failings, but there's no reason for an atheist to consider that any reflection on their lack of belief in god. Just as there's no reason for a Christian to feel bad about ISIS. Both the Christian and the Muslim are theists, but theism did not motivate ISIS. Islam did.
>>47762341
>Atheism is not so, as it is not a belief. By itself, it has no tenets.
This is irrelevant. Theism altogether doesn't do so. Forms of atheism can have some. Some atheists don't believe in any gods & that's it. Some have an added part which thinks religion is inherently harmful. Some even think that violence to religion is justified as a result.
>there's no reason for an atheist to consider that any reflection on their lack of belief in god
I didn't say so, I say it should be a reminder that atheism isn't innocent & unable to cause harm. Besides, ISIS has plenty of socio-political influences & causes including a certain US supported government.
>>47762396
*isn't incapable of influencing harm
>>47761772
OP here, yes, yes I am.
>>47761232
Acting like a creep and then saying "Nice guys finish last *sigh*" Yes this. So much this.
Also, I put atheist in quotes in the OP for a reason.
Rahadoum outlawed being beholden to a god or using divine magic. The Rahadoumi (I prefer to call them Rahadoumites, the same way I prefer to call Erastil's followers Erastifarians) know gods exist, they choose to go without help and without worship. They also believe they are better off for it. Moderates in the country are see it as being on their own, for good or for ill, but it keeps the extremists at bay.
Also guys, athiesm isn't the belief that there is nothing, and the belief in nothing itself. That's literally nihilism.
Athiesm most loosely is a statement that you don't believe in any given established religions.
I'm focusing on the atheists that ironically, tend to act like evangelicals, cleave to a certain set of principles outlined in books that they demand you should read, condemn you for having a different belief system etc.
A lot of them are shockingly similar, it's a whole subculture. MLP, neckbeard, overweight, fedora, saying m'lady, "nice guys finish last" etc
I'm going to play something like that, but like, legitimately they banned religion where he is from because the land was running red with blood from religious conflicts, some of which were good aligned deity on good aligned dirty sectarian violence. So he has a point that even the good gods are only as
"good" as their representatives and mortals shouldn't be beholden to literal hypocrites.
Sarenrae is the patron of liberation and there are places where her followers are slavers. Iomedae supports violent imperialism over justice for "savage" humanoid cultures.
>>47762396
>Theism altogether doesn't do so.
Correct.
>Forms of atheism can have some.
Incorrect. If an atheist has beliefs in regard to religion, this is not atheism, it is an ideology that they could have as an atheist. Much as Christianity is an ideology one can have as a theist. If a communist atheist kills a priest, he does so because he is a communist (or he is unsound, or he has personal reasons, etc), not because he is an atheist. If a Christian theist kills a Muslim, he does so because he is a Christian (or, again, for entirely unrelated reasons), not because he is a theist.
Theism doesn't cause harm. Atheism doesn't cause harm.
>ISIS has plenty of socio-political influences & causes including a certain US supported government.
Everything has socio-political influences. Ideologies and the way people practice these ideologies reflect their surroundings.
>>47762661
>If an atheist has beliefs in regard to religion, this is not atheism
Am I to believe that the USSR or Dawkins aren't atheist? They have their own forms of atheism. Atheism isn't singular or always identical. It isn't some "every atheist does this & exactly like this with nothing else". Atheism is denial of gods, nothing saying forms or subsectors of such can't exist.
>>47762661
This degree of IT JUST IS is almost insane. A communist atheist kills a priest possibly because his ideology claims that religion is to be destroyed. Atheism isn't exempt from having idologies,even if itself isn't one.
I don't believe in any dirty except as an ideological construct, but I don't call myself an atheist or talk about it it. The beliefs of others don't bother me unless they are harming people.
>>47762739
>Am I to believe that the USSR or Dawkins aren't atheist?
No. You are to believe they are atheist and anti-religious. Their atheism is not anti-religious. Them being anti-religious is anti-religious.
>It isn't some "every atheist does this & exactly like this with nothing else"
Yes, correct. However, atheism itself is separate from whatever ideology they hold in regard to religion. Atheism is not its own ideology.
>Atheism is denial of gods
No, it isn't. Atheism is lack of belief in gods. Denial of gods would be anti-theism.
Look, think of it this way. An atheist who hates theists because of some ideology they hold is basing their hate on no aspect or teaching of atheism. There are no teachings of atheism. It is not an ideology, it is a void of ideology. If, say, they are a communist atheist, they base their hate of religious institutions on the writings of Marx in regards to what he proposed was an innately unjust aspect in religion. Much as the Muslim's hatred of Jews is a facet of his ideology of Islam, rather than his theism, the communist's hatred of organized religion is a facet of the ideology of communism, not his atheism.
>>47762765
>Atheism isn't exempt from having idologies,even if itself isn't one.
I'm not saying it isn't.
But, just as you wouldn't say theism is responsible for some Rwandan warlord massacring whatever religious folks he disagrees with (you'd say Christianity or Islam or whatever, it could be something more esoteric), you wouldn't say atheism is responsible for communists killing theists. You'd say communism is.
>>47758003
did he struck a nerve? :^)
>>47762824
>Their atheism is not anti-religious
This is a first.
>Atheism is not its own ideology
And theism isn't either but forms of it have ideology.
>Atheism is lack of belief in gods
>no aspect or teaching of atheism
Irrelevant again. Your defence is more or less asserting that because atheism itself has no teachings, it can't have anything like subcategories or anything like such. I might as well argue the same of theism, that by being different from pure theism, they don't count.
>it is a void of ideology
Is this an assumption? Theism itself isn't an ideology but within theism there are parts with ideologies. Are nihilism & otherwise without ideologies? Or do we say that nihilism doesn't count as atheism? I see nothing within the definition of atheism that suggests it cannot have subcategories.
>>47762938
Holy fuck you people are bad at all of this shit.
Atheism is an active disbelief in god(s).
Theism is an active belief in god(s).
The passive, "I don't know" position is agnostic.
>inb4 agnostic atheist/agnostic theists exists.
That shit is confusing belief with knowledge. One cannot know that either atheism or theism is true of false. People saying "I know there's (not) a god" are expressing a strongly held belief. A strongly held belief is not remotely the same thing as knowledge. Don't mix commonly used senses of a word and their technical usage.
Anyway, you wanna neckbeard?
>euphoric atheist
>smug superiority
>archaic phrasings
>either MRA and get facts wrong or SWJ and get facts wrong
>sweating is helpful
>as you get more and more upset include a speech impediment
>pick some meme-worthy webcomic and quote it and memes incessantly (like xkcd and sadfrog)
>>47763054
whoops, didn't mean to leave that linked post in
Ignore its presence.
>>47762964
>This is a first.
Atheism is simply not anti-religious. If you are anti-religious... then that is another ideology.
>Your defence is more or less asserting that because atheism itself has no teachings, it can't have anything like subcategories or anything like such.
Nope. It is simply a fact that atheism cannot include a belief, as it is defined by lack of belief. You can incorporate it into a belief, but atheism is not that belief.
>I might as well argue the same of theism, that by being different from pure theism, they don't count.
You'd be right to. Not in arguing that theism can't have sub-categories, but in arguing that theism should not be conflated with theist ideologies. Theism itself is not Christianity, for example.
>Is this an assumption?
It's a fact. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a deity. If you have another ideological stance toward religion, that is not your atheism, that is some ideology you possess.
>>47763054
>The passive, "I don't know" position is agnostic.
Agnostic is a claim to knowledge, not a claim to god. Specifically, it is the declaration that you do not have knowledge. There is no such thing as simply an agnostic. You are an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
>>47763100
You keep using "ideology" like you know what it means. You don't.
>>47763130
An ideology is a system of ideas. That's it.
Atheism is not a system of ideas.
>>47763054
>That shit is confusing belief with knowledge. One cannot know that either atheism or theism is true of false. People saying "I know there's (not) a god" are expressing a strongly held belief. A strongly held belief is not remotely the same thing as knowledge. Don't mix commonly used senses of a word and their technical usage.
Completely misunderstanding the terms.
I agree that one cannot know this things. The gnostic point of view, whether atheist or theist, CLAIM to know. They are expressing a strongly held belief, but they claim to know. They think they know.
>>47763129
>Agnostic is a claim to knowledge, not a claim to god. Specifically, it is the declaration that you do not have knowledge. There is no such thing as simply an agnostic. You are an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
How fucking thick are you? No it's not merely the claim to knowledge because epistemologically there's painfully little you can actually claim to know.
As I said, when you make this retarded assertion, you're simply asserting a strong belief, not knowledge.
This is kind of akin to libel/slander. You can assert all day that you know Bill Clinton banged 4390832 women while in the Whitehouse, but it's still libel/slander until you can prove it, irrespective of the truth of the assertion. Simply claiming knowledge is not, nor has it ever been a philosophical standard for qualifying something as "knowledge".
Or another example:
I know you're a racist neonazi rapist.
By your standard, that's me having knowledge of you being a racist neonazi rapist...by any reasonable standard it would be me asserting a belief.
>>47763155
>another ideology
>>47763155
>Atheism is not a system of ideas.
Can't even keep your stupidity straight? Yeah that happens when you don't know what you're talking about.
>>47763204
>No it's not merely the claim to knowledge because epistemologically there's painfully little you can actually claim to know.
Which is why gnostic atheists are ridiculously rare.
>This is kind of akin to libel/slander. You can assert all day that you know Bill Clinton banged 4390832 women while in the Whitehouse, but it's still libel/slander until you can prove it, irrespective of the truth of the assertion. Simply claiming knowledge is not, nor has it ever been a philosophical standard for qualifying something as "knowledge".
I agree. However, the gnostic position is that they have knowledge. Try to argue this with a young Earth creationist who believes they have a personal, revelation-based faith in god, and they will tell you over and over that they KNOW god is real. They are making a claim to have knowledge.
>>47763100
>Atheism is simply not anti-religious
Of course not but this is a rare case where I've heard people say X isn't atheistic, he's an atheist who's anti-theistic.
>atheism cannot include a belief, as it is defined by lack of belief
>lack of belief
There's a problem in that definition. It's a lack of belief in deities, not lack of belief in general. Can I say someone's not an atheist if they believe in their observations, their morals, the truthfulness of their statements or otherwise? Lacking belief in divinity doesn't mean lack of belief in general.
>fact
>lack of belief in a deity
If someone doesn't believe in any gods but believes in magic, supernatural or otherwise non-god related stuff, are they an atheist? I wonder what the Buddhists would feel.
>If you have another ideological stance toward religion, that is not your atheism, that is some ideology you possess
So their ideology cannot be atheistic? If someone believes man to be the best in the world, that there can exist no gods because they'd be superior to man, would that not be something satisfying the definition of atheism, a lack of belief in gods?
>>47763181
>Completely misunderstanding the terms.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine, or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.[1][2][3]
According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, "agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."[2] Agnosticism is a doctrine or set of tenets[4] rather than a r
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
No, that's just goddamn bullshit by idiots who think they're being deep and profound by using words in different senses in different assertions and coming to an erroneous conclusion because they don't understand logic and how the definition of words function in a philosophical space.
>>47763224
Yes, continue to misquote and/or intentionally misinterpret. That will make you look like an educated adult.
>>47763263
...And even by that definition, agnosticism is still atheism.
>atheism
>noun: atheism
>disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Disbelief or lack of belief. If you lack belief in god, you are an atheist. If you don't claim to know god does not exist, you are agnostic... but you're still an atheist.
>>47763243
>I agree. However, the gnostic position is that they have knowledge. Try to argue this with a young Earth creationist who believes they have a personal, revelation-based faith in god, and they will tell you over and over that they KNOW god is real. They are making a claim to have knowledge.
It literally does not matter in the slightest what they think these words mean. They are rigidly defined philosophical terms.
See part of the mistake people make when they try to claim this is that they assume that word agnostic was spawned as a counterpoint to gnosis, which it wasn't. It was coined to describe the position of "we can't know" in terms of certain metaphysical topics (existence of god being the primary one). People trying to bounce it off of gnosis are incorrectly believing that it is linked to the likes of the old "christian" Gnostics which a literally few brief moments of googling will show you is plainly not the case.
>>47763310
*sighs*, don't use a dictionary definition when dealing with philosophical terms.
>>47763282
No, the problem isn't me you loon. Learn to not contradict yourself and to communicate what you intend explicitly.
>>47761705
>intensive porpoises
I chuckled.
>"I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel."
These are the words of Thomas Henry Huxley, who created the term 'agnostic' as it is currently used.
Yes, agnostics are atheists.
Please don't pretend you know more about this subject than I do.
The definition of atheism is that they don't believe in gods. That's it. It's absence of belief in gods without mentions of beliefs in others. An atheist can believe that they're lucky, going to win the lottery, etc. By definition, it's only lack of belief in gods.
>>47763331
>*sighs*, don't use the actual definition when dealing with philosophical terms.
This is how the term atheist is used in every philosophical and theological debate on the subject.
>>47762182
To add to your post: there is a reason why, upon being asked how to tell the difference between the Christians and the Muslims in a particular city, the then-Pope on the receiving end of the question said "kill them all, the Lord will know his own".
>>47763364
People write quickly on message boards.
Learn to argue with that's being argued, rather than with a pretend argument you want to interpret from what's being argued, despite your obvious knowledge to the contrary.
OP here
Atheism doesn't justify any course of action, for or against, religious people.
It doesn't claim moral superiority, it does however, deny the foundation of religious moral superiority.
Logically, if you have been committing things that would be considered crimes on the basis of a higher power willing you do so then under the social construct you should face the punishment for your crimes, but notice that something besides a rejection of the existence of a higher power is necessary to logic out the punishment of religious people?
That's because atheism literally never tells you to do a thing. So you can't use it for a justification for harming religious people.
Once you reject the idea of a higher power you have to choose a philosophy to justify your actions. communism says people have suffered and it has always been about economics, and organized religion is just a cog in the oppression machine. It's a philosophy. You can even agree that organized religion should be punished while believing in a higher power. There are theists who do.
You can say the USSR was atheist but that's like saying Nazi Germany was "theist." Neither thing had anything to do with why they committed atrocities.
>>47763430
To act like religion had nothing to do with that requires believing that everyone involved in that conflict was a complete liar. Is it that hard to believe that they believed their religion, that they believed that god would sort out the good from the bad, that they believed they were doing something holy? Has religious action been a huge conspiracy of liars who believed absolutely nothing all along?
>>47763383
It's pretty clear that I do because you still somehow fail to realize that atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of god(s)...you know a belief regarding the existence of nonexistence of god-like beings, the very defining characteristic of agnosticism?
But yeah, sure, it's literally anti-gnosis.
>Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
It's also cute how hard you fail at logic with the whole not noticing that he was speaking from terms of a Christian, not from a wider philosophical perspective, but yeah, nah, I guess you're right. He added that specificity for absolutely no reason and saw reason to literally create agnosticism while atheism was a thing just because he was kind of bored and not actually wholly dissatisfied with how atheism purports to make definite statements about things it cannot. Sure..
>>47763400
Not by a long shot.
>>47763466
>That's because atheism literally never tells you to do a thing
And thus there are no violent atheistic things about?
>So you can't use it for a justification for harming religious people
I can use "The Government told me to be atheist & do harm to religious people" & such.
>>47763447
Take some responsibility for yourself. You being misunderstood because you contradict yourself is entirely your fault, no one else's.
>>47763383
Here. Just thought I'd add something.
This
>>47763313
>See part of the mistake people make when they try to claim this is that they assume that word agnostic was spawned as a counterpoint to gnosis, which it wasn't.
Is wrong too.
Huxley specifically stated that he chose the term agnostic to describe his stance as antithetical to the stance of the gnostic.
>>47763466
In the USSR and Nazi Germany the atrocities were economically motivated against "undesirables" that happened to include religious individuals.
NOW STOP SHITTING UP MY THREAD WITH SEMANTIC ARGUMANTS.
I am anti-semantic.
>>47763054
I think that god/gods don't exist, but I have no way of proving it. This makes me an agnostic atheist.
>>47763466
That doesn't mean it can't be an influence. If someone thought atheism was true & tried enforcing it, this action was influenced, but not encouraged, by atheism. I've heard of teens doing retarded shit like killing themselves because their favorite character died, that was the influence though the authors likely didn't intend any suicides.
>>47763447
>>47763518
I think we better have both of you explain your posts further. I'm seeing plenty of "it is" without elaborating.
>>47763509
>It's pretty clear that I do because you still somehow fail to realize that atheism is the belief in the nonexistence of god(s)
It's not, though. Literally every single definition of atheism states that it is the lack of belief in a deity. People talk about weak/strong, hard/soft, etc, and they do so for a reason.
Because atheism, as a whole, is simply the lack of belief in a deity.
If you think otherwise, you're using the term incorrectly. And you are definitely not at all caught up on debate in the topic. You'll always be wrong here, because your very first assertion is wrong.
>>47763601
Amusing how even Dawkins draws a line between agnostics and atheists, guess he didn't get the memo that they can be the same thing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism#Atheistic
>>47763572
Follow the links.
>>47763628
Dawkins is a philosophically illiterate who should shut up about anything that's not biology. I've seen atheistic philosophers embarassed of him.
>>47757418
>The rest of the party are a NG pacifist oracle powered by a god, a lore oracle ex priest, a celestial bloodline sorcerer who wants to be a paladin of Iomedae and a slutty kitsune swashbuckler who uses a wakazashi.
Christ Almighty, I hate 3.Pfags so much.
>>47763628
Except he doesn't you idiot. He says that the distinction is unwieldy and that someone who professes to be solely agnostic in perpetuity is being intellectually dishonest.
>>47763678
>intellectually dishonest
>Dawkins calling someone else such
>>47763678
being a "fence sitter" and "intellectually coward[ly]" isn't remotely the same thing as being intellectually dishonest guy.
>>47763665
This right here. No matter how much of a pile of faggotry that OP's character is, it's still only slightly worse than the usual 3.5/PF party. Just look at those shitty characters.
>>47763697
Dawkins isn't really intellectually dishonest. Just extremely, unceasingly annoying.
>>47763702
I'm curious why people criticize agnostics for being "fence sitters". Many things in science are undecided & new discoveries can push the consensus in any direction. I don't get why "We don't have enough evidence to conclude thus I'm not concluding" is invalid.
>>47760451
Atheism has quite a few shortcomings in a land with proven to exist gods.
>>47763722
Less annoying now that he's realizing the damage he's done and that Christianity's presence is necessary as a bulwark against something far worse.
>>47763702
It really is. Dawkins is saying there that the professed agnostic is simply kidding themselves and others.
I don't really agree with him, but whatever.
>>47757931
>Not wanting an all-Paladin party
>Not wanting to ride as one
>Not wanting to crusade
>Not wanting to go on Arthurian quests
>Not wanting to retrieve holy grails
>Not wanting to kill Saracens and reclaim Constantinople and Jerusalem
>Not wanting to lance charge
>Not wanting to DEUS VULT!
>Not getting land and castles
>>47763757
Heh, you're seriously going to sit there and assert that Richard Dawkins, when given the opportunity to be an offensive prat, would willingly mince words?
>>47763722
I say he's both. He shouldn't pretend that he's some genius in fields outside Biology.
>>47761232
No, when she rejects you you have to keep pathetically trying to be her friend for years and doting on her hand and foot and pretending you're just swell buddies.
That's even worse.
>>47763741
Agnostics aren't just "not sure desu," agnostics believe the existence of God/the Creator/etc. as fundamentally unknowable.
>>47763741
Professed atheists generally have the same lack of belief as professed agnostics. Saying "I'm agnostic, not atheist" can be seen as an act of cowardice, essentially trying to stay out of the argument and not offend anyone. Basically, they see it as someone going "I'm just like that guy... but I'm not like that guy, okay? Don't bully me."
Which is dumb, but some people are just born to be angry about stuff.
>>47763775
...No?
His statement is pretty clear. He thinks people who call themselves agnostic in perpetuity are being intellectually dishonest with themselves and others.
>>47763798
Again, in a situation where there is not enough evidence to conclude, they just say they're unsure. I don't see why it's incorrect to think that an omnipotent being who's beyond our world must be observable & understandable by humanity.
>>47763846
Crap, forgot another "not" in there.
>>47763846
because some people want absolutes, either God(s) exists or God(s) don't.
>>47763919
But where's the guarantee that things will work that way? Our models today always have some degree of error, even if tiny. Even many of the things we assume today we rely on a "we haven't seen otherwise" justification.
>>47763665
>>47763710
The problem is that the people who either had things they genuinely liked about 3.X or disliked 4e have moved on to 5. The only people still playing 3.PF are too stupid and/or lazy to learn anything else.People like OP, who is inexplicably convinced his """ironically""" shitty character is somehow better than the rest of his party's mostly mediocre ones. Seriously dude, you aren't even better than the kitsune
>>47763846
>>47763919
They do believe in an absolute, that God is absolutely unknowable. They very often consider themselves superior due to this belief, and recast atheists as people who have active disbelief in gods so as to make themselves seem more reasonable.
>>47764072
>They do believe in an absolute, that God is absolutely unknowable.
well they're not wrong. i guess.
>>47764072
>They do believe in an absolute, that God is absolutely unknowable
Most atheists are of the opinion that god can never be fully discounted, too, simply due to the way knowledge works.
I suppose the difference between the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists and the vast majority of people who call themselves agnostic is that the atheist will generally say that, in absence of any evidence on way or another, it is irrational to default to the idea that a god exists.
New side:
>anything other than positive atheism isn't atheism. It's populist pandering to increase numbers much like how feminism attempts to claim that every social justice movement must be feminist as well
and by >>47764281
>>47764214 is nontheist, not atheist.
I still think it would be best to not portray a fedora tipper at all. Best to let them fade from common Internet culture, along with tumblrinas. Someday they can be in the rare freak bin along with flurries that wear foxtails out the backs of their jeans.
>>47764312
Sounds to me like you're the one engaging in populist chicanery, since by definition an atheist (someone without theism or someone who "lacks belief" in God) would include nontheists and plenty of agnostics.
>>47764372
Words are hard. Try figuring out what populism means before getting onto harder metaphysical concepts.
>>47764391
You too, anon.
This is because most atheists are less scientific minded than they want to believe. The absence of evidence, is never the evidence of absence.
Honestly though, the type of atheist that believes that a higher power is unseen with the evidence we currently have, is rare vs the more Dawkins style militant atheists who are more of a rebellion against Christian icons. I would say upbringing, but I think you can fixate on the religious undercurrent of American culture without having devout parents/grand parents. The movement really boils down to socially marginalized people who want to feel smarter than the establishment.
>>47764312
That anon has no more authority in regard to those words than anyone else.
>>47764391
Responding to arguments with "you just don't get stuff" is not going to make your position any less one of smoke and mirrors.
>>47764523
>The absence of evidence, is never the evidence of absence.
However, the burden of proof is on whoever is proposing the existence of something. Atheists do not have to prove atheism plausible.
>>47764690
>responding seriously in a thread like this
>>47764711
But you can't prove something with science, just disprove. Coming up with a experiment that would give a worthwhile result is not currently in our means. The best we could do is try and disprove that God wants to save X, or disprove the idea that reality shaping entities want to respond to our bait.
>>47763430
Just a minor correction: This quote was about the Catholic and Cathar people in a town in France during the Albigensian crusade
>>47764711
>However, the burden of proof is on whoever is proposing the existence of something.
Where is this writ in the fabric of the universe as an omnipresent law?
Don't get me wrong, I understand the use of the sentiment in terms of keeping discourse from getting bogged down, and its use in the field of debate; however, a major problem arises when one attempts to use it as if it somehow establishes or denies the possibility of another assertion. It took ages to verify any number of conjectures through rigorous proof. Even while just wild conjecture, many ideas have proven useful.
>>47764792
It isn't used to deny possibility.
It just demonstrates that the existence of god is not a reasonable claim. It won't be a reasonable claim until some sort of evidence is produced. Whether you believe in a god is beside the point - the point is that god cannot be said to exist as a rational statement.
We cannot KNOW anything in an absolute, complete sense. If you choose to believe anything that hasn't been disproven, however, you will find yourself believing in a lot of often contradictory things.
>>47764869
>It just demonstrates that the existence of god is not a reasonable claim.
Not by any stretch of the imagination. You're making the illogical leap that just because the person you're interacting with cannot provide such an argument that such an an argument does not exist.
The existence or nonexistence of a an argument is not implied by failure to produce an argument.
THE RIDDLE OF EPICURUS
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
>>47764869
I deal with quantum physics, almost everything is contradictory. The underpinnings of everything are so contrary, but build things so improbably perfect, that the idea there is some observer in the background laughing seems an almost mundane assertion.
>>47765000
Just because an ant calls a person evil does not make it so. This is before the sticky idea that in creating humans, God has tried to prevent sorrow, but in having free will humans can choose to not do so.
>>47764918
>You're making the illogical leap that just because the person you're interacting with cannot provide such an argument that such an an argument does not exist.
No, I'm making the entirely logical leap that because no evidence can be produced, there is no reason to believe in this thing. That doesn't mean evidence couldn't be produced in future.
But it hasn't yet, and so believing in this thing would be irrational.
Again, if you believed everything that hadn't been disproven, you'd believe thousands of contradictory things.
>>47765035
>watchmaker argument
This has been refuted so many times, I'm surprised anyone still brings it up.
>>47765128
Wew lad, you don't even know what your'e arguing and you confidently assert that you're being logical?
My point is not and has never been that you should believe. My point is exactly that saying "whoever makes an assertion has to prove it" is not a counter-argument.
>>47765176
They're the same argument.
If you tell me something in a discussion, and it's an extraordinary claim, your claim has no weight unless it has been evidenced. The burden of proof is a necessity for any kind of argument.
No, claiming the burden of proof is not a counter-argument. Because there is no argument until you can muster at least a small shred of evidence.
>>47765236
>Because there is no argument until you can muster at least a small shred of evidence.
What's to prevent people from rejecting evidence anyway? The same evidence can point to multiple directions.
>>47765236
I can argue that the square root of 2 is irrational without any physical evidence.
>>47765286
More to the point, the inability of the early mathematicians to calculate the square root of a given number did not make it not exist nor imply it did not exist.
>>47765286
Evidence is not always physical. You are indeed answering the burden of proof when you use your faculties and the shared understanding of mathematics to show this.
>>47765259
Nothing. Which is why you build on your evidence to construct the most solid understanding of the universe you can.
>>47765321
The problem is that not all evidence is physical & "there's no evidence/argument thus false" isn't always true, otherwise the crappy evidence for Heliocentrism would have meant the world was Geocentric.
>>47765356
>Evidence is not always physical
And that is why many arguments for & against the existence of God had been metaphysical & abstract. Even today we can't guarantee that some of our theories are true because of the possibility of a new & unexplained discoveries.
>>47765286
That's because you are working from the idea that the mathematical axioms are true. Math works because we have decided that the axioms are true, and work from that point. At its most basic it's abstract.
>>47765364
I agree, but that's not relevant to the assertion that "if you assert something the onus is on you to prove it"...or as it is on the playground
>NYANYANYA I"M NOT LISTENING!
A dismissal out of hand is just a dismissal out of hand. It's neither logical nor necessarily sensible
>>47765321
Yes. But if you were an earlier mathematician trying to prove that this concept of square roots is solid, you have to show it. If you simply stated you had this idea, and refused to provide any proof of it, what reason is there to believe in it?
By no means, by the way, does any of this mean that you should stop trying to prove things.
>>47765408
My point is that the lack of evidence or arguments isn't a disproof, a disproof or contradictory evidence is such. The lack of evidence doesn't make something automatically false.
>>47757418
>>47765356
>build on your evidence to construct the most solid understanding of the universe you can
But that doesn't mean it's correct. Evidence can point the wrong way depending on which model or explanation you view it through.
>>47765408
Demanding proof of a theory is hardly comparable to not listening. It is, in fact, the precise opposite. It is a willingness to listen to what is being proposed.
The problem is, you need something to actually listen to.
>>47765400
>Math works because we have decided that the axioms are true
Nope, math works because logic works.
Change any of the axioms and all you do is change that which flows from it.
A crude illustration is 1+1=2 --pretend the numbers being added are the axioms and pretend that the sum is math. Change it to 1+2=3 -- the inputs change and the output change, but the relationships stay the same.
>>47765455
Actually no. Remember when I said that there have been many unproven and frankly baseless conjectures that have proven very useful? Mathematics is rife with them. Don't let anyone fool you, the rigorous proof in mathematics and often in physics trails long after the idea is first posited.
>>47765400
>At its most basic it's abstract
And that doesn't stop mathematics from being meaningful & such. The thing about proofs is that they prove something permanently, no chance of a disproof assuming the proof was done right.
>>47757418
If your group is ok with it I see no problem
>>47765497
Sure. However, it is a great deal more reliable than simply assuming everything that is not disproven to be real.
We have no way of constructing a better theory than to test it, to accrue evidence regarding it, to put it through falsification, etc. If there was a better way of determining what is correct available to us, we would be using it.
>See an OP with a player asking assistance on being a massive faggot to ruin a game
>Afraid that there's 187 replies of people actually helping him
>Instead the vast majority is semantic arguments about atheism
Wew lads not only did you pass the litmus test you've proven you never change.
>>47765500
Demanding a proof before considering something is exactly not listening. There's literally no way you can get around that. It's a rhetorical dismissal, nothing more and nothing less. Even worse is how it entirely puts the process of consideration on someone else as though you're stating that you're incapable of thinking about the statement yourself and have to be spoonfed thought. It's an insular, and intellectually empty statement that's only purpose is to shut down someone you don't agree with.
>>47765541
>it is a great deal more reliable than simply assuming everything that is not disproven to be real
Reliability doesn't always lead to truth, bare in mind that there used to be ample arguments against Heliocentrism.
>to test it
Not all theories are so easily tested. They're falsifiable but sometimes virtually impossible to test.
>>47761594
Common vernacular refers to that as "agnostic." At least, if you recognize and state "I don't know," alongside your "I don't care."
>>47761594
Apatheist
>>47765516
It's still an assumption. Does it work? Seems to other than at the micro and macro levels, so it's probably true. Do we know the axioms are true, fuck no we don't. The math that we used to send guys to the moon was untested. Those guys were praying that they were not going to fuck it up and send guys off into the wrong direction. Math is a great tool, but it is as human made as any other. So don't take it for granted that it's perfect.
>>47765557
Who said it isn't considered?
Saying "okay, we need to prove this" is not dismissal out of hand.
If something is investigated and cannot yet be proven, there is no reason to believe in it. For believing it to be reasonable, it must be shown to have some basis in reality. The fact that absence of a thing cannot be proven does not make an argument for its existence any worthier.
>>47765651
>It's still an assumption
This is a bad thing? When we do science, we assume we don't hallucinate the entire thing, that our tools work, that our observations, no matter how repeated, are good, etc. We need assumptions because without any rules, Mathematics can be as fucked up as FATAL.
>>47765584
>Reliability doesn't always lead to truth, bare in mind that there used to be ample arguments against Heliocentrism.
And eventually, these arguments were overturned. Because ample proof was provided against geocentrism.
>>47758069
I followed your example.
>>47765721
True but we're not psychic. We don't automatically know when & what opposing evidence would show up, assuming there is any. Geocentrism was thought to be settled science yet it was overturned. In the abstract world, we don't have any newly discovered disproofs like detectable stellar parallaxs.
>>47765672
I defy you to show me just one example of that phrase being used to mean "ok we need to prove this" and not a dismissal. Let's be honest here.
Alright, back to the niggling dickering with words:
I'm not at all saying that there's reason to accept, consider, or believe assertions provided without argument or proof. What I'm saying is that the assertion that one who makes an assertion must prove it is at best a wasted utterance that does nothing to move the conversation forward and at worst (which is the most often case) an abject refusal treated as refutation when it is nothing like that. It's a rhetorical tactic of debate, a bit of sophistry that is not concerned with advancing knowledge but winning debates.
In pic related, are you seriously going to argue that it's being used as an invitation to prove something?
>>47765776
>We don't automatically know when & what opposing evidence would show up, assuming there is any.
Yep. That's just how things are.
Again, not saying people should stop trying to prove things or having ideas. But there is no logical reason to believe something true without any proof whatsoever. And no proof of absence =/= any kind of rational reason to believe in something.
>>47757418
>playing Pathfinder
>playing Pathfinder with alignments
>playing Pathfinder with alignments in the Golarion setting
>>47765794
>Scientist
I'll give him that. He's a good biologist despite his horrid philosophy,
>Scholar
After publishing a few things on Neuroscience, he proceeded to shit turd after turd. From his torture apologistic shit to his "well being" based objective morality, I dare not insult scholars by calling him one.
>Philosopher
Despite some of his less researched "refutations", he is a prof.
>Rebel
A shit journalist & a historically illiterate one too.
>>47765846
>no logical reason to believe something true without any proof whatsoever
I've heard people make some proofs before. Also, I have no evidence that I'm not some brain hooked to a computer or not trapped in the Matrix. I have no evidence that my senses aren't lying to me, despite that I think I'm not any of the previous.
>>47765857
thanks for posting, uguu~
>>47765925
Ah Descartes. Yes you have no evidence to prove that you are not the only person and all the rest of us are just the devil, but it's best to act like we are actual people.
>>47765884
>A shit journalist & a historically illiterate one too.
And pretty much the reason the idea of dismissing assertions without proof is used as a beatstick to shut down conversations and ignore ideas. I'm reminded of the idea of necessary and sufficient causes. Treating it as though it's sufficient cause to dismiss is just as incorrect as treating it as sufficient cause to accept.
>>47765981
Yep, that one. I'm just saying that "no evidence for" doesn't lead to "your shouldn't trust", because I'm not sure if we can prove were not in some Matrix simulation or G-Mod clone & that someone won't spawn a naked CWC on my face tomorrow. Despite such, I don't think others are demons & I don't believe that the world can stand two CWCs.
>>47765794
>What I'm saying is that the assertion that one who makes an assertion must prove it is at best a wasted utterance that does nothing to move the conversation forward and at worst
My actual position is that proof must be provided. Whether it comes from the person making the argument originally is irrelevant. If no kind of evidence can be produced, the argument is flawed.
Seeing as we're speaking practically, let's consider: the actual term "burden of proof" is generally only used in these arguments at one point; when the idea that without evidence of absence we cannot reasonably disbelieve something is brought up. In which case, yes, it is an apt refutation, as that proposition is completely foolish. It's a way of bringing the argument back from the intellectual oblivion of "well, you can't know we don't know nuh uh uh" and saying "look, if we're going to assume something exists we need prove it. We don't need to prove nothingness, it's not relevant here, we're not trying to prove absence of anything. What's relevant is whether your idea exists and whether we can prove that." It's just an expedient way of stopping people from obfuscating and running in circles in this case.
>In pic related, are you seriously going to argue that it's being used as an invitation to prove something?
Nope. But then again, those people are not everyone.
>>47765925
You also have no evidence that you ARE a brain hooked to a computer.
At present, your senses are the only way you have of comprehending the world. You have no choice but to trust them to some extent. You have no evidence that your senses aren't lying to you, but you've probably got plenty of precedent for them being reliable in their current context, and you have no evidence to believe that your senses are being lied to.
>>47766143
There's little for or against that. Why should I believe either if there is so why should I trust either?
Even here our senses screw with us. Optical illusions, pushes & pulls we feel or don't feel due to inertia, etc. If I wasn't told so, I may even think the sun orbits the Earth if I'm only allowed my eyes & no knowledge nor technology we have today. Even our senses aren't 100% reliable.
>>47761442
Bald is a hair color.
>>47757804
He fights for what he thinks feminism is, but still bitches whenever a fuckin' cunt doesn't give him the sex to which he is so clearly entitled.
>>47764214
I´m an atheist and this is how I reason, If you can reason about this. If you believe you believe, and if you don´t, you don´t.
OP: Technically you can't be an Atheist if the Gods do exist unless you're batshit crazy, You can, however, be an Anti-Theist and straight up oppose them. An atheist doesn't believe in the afterlife, deities or the supernatural which would be pretty damn crazy for a setting with loads of all three. An anti-theist believes all three exist, he just thinks the gods are assholes and men would be better off without them
>>47764789
Ah, fair enough. All I can ever remember is the original quote, the translation into English and the fact that it was a Pope that said it.
[Spoiler]The original quote, for those wanting to know, is "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."[/spoiler]
>>47765118
But if he's tried to prevent sorrow, then why do things like cancer exist?
>>47769008
Because a great deal of cancers are from man made crap. The instances of cancer have risen as we consume more pre packaged food and work in more synthetic environments. So humans are one of the causes, but we could also be doing more to research cures. It's just expensive as fuck.
People have the free will to help, or fuck each other over both directly and indirectly.
>>47761488
>They just don't believe in a god. Atheism is not a belief.
They do have a book that they love to shove in your face whenever you disagree with their belief system.
>>47770333
No anon, that's not a book. That's a shit Dawkins took whom he decided to sell.
>>47770333
Good thing about atheism is that I can be an atheist and dont give a damn about any book, person or whatever, no dogma, no hierarchy, no nothing, is not a belief, is the absence of a belief. That's the point, it is the base thing, everyone else has those things, not me. And I say me because there isnt also a "us" I have to answer to. I don't know if you grasp this simple idea or not.
>>47770410
Except that it is a belief. Athisist and theists both have the same evidence, one just believes that there is something, and the other believes that their isn't. Neither one has 100% certainty and so it still falls under what you believe.
>>47770459
No, it's not a belief. The natural state of things is to not to believe in anything. You don't believe in Graham'Hkor, the nightmarish penguin of the 6th dimension, neither have any set of principles and rules to follow it. In the same way I don't believe in anything else. It's quite a difference to say, I don't believe in this, that to say, I believe this is not happening. This is quite basic and I'm pretty sure you already know it, but I'm going to roll as if you didn't.
>>47770502
>It's quite a difference to say, I don't believe in this, that to say, I believe this is not happening.
Mind you, there are plenty of 13 year old 'Athiests' who fall into camp #2 there.
Atheists are like homos. You meet tons of atheists everyday who are reasonable, non-militant people. You only notice the obnoxiously obvious ones.
>>47770459
I don't believe there isn't something.
I just don't believe there is something. There's no reason for me to believe the claim that there is something.
>>47770517
Well, that's true, but that what I reffered to with "good thing about atheism". There is no rule or hierarchy that makes me accountable for them, we are not "us", I dont have to support them, (in fact I have a pretty bad opinion about people like that, with as everyone else who tries to force their opinions on everyone else). What I mean is, for example, if you identify yourself with, say, catholicism, one could attack your belief criticising shit catholics have done. But if you just don't believe, there is now way to link me with another guy just because he also doesn't believe.
Im not good at analogies, but it's like saying, do you think there is a monster under your bed? I would say "I don't think there is a monster under my bed" which is not I do think there is no monster under my bed". And definetely it wouldnt make sense to say" Well you know who also didn't? Hitler. Way to go, you anti-monster-under-the-beds bastards".
If what we are stating here is that there is assholes atheist, sure. There are assholes in everything. No point in doing that. We could argue about which "group" has more assholes, maybe.
>>47770647
A better part to say it, I think, is with football teams.
If you support Manchester, or Liverpool, you can be in part blamed for things your team allowed, did in the field, or other fans did. If you just don't care about football, no one is going to go "You guys are terrible, yesterday a bunch of guys who don't care about football jumped into a fountain to celebrate that nothing happened, causing damages and attacking a bunch of fellows that walked around there because they didn't look as if they didn't care about football".
But I really would find it hilarious if some fake-nihilist started doing this.
>>47770612
>don't believe there is
>believe there isn't
I don't think that it'll rain tomorrow. I think that the weather tomorrow won't be rain.
>>47770895
Except you're making a prediction. That anon isn't. He isn't making any statement about what is.
>>47770695
"Ve're Nihilists, Lebowsky! Ve belief in Nothing!"
>>47771242
Should I rephrase it as "I don't believe in weather" or anything? Absence of belief in something isn't entirely neutral. Otherwise "I don't believe that there exists dinosaurs" or "I have a lack of belief in rhinos" is.
