Do you find that it helps to have people who are of a similar political/moral mind to yourself at the table? Does it make the game more fun to you? Or does it at least avoid awkward moments (Such as, say, when the party wants to do a Crusade campaign but there's an atheist at the table)?
Depends on the context, but I always heavily include my social, political and philosophical views to the game. I actually have a very close friend with almost diametrically opposed conceptions of the world from my own, and it can lead to deeply stimulating and interesting dynamics. But this is only possible because he's like my brother.
Basically, play out any real life conflict of this manner in the game and you'll be fine.
>(Such as, say, when the party wants to do a Crusade campaign but there's an atheist at the table)?
What kind of easily offended pussy would not want to do that? I am an atheist and if its suddenly the Siege of Jerusalem again in a game I am going to be going full Deus Veult.
Atheist here, I have been wanting a chance to play in a crusader game for ages. I never get to DEUS VULT in real life.
So long as your party isn't comprised of babies incapable of having fun when seeing something outaide their world view, it should be fine. If anything, it makes it more fun when there's a diverse range of opinions or whatever in group, it means more bantz.
If anything the Christians I know would be more uncomfortable with that than I would.
Because everyone's there to sit down, play a game, and have a good time. Not to discuss political views or have moral debates or things like that. There's a time and a place to have those kinds of talks, don't get me wrong. But game night ain't it.
I am now having the wonderful vision of a table full of atheists acting like the Templars in Kingdom of Heaven.
>Do you find that it helps to have people who are of a similar political/moral mind to yourself at the table? Does it make the game more fun to you? Or does it at least avoid awkward moments (Such as, say, when the party wants to do a Crusade campaign but there's an atheist at the table)?
I like open-minded people. It helps if they're not from a completely different cultural sphere (which primarily factors in during internet games), but this can be primarily be ameliorated by only choosing people out of college or at least who're at least 25+ or thereabouts.
I'm capable of divorcing fantasy from reality. I'm also capable of being friends with someone despite disagreeing with them.
As such, I include people in my group based on if they're a good player or GM. Nothing else matters, and if it does you should have a long, hard look at yourself. The only way to grow and learn as a person is to talk to people who disagree with you.
>church realises that people having fun smiting the servants of evil as holy warriors is actually a wonderful recruitment tool
Really though, I always found it funny how opposed some religious people were to DnD when you had models about good holy warriors going into hell to kick demon ass.
In my old gaming group, I was the only conservative. However, my brand of political thought more amounts to "government should fuck off 90% of the time" than anything else, so it really wasn't an issue. The only real source of contention that ever really came up was the fact I was the only one who didn't have a chip on their shoulder against cops, since I came from a police family. It should be noted none of them have ever actually had a negative interaction with police in their lives.
But I've always been able to play along. My characters are usually very selfish and apolitical, so it's never caused problems.
Well, since we're taking cracks at what other people enjoy, your conception of fun sounds dull as bricks.
I play games to get away from that sort of thing and enjoy a good story with some friends. If you play for different reasons, that's cool too. I'm just putting in my two cents on the matter.
With the wrong group of people, it leads to an out-of-character argument based on factors that exist outside of the game.
With the 'right' group of people, it leads to a circle jerk where the game where the game becomes irrelevant and the gathering just becomes a hugbox for people with certain political views.
As a result, I will happily play with anyone and everyone that agrees to not bring the controversy of reality into the game.
Well, I would have a problem if I was gaming with a full on nazi and the fucker couldn't keep his nazi shit off the table (If indeed I would ever willingly spend free time with a fucking fascist.) Beyond anything extreme like that, most people I know/have gamed with knows to keep overt politics out of the game.
>Anon, what are you doing in DnD? I heard someone say something about a demon summoning!
>Oh, yeah, the party is stopping the summoning. I just holy power to smite the cult leader, actually
Trinity/Christ would charge with before Richards orders.
Hell the only people with opinions so clear-cut on the crusades that playing a game based on one is so triggering they start making a shitbiscuit of themselves are people too stupid to be playing with anyway. That'd be like a french person throwing a shit fit because you ran a game based on Caesar's conquest of Gaul.
Are there actually people autistic enough to be uncomfortable with playing in contexts which don't line up with their personal beliefs?
I'm happy with roleplaying as a holy warrior that seeks to protect all that is just and righteous in the name of his god and his liege lord, despite the fact that I'm an agnostic atheist and a socialist.
I'm not happy using roleplaying as a platform to make out-of-character political statements and proliferate out-of-character beliefs. It's fantasy, I like separating it from reality.
That's not the problem. The issue is that by using a gaming night as a platform for this debate, you're detracting from the game you're playing and focusing more on your out-of-character beliefs than the characters you're meant to be roleplaying.
>An Odin worshipping pagan
>A log cabin Republican
>A god fearing Christian
>All walk into a bar.
>There is no joke, DM is late and we want a drink before game.
Even the Mormon couple plays Catholic space Nazis.
I could never play an Evil campaign.
Seeing all those people in despair in the party's wake would just remind me too much of myself.
Oddly enough, I'd be more uncomfortable playing a character who thinks the same way I do.
Mostly because I don't really believe in anything. Whether it's because something died inside of me at some point or I was just always shallow and empty, I'll never know.
Can't say it really factors in. Though the members of my current group often RP our character's beliefs (which makes for some interesting group dynamics), they are rarely indicative of our own. The group's pretty diverse-party's all over the map on various issues, and our religious affiliations are a bit varied (two jews, an agnostic, a buddhist, a methodist, and a catholic walk into an LGS...), but that doesn't come up in play, or even when we hang out.
Seems to me a person can play their character without derailing the game with personal shit pretty easily.
The Political That Guy horror stories always seem to be about one player whose extreme attitudes simply don't mesh with the group and lacks the social wherewithal to just table it. Typically, this manifests as either a liberal atheist who tips his fedora every time the GM invokes something vaguely religious, or a Randroid turning every single action into his soapbox.
I think in those cases, the discomfort comes from the fact it's one autist who won't shut up about how the other players all have wrong beliefs and how much smarter he is than the rest of them. And that's just obnoxious.
It really all comes down to maturity. I once ran a game where the UN was a borderline fascist space empire and none of my players gave me shit over it because in games I use politics as a tool, not the purpose.
Which one are you and why the fuck can you tolerate the presence of any of the others? I'm surprised none of you have started strangling each other yet. If I was forced to listen to some neopagan faggot for more than ten seconds I'd be reaching for my concealed carry .38. For self-defense of course.
Roleplaying is about playing the role of a character that is not yourself. Expression of yourself doesn't factor into it and in fact diminishes the role if you use it as a vessel for your beliefs.
No, because roleplaying is not something in which you should express yourself. You walk in the shoes of a character that is not yourself and you do your best to convey that character to your fellow roleplayers. It is inevitable that some portion of your self slips into the act but you should minimize that.
Roleplaying is not a platform for making political statements for that reason.
>No, because roleplaying is not something in which you should express yourself.
>when you're a teacher and everyone at the table randomly stops playing to complain about common core elementary level math
Nigga, I didn't put them in and I teach high school English. I just want to be a druid and shape shift into bears.
Besides that, politics and morals don't really enter into our game/characters. It's just weird and frustrating when something the DM says triggers an OOC debate about politics.
Do you even know anything about writing? Nothing you make is going to be completely sterile of your perspectives. That's just a fact of human conditioning, and I don't need my degree in Armchair Psychology to tell you that. I am not a depressed teenaged witch, but if I play one in a game then I am going to one way or another influence that character's personality because of my own perspectives on what a depressed teenaged witch should act like.
Of course this could just be bait. So if that's the case 4/10 you got me to reply.
Even a character completely different from yourself is going to be filtered through you own personality.
Two complete atheists could play paladins but make different characters because of their own perceptions of how someone different from themselves would act. Otherwise you're just creating a character who behaves according to stereotypes; if 'x' happens, then I'll do 'y'. Which doesn't strike me as very entertaining.
I have agreed with the claim that nothing can be completely sterile in multiple posts.
>It is inevitable that some portion of your self slips into the act but you should minimize that.
>And you should do your very best to minimize that.
I am not a holy warrior of the light and the holy warrior of the light is not me. Therefore, the holy warrior of the light should not contain out-of-character traits that I possess that do not fit it. I should not try to express these traits through the fact. I have my own perspective and that will affect the character that I play but I shouldn't allow that to be the guiding force. The character is a separate entity from myself and not a vessel for my beliefs and my perspective.
And again, yes, I realize that it is inevitable that some part of the player's self gets into the character but again, that should be minimized. If I try to make a political or philosophical point to other players with the character I am playing, I am inserting my own agenda, beliefs and perspective into the game purposefully rather than trying to faithfully play the role of the character.
And that point has been brought up in multiple posts. You can try to understand when your personal bias is hampering your portrayal of a character and you can try to make the portrayal more accurate by excluding those traits when you roleplay the character.
Roleplaying isn't about expressing your beliefs, perspective and personality, it's about playing the role of a character other than yourself. And yes, you did mention that the personality inevitably filters through but that can be minimized. I feel like I need to put this at the end of every sentence the way it keeps getting brought up. This argument has gone in a circle at least three times now.
No politics, no sports, no gossip, no backbiting, no cell phones turned on @ my table, when we play we do play, works like a charm.
>Do you even know anything about writing?
That's why I research characters. Depressed teenaged witches to talk to are easier to find on the internet than it actually sounds. Then you can impersonate them.
>Two complete atheists could play paladins but make different characters because of their own perceptions of how someone different from themselves would act.
Or maybe because one talks to religious people outside the table and becomes better at roleplaying of religious people as a consequence.
It's not rocket science.
If your personality is slipping through you suck at playing a role.
The best roleplayers can conceal their beliefs and personality better than CIA!
Never had any issues myself, but there are a few people at my LGS that no group will take because they insist on inserting their political and social ideology into anything they do and will insist every party member be 100% on board with it both in-game and out.
>Do you find that it helps to have people who are of a similar political/moral mind to yourself at the table?
No, but I find it helps to have people who are capable of behaving like people at the table. You know, people who can recognize the fact that others might disagree with them without being evil, dumb or obviously wrong, people who understand that when you're all gathered to have fun together you should have fun instead of arguing about politics, people who have something more than their political views to them.
>Or maybe because one talks to religious people outside the table
Which would indicate that they are more open-minded and have something of an interest in religion despite their own beliefs. If you roleplay a certain character it's going to be because something about that character appeals to you and thus in some way reflects your personality.
This is more an issue of open-mindedness than denying your own personality.
I frequently try to explore characters that I have nothing in common with or in fact represent beliefs that clash with my own. I am not always successful but I do my best. This involves adequate research and doing my best to separate my personal beliefs from those of the character.
A socialist can try and play a feudal baron without trying to make a statement or trying to show the error of the system he is depicting, for example. The keyword here is 'try.' It's not always successful but it's better to try than to use each character you make as a platform for your personal beliefs.
>Which would indicate that they are more open-minded and have something of an interest in religion despite their own beliefs
Atheists debate theists because of their beliefs, not "despite" them.
The interest in religions can definitely originate from a desire to further talk shit about them.
>something about that character appeals to you and thus in some way reflects your personality.
No, I'm having a good time with my friends. That is the appeal.
I don't have to feel anything for my player character, infact I can criticize what they do, try asking what Alan Moore thinks of Rorschach's fans sending him letters like: "We need more people like Rorschach in our society!" He'll probably tell you he'd like to kill himself whenever the mailman delivers one.
I'm starting to think you guys don't really get this roleplaying thing and need another hobby.
I mean how do you even DM if you can't roleplay bad guys that you fucking hate? Can't you distance yourself from the character once in a while?
Having been a dm who does not care for politics on game day, I have seen groups of mixed and unified political opinion fall apart when people want to spend hours of the game time discussing their beliefs.
My stance now is that if it does not have anything to do with the game or how your character's make choices, leave it out side of the session. If it does have anything to do with the game, keep it to game related. No drawn out discussions about the middle east, no dissertations on the russian political system and no cuck sucking of the nazis. You keep it brief and then we move on.
You have a month between sessions to discuss those things, not the one day of that weekend.
In my experience, as a nationalist, the only criteria I have is that people shouldn't be fucking retarded when it comes to politics.
This immediately disqualifies basically all feminists and marxists, since they cannot help but to insert their politics into fucking everything, but other than that, I've been able to play with all kinds of people just fine.
Really doesn't matter to me if they're libertarians or fascists or even actual anarchists, as long as they're not obnoxious goyims.
>ITT: Your character is
a shadow, the true self
>I mean how do you even DM if you can't roleplay bad guys that you fucking hate? Can't you distance yourself from the character once in a while?
In my experience, a lot of people have serious issues with this. Even just distancing yourself from a few aspects of your own persona seems to be an insurmountable hurdle for so many people that supposedly roleplay.
I'll go so far as to say that all characters I make have a little bit of me in them, but I skip out on certain aspects of my own character and radically play up others, until the characters are their own.
For a lot of people, questioning your own persona and distancing yourself from the characters you make seems to be some kind of insurmountable fucking hurdle. I had a guy once that just couldn't imagine playing anything other than a fucking paladin, figuratively speaking.
I just don't get it. I sincerely don't.
The Christian conservative backlash against D&D wasn't really about fictional worlds and gods who aren't Best God. It had more to do with outsiders with sheltered, superstitious backgrounds looking in on a hobby that makes heavy references to the occult. When you spent your whole life being told the Devil is gonna come and get ya, seeing your son and his friends pass around a book full of pictures of demons while talking about evil wizards and shit is going to be immensely alarming.
Odd. I've been playing for years and I've never met a nationalist that would insert politics into everything. I'm not even sure how that'd fucking work.
On the other hand, I've mostly played in settings where nations and races already generally hate eachother, or that play up realistic conflicts between cultures and people, rather than fairyland magical realms where everyone gets along because fuck logic, so I guess it's hard to actually insert shit or find shit to be annoyed by, as opposed to ideologies that actively looks for things to be offended by.
Yeah, nobody's life is an accurate representation of the general state of affairs, not in all respects, at the very least. Personally I've had experience with pretty left-wing and reasonably right-wing roleplayers, with no real problems either at the table or outside of it. Another thing is that I obviously don't know shit about the political views of people who never talk about politics. There are probably people I get along just fine but whose views on some things I would detest.
>I mean how do you even DM if you can't roleplay bad guys that you fucking hate?
In roleplaying a bad guy that you hate you are probably going to reveal something about the things you find most worthy of hatred.
I never intentionally made a point about distancing yourself from the character just that every idea you come up with it going to be a product of your own mind and thus reflect certain personal traits. A character can reflect part of your personality without being a self-insert or being in line with your own beliefs; they can merely be a tool to explore an idea you want to explore.
Rorshach is a good example, Moore may not have intended for the reader to approve of Rorshach's behaviour but he used him as part of a story that does express his beliefs. Moore disapproving of Rorshach fanboys shows that he is against Rorshachs behaviour, thus reflecting his opinions.
>Well, I would have a problem if I was gaming with a full on nazi and the fucker couldn't keep his nazi shit off the table
>(If indeed I would ever willingly spend free time with a fucking fascist.)
You sound like exactly the kind of butthurt That Guy this thread is dedicated too.
In the worst case, it was a guy that couldn't stand any sort of monarchy in any setting and always sought to overthrow that form of government and replace it with a constitutional republic. Of course, whatever document he came up with always ended up suspiciously similar to the US Constitution.
Anon, what the fuck are you on about? People are entitled to have standards when it comes to people they spend their free time with. This is not really related to bringing politics to the table.
>Are there actually people autistic enough to be uncomfortable with playing in contexts which don't line up with their personal beliefs?
Modern feminism is basically founded on the idea of being triggered.
>I'm happy with roleplaying as a holy warrior that seeks to protect all that is just and righteous in the name of his god and his liege lord, despite the fact that I'm an agnostic atheist and a socialist.
As a (non-marxist) socialist and an agnostic, I must say that the Paladin archetype (and many other religious archetypes) must be one of my absolute favourites, honestly.
Fedora-tipping asshats that cannot appreciate internally consistent fantasy needs to be herded into a camp and gassed in exactly the same way no-one died in the holocaust.
Agnosticism acknowledges that there's no way you would proof or disproof the existance of a god with certainty. So after affirming that you cannot know, making an statement of belief or disbelief is something retarded.
>I don't know for certain whether God exists or not but I believe that he doesn't.
Fixed that for you. You've got gnostic and agnostic theism and gnostic and agnostic atheism. The degree of gnosticism represents the individual's confidence in their belief.
>Even the Mormon couple plays Catholic space Nazis.
Is it just my experience, or are mormons the chillest fucking extremists? If I'm ever joining a crazy cult of abrahamites, it would be the mormons.
I only have positive experiences with mormons. Completely beside religion, they're obviously doing something right.
I agree with this. I always identify as an agnostic, and then people ask me if I'm an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, and I just look at them like they're fucking retarded.
If I don't know, I refuse to make the call. For fucking sake, people, it's not that fucking hard.
>Agnosticism acknowledges that there's no way you would proof or disproof the existance of a god with certainty
No, the label of "agnostic" means you do not claim to have knowledge on the subject. Your position on the actual "knowability" is not the same thing.
Atheism/theism are labels about what you believe, not what you claim to know. Knowledge is a subset of belief, you cannot know something without believing it.
So an agnostic atheist is someone who does not accept the claims of a god or gods existing as true or likely true, and does not claim to have knowledge on the subject. Which is a perfectly average position to hold, one you probably hold with respect to tons of scientific claims you don't have the education or experience to comment on.
>(Such as, say, when the party wants to do a Crusade campaign but there's an atheist at the table)
There won't be any at the end of it.
Read some Robert Flint. Agnostic atheism has been a term for over a hundred years.
>The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one.
>If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other.
>I agree with this. I always identify as an agnostic, and then people ask me if I'm an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, and I just look at them like they're fucking retarded.
You're the idiot, though, because you don't know how words work.
If someone says "Do you believe a god or gods exist", and your answer is ANYTHING OTHER THAN YES, then you are an athiest, by simple definition. It's not a matter of what you choose to call yourself, because either you are convinced of the truth of a claim (you believe it), or you are not convinced (you do not believe it). There is no middle position.
>In roleplaying a bad guy that you hate you are probably going to reveal something about the things you find most worthy of hatred.
Not me, my player characters! That is what the villain is supposed to antagonize.
It's what they hate that I need to find out, so that they can have a worthy opponent.
I would say the villain defines what the superhero is in comics, but it's the other way around with my games.
It has to be, because I don't get to create the heroes.
>Moore disapproving of Rorshach fanboys shows that he is against Rorshachs behaviour, thus reflecting his opinions.
The fact that they don't get it is what shows the character is well written, and that Moore concealed his opinions very well, especially with having this character he despises succeeding in his investingation, and ultimately getting a chance at exposing the whole plot of the story to the press.
If it wasn't a graphic novel, but a homily, I would have said Moore may have concealed himself too well...
I really like this "leave no tracks" approach to writing, and I imitate it to the best of my ability.
People shouldn't be afraid of trying to be something they're not, it's very liberating!
Playing 40k, where you as the "good" guys frequently do what the bad guys do elsewhere, is hilarious!
You're still retarded buddy. After admitting you dont know you go and pick a side.
Yeah, and it's still retarded. You just admitted that you're an irrational faggot that chooses things on a whim because yes.
You're missing the fucking point. If you claim to not have any knowledge, how can you believe or disbelieve? It's ridiculous.
Claim ignorance and then say you believe, or claim ignorance and then say you don't believe. It's irrational, and people that insist on double-labeling agnosticism are either the worst, most obnoxious, fedora-tipping atheists or the most hypocritical theists that wants to hang with the atheists without renouncing their faith.
>After admitting you dont know you go and pick a side.
But logic is a binary proposition. You don't choose what you believe, beliefs are a matter of being convinced. You are not "choosing a side" when you are not convinced by someone's arguments, because you don't have any input in the act. Either they present evidence and argument that compels you such that you accept it, or you do not accept it.
Why do you think theism/atheism is somehow a set of "sides" that you choose, rather than being two prongs of a binary proposition? You can't be in the middle of a binary choice.
Except it's not retarded. If you do not believe that God exists, then you're an atheist. If you're not certain in your belief, then you're agnostic. It's really quite that simple.
So if you believe that it's impossible to know whether God exists ergo you choose not to worship, you're an agnostic atheist.
By that logic being an atheist is impossible. Since anybody who claims objective knowledge that god does not exist is a liar or a crazy person.
Using a word in a common widely accepted way is not 'fedora tipping', stop being childish.
>If you claim to not have any knowledge, how can you believe or disbelieve? It's ridiculous.
KNOWLEDGE IS A SUB-SET OF BELIEF.
Belief is not a matter of facts or truth, it's a matter of being convinced. You can be convinced that a claim is true, and not know for a fact that it is true.
How is this complicated? I don't need to know for a fact that a god does not exist in order to tell you that I do not accept the claims of a god as true or likely true. I, however, do not have any facts to say for certain whether or not the god exists, only that I am not convinced thus-far. There, atheist agnostic position.
Are you an idiot?
No, anon, belief does not require certainty. Regardless of what you can or can't prove or disprove, on the level of actual actions and day to day behavior you have to take some kind of stance on matters you don't know for sure. Do you behave in accordance with the teachings of some religion or are you a horrible sinner who's going to burn in hell, what religion affects your life if any does, things like these are something that require a choice, even if you don't think about it. There is always some kind of belief behind your actions, even if it's something completely self-evident you don't really even consciously pay attention to.
Correction, gnostic atheist. Someone that is utterly certain that there is no god and is going out of their way to try and prove it. See Richard Dawkins. I'm not approving of his actions or saying he's smart at all, I'm just telling you what is label is. He's a gnostic atheist.
The issue here is that Athiesm has two different dictionary definitions. Similar but different.
1) the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2) disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
It's easy to be agnostic without being an atheist according to #1 but #2 gets more iffy as 'Disbelief' ALSO has multiple meanings.
1) A refusal to accept something as true
2) A lack of faith in something.
3) Shock, Wonder
So you have a whole heap of people arguing a term as THEY personally use it when it's a lot wider than that.
No it's not, nobody is forcing you to make an statement with no knowledge available, are you retarded? If you admit you dont have any knowledge on the subject then you can either try to search for something to proof either point but making assumptions with no data is just admitting that you're a retard.
Again with the "you have to choose". You dont have to choose mainly because there's no proof either way and as far as I know there's no way of proving anything. You're treating this as a matter where you obviously have to be with one of two groups when there's actually 3 groups, "I believe" "I dont believe" "Well I dont know", and the only sensible one is the 3rd one because you dont have proof. This is not a matter of facts because there is none.
>Belief is not a matter of facts or truth, it's a matter of being convinced. You can be convinced that a claim is true, and not know for a fact that it is true.
And even then conviction does not have to be absolute. If you don't really know what is true but the claim X seems the most likely to you so you'll act on the assumption that X is true until you encounter evidence that indicates otherwise, then you certainly believe in the claim X.
>No it's not, nobody is forcing you to make an statement with no knowledge available, are you retarded?
That doesn't matter. You either believe a god exists, or you are not convinced that a god exists. There are not other options here.
In a game that's not going to necessitate SOME politics by its nature (i.e. most of them) then it shouldn't matter.
In a game that's explicitly ABOUT politics, or has politics as an unavoidable element (Eclipse Phase, some campaigns of Shadowrun etc...) then it might be nice.
I once had a DM who's uncalled for, "using my game as a soapbox" full-rynd-mode rants got so pervasive and unpleasant that I just stopped coming to his game.
I must be tired and writing like shit because you're disagreeing with what I wrote but agreeing with what I'm trying to say.
I think my original point was that trying to detach yourself entirely from what you write is a pointless and detrimental endeavor even in roleplaying. You have to understand the character on some level to express them well. That, and the fact that a character who is expressed through their actions in the game or story is going to come across far better than one expressed through obvious author monologues, as is the case with Rorschach.
>You're treating this as a matter where you obviously have to be with one of two groups when there's actually 3 groups, "I believe" "I dont believe" "Well I dont know"
BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE ARE NOT THE SAME THING YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
"I don't know" is an answer to A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT QUESTION.
"I don't know" is not an answer to whether or not you BELIEVE something, it's an answer to whether or not you KNOW something.
Holy shit am I being trolled here?
Can you prove anything? Is "I think, therefore I am" the only statement you can actually know to be true? Is believing in anything else, like, say, the things you see and feel actually existing, retarded and irrational?
That is not how it works, if there is no evidence for something then you do not believe in it. Portraying belief and disbelief as requiring the same standard of proof is absurd.
Otherwise people would go round in a constant state of not being sure if the Tooth Fairy is real.
>Belief is not a matter of facts or truth, it's a matter of being convinced. You can be convinced that a claim is true, and not know for a fact that it is true.
I realize that, I'm saying it's fucking irrational to make that distinction, and it's the worst kind of people that insists of professing belief while also admitting a lack of knowledge.
I'm not saying you can't call yourself an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. I'm saying it's fucking retarded to do so.
>1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
>2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
>3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic.
>a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
>If you're not certain in your belief, then you're agnostic.
It's not that far a leap. If you are not certain in your knowledge of something and/or you argue against certain/ultimate knowledge of something, you are agnostic.
I find in most cases, these arguments start because people are terrified of being labelled atheist, out of fear that it will magically transform them into a fedora-wearing neckbeard. There's nothing wrong with being an agnostic atheist, which is what you most likely are if you call yourself agnostic and don't actively worship.
>Read some Robert Flint. Agnostic atheism has been a term for over a hundred years.
Appeal to Authority. Also, the fact that it's been a term for over a hundred years does not make it not-retarded.
But they are not 'professing' a belief. They are saying they lack belief because they have not seen any evidence. A lack of belief is the default state on any issue.
> mfw it just reinforces my reasoning that these people are insane murders
Still fun to play as
>Neither. Because I don't know.
But anon, how the fuck is that supposed to be possible? I mean, you either act like God tells you to (according to some version of how he tells you to act), or you don't. You can't simultaneously, say, not follow the Bible and *not* not follow the Bible. It is literally, factually, both physically and logically impossible.
>There is no middle position.
Yes there is. I do not know.
This does not make me an atheist.
It does not make me a theist.
I do not admit to belief.
I do not admit to disbelief.
I say I do not know what I believe. I may believe one way or another, depending on available evidence. I refuse judgement.
Oh my god, it's almost as if agnosticism is a separate term!
He'd be an atheist if he said "god is not real and god doesnt exist". And that is as retarded as saying "god is real, god DOES exist". Taking an absolute stand in something with no proof is stupid.
Also fun fact, you are assuming that just because you dont follow X religion you're going against god, but who said that god has to be how christians/muslims/buddhist portray him? God may exist and not be represented by any organized religion formed in earth.
Someone either loves that word or has a really lackluster vocabulary.
Those are gnostic points of view.
If you cannot say that you believe god is real, you are an atheist.
If you cannot say that you know the ultimate truth on the subject, you are an agnostic.
No it's not. I act in no specific manner, whether any form of deity is real or not. This has nothing to do with my belief in god, or whether I have knowledge of any god or not.
It has no bearing on what I do, because I do not know. If I do not know, and as a consequence of that lack of knowledge, do neither believe nor disbelieve the existance of any form of deity, I act in no particular way.
You asked if I act in a specific way, knowing that there is no god. I do not.
You asked if I act in a specific way, knowing that there is a god. I do not.
I willingly claim ignorance and refuse to make a judgement or a statement of belief, because belief is irrational, no matter which way it goes.
Atheist is only the one who believes there is not a god. A-theist, no-god. He just admitted he cannot know so he doesnt take a stand, therefore he is not atheist. He is agnostic.
I'm an atheist, but I regularly play paladins because I find the idea of having something greater to believe in and strive for so interesting. Even just faking it is really fun and makes for a good character.
Also, I would love a crusade. I know a good amount of history about the crusades, and it'd be great to try and see if I and the other PCs could singlehandedly turn a failed crusade into a success, or work in the Islamic side to crush the 1st Crusade.
Aaaand I too was quoted 3 times, and I have no problems calling you a retard, retard.
Let's call a spade a spade, after all. I could call you a whole bunch of different things and twist the tongue with something that means vaguely the same thing, but at the end of the day, you're still just retarded.
You can believe something while also not claiming to have the ultimate knowledge of something.
For example, 'I cannot claim to know for certain but I do not believe that there is a god' is an agnostic atheist approach.
Does anyone remember an anon's story where he joined a Shadowrun game where most of the table and the DM were actually arguing that megacorps were a good thing that should be supported - which is ridiculous considering the point of Shadowrun?
Agnostic is admitting that you cannot know, so the moment you say "I'm not sure, I'm gonna take a stand" you're just admitting you're stupid, you're literally doing the same thing theists do but the reverse way.
It'd be nice if you two could genuinely argue without shouting 'retard' every other post. It makes you look unintelligent and incapable of debate without resorting to insult.
What does it even mean that you " act in no specific manner"? Do you not have a way of life? Do you change the way you live your life from day to day? Even if you did that, though, you would not act according to the word of God, unless you've found a deity who specifically tells you to do whatever. How is this not acting as if God doesn't exist? Or are you genuinely so utterly indifferent about your own fate that, even if you knew for certain that there is a god who will decide what happens to you after you die, and even if you knew what that god wants you to do if you want to have a happy afterlife, you'd still go about your business as you do now?
You can be both you mouth breathing retard. Atheism is a negative affirmation of belief, not a positive affirmation. They aren't saying they believe there is no god, they're saying they don't believe there is a god. Jesus Christ I suck the fucking Pope's dick for a shot at heaven and even I know this shit.
Is this the next level of fedora-tipping?
Agnostics trying to find a way to feel superior to both atheists and theists so that they can belittle others to feel better about themselves, despite the binary logic of the terminology that's used?
I personally feel that characters are great way to express parts of yourself that you can't normally express.
I tend not to swear much, for instance. 4chan has made me worse, but overall I'm a clean person. But I've made characters with horrible mouths and sneering voices who secretly had a heart of gold, because part of me wants to be that person and can be that person.
do you really not get what he's saying?
No, he doesn't act like God tells people to act in the bible.
And no, he doesn't act like people that do are clearly mistaken, and he doesn't treat religious reasoning as invalid.
Agnostics are actually superior because they're the only people rational enough to admit there is no possible way of picking a side with no further information. U mad fedorabro/christfag?
>Atheism is a negative affirmation of belief, not a positive affirmation.
It's both. This is the core of the issue. Atheism has multiple meanings and people are arguing the definition they personally use more than anything else. This is a dictionary fight in a cassock.
In that case, you're retarded as well because it's exactly what you do.
You claim to be agnostic without being atheist but if you cannot say that you believe God exists, that makes you an atheist. You lack the belief in God that a theist has, therefore you are a theist. You are either 0 or 1, there is no 0.5. It's binary. After that, gnosticism and agnosticism applies. Stop trying to be a special snowflake.
>I didnt say you cant, I said it's retarded.
By that criteria everything i retarded. Like, let's take science. There's a lot in science that's uncertain. Accepted theories tend to be the best models we currently have rather than the absolute, unchanging truth. Does this mean scientists are retarded? Are engineers retarded for designing applications with the not-necessarily-true-but-good-enough-for-know theories of modern science in mind? Am I retarded for believing that you're a person posting on a computer rather than a bot or a figment of my imagination? I seriously want to know what non-retarded people can believe according to you.
"You dont follow a belief, therefore you're a non-believer". Nice reasoning bud, because it's not like I said 20 times "I really dont pick a side since I dont have any solid argument either way".
>A lack of belief is the default state on any issue.
Of course this is true
as long as you're an insufferable nerd with trust issues
Atheism and theism are both inherently impossible to prove, and either way you're almost certainly putting your faith in the written works of hundreds of men from throughout history who were all a great deal smarter than you.
Unless you happen to be a published philosopher or theologian, your opinion is likely irrelevant.
People seem to forget that the scientific method doesn't apply to the question of God any more than it applies to the study of literature or art. Sure, it can be handy for working out HOW the world came to exist and HOW its mechanics work, but the questions of WHY - morality, the purpose (if any) of life, the extent to which consciousness is ubiquitous throughout existence, etc. - cannot be answered through repeatable experiments, mathematical proofs and peer review.
It makes the most sense to just have three categories - those in the "yes God" camp, those in the "no God" camp, and the rest who aren't decided for whatever reason
and who are also taking the only rational approach. Theists, atheists and agnostics. Any further subcategories are a waste of time and words.
>(Such as, say, when the party wants to do a Crusade campaign but there's an atheist at the table)
If that guy has a problem with it, then you should remove him from your table.
It's called ROLEPLAYING for fuck's sake.
Hell, if anything I love playing things that are completely opposite of me
>a person who does not believe in a particular thing, especially one who has no religious faith.
Yes, 'you don't believe in a particular thing therefore you're a non-believer' is correct.
"Science is retarded". Yeah because every scientists just says "lol this is truth" or "this not real boiz" and doesnt try to prove/disprove it with actual facts before choosing to side with something.
I'd like to believe that, too, but-
>/fit/ Brawler more than willing to call his friends out when they do something stupid
>self-sufficient, charming Gunslinger with a body like liquid who could cap a man on horseback from the hip while drunk - and being a Halfling
>cunning, savvy Inquisitor with conviction and faith so strong she's rewarded for it with spells
>experienced, upbeat Sorceress who uses her quick temper for productive causes
>tireless, benevolent Spiritualist who, even in the face of being framed for murder, holds herself with dignity
It doesn't work for everyone. These people are nothing like me.
Yes, 99% of the people walking the earth are.
For fuck's sake, take a look at America's politics. It's like a fucking tv drama and everyone has a "if you're not with us, you're with them!" mindset, so not choosing any group in the shitty 2 party system will still not help.
You're not even allowed to side with a party and then criticize even the smallest thing, because everyone loves their Bernie/Hillary/Trump like the second coming of the messiah
It goes like that around the fucking globe, with more topics than just politics.
Sounds similar to my Dark Heresy party.
>A literal Swedish viking that wants to loot and conquer and drink
>A conservative Christian who wants there to be integration program for immigrants
>An agnostic guy who lives in the woods because the government is scary to him
's a good time.
Jesus christ, here we go again. You can twist the words as much as you want but this is not tumblr. Atheism means denying the existance of a god, if you dont actively deny the existance of a god, then you are not an atheist.
You didn't say denier, you specifically said non-believer. I assumed you meant non-believer because you said non-believer. I did not know that I was meant to assume you meant denier when you said non-believer.
>state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.
The antonym of deny is accept. If you do not accept that God exists then you deny that God exists. It's binary.
Google the term you water headed porch monkey. The first ficking result literally says "a person who disbelieves OR lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
So, no, YOU stop trying to twist the definition of words around to fit your fucking agenda.
No, anon, please let the goalposts be where they are. I replied to >>44671564 which was a reply to >>44671524 which specifically talked about 'ultimate knowledge'. This is not something scientists generally claim to have. It's not necessary to assume that any kind of 'ultimate knowledge' can even be achieved in order to be a scientist. Baseless assumptions and certain knowledge aren't all there is. Most of what people 'know', whether we're talking about scientific or academic knowledge or everyday, common sense knowledge, is based on uncertain but probably at least somewhat correct conclusions drawn from incomplete observations and experiences. There is little genuine certainty to be found anywhere.
Funnily enough, that's why we're having this argument right now.
It's a bunch of agnostic atheists freaking out because they feel like they're being press-ganged into a war between atheism and theism. They're not, they're just being given the correct labels and being brought down from the high horses they've made for themselves.
Good intentions and the road to Hell, and all that.
But few crusaders even had good intentions. Most were in it for a combination of booty, glory, land and a free pass to Heaven from the Pope.
The thing you need to understand about liberalism and conservatism is that people who use those words don't actually know what they mean. They have as much genuine meaning as words like cuck or autist have when used around here.
Hey anon, let me do some ethimology work for you. Look what the prefix a- means, and then look for the word θεός, οῦ, ὁ, see what the results bring and then come back.
Ofc you dont have a 100% certainty, but you have some sort of proof that something is like it is, and yeah you should never say something it's 100% like this, but before siding having some knowledge that supports your theory is ideal. Asspulling ideas and going militant sounds stupid dont you think?
Agnostics look at both sides and say they don't believe what the others do.
They don't believe in the existence or the non-existence of gods/God. They don't know, which is perfectly sensible since the answer is unknowable.
Atheists believe there is no evidence of God ("flagella were gradually evolved, obviously"), theists believe that there is evidence of God ("flagella were clearly intelligently created"), and agnostics think that there is absolutely no way to arrive at a definitive answer
Speaking at least for myself here, I kind of resent being told by the zealous types that I'm actually an atheist/theist but I just don't know it because I haven't read the right book(s), and although it's not my fault for being ignorant of the true faith, I am now involved in a battle of minds/souls that has world-changing importance.
Claiming that an agnostic is an "agnostic atheist" is like marching your army into neutral territory and claiming that all their men of fighting age are now your own "unaffiliated conscripts".
Prefix A- means "not", theist means "one who believes in a God as the creator and ruler of the universe". So if you don't believe in a god that created and rules the universe, you are an atheist, regardless of whatever else you may believe.
So he's libertarian, which is the group that gets lumped in with conservatives 99% of the time. Of course, if he'd say "I'm libertarian" you'd go "hurhur afraid of chemtrails and big govt, Anon?".
Of course, liberals are also the exact opposite of liberal. In American terms, these words just mean which of the two sides you identify the most with, and you're just pointlessly arguing semantics.
No anon, theist comes from the word θεός, οῦ, ὁ, which means god. A theist is one that believes in the existance of a theos which is a god, an atheist is one that denies(a-[no]) the existance of a (θεός, οῦ, ὁ[god]) god.
Trying to categorize atheists is like trying ro categorize theists or like trying ro herd cats. It's ultimately futile, everyone will disagree woth you and in the end all you'll have is your wasted time to show for it.
These things should be left to their most basic definition instead of inventing criteria to feel superior to either side.
It's not binary, it's tertiary(?). Whatever the term, there's three basic standpoints, like the charge of a particle.
Positive = God exists (theist)
Negative = God doesn't exist (atheist)
Neutral = Unsure (agnostic or ignorant)
Amazon tribes with no exposure to the Western Canon don't have a positive or negative opinion on God's existence, and neither do European agnostics.
Gnostic is already a philosophical term, by the way; it describes a school of Christians who were more or less wacky cults from around the first century AD.
Arguably, but you could also argue that contributing to the culture that helped raise you, whether that be by giving back or possibly trying to change it for the better, is enough of a purpose for a human life.
this is fucking stupid
atheists dont claim you can "know" god doesn't exist, or that there is a "definitive answer", they just aren't convinced by any claims that there is a god, and they dont entertain the possibility unless its some sort of mental exercise
its just like anything else unlikely. would you say you're agnostic about the existence of a invisible unicorn that also can't be heard that happens to follow you around 24/7 ???
obviously its possible, anything is possible, and you can define a thing such that its impossible to know whether its true or not (god is a perfect example, invisible, purposely hiding himself for reasons, etc)
non-religious people treat god just like any other thing there's no good evidence for
YOUR position, by contrast is that everybody else is retarded and you're the only person who understands the concept of "proof"
you're arguing against a complete strawman of atheism
if you don't believe in God, you are atheist, it is as simple as that
it doesn't matter how sure you are about it, or whether you think its possible to ever know. if you do NOT (a-) believe in god (theist), you are an a-theist
Agreed. The difference between "anti-theist", "agnostic atheist" and "gnostic atheist" is equal to the difference between "Catholic", "Protestant" and "Coptic".
Agnostic is the term for the true neutral position, and any appropriation of that term by either side of the argument is incorrect usage.
whatever culture you exist in will eventually fade away and whatever country you claimed will cease to exist given time
100% of everything life ever seeks to accomplish is ultimately futile
It's not positive, negative or neutral. It's on or off. You are or you are not. You can or you can not. You do or you do not. You do believe or you do not believe. If you cannot claim to believe, then you do not believe.
These hypothetical amazons are not exposed to God therefore they are incapable of believing in God therefore they do not believe in God. They are switched 'off' while a Christian is switched 'on.'
Lol, this is like saying "did you watch an action or a comedy movie?" "Actually I dont go to the cinema, I'm not into movies" "NO THAT'S NOT AN ANSWER YOU HAVE TO PICK A GENRE ARE YOU STUPID?"
Again, it's arguable, on a cosmological scale then, sure, we could probably never do anything significant enougj to affect anything, but why does that make the effect we have on those around us now any less important? I just don't really care for a nihilistic viewpoint desu, senpai
people do not have beliefs about the existence of every possible thing that could possibly exist
every person is therefore "agnostic" about an infinite number of unlikely events and objects
if somebody claims that one of these things has happened or exists, you may not believe them but that doesn't change the fact that ultimately your stance on the issue is unchanged from before somebody came to you claiming this thing was true, its just now its been brought to your mind and you've been forced to affirm or not affirm it
denying something is for when somebody claims something to be the case and you have observed or concluded that something contradictory to that was actually the case
when somebody instead claims something you have no definite knowledge regarding, you only must decide between affirmation and non-affirmation. anything besides agreeing and believing with the claim is non-affirmation, which is different from denying a claim.
>we could probably never do anything significant enougj to affect anything
we factually can't do anything significant enough to fight anything because the universe will someday end
it's only nihilistic if you take that info and dispair
I think there's certain extremes that I am going to be completely unable to play against.
If somebody stands up and gives a speech about how my friend Bob playing a woman is trivializing transpeople and then shames us all, it's not going to work. If a different person is making jokes about how the half-elf is "a disgusting mongrel, just like race mixing in real life" it's not going to work.
If somebody isn't a retard, I can play games with them.
Not really because you're obviously omitting the inaction of it which is agnosticism, what you're saying is "you HAD to watch a movie, doesnt matter which genre" and I'm saying "I didnt, I dont care what genre it is, I just dont like movies".
no its not like that at all you stupid fuck
the question of whether you believe in god is more like the question of whether or not you went to the movies than the question of do you prefer an action or comedy movie
theres no middle ground, you either do or do not believe in god
within the group of people who do not believe in god, sure, there is a variation in attitude towards the claim that there is a god. some are hopeful and open-minded about it but can't honestly say they believe it, some are dismissive and make negative insinuations about the character and intelligence of those who believe it, etc etc
It's not retarded, it's a matter of a person's take on epistemological issues as well as one of how autistic they are about them.
Pure agnosticism vs atheistic agnosticism mostly boils down to two things - the argument that the vast majority of experiments include a margin of error and consequently only allow you to say that something has a probability of being true or false that gets infinitely close to 100% but never actually reaches 100%, and the argument that while you can rule out a specific definition of God if that definition relies on factors that are both testable and falsifiable, you cannot make any statements on the concept of God itself since it's way too vaguely defined (i.e. if you say that God exists because God created the world in six days, I can test your claim that the world was created in six days and tell you that you're full of shit - if you say that God exists because there's an afterlife however, I can't really do shit about that because the afterlife can't be scientifically measured with our current scientific capabilities).
But if you purposely state the existence of a god is grounded in an untestable hypothesis then what's the fucking point? It clearly doesn't influence the world and has no more merit than the invisible, intangible, inaudible leprechaun in my crawl space.
It's denying the supposed cycle of the universe, and if you're defining how big an impact is by what knows and cares about it then anything you do to humans matters because they know and care.
Agnosticism isn't inaction, agnosticism is the lack of certain/ultimate knowledge.
I'm not demanding that those that calls themselves 'agnostic' need to side with atheists because the correct terminology for them is agnostic atheist. I'm simply stating that it's the right terminology. Atheism isn't some manic declaration that you know there is no god, just as theism isn't some manic declaration that there is a god. They're binary states of belief, just like a/gnosticism are binary states of knowledge. You either believe or don't believe and you either know or don't know.
This neutral ground you speak of are agnostic theists, they're just entirely disinterested in the argument between gnostic theists and gnostic atheists. And that's okay. I'm even happy to let them call themselves agnostics but this argument started when I was mocked for calling myself agnostic atheist by a confessed agnostic. It's a case of shitlords trying to turn terminology into tribalism.
There's part of you that recognizes when your friends are doing stupid, right, even if it doesn't say anything? So you could be the guy who calls his friends out when they do something stupid.
You could be charming and suave - you've done well enough to roleplay that gunslinger.
If you had something you really believed in strongly enough, you could have conviction like that Inquisitor and could be just as cunning.
And so on it goes. It doesn't have to be a part of you that you express strongly, or is even a large part of yourself. It's just a little bit of you that you're using to make that different character feel more real.
>100% of everything life ever seeks to accomplish is ultimately futile
Like hell it is. If I want to live my life happily, and I do live my life happily, then I get exactly what I want. That is not futile. If I want to give my children security and the possibility to choose their own path in life, and I succeed in doing so, then the fact that far enough into the future my descendants will no longer has zero relevance. Actions that help me achieve my goals and dreams are meaningful, because those goals and dreams are what give anything meaning in the first place. Life and things people do in life are only futile and meaningless if you assume that some kind of grand, external meaning is needed.
>then anything you do to humans matters because they know and care
are you saying that's inaccurate?
if earth and all of humanity were to be instantly vaporized right now, do you think you'd notice?
because you literally couldn't
>non-religious people treat god just like any other thing there's no good evidence for
Except they don't. They don't read the supposed evidence, and they also don't read the supposed evidence for quantum mechanics or the other hundreds of thousands of theories they take at face value because of the collective opinions of "experts".
Have you read the Bible, or the Quran, or the Torah, and fact-checked them against each other to weigh the evidence for the truth of the Pentateuch? Have you read Max Planck and Albert Einstein's proposals of quantum, and all the mathematical papers since, and fact-checked them against each other to weight the arguments on the nature of subatomic particles.
If you're happy to call yourself an atheist, chances are that the answer to both questions is a big, fat, ignorant "No".
I don't disbelieve as a default position, because the nature of evidence for God is subject to perspective, and anything offered as a proof by a theist will automatically be rejected and given an alternative explanation by an atheist, and vice versa, ad nauseam.
I am agnostic because I am undecided on the answer to an unknowable question, and I'm not "the only person" who feels this to be the sensible answer, just ask anyone else who ever described themselves as "agnostic".
If a person says they're atheist, they are stating that they believe that God does not exist, and some add that evidence to the contrary that they (or people smarter than them in whom they place faith) deem valid could sway them.
Agnostics say they don't know, and God or undetectable unicorns or quarks are all just as much of a mystery.
Yes, you can argue (and plenty of prominent atheist writers keen to fluff their numbers already have) that etymologically, the word "atheist" could be construed to apply to any "non-theist", but then you could also argue that etymologically, an "atom" can't be split. It's an obtuse definition that isn't necessary.
You were saying that nothing humans could do would matter, so I said that ending the universe prematurely mattered, then you moved the goal posts and said that things had to be around to assign value to that action or else it didn't actually matter, but by that definition everything we do that affects another human matters.
I have absolutely no problem being around people of different beliefs, both politically and religiously, as long as you are not a moron about it.
You're religious? Great. You're not? Fine too.
You think that water isn't wet because your God or lack thereof makes you think this? You're dumb, don't talk to me.
Getting in to character in games isn't hard, and as such the opinions of characters in games and fiction don't bother me. Will they bother my character? Maybe. But not me personally.
>If I want to live my life happily, and I do live my life happily, then I get exactly what I want
until you don't anymore
because at a point you won't be able to anymore, no matter how badly you want to
>If I want to give my children security and the possibility to choose their own path in life
then you will have failed because there will come a time where they won't be able to act anymore either
if you have kids and they have kids and they have kids eventually they will all die and so will anywhere they'd be able to live
I'm not saying that this can't mean that it can't have meaning to you because that's all you have
but in ACTUALITY it's meaningless
life does until it doesn't and eventually it won't and that's fine
life doesn't have inherit meaning is all I'm saying
Think of it this way: I ask if you think Sara Dalton is a murderer. You don't know, you don't even know who Sara Dalton is. It's never affected your life before. Maybe you've heard people talk about this girl before or stuff like that, but it's impossible to tell. You really can't take a stand at all. I suppose you could say "innocent until proven guilty", but it's not like she is innocent at first and then she becomes guilty until convicted. She was always guilty, we just didn't know that before, or she was always innocent and we didn't know it before.
Now if you really want to argue the specifics, then here's an even better example. Does Sara Dalton exist? In fact, let's change that name to Sara Dlotan to avoid google.
There could be a girl named like that. There could be a girl named that. You couldn't know by simple google search. But assume you found a girl called Sara Dlotan. Is she *the* Dlotan? Am I talking about her?
And now to top this off: Imagine I said that everything that has happened in your life so far is because of her. This would be impossible, so we make this even more interesting: Sara Dlotan is a really powerful person with a lot of influence everywhere, but nobody would ever say she exists. We create an explanation which would work (which I admit I can't make up now but anyways assuming ew could). Now I ask you again, does Sara Dlotan exist?
And yet here you are, saying you don't know (and you can't) because ultimately both explanations are logical. Maybe Sara Dlotan was a really powerful person who could do all this. Pull the right strings, do all that stuff. But it's also possible that she doesn't, that everything in your life went exactly as it did because of all the reasons it would without her.
If x^2=4, what is x? It could be either 2 or -2, and both results are equally valid because they give you the same end result, and as such you can't really judge which one it was.
In this case, it's already got a word: "agnostic". Sometimes you'd use "neutral", or "undecided", depends.
In no other situation would you agree with the neutral stance being labelled with the same term as the negative stance.
An abstained vote isn't counted as a "nay", is it? The word "maybe" isn't considered synonymous with "no"
unless requesting unusual sexual acts from the missus, and nobody ever accused the Swiss of being Nazis.
Fuckin Poe's Law man, you had me for a second there.
Then what's the point of bringing this up? If you admit that meaning to the person who does it is enough, then who fucking cares if in 10000000000000 years the universe as we know it ceases to exist?
I think you're misunderstanding my point. Think of it this way: existence is a gigantic equation with millions of different variables all interacting that ultimately equals zero.
What you're proposing is basically "well what if humans were to cancel enough other variables out that it'd reach zero faster?" From the standpoint of the equation, you didn't do anything because you can't do anything. It equals zero. It'll always get to zero and the speed at which it does is irrelevant to the greater equation, ultimately.
No, it doesn't. It also doesn't have inherent meaning. But you can give your own life a purpose and live by it. It's good enough for me.
This is a flawed example though, we can know for certain whether she did or didn't, there's clear, defined criteria. There is no clear, defined criteria of a god, it can mean almost literally anything.
>until you don't anymore
>then you will have failed because there will come a time where they won't be able to act anymore either
No, anon, the goal I stated was not to have my children live forever. If they are able live their lives in the manner of their choosing until their natural deaths, then my goal has been achieved and will remain achieved.
>but in ACTUALITY it's meaningless
What is that 'ACTUALITY', anon? In actuality meaning is given by people, and it's as real as anything else created by people. Whether that meaning is inherent or not is utterly irrelevant. It exists, it matters, and whether actions are futile or not is determined solely by whether they contribute to something with this kind of meaning.
It can be considered an obtuse definition but is there any reason to be offended by it? Why should a person that considers that definition correct be derided?
What I'm seeing in this thread is fedora-tipping under a new name. Just as atheists are infamous for trying to use atheism as 'proof' of their enlightened superiority over theists, this thread has some agnostics that are trying to use their belief or lack thereof as 'proof' of their superiority. It's the exact same behavior that fedora-tipping neckbeards have become so reviled for, just under the title of 'agnostic' instead.
The only reason to argue against the definition is if you have issue with having this artificial superiority stripped away. It's etymology, not tribalism.
>Do you find that it helps to have people who are of a similar political/moral mind to yourself at the table?
Yes, immensely. In fact from my experience it's pretty much a necessity. But it's not so much about clash of opinion on a particular subject, as the fact that we are running a rather specific type of games which are mostly oriented on the social and cultural side of the campaign, and being able (or more precisely, WILLING) to embrace often a very strange and foreign mindset, being willing to roleplay a character from a different society with a different world view is an absolute requirement. And that, obviously, requires certain flexibility of mindset that is generally speaking impossible to marry with some more extreme or deeply rooted ideological beliefs.
I think I've mentioned this in a different thread, but I had a pretty bad experience with a new player throwing a tantrum when he learned one of my established characters had an 11 years old wife. Even when it was explained it was a purely political marriage and wasn't consummated, he still flat out refused to participate in a settings where child marriage was a thing. Went against his moral stands.
I can't blame him, but it made it impossible for him to play with us. So yeah: It is fairly important.
This is an interesting load of bullshit. This is why I hate agnostics: I can respect both theists and atheists just fine. Agnostics, specifically people who proudly boast their agnosticism, are without a question an army of self-righteous cowards who boast their LACK OF A STANCE as some kind of an achievement.
And just for your information, there are multiple different epistemological justification of atheism, including probabilism and coherentism, align directly with what the guy above stated, so you are also quite factually wrong.
Then what does it matter? Why even come onto this thread to bring it up? An argument like this is, funny enough like an argument on religion, no one is going to change their mind, everyone will come out thinking they won, and we'll all ultimately just have wasted our collective time in the end.
It's important because people like to throw around things like "life is meaningful for this" or "this is the reason we're alive" when it's not true.
TRUTHFULLY it's all meaningless which puts the ball into the court of personal meaning and away
this is an important distinction
people like to throw around the question of "why are we" in the grand scheme of things and the answer is ultimately "no reason"
That's the argument I'd make myself but rejecting it isn't necessarily irrational - just extremely autistic. Kinda like "Jeanne Calment lived well past her 122nd birthday so I'm going to plan out my entire life all the way 'till my own 122nd birthday". Yeah, it's physically possible that you're going to live that long but it's also a) extremely unlikely and b) planning that far ahead is extremely unlikely to matter in any meaningful way".
In most instances of voting in favor or against, abstaining has a similar function to 'no.' The key function being that you are not voting in favor. Voting against and abstaining are similar in that regard, even though abstaining is not voting against.
In this case, gnostics are the ones that are voting at all while agnosticism is voting against. Consider gnostic theism a vote for, gnostic atheism a vote against and agnostic atheism abstaining from the vote. What agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism have in common is that neither are theism. Atheists and agnostics cannot be described as theists. There's no need to invent the term of non-theist when the term atheist has filled that function since its creation.
i would never play with anyone from /tg/ knowing the likelihood they are crossposters from reddit who e.g unironically want to make female space marines for reddit/tumblr reasons, gets emotional and upset over "/pol/", thinks star trek tier sissy sci fi real life outcome is preferable to a real life 40k, etc
My Grandfather once told me that if you would like to remain friends with someone, do not discuss Religion of Politics.
Unless I'm with people whom I know for a fact agree with me in both, I talk about neither. It makes life way better, and me less angry about things.
>Is she *the* Dlotan? Am I talking about her?
This was more or less what I tried to use to "answer" that question, though I didn't have enough space to include that. I suppose you could also add that maybe Sara Dlotan is a nickname, does that qualify if her real name is Dalton and she wanted to mask her name while still retaining enough familiarity so that people close to her guess it's her? What if it wasn't her given name but she changed it at some point? What if it was and she is now called something else?
You still get the point.
1. Define god
2. Do things matching that criteria exist?
3. Is it the one you are speaking of if there are multiple results?
No, they literally don't. "I don't know" is not a stance. It a withdrawal from the debate. And agnostics (once again you are getting the terms completely wrong) literally state "lack of knowledge" on the subject. It's in the term. "A" means without, "gnosis" means knowledge. Agnostics who claim they believe there is something are not agnostics at all: they are the worst kind of believers, theists. The claim knowledge of something that is compatible with the definition of divine exists, yet they chose the most worthless, useless belief in the fucking universe.
Theism makes sense because religion can be immensely useful. But believe in "something" is just rejection of modern epistemologies on which atheism is predicated, while simultaneously not committing to the (sometimes actually useful) moral and cosmological models of religion.
You are a theist without any benefit of being a theist. But you are still a theist. Agnostic simply claims that he cannot make any committed statement about existence or non-existence of a god. He simply admits that he does not know.
Knowing and belief are separate things, that is why a/theist and a/gnostic can be used in conjunction with one another for more precise description and definition of one's position.
The guy is agnostic; he doesn't know for certain if there's anything out there but he does believe there's something, which makes him a theist at the same time. It's clunky but it sets boundaries a little better than this weird system of 'theist, atheist, agnostic.'
Yes, knowledge is a specific kind of belief. But if you BELIEVE in existence of something compatible with definition of divinity, you are still a theist.
Once again, agnostic is only a person who withdraws from the debate. He does not believe in existence of god (or it's derivations), yet he refuses to commit to the statement that he does not exist. It is non-commitment. Unlike belief in existence of "something".
You literally got the terms backwards. Atheism claims knowledge. Theism covers belief. Agnosticism rejects the debate.
>disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Find me a dictionary definition that claims that atheism is the claiming of knowledge. Also, knowledge and belief are entirely separate concepts. From what I'm reading, you are inventing terminology and definitions.
>Also, knowledge and belief are entirely separate concepts.
No, they are not. One is a specific case of another. All knowledge is belief, not all belief is knowledge. You will find several definitions of knowledge, but they all have one thing in common: commitment to the statement. They only differ in the justification for the commitment. And atheist is committed to the notion of god not existing. Embraces a model in which god is safely ruled out. If you doubt non-existence of god, you are not exactly an atheist now, are you?
>noun: knowledge; plural noun: knowledges
>facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
>noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs
>an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
These definitions have nearly nothing in common. You're creating your own definitions based upon your own perception of atheists, theists and agnostics. There is nothing factual about what you are stating.
I find it weird how I can both feel everyone has a right to believe what they believe and no one should try to take that away from them, but I still have difficulty dealing with people who are outspoken about their beliefs.
This is the first time you've mentioned epistemology and you need to understand that not all knowledge is justified belief. Atheism is still defined as lack of belief, not the presence of knowledge under any definition that exists anywhere. Except in your mind, perhaps. Epistemology does nothing to help you out here.
>DM throws a new plot hook at us
>people surround a new cult have started to disappear
>namely those that speak out about activities related to it
>the most people can get out before being snatched away is garbled statements of massive pyramid schemes and possible drug trade
>get closer to the village and start hearing rumors of a extremists killing non-believers and taking women and child for dubious purposes but killing husbands and working the boys as child soldiers
>.....wow getting dark fast but lets go investigate
>notice around this time the dm's smiling more than usual and tom seems upset
>get to the town
>immediately met by crazy revelers and the mayor
>mayor says we're just in time for the fun
>get swept into a crazy festival type deal
>dancing drinking celebrating more drinking
>paladins the only one to remain sober but he still enjoys the fest
>mayor at one time or another drops hints to each of us as we got seperated that we could have this much fun all times of year
>just gotta join up with them
>morning comes and naturally we're suspicious
>start to investigate and all we get out of locals is the name of the cult
>sounded oddly close to scientology but i didn't pick up the allah bit as it was said not written
>immediately draw similarities to the disappeared people talking about money schemes and the same cases in scientology
>figure DM's running out of material so he just made it gritty with the rumored war crimes
>tom is just staring at DM intently
>figure he's also figured it out
>oh well lets investigate some more
>suddenly the attempts on our life start happening by random people quite frequently
>walking through the market and suddenly guys with swords are coming at us
>culminates in suicide bombers with alchemists fire strapped to them running full bore at us
>manage to make our way to the mayors office
>mayors post orgy on wads of money
>tom shouts out "thats enough dennis(dm)!"
It's not a case of "artificial superiority", or "proud, boasting, self-righteous cowardice" (really, dude?) it's a case of maintaining linguistic consistency for the sake of avoiding unnecessary confusion, simple as that.
There were, for thousands of years, three terms: one positive, one negative, one neutral, with various subdivisions. Now, thanks to tortured etymological reasoning, there are two terms: one positive, and one for both negative and neutral together.
It doesn't make any sense to reorganise a perfectly functional arrangement for the sake of reasoning along the lines of "theists are 100% Wrong, therefore everyone else is now Not Wrong".
When ideological trends are so prevalent that academic language is being retconned, that makes me concerned.
>there are multiple different epistemological justification of atheism, including probabilism and coherentism
They are, by your own words, justifications for atheism. They are not justifications for agnosticism, or else they would not assume the non-existence of God.
It's a simple, three-option system with various minor variations, and you clearly even accept that self-evident fact on a subconscious level, but you have the weird atheist urge to insist that everyone could be atheist too if only they were as smart and courageous as yourself.
I remember when I was 18 and blamed religion for the ills of the world, believe me, I do. But I now also remember studying philosophy at university and encountering droves of identical atheist clones who became visibly agitated and confused when anyone suggested that ancient and medieval philosophers weren't usually trying to argue that God was an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and all-loving skywizard with a beard, and in fact (gasp!) the vast majority of those writers were the equivalent of world-class scientists who had a better grasp on the concept of the divine than any first-year philosophy student could ever hope to have attained.
>Do you find that it helps to have people who are of a similar political/moral mind to yourself at the table?
I don't really care, as long as there's no Carthaginians. Or Gaulics. Or NCR.
>whole thing devolved into a shouting match and us breaking up a fistfight
I guess tom and dennis were chatting and dennis found out tom and his family were hardcore scientologists and dennis is super athiest and started chatting about the disappearances and with tom refusing to even acknowledge they happened. Guess the conversation ended with dennis saying scientologists have the same mentality and blind belief as the extremist sects of muslims. And all of that carried over to gametime a week later. Needless to say me and the guys had to look for a 5th and a new dm.
>And atheist is committed to the notion of god not existing.
According to who? The only person insisting this is you, that doesn't make it fucking true you inbred fuck.
>If you doubt non-existence of god, you are not exactly an atheist now, are you?
How the fuck can you doubt a lack of something's existence? You're literally saying "you don't believe that you don't believe a god exists". It makes no fucking sense.
Some people felt the same, but had to compromise in the past.
One of the greatest thing about the american education system, besides its massive amount of flaws, would be that you can not push a religious agenda on children.
I have seen several teachers fired over the years even here in the bible belt for trying to force kids into christian ideologies and at least 2 trying to make going to church mandatory for their class. You have every right to believe what you want, you have no right to pass it on to kids as an educator.
No, actually, I claim knowledge on the non-existence of god. I don't base my disbelief in god in nothing. Plus, I am a committed to it. All atheists are, that it's the commitment that makes them atheists.
Great argument. Do I actually need to go on and explain why public dictionary quote is not a valid argument, or can you at least figure that shit out.
Actually, about the fifth time in this thread, and yes, all knowledge is justified belief. It's just that the definitions of "justified" widely differ.
Atheism is defined as lack of belief in common language, because people tend to commonly confuse belief (an epistemic term) with "belief" (a commitment to the assumption that God or od's exist). And yes, as atheism is the commitment to the assumption that God or god's don't exist, it logically is a lack of the reverse.
But in reality, atheism is not a lack of belief, not belief in epistemic sense. It's a presence of another belief.
I have no fucking clue what you are talking about there. I never said a word against the three-model system. I merely stated that the middle position has absolutely no argumentative weight or value. I have no clue how that little rant on philosophy freshmen plays into any of this.
>There were, for thousands of years, three terms: one positive, one negative, one neutral, with various subdivisions. Now, thanks to tortured etymological reasoning, there are two terms: one positive, and one for both negative and neutral together.
Except, no. There was never a neutral position on the concept of theistic claims. Gnostic and Agnostic were labels that existed back in the fucking Roman times you schmuck.
The only one claiming there is "Belief", "Lack of belief", and "Lack of belief and lack of belief" is modern idiots like you.
>According to who? The only person insisting this is you, that doesn't make it fucking true you inbred fuck.
Are you actually saying that atheist can be someone who believes that god might exist? Or someone who simply claims that deciding whenever god exists or not is beyond his ability to judge?
Of COURSE atheism is a commitment to the notion that god does not exist, you half-wit. Show me a fucking definition of atheism that contradicts that. It's LITERALLY THE ONLY MEANING OF THE FUCKING WORD, IN EVER FUCKING DEFINITION IN EVERY FUCKING DICITIONARY YOU'LL FIND.
So your problem with atheism comes from atheists, not from a personal advancement beyond atheism. You moved on to agnostic due to a simple fear of being associated with people you do not approve of and now you are back to being above them. Everything you do seems to be based on tribalism, even something as fundamental as your beliefs regarding the universe.
It's a two-by-two grid that has been accepted for over a hundred years now and before that, there was still gnosticism and agnosticism, theism and atheism. To treat it like a three-way system is delusional and trying to put your way on a pedestal makes you seem barbaric and eager to find some measure of superiority over others - just like the atheists that you suppose we are and that you sneer at.
Technically different. They use religion as their voting base but when it comes to it they do things BASED on religion like more wholesome learning (look at the sex ed classes war) rather than FOR religion like saying church is mandatory for classes (several teacher have tried and had their careers destroyed for this). You gotta realize their bible thumping is almost exclusively to drum up votes and would actually get them laughed out of government if they legitimately tried it while in office.
No one's trying to force anyone into anything. It's not a gotcha moment. It's not like anyone's going:
>HAHAHAH NOW I HAVE LABELLED YOU AS AN ATHEIST YOU MUST HENCEFORTH WEAR A FEDORA, GROW A NECKBEARD AND READ THE GOD DELUSION THREE TIMES EVERY DAY
It's not a face of trying to get anyone to join any fucking club, it's terminology, that's all. Stop trying to associate the lack of the presence of belief with an organized, militant group.
>According to who?
The accepted definition of the term until 20th-century atheist academics retconned it, we've already gone over this in the thread.
>How the fuck can you doubt a lack of something's existence?
A simpler way to express that would be to say "you suspect something's existence".
Even more neutrally, most agnostics would probably go with the version, "you consider something's existence to be a moot point".
Doubt existence - agnostic
Suspect existence - agnostic
Assume existence - theist
Assume non-existence - atheist
You must be such an "inbred fuck" to get so angry about not understanding this simple concept which has been an element of common sense ever since religion became optional.
Wow it's almost like atheists are different people with different beliefs and convictions connected by the single thread that they do not believe there is a god. Your argument is literally the most retarded argument on the subject I've ever fucking heard.
>Are you actually saying that atheist can be someone who believes that god might exist?
Yes. Hell, I'll tell you right now, it's entirely possible for a god to exist. I don't BELIEVE one exists, but that doesn't mean I believe it is physically impossible, because while I have not been convinced that a god or gods exist, I have also not been convinced that some principal of reality excludes the possibility that a supernatural deity could exist. I can't rule it out, it's theoretically a non-zero chance.
I can pretty confidantly say that the god defined by Christianity, the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity can not exist, because it's nature is self-contradictory. But other concepts of deities? Who knows.
That doesn't mean I believe one exists, I certainly don't. I just cannot call the possibility of it a zero. That would require KNOWLEDGE that I do not have.
>Or someone who simply claims that deciding whenever god exists or not is beyond his ability to judge?
There's a difference between "deciding whether god exists or not", and being convinced that one exists or not. You do not choose your beliefs.
>Of COURSE atheism is a commitment to the notion that god does not exist
Says who? You? That's not what the definition says. The only one insisting your definition seems to be you.
> Show me a fucking definition of atheism that contradicts that.
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Lacking a belief in something is not a commitment to the concept that it does not exist. It just describes that presently, you are not convinced of it's existence.
>>The accepted definition of the term until 20th-century atheist academics retconned it
You assert that, but I don't see any sources.
>A simpler way to express that would be to say "you suspect something's existence".
That's not the same thing.
>Even more neutrally, most agnostics would probably go with the version, "you consider something's existence to be a moot point".
Please stop trying to ivory-tower your way out of a discussion.
>Doubt existence - agnostic
>Suspect existence - agnostic
But that's wrong.
Agnostic Theist: Someone who believes a god or gods exist, but does not claim to know this for certain.
Gnostic Theist: Someone who believes a god or gods exists, and claims to have direct knowledge of the fact.
Agnostic Atheist: Someone who does not believe a god or gods exist, and does not claim to have knowledge about the truth of the claim.
Gnostic Atheist: Someone who does not believe a god or gods exist, and claims to know this for certain.
Are you actually retarded? I'm thoroughly convinced you're an undiagnosed mentally handicapped man who had lived his life on the back of the kindness of others who feel sorry for you. There is no other explanation for how someone could be this stupid.
>A simpler way to express that would be to say "you suspect something's existence".
Actually, now you are hijacking the term. Completely.
No, doubting does not make you an an agnostic. Refusal to commit to a belief based on doubts makes you an agnostic.
Agnostic refuses to take a stance. It's as simple as that. You can doubt but still chose to commit to either existence or non-existence of god, and then you are still an atheist or a theist. Or you can find the doubts overwhelming and the problem unsolvable: THEN you are an agnostic.
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
Is this real life? Where are you cretins coming from?
>I can't rule it out, it's theoretically a non-zero chance.
What fuck are you on about? Do you fucking not know what the word "atheist" means? Do you treat the statement "god exists" as TRUE, OR FALSE? OR NEITHER?
IT'S THAT FUCKING SIMPLE QUESTION. THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS. ONLY THESE THREE.
Do you live in a circus? Do people come to listen to you talk so they can laugh? Because if not i know the perfect way for you to make a couple of bucks for almost no work and to be able to spout your awful opinions to an audience all you want.
Atheists are allowed on crusades. They may not like, pray when everyone else does but hey anyone is allowed to champion a good cause.
>Do you fucking not know what the word "atheist" means?
As I explained in the post, I do not believe a god exists. Therefore, I am an atheist.
That does not mean that I must assert that a god does not exist as a fact, and that I must claim that it is impossible for a god or gods to exist. How could I possibly claim those things? They are direct assertions about reality that I cannot possibly posses the knowledge or proof to make.
If you can't demonstrate something, you can't say you know it. I cannot demonstrate the existence or lack of existence of a deity, so I cannot claim to know it. I am agnostic.
> Do you treat the statement "god exists" as TRUE, OR FALSE? OR NEITHER?
I BELIEVE that the statement is likely false, or unlikely to be true. I do not accept any of the claims presented, but it also heavily depends on what you mean when you say "god". The deity proposed by most religions? Sure, I do not believe those exist. But again, I cannot make the claim that they factually do NOT exist, as I don't have evidence to prove such a claim.
>That does not mean that I must assert that a god does not exist as a fact
Newsflash: not all knowledge is factual, fuckwit.
>If you can't demonstrate something, you can't say you know it.
Are you serious? Your understanding of the concept of "knowledge" is that of a grade school kid. No, knowledge is a lot more bitch to define and prove.
>I BELIEVE that the statement is likely false, or unlikely to be true.
In other words, you are committed to the assumption that god does not exist. You treat the question as if the statement above was "FALSE". And that is, surprisingly enough, how all knowledge works. Although, judging on what you say further, you clearly actually aren't. You are pussyfooting around like a bitch, but that is besides the point.
>Gnostic and Agnostic were labels that existed back in the fucking Roman times you schmuck.
Yes, and a Gnostic was a cultist from a particular sect of Christianity called Gnosticism, who believed they had direct knowledge of Christ's divinity.
An Agnostic was somebody who was unsure or undecided about the existence of God, and did not assume the existence or non-existence of God, usually pointing out that both arguments are circular and irrefutable, therefore the point is moot and the ink is wasted.
The term "gnosis" is Greek and can approximately be translated as "direct experiential knowledge", but at no point prior to the 20th century did people subcategorise Theists and Atheists into "Gnostic" or "Agnostic", and the result of the widespread popularity of this new definition has been that "agnostic" is now considered to be a subset of "atheist", especially by upset atheists trying to persuade others to be as upset as they are and thus validate the butthurt.
Not to mention the fact that the new definition of "gnostic" has all but erased Gnosticism from discussions of Christianity, which is a crying shame because they were usually based as fuck.
I replied to two almost identical posts at the same time. Neither one had any meaningful content beyond insisting that people who call themselves agnostics are bad people and should just be called atheists now instead.
No discussion of the validity or weight of the agnostic position was put forth in either, re-read your post.
No, my problem, as I explained, is that there is a clear personal advancement beyond atheism, which comes from reading philosophy further than the freshman level.
The two-by-two grid is a modern invention, as you can easily find out by even fucking googling a single solitary one of the multitude of dumb ideas you just pulled out of your ass.
>Gnostic Atheist: Someone who does not believe a god or gods exist, and claims to know this for certain.
Is this right? I always thought I was gnostic based on the fact that I fully believe it's all bullshit - but I would never say I know that absolutely certainly. It's like a 99% surety, but not quite 100% guaranteed.
Always thought I was gnostic because it seems silly to give an idea the benefit of a doubt despite having nothing to back it up with. Like I'm supposed to pretend that your wackjob ideas mean just as much as mine because "you can't know for certain!"
But this means that if any sort of God was proven to exist that these people would have their world shaken. I'd just feel relieved that there's finally some answers, so it doesn't quite fit as well as agnostic.
>Newsflash: not all knowledge is factual, fuckwit.
If you claim to know something, it means you are claiming that it is demonstrably true. Knowledge is usually referred to as "justified true belief". If you are claiming to know it, it means you are claiming you can prove it.
>Are you serious? Your understanding of the concept of "knowledge" is that of a grade school kid. No, knowledge is a lot more bitch to define and prove.
So...you're telling me that it's possible to know something, but not be able to prove it? Then how do you know it? If you claim something is true, but you cannot demonstrate the truth of the claim, it means you BELIEVE it. You don't KNOW it.
>In other words, you are committed to the assumption that god does not exist.
What? What does that even mean?
>Although, judging on what you say further, you clearly actually aren't. You are pussyfooting around like a bitch, but that is besides the point.
I love this. This is my favorite thing in the thread so far.
>Is this right?
>I always thought I was gnostic based on the fact that I fully believe it's all bullshit - but I would never say I know that absolutely certainly. It's like a 99% surety, but not quite 100% guaranteed.
Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. If you claim to know for certain that it's bullshit, or that you can prove it, then you would be in the "gnostic" camp.
Generally, gnosticism goes hand in hand with burden of proof. If you are claiming the gnostic position, it is because you are making a claim about the factual nature of a subject, meaning you are required to support your position with evidence.
It's pretty damned rare for an atheist to be a gnostic atheist, since more often than not most atheists will couch their non-belief in many layers of understanding that they could theoretically be proven wrong.
I mean, hell, I'm open to being proven wrong about god existing. I just don't think it's going to happen.
>You assert that, but I don't see any sources.
There's no sources in this whole thread, dipshit. But I have the comfort of knowing you once saw an image macro of it and thought it looked cool, while I studied this whole kit and kaboodle on a tertiary knowledge.
>That's not the same thing.
If you doubt that something doesn't exist, the double negative implies quite clearly that you suspect that it does. You're a bit thick if that doesn't make sense.
>But that's wrong.
You assert that, but I don't see any sources (hard mode: reddit doesn't count).
Yes, a doubting priest is still a priest, but they wouldn't describe themselves as any kind of "agnostic". Likewise, atheists describe what was once known as "divine providence" as "synchronicity" instead, and still call himself an atheist.
An agnostic, on the other hand, considers the question of "did God or random chance bring such and such about?" to be unanswerable, since neither answer can be proven, only assumed.
>I am out of meaningful contributions, so my asshole takes the reins
Thanks for the shitpost. Wipe from front to back.
I think I get it now. It seems cowardly and non-committal, but it makes more sense than acting like you have irrefutable proof.
Sucks that this puts me in the same camp as those "I don't believe in a God but I'm a very spiritual person!" people though.
>He called my ideas poopy, now I must call his ideas poopy
Yet more indicators that you know you're wrong and are too childish to admit your ignorance.
The definition you've so proudly cherished and undoubtedly explained in detail to bored strangers at parties is inconsistent and politicised, I'm sorry to be the one to have to tell you this.
If you're genuinely interested in metaphysics and epistemology and God and all that other fun stuff, go and study it then you, too, could come to /tg/ and be frustrated by internet groupthink creeping like a vine into all the ancient schools of thought and pulling at their keystones.
>But I have the comfort of knowing you once saw an image macro of it and thought it looked cool
I am completely lost now. Are you just slowly going insane, post by post?
>while I studied this whole kit and kaboodle on a tertiary knowledge.
What the fuck is "on a tertiary knowledge", and how do you study on one?
>If you doubt that something doesn't exist, the double negative implies quite clearly that you suspect that it does.
Of course it doesn't. Because those are not two different prongs of the same claim.
>considers the question of "did God or random chance bring such and such about?" to be unanswerable,
Claiming that something is "unanswerable" is a truth claim. One would be very interested in how you came to the conclusion that someone is literally impossible to ever answer, because that seems to be, itself, a position you take on faith, since "can never, ever be answered" is not a thing you can demonstrate in your lifetime.
What a mass of buzz words, clearly you must be correct and i am just an unwashed pleb.
Shove your ego up your ass, faggot, you're a moron and no amount of education will fix that.
The only exposure most people get to the two-by-two grid is an image macro that made the rounds on social media then stuck around.
Before then, the definitions of "atheist, agnostic and theist" were pretty widely accepted by everyone as a "positive, neutral, negative" model.
The two-by-two grid originated in the fringes of so called "anti-theist" literature, and I'm pretty sure it ended up in Dawkins, where it kicked off and became viral.
Feel free to pretend you've known about it since 199X, though.
>What the fuck is "on a tertiary knowledge", and how do you study on one?
It's a typo, where "knowledge that I studied on a tertiary level" becomes garbled and dyslexic in my sleep-deprived head before I type it. Believe it or not, though, it's true and I actually did study this stuff at uni.
>Because those are not two different prongs of the same claim.
You're going to need to explain that. As far as I see it, if I doubt the non-existence of Santa Claus, I clearly suspect the existence of Santa Claus by the same token. I lean toward "Santa Claus exists", because I lean away from "Santa Claus does not exist".
>that seems to be, itself, a position you take on faith, since "can never, ever be answered" is not a thing you can demonstrate in your lifetime.
Exactly. Even the agnostic must make a decision which rests, at some point, on faith. The theist (usually) has faith that God exists, the atheist (usually) has faith that no valid proof for God exists
and everyone except the solipsist has faith that literally anything except their own mind exists
>rah rah bad words at you nyah nyah
As long as it keeps getting a rise out of you I'll continue until we're archived. I tried actually arguing against you but there's only so long you can entertain true idiocy.
Your arguments are garbage and you should stop trying, everyone sees it as the bullshit it is.
>>The only exposure most people get to the two-by-two grid is an image macro that made the rounds on social media then stuck around.
That's cool. But it's also been an accepted principle for like, decades.
>Before then, the definitions of "atheist, agnostic and theist" were pretty widely accepted by everyone as a "positive, neutral, negative" model.
Yes, and some of us have been correcting that misunderstanding of how logical binaries work for just as long.
>The two-by-two grid originated in the fringes of so called "anti-theist" literature
>and I'm pretty sure it ended up in Dawkins, where it kicked off and became viral.
Oh my god holy shit you're literally the walking incarnation of the modern "lol im an atheist but I'm not one of those FEDORA TIPPING DAWKINS LOVERS". Why did I even bother reading your retard ramblings?
>Believe it or not, though, it's true and I actually did study this stuff at uni.
Well then either I feel really fucking bad for your professor, or I feel really bad for you for having a professor who taught you everything wrong.
>You're going to need to explain that
We address one prong of a discussion at a time. The claim that something exists, and the claim that it does not exist, are not inherent opposites. The opposite of "A" is not "B", it's "Not A".
>Even the agnostic must make a decision which rests, at some point, on faith.
Holy shit you just keep falling down.
>the atheist (usually) has faith that no valid proof for God exists
Please, just stop. Not accepting the claim that a god or gods exists DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE TAKING THE NEGATION OF THE CLAIM AS A FAITH POSITION. I refuse to believe anyone can be this idiotic, especially while insisting that they paid money to study this subject.
>Do you treat the statement "god exists" as TRUE, OR FALSE? OR NEITHER?
>IT'S THAT FUCKING SIMPLE QUESTION. THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS. ONLY THESE THREE.
It is unwise to reflect on such matters as that leads only to being trapped in a net of speculation and dogma. You are as one who, on being shot with a poison arrow, demands to know from which village the shooter came, what his caste is, whether his hair was light or dark or neither, if the bow used a fiber or sinew bowstring. You will die and these would remain unknown to you.
>But it's also been an accepted principle for like, decades.
Which, as I've been saying this whole damn time, is unnecessary because there was already a perfectly valid accepted principle prior to that.
It's not a logical binary. God is not a concept that can be reduced to "does exist" or "doesn't exist" without either argument resting on illogical assumptions, or narrowing the concept of God to the old "omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving bearded skywizard" which no religious scholar has ever proposed. It literally cannot be proven or disproven with logic.
"Anti-theist" is Dawkins' term for what was commonly called an "atheist" prior to the mid-20th century. Hence my use of "so-called".
Even by the new definitions, I'm not an atheist of any description. On your two-by-two grid, I'd personally be defined as an "agnostic theist".
>The claim that something exists, and the claim that it does not exist, are not inherent opposites.
Yes, they literally are. "Maybe" is "Not Yes", but the opposite of "Yes" is always and only "No".
>Not accepting the claim that a god or gods exists DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE TAKING THE NEGATION OF THE CLAIM AS A FAITH POSITION
You literally just told me yourself that believing the question is unanswerable or the answer is unknowable is a faith position. The negation of the claim that "God exists" is "God does not exist", both of which are faith positions, even when you temper them to "God probably exists" or "God probably does not exist". The only claim really remaining is that you don't know, and do not have a preference, because you don't have any unfounded bias toward either side. Which is agnosticism.
Remember, the "evidence for God", according to a theist, is the existence of the universe, among a multitude of other interwoven arguments relying on making God appear self-evident. So the question is not one of providing evidence, it's one of agreeing whether the evidence given is valid.
There you go talking nonsense again. Jesus Christ dude give it a rest, you have no idea what you're talking about and you wasted your time and money at college. The sooner you accept this the sooner you can get on with your life.
>God is not a concept that can be reduced to "does exist" or "doesn't exist"
Of course it can. Either something exists, or it doesn't. There is no other option.
>It literally cannot be proven or disproven with logic.
Unfalsifiable claims are, by definition, useless. If it cannot be proven, or proven wrong, it holds no value as a premise.
>Even by the new definitions, I'm not an atheist of any description.
So you believe a god exists. Ok.
>Yes, they literally are. "Maybe" is "Not Yes", but the opposite of "Yes" is always and only "No".
Innocent is not the opposite of Guilty, Not Guilty is the opposite of Guilty.
>You literally just told me yourself that believing the question is unanswerable
I have never, nor will I ever assert this, because it is not a position I hold.
>or the answer is unknowable is a faith position.
This is true.
>The only claim really remaining is that you don't know, and do not have a preference, because you don't have any unfounded bias toward either side. Which is agnosticism.
You cannot "not not believe". You either believe it or you do not. Regardless of how many times you insist that you "have no position", you still either believe or you do not believe.
>Remember, the "evidence for God", according to a theist, is the existence of the universe
That's not how evidence works. If the evidence doesn't point to a specific conclusion, then it is not evidence for that conclusion. You can just as easily say "The universe exists, therefore there is no god".
>So the question is not one of providing evidence, it's one of agreeing whether the evidence given is valid.
No, you still need to provide evidence. You just need to provide better evidence.
See, subjectivism and solipsism are really the full extent to which any logic can be applied to metaphysics before you're forced to make some assumptions which rely on being self-evident to all observers.
Basically, once you're talking about an entity which is by definition larger in every possible dimension than the entirety of the universe as far as it materially exists, you suddenly find that agreeing on axioms becomes extremely difficult.
You will always end up with a question which is, as far as "logic", or "objectivity", or "repeatable experiments", or "peer-reviewed data" are concerned, will never have an answer that could possibly assuage all doubts.
And solipsism is fucking stupid because as soon as you start entertaining it as a concept, you might as well stop talking, since it just boils down to "Well this could all just be imaginary".
Except that God, by definition, either includes or precedes (and sometimes both) the existence of everything within the material universe. So no, nothing which exists can be used to prove that it does or does not exist, nor does the term "exist" really apply in any meaningful sense. Therein lies the rub.
>If it cannot be proven, or proven wrong, it holds no value as a premise.
That's literally the hole in the language of logic. "I think therefore I am" is the only truly proven premise. Everything else assumes self-evident truths such as "the observable material universe exists", etc. Why not also God?
Should we introduce a sliding scale of "prove-ability", where certain premises get "value points" based on how closely it limits its assumptions to a single observer's frame of reference?
Or do we turn to material sciences? If so, the proposition that God fundamentally exists outside of the material universe, which is central to the concept of a God, means that by definition, material evidence may well be impossible.
So, the atheist has faith that everything EXCEPT God exists. It's clearly a faith position, and it may as well be faith that God doesn't exist, because there's as much solid material evidence of God as there is of dark matter, for example.
>So you believe a god exists. Ok.
No, I believe a God probably exists. Still a theistic faith position on your grid, but I'm unsure enough that I'm an agnostic by the original definition.
>I have never, nor will I ever assert this, because it is not a position I hold.
>One would be very interested in how you came to the conclusion ... that seems to be, itself, a position you take on faith
>You cannot "not not believe".
Yes you can, you can be unsure. You sometimes do, you sometimes don't, or maybe you just can't make up your mind, because the evidence you personally experienced was inconclusive. Agnosticism takes many forms, and exists no matter how much you insist it doesn't.
>If so, the proposition that God fundamentally exists outside of the material universe, which is central to the concept of a God, means that by definition, material evidence may well be impossible.
Yes, which is exactly why the claim holds no merit. It cannot be demonstrated, it cannot be tested or falsified. Therefore, we cannot make any predictions about reality based on the concept. It's existence and it's non-existence are functionally identical, meaning it is a useless premise to entertain.
>So, the atheist has faith that everything EXCEPT God exists.
No, again. The atheist does not accept the claims of a god or gods existing as true or likely true. THAT'S ALL. That doesn't require faith, it's not a faith position.
I don't "believe everything BUT god" exists, I do not accept the claim that he exists as having met it's burden of proof sufficient enough for me to be convinced that it is true.
>and it may as well be faith that God doesn't exist
Holy shit you're the dumbest person on the planet.
> because there's as much solid material evidence of God as there is of dark matter, for example.
Except, you know, we "dark matter" is just a label given to a nebulous explanation for a REAL, PHYSICAL PHENOMENA THAT CAN BE EMPIRICALLY PROVEN. So, right off the bat there's more evidence for that than there is for any god.
>No, I believe a God probably exists.
There's no "maybe" in belief. It's a binary proposition. Either you are convinced, or you are not convinced. There is no "I might be convinced".
>Still a theistic faith position on your grid, but I'm unsure enough that I'm an agnostic by the original definition.
Nope, just you being intentionally obtuse and idiotic with weasel language.
>because the evidence you personally experienced was inconclusive.
IF THE FUCKING EVIDENCE IS INCONCLUSIVE, THEN YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THE CLAIM.
There's the pragmatic concept of truth, where things are true in that thinking them is useful in helping us decide what to do. If you find God a useful concept to understand the world and determine the most useful actions to take, then he's clearly true to you just as much as electromagnetic field lines are true to someone designing an electric generator. If your concept of God causes you to make unhelpful, inefficient, or useless actions, then you have the wrong idea about God, and need to update or reject your God concept. Same goes for other things like "Justice", "Duty", "Fairness", "Morality" and so on.
The atheist has faith that everything, for which there is some personal standard of "satisfactory empirical evidence", exists. He, like everyone else except the solipsist, holds the faith position that things other than his own thoughts exist. The belief in the existence of anything beyond one's own thoughts is inherently a faith position.
The typical atheist (maybe this isn't you, but somehow I doubt that) believes that the entirety of "real" existence is or can be described by empirical evidence. That is, scientific evidence supported by peer-reviewed observational data from repeatable experiments.
The atheist, by definition, does not believe that God exists. So, we have three sets of things.
Set A is everything which meets the evidence standard for existence.
Set B is God.
Set C is everything else which doesn't meet the evidence standard for existence.
So, the atheist has faith in the belief that he lives in a universe in which, materially or otherwise, Set A exists, while Sets B and C do not. He takes it on faith that "everything which exists" does not include, or probably include "God".
It doesn't matter if you word it as "reject the claim" or "do not accept the premise", the fact is that your personal belief system, founded purely on the faith that you exist and that everything which exists may be empirically proven, specifically excludes God, along with Set C.
>IF THE FUCKING EVIDENCE IS INCONCLUSIVE, THEN YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THE CLAIM.
Exactly, so I'm agnostic. I believe there is evidence, but am unsure as to whether to chalk it up to God or random, material factors. See? Inconclusive, so therefore, undecided. Therefore, agnostic. Not atheist. Go damn, is it that hard?
I love that you get so mad trying to tell me what I personally believe, when I'm telling you straight up that I don't even know what I believe, because the experience was inexplicable and thus left me undecided. I went from "atheist" to "agnostic".
>Exactly, so I'm agnostic. I believe there is evidence,
I literally cannot explain this in any simpler terms:
Either you believe a GOD exists, or you do NOT. This is the theist/atheist dichotomy. What you believe about the EVIDENCE for the subject is A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LOGICAL ISSUE.
And gnosticism/agnosticism describe what you KNOW, not what you BELIEVE. It will never, ever, ever describe what you believe. You are not "undecided". You just claimed the evidence is inconclusive, therefore YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THE CLAIM IS TRUE. You have not been convinced of the truth of the claim. There is nothing else. There is no "I don't know" position about belief. Either you do, or you do not, and you just said YOU DO NOT.
>I love that you get so mad trying to tell me what I personally believe,
YOU JUST TOLD ME. I'm correcting you on your ridiculous insistance on misusing terms so you can create this magical "middle position" to put yourself in some superiority position which everyone has told you is fucking retarded and not valid.
>when I'm telling you straight up that I don't even know what I believe
Either you are convinced, or you are not convinced. There is no middle. There will never be a middle. There is no "kinda sorta convinced but also kinda not".
>I went from "atheist" to "agnostic".
They're not mutually exclusive positions you dumb fuck. That's like saying you went from not collecting stamps, to wearing a red shirt.