Should atheist players be able to play religious characters?

.............yessssssssssss???
You don't honestly believe in the gods of tabletop games do you?
Shouldn't be hard to play a character that does.

File: King Hekaton.png (86KB, 171x189px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 171x189px

Stop posting bait threads.

>>51522329
is every character you play an exact replica of you

>>51522329
>2017. Clerics atill exist.

I want clerics removed from Fantasy RPG. They are triggering me. Mage shoudl get Divine magic because Magic is Fantasy Science and Science is the only True Faith.

As an agnostic, I love playing religious characters.

A key strength of roleplaying games is playing people who are different to me, experiencing at least a glimpse of a different way of thinking and being.

I've always found the idea of faith fascinating. I've never really had it in real life beyond the basic faith in humanity deal. The idea of an ideal you could hold onto with absolute certainty... In a world where everything has always seemed extremely uncertain and ambiguous, it's a compelling idea.

With religious characters, I always find it extremely interesting to see how that kind of anchor affects their actions. How having strong, deep faith in something outside of rationality or evidence can be a source of strength and of weakness, how it can influence your actions in ways that might not make sense to others but are rooted in certainty due to your beliefs.

Then again, OP's question also deserves a more general response, in that who you are IRL should have absolutely no influence on the characters you are 'allowed' to play in an abstract sense. In specific cases, if a group doesn't want one guy to play a certain archetype due to a bad experience in the past, it's fine, but sweeping generalisations are just bullshit.

I had a christian dude in by dnd group who never played anything but atheist characters. One time he intimated to me that playing a character that worships another god is dangerously close to apostasy.

>>51522545
How can you accurately depict a character that possesses faith when you lack any faith?

You're going to inevitably fail at it, just like white men inevitably fail at playing female characters or characters of another race. Either you're going to self-insert your own beliefs and behavior (in which case, why play something different from you at all) or your misunderstanding of something you're fundamentally incapable of comprehending will lead to you playing your character as little more than a caricature.

>>51522586
Have a (You) since you're trying.

>>51522586

My experiences differ significantly from yours in that respect, and I doubt anything I can say will really have an impact. In groups I've played in I've seen men play women, women play man, people play characters of vastly different backgrounds, belief systems and cultures and all do so competently, creating compelling and engaging characters who properly represent or emulate traits that they themselves lack.

>>51522586
Would you let a religious character playing an atheist?
Would you let a woman playing a man ? (People are especially hypocritical with this one)

I'm pretty sure I've told you the story of the atheist cleric before. He was one of the coolest characters I've ever seen.

>>51522625
>Would you let a woman playing a man ?
I'd discourage that because more often than not it entails shitty roleplay and magical realm. These are just facts.

>>51522586
>white men inevitably fail at playing female characters
>white men
>white

At least have some subtlety.

>>51522640
Well if you apply this rule both for men or women I'm ok with it.

>>51522640

Troll or idiot confirmed. Ignore and move on.

>>51522613
Then your understanding of women, men, those vastly different backgrounds, belief systems and cultures are weak, weak enough that you were easily impressed by people that don't even have a working knowledge of what they're trying to emulate.

Here's an experiment - get someone to try and accurately emulate you. As in, get them to behave exactly as they think you would for like, an hour or so. See how much you cringe at them.

That's what any religious person you're playing with has to put up with whenever you play a religious character as an agnostic.

>>51522664
Who?

Should human players be allowed to play elves or dwarves?

>>51522586
It's about giving it a try, whether you end up succeeding or not. For example religious thought interests me even though I'm incapable of maintaining faith in real life.

>>51522674
Except emulating faith is way easier than another person and their mannerisms. It's just holding a strong conviction in particular ideal.

>>51522586
You are locking out many game options in many games (D&D classes for example) and in most fantasy settings, being agnostic or atheistic is not credible.
And you could say "Atheists and agnostics in fantasy settings just refuse to worship gods even if they real" then you are making an horrible generalization about all atheist or agnostic players.

File: Azreal is a good christian.jpg (521KB, 1600x1230px) Image search: [Google]

521KB, 1600x1230px

>>51522329
I'm an atheist and I play very often religous characters. I'm an avid Warhammer 40k player after all...
I try to base my characters on real people like Maximilian Kolbe.
I remember a fun Dark Herresy group. I played as a Crusader who was against slavery and treated Mutant well. He worked very well with the psyker who was inspired by Grim Dark Mrs Mcgonagall. Everyone else were a bit mean.
To conclude:
Can an atheist player play a religious character? Yes. Thats why we have /tg/.

>>51522758
That's about as accurate as saying "being a black man is just being a kleptomaniac with an IQ of 70 and a fixation with fried chicken and water melon."

>>51522805
?

>>51522703
It is the same for me. I simply don't feel religous. the mythology, the thoughts and aesthetics always fascinated me. Teilhard de Chardin for example or the Advaita Vedanta are so interesting. But in the end I don't believe them truth.

>>51522329
Go to bed Jerry

If OP had his way religious characters and classes would have to be removed from the European printing of any RPG. Which any sane, reasonable person would agree is insane.

In Northern Europe at least atheism is the norm under 30 yet these people still play RPG's.

File: article-2330314-19F95E72000005DC-158_634x381.jpg (55KB, 634x381px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 634x381px

>>51522887
Where did this meme that "Northern Europe is the most atheist" come from? Nordaboos? They're as atheist as America. Czech Republic is the most atheist country in the world.

>>51522954
There should be more atheists in the world.

>>51522954
Wikipedia says:
>15% identified as atheists, and a quarter as agnostic.
>34% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force".

Heh, haven't seen this thread in a while.

>>51522987
>Still less than 50%

FFS

>implying 'religious' people aren't just RPing anyway

>>51522329
I agree with you. Only players who can actually produce divine miracles through prayer should be allowed to play clerics.

File: Atheist.png (192KB, 1800x820px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1800x820px

>>51523000
There are several studies worldwide so i can err
Anotehr Wikipedia site says:
>Countries with the greatest proportion of people without religion (including agnostics and atheists) from Irreligion by country (as of 2007):

Czech Republic 70-81% (78%)
Estonia 71–82% (76%)
Japan 64–88% (76%)[58]
Denmark 72%
Sweden 46–82% (64%)
Vietnam 44–81% (63%)
Macau 62%[59]
Hong Kong 57%[60]
France 43–64%[61] (54%)
Norway 31–72% (52%)
China 47%[62] (details)
Netherlands 39–55% (47%)
Finland 28–60% (44%)
New Zealand 42%[63]
United Kingdom 31–52% (42%)[61] (25% England and Wales)[64]
South Korea 30–52% (41%)
Germany 25[65]–55%[66] (40%)
Hungary 32–46% (39%)
Belgium 42–43% (39%)
Bulgaria 34–40% (37%)
Slovenia 35–38% (37%)
Russia[67] 13–48% (31%)

>>51522586
>How can you accurately depict a character that possesses faith when you lack any faith?

How can you accurately depict a fighter when you have no fight in you?

>>51522329
Should blind people not be allowed to play people who can see? Same thing
>tipsfedora.jpeg

>>51522329
>Should atheist players be able to play religious characters?

No. Roleplaying is about creating characters that resemble and behave exactly as much as their real life counterparts as possible.

>>51522586
and people cant cast magic in real life

do you also ban people from playing casters?

most people dont know how to properly wield a sword either, do you ban them from playing characters that use swords unless they know real swordsmanship?

>>51523061
>Czech Republic 70-81% (78%)
I don't fucking understand

>>51523072
This.

All my games I just have all my players play as themselves.

Literally we roleplay us being transported to the world of D&D

>>51522586
"Grind up the universe, put it through the finest sieve and you will not find one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. These things do not exist, but you must pretend they do, only then can they"

being an atheist doesn't mean you don't believe in anything, or don't have your own ideals

File: e480a65d531c4ad79d49c4a81177208b.jpg (497KB, 780x1170px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 780x1170px

>>51522329
Absolutely not.
Those Godless, heathen, misanthropes would be more fit to masturbate with a fork to Richard Dawkins than to dare tarnish the name of clerics in a game about fantasy roleplaying!...

If they are even permitted at the table!
As the only table they are worthy of is the Rack!

My bait reaction pics folder doesn't have fish offended enough for this, OP.

You don't even deserve a (You).

>>51522329
This is arguably one of the dumbest questions I've seen on /tg/ in a good long while, and I want you to really take a moment and understand the full insinuations of that statement.

>>51522804
So....totally accurate?

>>51523101
The issue is with emulating a trait you have no understanding of, when in the presence of people who have more understanding than you.

Playing the role of a character that performs magic is okay, as there are no magicians that can correct you. But if you do play a fighter around a HEMA enthusiast, he has every right to mock you and cringe whenever you describe your character's awful fighting technique.

When roleplaying, you will always incorrectly emulate aspects of the character. The key to getting away with it is to do it with people that have as little knowledge of the subject as you. If you are roleplaying something you have little understanding of around people who do possess understanding (or at the very least, more than you do), you're knowingly breaking their immersion and making the game worse for them.

>>51522343
>he doesn't honestly believe in the gods of tabletop games

Burn yourself heretic.

File: 1472967874470.jpg (5KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 225x225px

>>51522329
Don't be a faggot OP it's called a role-playing game for a reason. Not every character is supposed to be an exact copy of you or your beliefs.

>>51522582
That's pretty hilarious. Did he know that the game isn't real?

Never mind, I guess Christians have trouble telling reality and fiction apart.

>>51523116
We have hated Christianity ever since the Hussite Wars.

>>51522954
Personal experience? It is so rare to meet someone my age who actually holds religious beliefs that its surprising every time.

For some reason lots of people who hold no religious beliefs and never go to church put 'Christian' on surveys.

>>51523209

What kind of assholes are you playing with who can't suspend their disbelief and avoid freaking out if the people they're playing with aren't 100% accurate? That's just being a dick.

In the past, when I've been playing a character and someone in the group has known more about it than I have, the general response has been to make helpful suggestions or offer pointers on improving, helping my roleplay and letting me get more into the character. Y'know, friends working together to create an enjoyable experience for everyone involved?

>>51523128
Tell me: in these games, are you all normal people with no great skill at fighting and no supernatural powers? Do you maybe open a tavern in the town where you start and listen wistfully to the tales your patrons tell?

Or do you actually get out there and wreck shit up wholesale like proper adventurers? Because unless you are all stone-cold killing-ass motherfuckers in real life (ideally with a good balance between martial, arcane, and divine skills), the latter does not qualify as "playing yourself." Instead you're playing a role, almost as if this were some kind of role playing game.

>>51522758
And having faith in a D&D world is easy because the gods are demonstrably real. They give power to clerics and intervene in the world all the time. Being a D&D cleric is less like being a believer in the real world and more like getting a job working for a powerful but aloof boss.

>>51523268
Dobrý den, soused.

>>51522329
Sure. YOU, on the other hand, should not be allowed anywhere near a gaming table.

>>51522329
Should OP be able to play straight characters?

>>51522986
I dunno about that, atheism's fucking depressing.

Source: I am an atheist.

>>51522987
>no less then 3 different descriptions for the exact same fucking thing
Why?

File: e9d.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>51522329

>>51522954
What in the fuck is a "convinced atheist". They should just ask "do you believe in god?" and if they say no put them down as atheist or if you're triggered by that word (lots of people are for some reason, I blame the commies) use "non-religious". This shit really isn't that hard to measure.

>>51523431

Atheism is a statement of faith. You actively believe that God, or an entity of that kind, does not exist.

Agnosticism is a statement of uncertainty. You do not know, and it is beyond your ability to really say either way.

>>51522329
If they aren't a shithead about it, sure.

I had an atheist player who wanted to play a cleric but refused to believe in a deity even in character. They were a massive cunt and I don't game with them anymore.

Otherwise it's fine.

>>51522329
No. And you're not allowed to play combat ready characters without military experience, sages without PhD, and magic users without local psychiatrist permission.

>>51523499
>Atheism is a statement of faith. You actively believe that God, or an entity of that kind, does not exist.

Wrong, the word literally translates to without god, you just don't beleive in it, there's nothing about an active belief inherent to the word just the absence of a particular one.

>Agnosticism is a statement of uncertainty. You do not know, and it is beyond your ability to really say either way.
And what exactly does this concept specifically have to do with believing in god? Using agnosticism as an answer to the question "do you believe in god" is just nonsensical, I wasn't asking you your level of certainty I was asking you your current position, important difference.

>>51523371
Underrated post

>>51523499
>Atheism is a statement of faith. You actively believe that God, or an entity of that kind, does not exist.

No, that would be anti-theism. Atheism just means that you do not actively believe in a god or gods.

>>51523539

'Does God Exist' is a question without a rational answer. There is no evidence or basis for declaring it either way. Any answer you give, whether positive or negative, is fundamentally a statement of faith.

Agnosticism, meanwhile, is acknowledging the question as unanswerable.

>>51523564
>'Does God Exist' is a question without a rational answer. There is no evidence or basis for declaring it either way. Any answer you give, whether positive or negative, is fundamentally a statement of faith.

That's not the topic at hand, and only madmen claim to know the answer for sure. The question is not "Does god exist", but "Do you BELIEVE that god exists."

>>51523564
That is not how it works, the default stance without evidence is disbelief. Otherwise you would be an insane person who went through life unwilling to lack belief in fairies, reptilian overlords and monsters under the bed because its impossible to disprove them. 'I do not believe in trolls' is not a statement of faith, its a rational response to the lack of any evidence.

Calling atheism an active system of faith is nothing but an attack on it, same as the butthurt people who claim its a religion.

>>51523564
>'Does God Exist' is a question without a rational answer. There is no evidence or basis for declaring it either way. Any answer you give, whether positive or negative, is fundamentally a statement of faith.
And yet some people would answer yes because despite this they take that leap of faith. Other people, such as you and I evidently, don't for whatever different reasons and so are classified as atheist for the simple reason that we are not theists. Sometimes there are binary distinctions, this is one of them.

Also there's nothing wrong with faith, we all have faith in the idea that our sense correspond with objective reality, even though we don't really know that for sure. Life without faith is a logical impossibility, everyone has to take that leap to some degree even if it is only to trust their own senses.

>Agnosticism, meanwhile, is acknowledging the question as unanswerable.
Agnosticism is acknowledging that ALL questions are unanswerable, not just ones concerning the existence of god. So to use it as your answer to the question "do you believe in god" is nonsensical, you're not really answering the question because you can be an agnostic theist as well as an agnostic atheist, you're not being specific enough.

File: 1480285172461.jpg (88KB, 608x626px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 608x626px

>be christian foreverdm
>love emphasizing tragic flaws of gods
Yes because every character should be allowed to be disappointed by Pelor equally. People seem to forget the gods are just normal fucking people who got picked to be the big dicks of the cosmos.

>>51523564
If we're gonna get into philosophy nothing is completely verifiably true.

>>51522586
And would you let a religious person play an atheist character? Or a non-white woman play a male character? If you want to criticize people playing something they aren't on a fucking role-playing game because you want to virtue signal then I'm really sorry for any one who plays with you.

>>51523564

Most rational people believe there is no such thing as 100% certainty of anything, and as a result all strongly held beliefs should be taken as statements of probability rather than absolute certainty. Just because you can't know for sure whether there is a god, it does not necessarily follow that the probability of god existing is 50/50.

>>51523518
what

Depends on what system you're using. In D&D, clerics draw power from the diety they serve. In D&D, an athiest would be someone who refuses to follow a diety, as in D&D, dieties factually exist and this isn't questioned.

>>51524650
Oh, I misread the question. Yes, non-religious people should be able to play as religious people. That's a stupid question.

>>51522586
I have faith in your parents because they were able to raise a complete fucking retard.

>>51524569
Well, to be more exact, it's [a somehow smaller infinity]/infinity.

>>51522545
This tbqh

>>51524650
Wouldn't an atheist draw power from a god of entropy?

>>51522350
Go away, Varg.
I mean Hekaton.
>>51522329
Eat a dick.

>>51524714
Why would they? In this setting they apparently don't like gods or are ideologically opposed to worshipping them.

>>51522329
>Should atheist players be able to play religious characters?

Should atheist players be able to play religious characters?

>>51522329
No bait this obvious should be nearing 100 replies.

>>51524883
Not bait

>>51524883
I don't come down to where you work and knock the dick out of your mouth asshole.

>>51525187
t. OP

File: ngbbs4c58c016dfa9f.jpg (59KB, 599x395px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 599x395px

>>51523250
He believes that everything in a 2-6 millennia old book about bronze age goat herders happened. Why not?

>>51522329
We have a cleric played by an atheist in a group with a christian. The christian has never seemed uncomfortable with the cleric. We have had men and women play the opposite in groups with the opposite.

People getting upset over stuff like that is a red flag and you probably should avoid playing with people like that.

>>51522343
I do in 40k.

YOU BET YOUR ASS I DO.

>>51524883
Did you ever consider that most people on this site have nothing better to do?

>>51522800
> I played as a Crusader who was against slavery and treated Mutant well.

Okay I think you may have missed the point of 40k.

File: 719.jpg (54KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x333px

>>51525409
You say some shit about my eternal Lord and Savior heathen scum?

Because that's ok.

>>51522329
I didn't even learn about the concept of "God" until I was like eight.

I love to play religious characters, I do it constantly.

>>51525506
Someone should make a thread about nothing but people who don't get 40k, I've heard of it happening before as well.

>>51522329
Definitely not, How can I trust an Atheist to accurately roleplay someone who believes in god without them going full tip about it?

>>51522329
I play people who aren't me all the time.

I can also put myself into the mindset of a religious person very well for roleplaying and I don't mean that in a tips fedora "they're all stupid" sort of way.

>>51522350
>>51524722
Shit, just look at the resemblance

File: mememan.jpg (5KB, 250x237px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x237px

>>51525790
>And then I forget the pic
fuck

>>51524756
Clearly they need to get their power from the god of "leave me alone I'm trying to fucking sleep," a really grumpy deity who wants humans to stop pestering him and the other gods. Anyone who wants to convert other humans to atheism gets power from him regardless of whether they like or acknowledge him as a god because they're helping his cause.

>>51525506
He still killed all the xenos, heretics and daemons. As long you are a human and you love the Emperor, Theodosius the Crusader will like you.
His fury his rightous.

>>51522329
Of course. Athei is the one true god.

>>51523183
Why is a Christian calling atheists misanthropes? Isn't your belief system posited on humans being irreversibly evil, and only redeemable through submission to a force outside of themselves? Isn't atheism's chief sin in placing undue value on humans alone and disregarding their larger purpose?

Do you actually understand your dogma on a personal level or do you just want to be part of a tribe?

>>51522329
Only if they don't use the character to be a fedora-tipping tard.

>>51526862
What if they just wear the fedora because fedoras are awesome, and don't do any of the other neckbeardy type shit?

>>51523601
Okay. How high is your standard of evidence until you believe there is sufficient evidence to affirm something?

>>51526862
The term 'fedora' lost all meaning years ago. Now it basically signals that the person using it is an easily offended moron with no arguments.

And it keeps being applied to statements that should not be controversial to any intellectually honest person.

>>51526969
They aren't awesome, but fine, whatever. I mean "its cool unless they use the character to RP as their dumbshit strawman of a Christian, especially if this involves going against their god's alignment." I've had people do this at my table.

>>51526969
>because fedoras are awesome
>don't do any of the other neckbeardy type shit


there is a contradiction here

>>51527022
Indiana Jones would disagree, but I just happen to like the hat itself, and how it hearkens back to a time when people had more honor.
>>51527033
Not really, human beings are complex most don't conform to the stereotypes associated with a hat of all things.

>>51527087
>most don't conform to the stereotypes associated with a hat of all things.

sure but people who think fedoras are awesome do

>>51527087
>how it hearkens back to a time when people had more honor.

fuck I should have read this part of your post first. Thanks for proving me right

>>51527126
No, I don't.
>>51527147
What's the problem with thinking honor is a virtue? and missing the importance people once placed on it?

File: reason.png (93KB, 464x729px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 464x729px

>>51522586
>atheist paladin
>secretly doesn't believe in god
>believes that belief in god is the only way society can function

>>51527189
>No, I don't.
see >>51527147

>What's the problem with thinking honor is a virtue?

nothing

>and missing the importance people once placed on it?

Over-romanticizing a setting you were never a part of. It's just like how the stereotypical weeb thinks carrying a katana makes him more Japanese, but you're fetishizing a time period rather than a place.

>>51522800
I have no context for this image
>Friend get poisoned
>Somebody want to talk to her
>Friend talks to hospital priest about god and missing her friend
>Suddenly, demon
>"Do you know how to get batman?" "Yes"

>>51527247
I just like the hat, really. It used to be a respectable item of clothing, I dislike all the negative bullshit Fedoralords have brought to it.

Yeah I like one aspect of our past, I don't romanticize that period, I know all about the flaws in the period's thinking and ideals that they placed importance on. Honor wasn't one of those flaws though.

I just like the aesthetics of the hat.

>>51522329
Unless they're going to be a total asshole about it, yes. I'm an atheist (raised Christian) and some of my most memorable and fun to play characters have been religious. Hell, my very first role-playing character was a dwarf cleric of a healing ggoddes.

>>51527353

Nah, sorry, you tipped your hand when you chose to use the word "hearken". You'd probably be throwing around m'ladys as well if that particular term hadn't been viciously mocked for years.

>don't believe in magic
>can never play a wizard

>know too much about anatomy to buy into the idea of losing "hit points" as you take damage
>can never play any class

>>51527475
Hearken is a viable word and doesn't tip my hand in any way. I wouldn't use the words My Lady unless addressing a Lady, as in a noble, in the UK or one of the other countries where they still use those titles and, only when in a formal setting. Otherwise, it's a meaningless and useless form of address as it's an honorific made literally for when addressing a woman who is of noble birth.

File: tops pizza.jpg (160KB, 715x755px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 715x755px

>>51527579
>Hearken is a viable word
>actually goes out of his way to explain that m'lady is acceptable in certain contexts
>believes in "noble birth"

keep digging that hole

>>51527087
>hearkens back to a time when people had more honor

Hahahaha holy shit anon

>>51527639
I didn't say I believed in the concept. What I said was that other cultures do, and when in a place that would require conforming to that cultures rules of etiquette, I would do so out of respect.

>>51527579
I'm fucking dying

File: 22138-28088-18715.jpg (39KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x480px

>>51526969
>fedoras are awesome

File: hank fedora.jpg (64KB, 463x700px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 463x700px

>>51527792

>>51527745

ah good job,it took me this long to realize you were baiting this entire time. no bad

>>51527852
How am I baiting? Perhaps I simply have a wider vocabulary than you do.

Seriously though, I just like the hat itself, fuck the niggers who've ruined it.

>>51522545
This.

This is basically why I like 40k, in real life I'm a faithless dog, but 40k gives me a chance to sing praise to the God Emperor and burn heretics and filthy mutants in his name.

File: countless (you)s.png (257KB, 432x533px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 432x533px

>>51522586
>human players will inevitably fail at portraying elven or dwarven charaters

>>51522343
How are you supposed to learn the Mind Bondage spell without regularly sacrificing the players who lose?

File: 1459905598510.png (18KB, 203x209px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 203x209px

...Of course?

A player doesn't have to play someone exactly like themselves. I mean I'm a Christian, and I don't exactly worship Pharasma, but I played a cleric of her anyway.

To cover all multiple bases to help the idea sink in:
Yes, a male player can play a female character.
Yes, a white player can play a black character.
Yes, a human player can play a kitsune character.
Yes, a fat player can play a fit character.
Yes, an uneducated player can play a scholarly character.
Yes, a poor player can play a rich noble.
Yes, a shy player can play an outgoing, charismatic character.
And vice versa to all of these.

>>51527944
Anon, are you like 20? You think "hearken" is a sign of a superior vocabulary, unironically defend m'lady, and like fedoras.

File: MaRo comes to tg.jpg (47KB, 621x502px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 621x502px

>>51525509
You're fucking right I did you person who's beliefs I respect and, in many regards, admire.

>>51522329

Should niggers be allowed to play human characters?

>>51528054
24, I like fedoras, yeah, aesthetically they please me as a hat.
My Lady, as a term, has one acceptable use in formal British, or other monarchistic countries, parties, (which I will never be invited to or work at) and you'd be more likely to hear Your Grace or Highness or Majesty or what have you. Using the word hearken, isn't a sign of a superior vocabulary, simply indicative of a wider, or perhaps more accepting, vocabulary.
I don't discriminate against anyone based on what words they use, unless they use exclusively the African-American Vernacular English dialect, as it is exceedingly annoying to listen to.

>>51528201
Anon I hope you're baiting

>>51528225
Why?

>>51522329
Anyone can as long as they're not triggered and butthurt over it.

>>51523539
>Wrong, the word literally translates to without god
At least this guy didn't say anything about history. Historically the word for theist postdates that for atheist.

>>51527944
>wider vocabulary
>hearken

why am I still replying

File: 1483819223796.jpg (120KB, 514x479px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 514x479px

>>51523601
>the default stance without evidence is disbelief
Any solipsists in the area?

>>51528363
I honestly don't know, why are you? Why is the word hearken such a problem?

>>51523371
lel, well played

>>51522329
Is a christian playing as a cleric of a fictional deity committing Heresy?

File: 45f.png (287KB, 200x300px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 200x300px

>>51522674
That feel when you see what you look like rather than how you feel you look.

>>51523268
Also first republic (before WWII) wasn't that religious and communist party finished the job, but not so obviously that it would create martyrs.

I'm an atheist.

Despite that, every single time I take part in a Warhammer 40k RPG campaign, I play a Tech Priest.

In one session of Rogue Trader, an Eldar refugee on the ship insulted the Omnissiah, they retorted by MIU linking with the door and slamming it down on the Eldar, breaking one arm, one leg, four ribs, and rupturing three organs, then taking them to the med-bay to fix them before anyone noticed.

Anyway. Stop baitin'

>>51522343
I know that's only an example, and I'm probably going to sound crazy for saying this, but somehow I find it easier to believe in gods that I know aren't real rather than gods that might or might not be.

Probably because the religious tenants of made up deities are often a lot more straightforward and without centuries of additives and editing.

>>51526316
Why are you responding to a crusadeposter? Why am I responding to you? Why is anyone wasting time on this stupid bait thread? Who knows.

>>51532476
Life is one big bait thread.

File: martina2.gif (44KB, 288x202px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 288x202px

>>51523209
The problem here is twofold.

First, you're not placing blind faith in something in a RPG most of the times. In many of those worlds, the gods are knowable beings, not a mystery as in reality. No one knows how that is like to begin with. Despite what true believers might say, all religious faith is blind in reality. No one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their gods are real.

Second, worship in reality is as far removed from worship in fantasy as combat in fantasy is from combat in reality. An atheist can roleplay a faithful of a fantasy god just as easily as a faithful of a real life religion could. They're both grasping at straws on how to do it right in the first place, because none of those religions are real. There's no way someone can harp on someone else for playing the tenants of a made up religion wrong. At worst, they play a faithful who doesn't follow a strict doctrine like others might.

So no, there's nothing wrong with letting someone who doesn't understand faith in reality roleplay as someone who understands faith in fiction. It's fucking make believe.

>>51528376
Not being absurd and irrational is bait now?

Do you neither believe or disbelieve in every single supernatural creature humans have made up?

>>51522545

You are an Atheist, not an agnostic. "Agnostics" do not exist. You either believe in God (theist), or do not (atheist). There is no "inbetween" smug faggots like you can wriggle your way into as a method to feel superior to both.

>>51522329
Ah, a bait thread. Here's your (you).

>>51533693
Theist means that you believe in a deity (or deities), atheist means that you do not believe in a deity (or deities), or perhaps lacks belief. Agnostic means that you believe that nothing can be known of the existence of any deity - you cannot prove that it/they exists, but you cannot prove that it/they does not exist, where both theism and atheism imply a level of surety.

>>51533693
I can believe that there is a higher power without acknowledging any specific deity anon. Either way, theist and atheist implies that you whole-heatedly believe that there is or is not any such thing as a god-like entity floating around in the cosmos when we still discover new shit everyday that challenges our way of thinking.

>>51522329
I mean, I'm an atheist and my last character was a cleric. Man I fucking loved that guy, he was awesome.

>>51522329
I'm an atheist, and I love playing religious characters.

I will honestly admit it's pure escapism. I love even pretending to believe that I have belief in some higher power and some code of inherent rules. I love characters that are often confident in themselves, where I almost never am.

There's also the fact that clerics, paladins and warlocks have solid rules, and fit pretty well with what I want to play. And religion is just a great way to help define a character and their beliefs and what they value in general.

>>51533892
That higher power is the Sun, Praise The Sun, FAGGOT!

>>51522586
>How can you accurately depict a character that possesses faith when you lack any faith?
By not being a sociopath incapable of understanding other people.

I have genuinely begun to believe that staunchly religious people are all sociopaths. So often they seem to be of the opinion that the only thing keeping people from being awful is the threat of hell, in addition to a lack of understand of concepts like unconditional love or natural empathy.

>>51533991
Most "Christians" haven't even read the bible that they quote day in and day out. If they did, then they wouldn't be Christians.

>>51534112
I'm not talking about the average Christian, I am talking about staunchly religious people, like the kind you might hear on Christian radio. The average Christian today would be considered a full on heretic, I think something like a third of the US population believes in some form of reincarnation which would have to include some self professed Christians.

>>51534140
Even if the average Christian isn't going out of their way to bomb abortion clinics or protest the funerals of army soldiers, a lot of Christians still believe in some grimy bullshit that really strains the whole concept of Christianity being a "religion of love."

Like if you asked some Christians why gays deserve to burn in hell or why abortion is wrong, they can only really fall back on "because God said so." If every Christian honestly sat down and read the bible from cover to cover, I can guarantee not to become Christians once they realize just how crazy, violent, and horrifying Christianity actually is once you look at the bigger picture and not just the highlight reels.

>>51534457
I don't personally give a shit about supporting or hating homosexuality. What bugs me is how the whole point of Christianity is that you are going to hell no matter what unless you embrace god because everyone has sinned and even the smallest sin would keep you out of heaven.

Is homosexuality a sin according to Christianity? Possibly. Does it matter? Not really, there are clearly worse sins considering that "don't fuck another man" isn't even on the ten commandments. Why not attack adultery instead of or at least alongside homosexuality? Why not attack children refusing to honour their parents? Those too are sins that can be linked to societal decay, but no they attack homosexuality not because it is sinful but because it is gross.

But I digress my original point was that fundamentalist Christians (and I assume others I don't listen to Islamic or Jewish radio) sound like sociopaths trying to understand why regular people aren't a bunch of child raping murderers.

>>51527004
*tips fedora*

>>51527639
>>believes in "noble birth"
Actually in the UK you can be made a lady by the government if you're appointed to the house of lords, there's lots of people called Lady who aren't of any special birth. God I remember hearing about some controversy where the Labour party were literally selling noble titles for political donations, it's pretty sad.

>>51533859
>Agnostic means that you believe that nothing can be known of the existence of any deity - you cannot prove that it/they exists, but you cannot prove that it/they does not exist
That isn't what the word agnostic means.

>>51535069
>but you cannot prove that it/they does not exist
>proving a negative

Is it just me or does agnostic just translate in the real world to incredibly ignorant atheist?

>>51522586
Then why let a 21st century human nerd play a hardened half orc warrior?

>>51522329
Should White players be allowed to play black characters?

Should Male players be allowed to play female characters?

Should Human players be allowed to play Elf, Orc, Dwarf or Dragonborn characters?

Yes, yes people should be allowed to roleplay characters worshipping fictional religions.

>>51535107
It's meant to be a preface to theist or atheist, making Agnostic Thiest or Agnostic Athiest

>>51535207
I was referring to people who say they're just agnostic, I'm aware of how the term is actually supposed to be used.

>>51535248
Oh my bad man.

>>51534958
People like fundamentalist Christians are simply the logical progression that someone will make when they're told that everyone is shit and the only one that make them less shit is a man sitting in the sky who claims to be all loving while being responsible for multiple genocides.

They aren't good people because they're Christians, at best they're horrible people who are being kept in check by delusions of grandeur, that everyone they hate will suffer for all eternity while everyone they love will enjoy the splendors of heaven where they'll have the honor of telling God how great he is 24/7 for the rest of their afterlife.

>>51535107
>incredibly ignorant atheist
but you repeat yourself anon

>>51535354
Alright then: exceptionally ignorant atheist. Happy?

>>51522465
>I want clerics removed from Fantasy RPG.
I'm fine with clerics in RPG. I want them being removed from RL.

>>51535406
yes

>>51535428
Stop being such an islamaphobe you shitlord.

>>51522586
How can you play a brave adventurer when you have never experienced any conflict or swung a sword in your life?

>>51522586
just because a person is agnostic, doesn't mean they've never had faith. Faith doesn't have to be in a god or a religion, it is simply belief that something is the way it is, without a need for evidence to back it up. You can have faith that your spouse isn't going to cheat on you. You can have faith that your friends actually like you. You can have faith in lots of things. It's easy to roleplay faith, especially when, as in rpgs, the gods actually interact with the world, so faith isn't even that hard to come by. it's like having faith in science, what with all the proof of it existing and all.

>>51535623
>just because a person is agnostic
Agnostic about what exactly?

>>51535584
A phobia is a rational fear, Anon. :)

>>51535669
I was just testing if you were one of those idiots who slams Christianity while treating islam with reverence, maybe I don't agree with you but at least you're consistent.

>>51535584
Never seen a muslim in my life, it's cristianfags and jehovan witnesses i wish out of my planet.

>>51535661
??? i would assume since this is what the thread is about that the person meant they were agnostic about the existence of god.

>>51534457
>>51534958
I mostly agree with you guys, but I think you're being a little ungenerous.

>why abortion is wrong
No, its not because god said so. There are plenty of pro-life atheists. This isn't a religious thing. Its just a matter of whether you think a fetus/zygote has human rights or not. And while I am pro-choice, its by a razor thin margin and I could easily switch back. This is not an obvious issue at all.

>If every Christian honestly sat down and read the bible from cover to cover,
Plenty have, and they still endorse it. This phenomena has a lot more to do with belonging to your tribe and not so much to do with choosing to seek truth in an objective way. Essentially, embracing a worldview that is devoted purely to predicting reality with better accuracy (science) and having impartial globalist friendly morality is a tribal affiliation decision in itself. And that's what this is really about.
Utilitarianism is exactly as crazy, violent and horrifying. And every bit as justifiable. Because, meta-ethically, all this discourse is really about coordinating our tribe instincts. There is no fact of the matter, scientifically, with regard to reality, except...

>they attack homosexuality not because it is sinful but because it is gross.
You completely nailed it, and your logic is sound. Lots of psych studies show people have harsher moral judgements if placed in a disgusting room. Indeed, this is pretty much all human morality.

Don't eat people. This avoids disease transmission. Don't fuck your sister. This avoids inbreeding. All taboos which are disgust based have some evolutionary basis. It should be obvious why you don't practice sodomy in the stone age. That's no longer relevant. But our instincts have not changed.

These instincts are the only objective basis for morality in science or natural philosophy. But all we have to ask is- do we really want these instincts to be how we run our society?

And most of us say, "no, not really".

>>51535714
So they're an agnostic atheist? Why not just say that rather then leaving it vague, there is such a thing as agnostic theists.

>>51535024
>in the UK you can be made a lady
I've made a few girls a lady in my time.

And almost made a dude a lady too when he fucked with said girl

>>51535706
Muslims have clerics too, you should be more specific. Also where in the hell do you live that you never see muslims?

>>51535727
don't be dense, agnostic is simply admitting that they don't know if there is a god or not and have not made a firm commitment either way. they are not atheists or theists

>>51534457
>I can guarantee not to become Christians once they realize just how crazy, violent, and horrifying Christianity actually is once you look at the bigger picture and not just the highlight reels.
That's exactly how I became an atheist. Didn't need to read a whole Bible though - only got to the Book of Job to relize how stupid, cruel and self-contradicting this shit is.

>>51535751
>agnostic is simply admitting that they don't know if there is a god or not and have not made a firm commitment either way.
But that's just wrong, agnostic doesn't mean that.

>they are not atheists or theists
Literally everybody on the planet is one of those two things, there's no third option. Either you believe (note believe, not know) or you don't. What about this is so difficult for people to understand?

>don't be dense
How ironic.

>>51535766
wow, took you that long? The part where noah curses his son's children and their children and etc. to be slave to his other sons children and children, etc. did it for me, and that happened in genesis.

>>51522329
I leave the table at any mention of blind devotion or "faith."

I will outright correct the GM when they bring up the idea of a dragon having a god.

You probably believe this is autism. It's intellectual supremacy. Only a fool would explicitly choose to give their fantasy creation a religion of any kind.

As I have chosen to walk the path of rationality, I have the right to judge, and I exercise it to the fullest extent. The hypocrite OP has no right to indignation when he himself is an idiotic buffoon who is ultimately just using traditional games as a medium to imagine a diety.

I am to my knowledge one of the only true traditional gamers. The rest of you are zealots.

>>51535746
>Muslims have clerics too
I may start hating them too once I meet some of them, but I haven't yet.
>>51535746
>Also where in the hell do you live
Ukraine

>>51535780
>wow, took you that long?
I was fucking thirteen year old and raised in a religious family.

>>51535774
no, agnostic literally means, without knowledge, in essence when people ask me if there is a god I say, i don't know, there is more to this world than black and white, I don't really know what I believe and I don't really care enough to delve into it any deeper than that, I live my life as best I can and that's enough for me. Anyway, what any of this has to do with being able to play a cleric in dnd is beyond me.

>>51535807
i meant that long into the book, before you noticed the problems with the religion, relax guy, wasn't attacking you, i promise.

>>51535782
>Only a fool would explicitly choose to give their fantasy creation a religion of any kind.
Your fantasy cration peple don't have to be perfect. I'm an atheist, and I GM Dark Heresy, where I make worlds where people often worship fucking ventilation system.

>>51535810
>no, agnostic literally means, without knowledge, in essence when people ask me if there is a god I say, i don't know
If you don't know if god is real then you don't believe in god and if you don't beleive in god you're an atheist, this isn't fucking rocket science m8. It doesn't matter what you're rationale is you're still an atheist.

>there is more to this world than black and white
Not when it's a simple yes or no question, then it is black and white. Either you affirm the concept or you refute it, saying I don't know isn't affirming it so what does it make it? A refutation, the case has yet to be proven.

>Anyway, what any of this has to do with being able to play a cleric in dnd is beyond me.
Nothing really I'm just sick to death of ignorant atheists calling themselves just "agnostic" because they're ashamed of their own beliefs, it's sad. There's nothing wrong with saying you don't believe in something, you don't believe in lots of things why do you suddenly freeze up when it comes to god?

>>51535832
Nigga, why did you bite the hook? WHY?!

>>51535715
>Its just a matter of whether you think a fetus/zygote has human rights or not.
So what about the rights of the mother? We can't even harvest organs from corpses without consent from next-of-kin but we can force mothers to carry children to term, even when the cause was due to rape or carrying to term puts the mother in serious risk? Okay.

>>51535837
not quite, because atheist has the implication that you're going around saying, there is no god. and theist is going around saying there is a god. and agnostic is saying i don't know, and in my personal case, i don't care. it hasn't really come up in my life where i need to address that issue. i'm not ignorant, nor am i ashamed, nor am i freezing up about anything.

>>51535715
>Its just a matter of whether you think a fetus/zygote has human rights or not
Easy. If it's not sapient, it's not human.

>>51535897
Because surely agressive antitheism/anticlericalism is the only form of atheism.

>>51535914
it doesn't matter if it's the only form or not, when you hear atheist that is generally the first idea that comes to mind. agnostic better describes and clarifies my beliefs, or lack thereof

>>51535837
>Not when it's a simple yes or no question, then it is black and white.
Is it morally sound to have an abortion? Yes or No.

>>51535940
>>51535940
Yes, Although it really depends on the circumstances like most things in life.

Also not that anon

>>51535953
If it depends on circumstance then can you really say "yes" or "no?"

Either it's always okay regardless of the circumstances or it's never okay regardless of the circumstances. Anything less implies that there's a gray area, which means that it's not black and white.

I remember the crazy people I met DMing in college.
>"What deity does your cleric worship [player]?"
>"Jaysis..."
>Table gets awkward as fuck
>"That deity isnt in this book [player], why dont you pick one of the deities here so we can determine your domains, bonus spells and code of conduct"
>Player visibly triggered but shows me his sheet
>It has the best domains and the code of conduct is "be a good christian"
>I let it slide because its my first time hosting
>Play for a few hours
>Plot arc requires pcs to do a purifying ritual (basically fluff) before they are allowed to proceed into temple
>"Ah dunno, thats pretty unchristian"
>His cleric literally refuses to ring a simple bell and put incense into a small box
>Tell him that maybe he should do it ad a courtesy to the temple dedicated to the lawful good deity
>"Nah, thats unchrstian"
>Gets outraged ooc when npcs refused to let him in.
>"Wha arent thay lettin me in? Ahm a cleric of thuh one true gawd jaysis!"
>Ask him to say it in character
>Refuses and storms off
>Later tries to get my group shut down saying that its a satanic group

>>51535908
Sure, that works in all cases for animals and extraterrestrials. But what if you're sleeping? Not sapient while your'e sleeping. Definitely not sapient while in a coma. Is it cool if we hack you up for parts in that 3-6 hour period after surgery? No? What if you spent 9 months in a coma? How about then? Actually, its more like 6 months, realistically. You can totally teach your fetus stuff if you talk to it and play it music. It can hear you.

>>51535855
I mean, I am pro-choice, but only because I'm pretty radical about the "state has no right to force citizens into compulsory welfare". But that doesn't apply to most leftists, and it definitely doesn't apply to all of Europe/Commonwealth nations.

If you believe the state has the right to force you to give some of the proceeds of your labor to others so they can have free medical care, then there is no reason at all that wouldn't apply to babies. Indeed, it would apply especially to babies.

Rape doesn't really exempt you from taxes. Sorry, but it really doesn't make sense to say "something bad happened to me, therefore I am no longer obligated to keep other human beings alive".

Furthermore, we never harvest organs from "corpses". If they're a corpse, the organ is already damaged and not valid for transplant. You have to harvest organs from persons who are vegetative but clinically alive. We are medically certain that these people will expire shortly. Indeed, too often they expire before the transplant recipient can arrive, and the organs go to waste. But pedantics aside, we probably should make organ donation mandatory. I believe the reason we do not is because of concerns about corruption and perverse incentives.

As for endangering the mother, it is one thing for the state to demand resources, and quite another for it to demand risk to your life. But that too is not without precedent- notably compulsory military service or draft registration is prevalent in many if not most nations.

tbc

>>51535968
You didn't ask if it was black or white you asked a question and stated it was to be yes or no, all of life is a gray area if you want to be particular about it, but back to the point. In my view it's perfectly okay to abort until the baby can survive on it's own outside of it's host, regardless of circumstance

>>51536002
My post was in response to another anon who claimed that when a question is a simple yes or no question, then it is black and white.

>>51535998
i guess it all comes back to when you consider that tumor growing inside a woman to be a "baby" or a person in their own right. personally I believe it's not living until it can survive outside the womb, which i believe at this stage of medical science is about 27-28 weeks. or about 4 months. it's simple first trimester you can abort, 2nd trimester if it's a danger to the mother's life, third trimester, no.

>>51536050
I know.

>>51535998
-continued-

That said, I am very much against compulsory military service, and I am also against compulsory taxation. I do not believe the state has a right to demand your money, your nutrients, or any amount of risk to your life. And even without risk, a pregnancy causes permanent deformities (of a sort) to a woman's body. I think that's about as morally abhorrent as the state mutilating people (which, of course, is not without precedent. Plenty of medieval practices lawfully prescribed mutilation as punishment). The fact that a state has justified itself in these acts at some point in history does not make these acts permissible.

My point is, being pro-life is consistent with a liberal, atheist, welfare state. It is also consistent with a fundamentalist nationalist state. Being pro-choice is consistent with a libertarian state or anarchy. It is also consistent with Chinese totalitarianism, and some forms of autocratic utilitarianism (i.e. benevolent dictatorship).

If your society passes an amendment to the effect that the state cannot command you to endanger your life (thus eliminating the draft) then that secures an exemption for women who can prove they are at risk.

If your society has strong constraints against state mandated mutilation and considers pregnancy mutilation (most do not) then that is an avenue you can argue in court.

If your society mandates taxation for welfare, particularly medical welfare, there is very little grounds to dismiss the humanity of a fetus from receiving such state mandated welfare. The only grounds you might win in court is to say you incur a unique and undue taxation burden. But this won't earn you an abortion. It will earn you a reimbursement from the state.

The utilitarian observes that if you outlaw abortion, you merely get shitty back alley abortions anyway, resulting in mothers not receiving medical counseling which might have saved both lives (a fetus is potentially viable at 6 months).

>>51535998
>1
Zygotes!=Babies, at best they're a collection of cells may or may not even have the development required to know where they are.
>2
Until the child is born, it is for all intents and purposes, a parasite. Telling a woman that she cannot abort a pregnancy because "all life is sacred" is no different than a doctor refusing to remove a tapeworm because the tapeworm deserves to live just as much as the victim does.
>3
When you force a woman to give birth a rape baby, you're not only forcing her to raise a reminder of her ordeal but you're also cursing the child to a shitty life as a result of everyone around them knowing where they came from, a fate worse than death.

>>51536093
Then you'd understand the implication that I was delivering a yes and no question that could not be broken down to a simple dichotomy?

>>51536182
I understand that is what you were attempting to do. You failed, because as I said most everything in life is a grey area, and that is a fact, but it was a good try.

>>51536067
Reasonable standards, but unfortunately completely arbitrary to you. My arbitrary standards is that you are not 100% a person until you comprehend your own mortality. Children are only 70% of a person to me. A zygote is .000001% of a person. Or by your logic, a negligible amount of a person. I think that's reasonable, but its not more reasonable than "life begins at conception".

By the way my views are not unique. That is the Buddhist doctrine on life and death. And, scientifically, I think it is the most accurate articulation of the truth. Life and death are not discreet. You are 1% alive, then 10%, then 100%. And when you die- especially if you die of Alzheimer's- you die 1% at a time.

It is not relevant to the abortion debate what % alive you are. What is relevant is that a zygote is a potential person. We know with confidence that .0000001% WILL become 100% someday. When we kill it, we kill everything it will ever be.

In contrast, when a person is vegetative and ready for organ donation, that person is 99% dead, 1% alive. But unlike the zygote, we know they will never be 100% again. We are not extinguishing a potential life.

The doctrine of discreet life and death makes no sense if you have a materialist understanding of biology sustaining life. It's weird to think about, but only in the same way that death itself is weird to think about.

>>51535706
Statistically speaking, the average Muslim would be far more likely to have you put to death for not being Muslim than the average Christian would for not being Christian.

>>51536250
>everything in life is a grey area
So you admit that there is no black and white even when it boils down to a simple yes or no question?

>>51536296
I'm not the one who put that assertion forward but yeah, very few things in life are black and white, at least, in my view.

>>51536312
So we both are in agreement.

>>51536174
1) according to your arbitrary definition, which is worth less than toilet paper. No, really, sorry but it is. Your arbitrary definition will convince nobody because it holds exactly as much weight as my arbitrary definition or a Christians arbitrary definition. So, my counterargument is basically, "nu-uh yes they are". My better argument is >>51536259

2) I agree the child is a parasite. But it is a human parasite, with sapience. That gives it different rights and privileges than a tapeworm. Please try harder to improve the quality of your discourse- this equivocation does you no favors. If you listen carefully to what I'm actually saying, I'm giving you stronger better arguments for your side that are more direct to the heart of the issue.

3) When you force a soldier to march, you are not only forcing him to relive his PTSD, but putting him in additional danger. The state does not care. It will do this to save the life of the child, because a death >> a trauma.

The child is hardly cursed. It will be put up for adoption if the mother hates it so. Adopted children are quite happy.

>>51536317
Obviously.

>>51536326
>1
It's not an "arbitrary definition" when we can map out a fetus' development using medical science. If you want to ignore facts then that's your prerogative but don't try and argue from a point of rationality while doing so.
>2
Until a certain point, it doesn't even have all the parts necessary to survive outside the womb, let alone gain sentience.
>3
Soldiers with severe PTSD can be medically discharged if their condition prevents them from serving in the front-lines, there's no such thing as a mother getting medical leave from taking care of her child.

Also, this part right here
>It will be put up for adoption if the mother hates it so. Adopted children are quite happy.
Just shows me how fucking clueless you are about the world around you. As someone who has been around foster children for most of their life, I can safely say that there is no greater hell you can visit upon a child than to put them into the system.
cont.

>>51536326
cont. from >>51536432
In a nutshell, kids who are put into the system are basically passed from from household to household. They have no say in where they go, whether or not they'll be traveling with their siblings, or even in whether or not they get to speak to their family. They can be subjected to everything from physical, mental, emotional, or sexual abuse from their foster parents and most often, the state thinks that they're lying unless the abuser gives the state enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Every so often, they might send a social worker to a home to get an update but the average social worker has to juggle dozens of different files from children from all over a particular state and even if they could afford to keep track of all of them, they won't have the time to properly assess whether a child is actually okay or whether they're being forced to keep their mouth shut, lest they get abused some more.

>>51522329
Should atheist actors be able to portray religious characters?

>>51535746
You mean imams :^)
>>51536432
Dude, no one cares, you are pissing in the wind.
I support the option of abortion simply because I do not place a value on life, including human lives, simply because it is THERE.
Possibility of something isn't enough in my book. It's callous, and I realize that, and most people can not make that separation of emotion in order to make that kind of call, but someone has to be around to make the kinds of choices you don't want to admit have to be made.

>>51536326
cont. >>51536485
Then by the time the child ages out at the age of 18, they're basically left to fend for themselves on the streets unless they found a way to reach an outreach program that would actually be able to help them become decent members of society. However, the agencies they came from will rarely talk about these programs, so most kids end up on the streets.

That's also not getting into the years of repressed memories and diagnosed mental issues that they had to deal with throughout their childhood, which just ends up feeding into them developing some fucked up mental disorders as they become older.

The reality of it is that most foster kids are engineered to fail by society, the ones who make it out and find a good home are the exceptions, not the rule.

I'm sorry for writing so much but it pisses me off when people say "just let them be adopted" as if it's somehow more humane to than just aborting the kid that you have no intentions of raising on your own.

>>51536497
There's no point in bringing in more humans into the world that you have no intention on raising as a contributing member of society.

I also love how you say "Possibility of something isn't enough in my book" yet you support throwing a kid through the grinder even though they'd have a greater chance of winning the lottery than ending up in a home that's actually worth living in.

File: read.jpg (75KB, 625x416px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 625x416px

>>51536432
Read>>51536259

A fetus' development has nothing to do with whether its a person, because .00001% of a person is still a person in the same way 50% of a person is still a person. Those are the medical facts. If you aren't a fraud you should be able to see this.

What is legally relevant, regardless, is the potentiality of that person. Its the same relevant factor that permits us to answer questions regarding end of life care.

And again, from a legal perspective, the state does not care. Death >>> trauma, in weighing harms, in which one harm or the other must be done to an innocent citizen. You failed to address the central claim of my argument. You get a B-

>and for the record, they pull soldiers from the front lines because they're a liability, not because the military gives a shit

>>51536485
I concede that foster care in America is very shitty. To strengthen your case you might also bring up "Suffer the Little Children", which is where we put unwanted children with severe disabilities. That is nazi-death camp level hell on earth there. And, frankly, I think that is a very strong argument for the elective abortion of invalids.

I was under the impression that babies are generally adopted, and that foster care was for children over the age of 1 or 2 who were taken away from their parents by DFS for some egregious violation or another. If our adoption system is overburdened, that is a weak argument in favor of abortion, and a stronger argument in favor of expanding welfare funding for DFS.

>>51535024

Wasn't that the Tories? I mean I can believe it about both seeing as for as long as I remember they've been basically the same, but...

>>51536611
Anon, you need to stop thinking anyone who disagrees with you is the same person.
I have nothing to do with your argument, I'm merely putting in my 2 cent on abortion.
You are typing a whole lot of shit considering you aren't going to change anyone's mind here, and this has already surpassed friendly debate or exchange of intelligent ideas.

>>51536695
Any child under the age of 18 can be put into the foster care system, even if they're babies or toddlers. Disabled kids can also be put into the system as well, though some agencies will require that you have special facilities in place before you can invite the child into your home.

And I advocate abortion over adoption because, honestly, after all the horror stories my family has witnessed over the years, a fetus would better serve as a means of acquiring stem cells than as a child who nobody wants to take care of.

It sounds harsh but it truly is a fate worse than death to be a foster child, especially in the cities.

>>51536785
Well, you're taking the hard utilitarian approach. I understand and to some extent agree, but hard utilitarianism is unpopular for very legitimate reasons. The most important of which is that most scientific studies into the matter show people are extraordinarily and catastrophically bad at accurately measuring utility outcomes by intuition. Unless you've done rigorous statistical analysis indicating how many QALY's would be gained from aborting defective children, there is very good reason to doubt your claims as a point of prior probability (even though I intuitively agree with them). Especially when it comes to killing people, its very hard to get positive QALY's out of that.

Your logic also implies (and I would grimly accept this consequent) that we are better off quietly executing 2+ year old children who fall into foster care rather than prop up this alternative.

No really, if its that bad there's no reason we should only execute the unborn. The math would still hold true for executing the unwanted 8 year olds. Maybe even the teenagers. Depends on how irreparably damaged they are.

The point is, your reasoning has no indication why we should only abort fetuses. You keep repeating "fate worse than death". If that is the scientific truth, then the utilitarian truth is that we should execute the children, born or unborn.

My purpose here isn't to disagree with you. I am pro-choice. My purpose here is to steel man the opposition and strengthen discourse to what is legally relevant and therefore meaningful dialog. To that end I recommend you reconsider my post >>51536143
which outlines what is and isn't a valid justification from the purpose of statecraft.

>>51536930
Once a child is born, they have gained all the necessary parts required to become aware of their environment, the same cannot be said about a zygote.

I honestly can't understand how you could draw that type of conclusion unless you were being purposefully obtuse.

>>51535715
Why are you equating following science with globalism.

And putting the facts first is not a 'tribal affiliation decision', that is absurd.

>>51533693
Atheist means "I believe there is not a god." Agnostic means "I dunno, maybe there's a god but there's no hard evidence for or against it." Atheists have a set of beliefs just like a religious person (that belief happens to be "there is no god."), agnostics are fence-sitters.

>>51538708
Lacking belief is not the same as actively believing something does not exist. Your way means people would have to go through life actively disbelieving in every supernatural creature ever invented by humans. Instead of merely lacking belief in them.

Why do so many people try to equate atheism with religion anyway?

>>51538791
>Lacking belief is not the same as actively believing something does not exist.
That's what I said. Agnosticism is lacking belief, atheism is believing something does not exist, and those are two separate things. I think we're on the same side.

>>51538816
Now you are trying to change the definition of atheism, why?

Either you believe gods exist and are a theist or you lack belief and are an atheist. Agnostics are just anybody who is not insane enough to think they can know with 100% certainty that god exists or not whether they believe in it or not.

>>51538891
>Either you believe gods exist and are a theist or you lack belief and are an atheist. Agnostics are just anybody who is not insane enough to think they can know with 100% certainty that god exists or not whether they believe in it or not.
You know, I'll concede and accept your definition as more accurate than mine, I like yours more.

>>51535837
Do you read the phrase "I neither confirm nor deny" as "I deny," anon?

>>51538708
>Atheist means "I believe there is not a god." Agnostic means "I dunno, maybe there's a god but there's no hard evidence for or against it."

No, it doesn't.

Ask yourself this: which god do you believe in?

If your answer is any specific god, or any collective of gods, you're a theist.

If you give any other answer (including an "I don't know"), you're an atheist of some sort.

Atheist nowadays is believed to mean lacking belief in god, but this is only in modern vernacular. Traditionally, it means that you do not pay respects to any deity, and this receive favor from none of them. You are "without god", so to speak.

Personally, I think it stupid to define yourself based on things you don't believe in. There is no term for lacking faith in Nigerian Prince email scandals, but it would just as accurately define me.

>>51541432
>There is no term for lacking faith in Nigerian Prince email scandals, but it would just as accurately define me.
What about "Skeptic?"