Saladin the Devout Athiest?

[Ranos]

Not trying to start a debate, just pointing out a couple of flaws in the above two posts.

1.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

prin·ci·ple ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prns-pl)
n.
1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
2.
a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.
b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency.
3. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.
4. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior: the principle of self-preservation.
5. A rule or law concerning the functioning of natural phenomena or mechanical processes: the principle of jet propulsion.
6. Chemistry. One of the elements that compose a substance, especially one that gives some special quality or effect.
7. A basic source. See Usage Note at principal.

Atheists assume there is no god and they have a concientiuos devotion to this assumption. The fourth defintion of religion therefor applies to athesim.

No, because Atheism is not a belief, its the lack there of. So Athiesm is the lack of belief.

Anyways...

I think Theocracy works only for cities that already have the state religion. I may be wrong though, as I always end up getting with one religion or another in my games, so I have never tested that fact.

There is no such thing as lack of belief. Everyone believes in something. The only way there can be no belief in something is if there is proof. "The Earth is round," is a fact because it has been circumnavigated and photographed from space. No one can believe that the Earth is round because it is a fact. "There is a god," is a belief since there is no proof that there is a god. "There is no god," falls under that same category since there is no proof of that.

The end result then is that Atheists believe that there is no god.

 

[Drakonik]

I disagree with you, Ranos. People can believe whatever they want. There might be all the evidence in the world, but people could still believe it.

Just that little nit to pick.

 

[Ranos]

I fully agree with you on that Drakonik. Somebody could still believe that the world is flat and that would be nothing more than a belief since there is no proof. I meant that since the world is round, belief wouldn't be a word to use since there is proof. "I know the world is round," would be a more fitting statement than, "I believe the world is round."

 

[kommie]

Creationism debates are all great fun, i know, but can someone please confirm or deny the interesting point of no-state-religion Theocracy?

Does running the Thocracy civic while also using No-State-Religion give your units a +2 xp during build??

Would be great to find out, as i'm currently playing a game where i've kept away from declaring a state religion in order to be on good terms with all AI players, but would like to use the religious civics anyway.

anyone?

 

[zx1111]

I fully agree with you on that Drakonik. Somebody could still believe that the world is flat and that would be nothing more than a belief since there is no proof. I meant that since the world is round, belief wouldn't be a word to use since there is proof. "I know the world is round," would be a more fitting statement than, "I believe the world is round."

Atheism is not just belief. Belief is accepting as fact or truth without seeing evidence. Atheism is attitude that, without evidence that God does exist, I would not accept existence of God as fact or truth. We call such attitude as rational or skeptical or scientific. Atheism is result of the applying rational attitude to reasoning regarding existence of god or supernatural thing. So it is not belief.
For example, there may be UFO air base in the center of the deep earth. No one can prove or disprove such argument for now. But it is rational attitude to think that there is no such thing before seeing any evidence of UFO base in the middle of earth. But someone think that UFO base does exists and I can call such thinking as "Belief" or religion. i.e. accepting as fact without seeing evidence.
Such rational attitude is not inherent in human nature. Human is irrational by birth. But some philosphers of Greek age and Reanssance Age enlightment thinker "invented/discovered" that one should not accept something as fact without seeing evidence. We don't call such way of thinking as "belief".

 

[Ranos]

Atheism is not just belief. It is attitude that, without proof, I would not believe anything. We call such attitude as rational or skeptical or scientific. Atheism is result of the applying rational attitude to reasoning regarding existance of god or supernatural thing. So it is not belief.
For example, there may be UFO air base in the middle of the earth. No one can disprove such belief for now. But it is rational attitude that thinkng that there is no such thing before seeing any evidence of UFO base in the middle of earth.

Anyone can use a bunch of words and twist and turn and do the hokey-pokey but that doesn't change the fact that it is still belief. Not believing anything is the same as believing nothing. It is nothing more than a different use of words. You could say, "I don't believe there is a god," or, "I believe there is no god." They mean the same thing.

You can waste time and energy saying, "I have never seen God and I have never heard God and since I have no proof that there is a god, that must mean that no god exists." You could also just save yourself some time and say, "I believe there is no god." The use of more words to say the same thing is nothing more than an attempt to cover for something else. In this case, you associate the words 'belief' and 'believe' with a diety, so you use more words to keep from saying those words. That doesn't change the fact that you still believe.

[EDIT]
I read your post before you changed it.

Atheism is not just belief. Belief is accepting as fact or truth without seeing evidence. Atheism is attitude that, without evidence that God does exist, I would not accept as fact or truth. We call such attitude as rational or skeptical or scientific. Atheism is result of the applying rational attitude to reasoning regarding existance of god or supernatural thing. So it is not belief.
For example, there may be UFO air base in the middle of the earth. No one can prove or disprove such argument for now. But it is rational attitude to think that there is no such thing before seeing any evidence of UFO base in the middle of earth. But someone think that UFO base does exists and I can call such thing as "Belief" or religion. i.e. accepting as fact without seeing evidence.

An atheist "accepts as fact or truth" that there is no god "without seeing evidence." A Christian could have the "attitude that, without evidence that God does" not "exist, I would not accept as fact or truth."

Being rational or thinking rationally is nothing more than doing that action calmly and without anger. It is looking at the evidence presented to you and reasoning out the result. While an atheist's rational thinking and examination of the evidence given leads him/her to the conclusion that there is no god, a Christian's rational thinking and examination of the evidence given leads him/her to the conclusion that there is a god. Different people have different view points and see the same evidence two different ways. They may also have different evidence from eachother. A Christian person may have witnessed a miraculous healing that leads them to the conclusion that there must be a god because there is no other way for that healing to occur. An atheist may have had a hard life that forced them into horrible situations and they may conclude that if there was a god, they wouldn't have had to suffer through those hard times.

 

[kingjoshi]

Creationism debates are all great fun, i know, but can someone please confirm or deny the interesting point of no-state-religion Theocracy?

Does running the Thocracy civic while also using No-State-Religion give your units a +2 xp during build??

Would be great to find out, as i'm currently playing a game where i've kept away from declaring a state religion in order to be on good terms with all AI players, but would like to use the religious civics anyway.

anyone?

If you have no state religion but have theocracy, then NONE of your cities get +2 exp for new units. Last game was like that for me. I had cities with various religions as well as cities with no religion, but none got any bonus.

 

[Carcosa]

A Christian person may have witnessed a miraculous healing that leads them to the conclusion that there must be a god because there is no other way for that healing to occur. An atheist may have had a hard life that forced them into horrible situations and they may conclude that if there was a god, they wouldn't have had to suffer through those hard times.

The problem with this is that you do not take into consideration the fact that only the former must be a conscious choice, as we must begin in either a theistic or atheistic state, and logic and observation dictates that theism is learned rather than inherent.

I will posit that we begin without any faith in any god or any religion. It is indoctrinated into us at a young age and we are brought up into the faith of our family and those who live immediately around us (as shown by the distribution of religions geographically rather than haphazardly across the world.) It never happens that a child, born into a Christian family, announces that he is a Muslim before he has even heard of Islam. Religion is learned and cultural.

Therefore we are born without religion and as atheists. In your example, the atheist must have formerly been a believer who stopped believing in god because he felt life was too cruel for a god to exist (which is perhaps a rather underhanded way to present "selfish atheism", but we'll run with it, as that may not have been your intention). Otherwise he would not have had to make the conscious choice to stop believing in god, as god is a learned concept.

Religion is partly about belief in the words of the religious just as much as in the concept of god. If a man is born atheist, is told of a glorious creator god who did marvellous things, yet does not believe this because he sees no evidence for a god; he is not maintaining an active belief, he is simply dismissing the belief of others. Just as you might not believe somebody who tells you your house was made by goblins when you believe there is sufficient evidence to say that a craftsman built it. Maintaining your disbelief in goblins is not an active belief, it's simply the lack of faith in another's belief.

You've probably gathered by now that I'm an atheist myself. I do however sacrifice regularly unto great Cthulhu, just in case the stars align sometime soon.

 

[kingjoshi]

It's arguable that Atheism is the LACK of belief. Because pure atheism is the belief that there is no God, god, or gods.

I personally believe that there is no such thing as lack of belief. If you're Atheist, you beleive that there is no God. If you're Agnostic, you believe that it's impossible to determine if there's a God.

No matter what, you believe something.

What do you mean "pure" atheism? Some use the terms "strong" and "weak" atheist. The first claims that god does not exist (and let's not forget that people have different definitions of god, so it's quite a strong claim). The latter makes no such general claim, only that they lack the belief in your definition of god. The "strong" atheist posits a claim which is just as irrational as the theist's claim. This is not just twisting words and what have you, there is definitely a difference.

The "a" in atheism is not "opposite" but lack of/negation. Consider for a moment, what's the opposite of "Person A hitting person B"? Is it B hitting A? Or is it A not hitting B? The "a" means negation, so it's the not hitting. When we use the term "opposite", it creates more ambiguity (as though there wasn't enough already).

Also, agnostic can mean multiple things. That we can't determine whether god exists (either due to limited human faculties or lack of technology) or that the particular person doesn't know enough information to claim one way or the other.

In reality, most agnostics are weak atheists because since they don't know, they basically lack the belief in God. However, people in confusion change states a lot. They may lack faith one day and then curse god and wonder why such a bad event occured the next. It would be hard to label them agnostic, atheist or theist.

And some agnostics are theists. They claim that we cannot prove God to exist but must purely believe based upon faith. That used to be the original position for most of Christianity, but Saint Thomas Aquinas (as well as other theologians) claimed that the same god that gave us Reason also allowed us to prove God's existence through reason alone. That eventually became the official position of the Catholic church and many Christians. Also, some go beyond reason and claim we can prove through science. And some believe we can prove through super-natural methods, which I have yet to fully understand.

Also, belief in god or lack of a belief does not constitute a religion. Just as a belief in Santa Clause does not create a religion. And the lack of belief in Santa Clause definitely doesn't create a religion (doing so would mean everyone has millions of religions because we all disbelieve in many things).

 

[zx1111]

.... It is looking at the evidence presented to you and reasoning out the result. While an atheist's rational thinking and examination of the evidence given leads him/her to the conclusion that there is no god, a Christian's rational thinking and examination of the evidence given leads him/her to the conclusion that there is a god.

I was not presented with any evidence of God dos NOT exist. Of couse, No evidence of God DOES exist, too. So why should I assume existence of God or somthing in such condition?
Let's call it anything, say "XYZ". I did not see any evidence of existence of "XYZ", and did not see any evidence of non-existence of "XYZ", too.
So I don't accepts existence of "XYZ" as fact or truth. You accepts existence "XYZ" as truth. The "XYZ" may be "GOD" or "UFO".

Disprove this:
I AM GOD. -or- I AM Sid Meier.

Do you have any evidence that I am not God or Sid Meier?
Why don't you believe that I am a God or Sid Meier?
What kind of evidence lead you to the conclusion that I am not God or Sid?

Lack of evidence ( either I AM God or I am NOT God), isn't it?

 

[kingjoshi]

An atheist "accepts as fact or truth" that there is no god "without seeing evidence." A Christian could have the "attitude that, without evidence that God does" not "exist, I would not accept as fact or truth."

You put yourself in a very dangerous position with such an argument, as shown by zx1111. You force yourself into a corner where you have so many beliefs you didn't know about.

All of a sudden I make a claim that there was a guy that existed in Asia during the time to Socrates who taught similar philosophies. If someone comes along and asks you about it (and you've never heard of it) and asks why you believe he existed and you said you don't believe that, then by your logic, you MUST believe that he didn't. And then the person asks for proof he didn't exist. What proof do you have? What proof do you think you need to show? Did you really deny his existence? Or just say that you didn't believe in his existence?

Ranos, you must understand the difference in a) asserting the claim of an existence, b) making no assertion, and finally, c) making the assertion of a non-existence. They are three different things.

 

[romelus]

On the whole Intelligent design stuuff, I oersoanlly agree with all the "we adapted yto universe" but it still doesn't solve the problem of where did it all begin?

the honest answer is "we don't really know yet", and there's nothing wrong with not knowing everything

on topic, i've never seen an AI with no religion and theocracy. although it's very easy to do it yourself, and your units do get the bonus somehow.

 

[Drakonik]

What do you mean "pure" atheism? Some use the terms "strong" and "weak" atheist. The first claims that god does not exist (and let's not forget that people have different definitions of god, so it's quite a strong claim). The latter makes no such general claim, only that they lack the belief in your definition of god. The "strong" atheist posits a claim which is just as irrational as the theist's claim. This is not just twisting words and what have you, there is definitely a difference.

I said "pure atheist" to clarify between an actual atheist, who believes that there is no God, and an agnostic, who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.

As for "weak atheism" and strong atheism", I think that you can beleive that there is no God to varying degrees of assuredness, but you still believe that there is no God and that makes you atheist.

 

[JBG]

The problem with this is that you do not take into consideration the fact that only the former must be a conscious choice, as we must begin in either a theistic or atheistic state, and logic and observation dictates that theism is learned rather than inherent.

I will posit that we begin without any faith in any god or any religion. It is indoctrinated into us at a young age and we are brought up into the faith of our family and those who live immediately around us (as shown by the distribution of religions geographically rather than haphazardly across the world.) It never happens that a child, born into a Christian family, announces that he is a Muslim before he has even heard of Islam. Religion is learned and cultural.

Therefore we are born without religion and as atheists. In your example, the atheist must have formerly been a believer who stopped believing in god because he felt life was too cruel for a god to exist (which is perhaps a rather underhanded way to present "selfish atheism", but we'll run with it, as that may not have been your intention). Otherwise he would not have had to make the conscious choice to stop believing in god, as god is a learned concept.

Religion is partly about belief in the words of the religious just as much as in the concept of god. If a man is born atheist, is told of a glorious creator god who did marvellous things, yet does not believe this because he sees no evidence for a god; he is not maintaining an active belief, he is simply dismissing the belief of others. Just as you might not believe somebody who tells you your house was made by goblins when you believe there is sufficient evidence to say that a craftsman built it. Maintaining your disbelief in goblins is not an active belief, it's simply the lack of faith in another's belief.

You've probably gathered by now that I'm an atheist myself. I do however sacrifice regularly unto great Cthulhu, just in case the stars align sometime soon.

I think Carcosa's got it right, here.

When we are brought up into a religious faith either at home or at school, over time we can make the descision for ourselves whether to believe it or not. I myself come from an atheist family which encougrages debate from a very early age. So at school I was perpetually asking the question 'why' and 'how do you know'. For some reason it always seemed to irritate the religious studies department more than anyone else - and I don't say that in jest. I think it comes down to the fact that many religious people are so utterly convinced of theirs being the one true system of beliefs that they find it hard to accept the possibility of others. I myself made the choice not to carry on believing in God.

The difference, therefore, lies in whether we choose as individuals to accept or deny what we are told. Indeed, the foundation of the Christian faith is based on a book written by people from a great many different times and places - and what is considered correct or not was decided about 350 years after the event. It is that latter fact (the Council of Nicaea) more than anything else which, for me, removes most vesiges of credibility from Christianity.

 

[Darwin420]

We, the insignificant carbon-units, are the ones that adapt.

The stars don't give a damn.

Can I use that in my sig? That's such an awesome quote!

 

[JBG]

Yeah, sure, why not?

Just remember to attribute it to me!

 

[warpus]

It's arguable that Atheism is the LACK of belief. Because pure atheism is the belief that there is no God, god, or gods.

I personally believe that there is no such thing as lack of belief. If you're Atheist, you beleive that there is no God. If you're Agnostic, you believe that it's impossible to determine if there's a God.

No matter what, you believe something.

Of course it's impossible not to believe ANYTHING. I believe that my name is Tom and that I won't fly out into space due to the gravitational pull of the Earth. These beliefs don't make me religious, however. Neither does a lack of a belief in God.

 

[warpus]

Atheists assume there is no god and they have a concientiuos devotion to this assumption. The fourth defintion of religion therefor applies to athesim.

I disagree. Most atheists do not pursue their lack of belief in a God with any sort of zeal or conscientous devotion. Some do, but most don't.

Personally, I would rank my atheistic beliefs up there with "I like havarti cheese" and "I enjoy playing Civ4". They are just facts about my personality.

If a bunch of atheists started meeting every week, chanting "We are worthy!" and "The lack of God saves us!", distributing pamphlets, singing songs about Gene Roddenberry, and wearing silly hats, THAT would be a religion.

 

[warpus]

Anyone can use a bunch of words and twist and turn and do the hokey-pokey but that doesn't change the fact that it is still belief. Not believing anything is the same as believing nothing. It is nothing more than a different use of words. You could say, "I don't believe there is a god," or, "I believe there is no god." They mean the same thing

Let's use an analogy here.

Say that you really like cheese and you're a member of a "Cheese Lovers" club. You meet every week and discuss the wonders of cheese. Your group in particular believes that Gouda cheese is the best kind of cheese in the world. There are other such clubs around the country with different favourite cheeses - a club that prefers Feta over all cheeses, another that prefers Cottage cheese, and so on.

Now, assume that I hate cheese and I don't eat any of it. Would you say classify me as a cheese lover because my absence of love of cheese is a belief in cheese nevertheless?

 

[Older than Dirt]

"Since the creation of the world God" invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." and:

"There is no one righteous,
not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God." Romans 1:20 and Romans 3:10

Atheism seems to be popular because if there is no God, everything is permissible. So an atheist can always say "who are you to tell me what to do?" An "ethical atheist" is an oxymoron. For God to be "dead" you gotta kill logic and reason first.