Atheism

[Lord Celestine]

I am a Christian, a skeptic and a man of Science - nice to meet you.

I think it's important to destinguish between Atheism as a belief an Atheism as a belief system.

To begin with - what is Atheism?

Atheism is not believing in a God - I say a God because Christians are technically Atheists - they don't believe in Zeus. That's important, because it demonstrates that Atheism is not actually a rational position, it can be arrived at by other means.

So what is Atheism as a belief system?

Atheism as a belief system is not believing in any God, or any supernatural forces, everything has a rational explanation. That in itself is not exactly a rational statement - for one thing you can usually throw out a weird coincidence or bizarre event that can't be explained by mundane mechanisms. The Atheist will respond to this nby saying "we don't know enough/don't have all the data". He cleaves to his belief there is a rational explanation even in the face of conflicting evidence.

That's not to say Atheism is unreasonable, it's as reasonable as Theism and like Theism there are intelligent and stupid positions.

How does this reflect on the CKII period?

Well, for starters there are no groups studying the Greek Atheist philosophy, both the Christians and Muslims are studying Aristotle and trying to synthesis his metaphysics into Christianity, Plato is largely neglected and the great atheists like Protagoras and Epicurus are so ignored that virtually none of their work has come down to us. It was not read so it was not copied, it may have been actively destroyed.

In India the situation is much more complex, and I am much less knowledgeable but I can say with some confidence that whilst early Buddhists did not believe there was an all-powerful God ruling the universe they generally DID believe that the beings worshipped as Gods existed.

So that's your general landscape, and frankly most people don't have a strong opinion one way or another on these matters - then or now. Atheism is as much a minority belief as it was a thousand years ago, as is really strong Theism. The difference between then and now is that we live in a very pluralistic society today - where people don't generally try to force things down your throat.

Go up to the average person today ask them if they believe in God and you'll more often than not get one of these answers:

"Well, maybe, I don't know."

"I'm not sure, but I think there might be something out there."

"Probably not"

"I like to think of myself as spiritual."

Question them further and you'll often find that even avowed Sceptics believe in things like "luck" or "chance" or some other odd superstition that's not entirely rational because we are not entirely rational beings. We tend to go with the general flow of society, too, and a lot of us will believe what "experts" tell us about a given subject without exerting a lot of critical thought, because we have better things to do.

ya know, back in the day how people all said that John the baptist only served as a precursor to Jesus Christ? how Jesus served as a precursor to Muhammad, and to the one prophet that mormons revere. You don't believe in any of those religions because you think it's silly right? They were obviously lying! But then why do you believe in Jesus Christ? When you should believe in John the Baptist? He was the first and there wasn't a soul before him.

Josephus writes that Jesus lived around the time of the First Jewish Revolt and besides the New Testament making multiple allusions to this time period there is also this piece.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

At the beginning of the First Jewish Revolt there was tons upon tons of bloodshed of Greek heathens hundreds of thousands were murdered because they 'did not believe'. I don't know about you, but someone who's idea of bringing about the kingdom of heaven to earth is slaughtering all those who oppose him, that does not sound like someone I would like to be worshipping. Also proclaiming yourself to be the son of a god is something a lot of Greeks did, particularly Greek rulers, more for prestigious purposes rather than beseeching a divine right to rule like the Romans saw it, but the Roman Emperors more or less regarded themselves as 'living gods' just like Jesus. The living/not so living god.

Why do I say these things? Because I'm tit for tat that CKII doesn't have a cult focusing for John the Baptist. The closest thing I can get to is Arianism. Although perhaps blame really shouldn't be thrown to the CKII development team as the earliest they go is Charlemagne and by that time most of the gnostic sects had died out. But I'm playing the mod 'when the world stopped making sense' which is in and of itself based from a biased opinion because it only 'stopped making sense' in that the Roman Empire lost control of the Western half. It starts in 476 and that is still a viable time for the gnostic sects. Perhaps I should suggest it to the creator of the mod...

 

[SigurdStormhand]

What? No, not believing in one particular god while believing in other(s) is not actually atheism, nobody uses the word that way. I have no idea why you want to invent new, confusing meanings for words. (The word you are looking for is "monotheism", as contrasted to "henotheism".)

No, technically monotheism is worshipping one God - which is distinct from believing only one God exists. This is not a "new" idea, this is an old one, "Atheism" is what Jews and Christians were accused of and prosecuted for by the Romans. The Romans saw Atheists - who refused to believe Rome's Gods existed - as a threat to the State as they were likely to bring down the displeasure of the Gods.

I am speaking historically, Henotheism is a post-Renaissance concept, likely caused by the semantic shift in the use of the term "Atheism". We are speaking of the Medieval period primarily, however, and it's therefore important to understand that our modern semantics are not applicable.

This is utter dishonesty - we are not in the habit of "throwing out" events that we cannot explain (which is not the same as "it cannot be explained" - an unprovable statement in and of itself since we would need to be omnipotent to be able to say so for sure). That's what the fundamentalists do. Scientists tend to update their theories when evidence falsifies their previous theory. Religious people tend to be the ones who have their pre-defined theory as the conclusion and try to adjust the evidence to it.

No, it's not dishonest - Scientists will only change their theories when there is overwhelming evidence, in this they are rather like the religious. Some Scientists will not change their theories even then. A famous example is Sir Fred Hoyle, the Astronomer Royal, who refused to even countenance anything other than a "Steady Satte" theory of the universe because he felt the "Big Bang" (an originally derogatory term he coined) implied the existence of a creator.

I note you chose not to quote the second part of my paragraph where I explained exactly how the postulated Atheist will "throw out" as in "disregard" anything that does not fit with his exclusively mundane understanding of existence. I was contrasting this with the theist, who when presented with something he does not understand declares it a miracle. The Atheist refuses to countenance a miracle, he simply assumes he doesn't have all the data to understand the phenomenon he witnesses.

That's a matter of faith though - to believe the the presently inexplicable will become explicable in the future.

What "conflicting evidence"? A random-ass book telling a supernatural story isn't evidence of any sort. Religion brings no evidence to play.

I was thinking more of the Paradox created by Quantom Entanglement, actually.

What did I say at the beginning?

"I am a Christian, a skeptic and a man of Science - nice to meet you."

How utterly generous of you.

I could by crass and say "you're welcome" but I'm trying to explain that I'm NOT attacking you.

Not at all.

Quite a lot, actually, it's important to demonstrate that Atheism is a belief System, because that demonstrates that it requires systematisation to be a viable political force - systematisation that was not present in the medieval period so the only kind of "Atheism" is Cynicism.

 

[Lord Celestine]

No, technically monotheism is worshipping one God - which is distinct from believing only one God exists. This is not a "new" idea, this is an old one, "Atheism" is what Jews and Christians were accused of and prosecuted for by the Romans. The Romans saw Atheists - who refused to believe Rome's Gods existed - as a threat to the State as they were likely to bring down the displeasure of the Gods.

I am speaking historically, Henotheism is a post-Renaissance concept, likely caused by the semantic shift in the use of the term "Atheism". We are speaking of the Medieval period primarily, however, and it's therefore important to understand that our modern semantics are not applicable.


No, it's not dishonest - Scientists will only change their theories when there is overwhelming evidence, in this they are rather like the religious. Some Scientists will not change their theories even then. A famous example is Sir Fred Hoyle, the Astronomer Royal, who refused to even countenance anything other than a "Steady Satte" theory of the universe because he felt the "Big Bang" (an originally derogatory term he coined) implied the existence of a creator.

I note you chose not to quote the second part of my paragraph where I explained exactly how the postulated Atheist will "throw out" as in "disregard" anything that does not fit with his exclusively mundane understanding of existence. I was contrasting this with the theist, who when presented with something he does not understand declares it a miracle. The Atheist refuses to countenance a miracle, he simply assumes he doesn't have all the data to understand the phenomenon he witnesses.

That's a matter of faith though - to believe the the presently inexplicable will become explicable in the future.


I was thinking more of the Paradox created by Quantom Entanglement, actually.

What did I say at the beginning?

"I am a Christian, a skeptic and a man of Science - nice to meet you."


I could by crass and say "you're welcome" but I'm trying to explain that I'm NOT attacking you.


Quite a lot, actually, it's important to demonstrate that Atheism is a belief System, because that demonstrates that it requires systematisation to be a viable political force - systematisation that was not present in the medieval period so the only kind of "Atheism" is Cynicism.

There was totes mcgotes systematization in the middle ages and antiquity. For as long as people have been questioning things there has been systematization, perhaps it didn't just apply to religion there has always been proponents in that regard.

To say 'cynicism' was the only viable option for ck2 is ludicrous, atheists have never been viewed with much equality. Many people who merely went out of the frames of accepted 'dogma' were burnt at the stake.

I don't like the big bang, I don't believe in the big bang, for so many years it's been the 'accepted' theory of the universe and left at that and no one really bothered to try and explain it or explain the universe before it. Science is indeed a faith, you have to have faith to believe what the scientists are telling you is accurate and secondly that said science has no political agenda behind it.

And just look at what they're saying about the universe that it's expanding! they haven't even come up with a new name to describe the end result of the phenomena which they propose!

Here's the definition of the Universe

All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

(with big bogus theory attached) The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.

Do you know how nonsensical that sounds?! That the universe is FINITE!? That to me is the equivalent of saying that the earth is flat! Or that the sun revolves around the earth!

If we are in some cosmic bubble then we need a name for these bubbles, but that scientists have so decadently decided to obscure this with just simply calling it 'the universe' is to me a very very underhanded technique since they above all people should know the definition of the word UNIVERSE! And that is another thing! as the universe literally means ALL THAT IS by saying that the universe even had a beginning is pure lunacy! maybe the unnamed cosmic bubbles may have had a beginning but not the universe!

What's going to happen if I go to the edge of the Universe am I just going TO FALL OFF BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING!?

 

[Woody Man]

As an Atheist myself ... I never really talk about my religious beliefs unless someone asks me.

lol

I am an atheist, skeptic and a man of science (skeptical until hard evidence arises). But cynical is what I would be called in this period.

(Atheism is not a religion but I idgaf if you think I think about gods. I don't. Gods occupy 0% of my time. Also, I think you should stop this debate. No one will win because no one will acknowledge defeat.)

Atheists are there since the first religions were invented. Long before Judaism was henotheistic or the first Vedas. But it's anachronistic with CK2 because the term was not used. Deism should be in Eu4 but that's another forum.

 

[Lord Celestine]

lol

What was that all about? Atheism may not be a religion, but it still pertains to it.

Also I may not be to concerned with religious discussion, but history is fair game.

 

[Woody Man]

What was that all about? Atheism may not be a religion, but it still pertains to it.

Also I may not be to concerned with religious discussion, but history is fair game.

I liked how you introduced yourself as an atheist, and then went on to say you don't talk about it.

 

[Lord Celestine]

I liked how you introduced yourself as an atheist, and then went on to say you don't talk about it.

Right, because in a thread about Atheism represented in CKII am I not suppose to introduce myself as one of the target audience?

I do not like the concept though, of being openly atheist in the middle ages, even as a king. I'd rather just let everyone go about their business and if I had to go to church on Easter and Christmas just to please the local bishop I wouldn't mind that at all. Having said that there are a lot of feast days for saints on the calendar and I think the Catholic Church may have used a lot of that money just feasting 24/7

 

[GCRust]

Not sure if it's been said yet, though it probably has...

If you want your rulers to be atheist, just take the theology focus and wait for the event with the option "It's true, God is Dead!" or similar wording (I've had three separate variations). You'll become Cynical and bam...atheist.

 

[Lord Celestine]

Not sure if it's been said yet, though it probably has...

If you want your rulers to be atheist, just take the theology focus and wait for the event with the option "It's true, God is Dead!" or similar wording (I've had three separate variations).
You'll become Cynical and bam...atheist.

Does it have it's own little symbol?

 

[Kapitalisti]

What's going to happen if I go to the edge of the Universe am I just going TO FALL OFF BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING!?

Go and try.

 

[Lord Celestine]

Go and try.

Already did and there's a lovely restaurant over there.

 

[sreckom92]

Say no to no_religion!

 

[Kllense]

Let's focus on the game.
There will be NO Atheist "religion".
I don't care what you are and what you are not. Christians or atheists alike. Go to quora.com or r/atheism. This forum is for CK2.

And Sigurd, thank you for your response but I "respectfully disagree"

Thank you, and goodbye.

 

[Lowcast]

Atheism wasn't possible in the medieval era because atheist ideas are based on scientific theories that didn't come into existence until the 19th century. Religion at this time served an important function as it answered a lot of questions for people that science at the time couldn't - like how the universe comes into existence, how humans were created and so forth. Thus anyone who chose to stop believing in a particular religion often just swapped it for a different religion, even if it's just one of their own creation.

Look at the ancient Greeks as an example - even if a lot of philosophers rejected the Olympean pantheon, a lot of them came up with their own philosophies on the universe which were based on assumption rather than any fact. Also look at the opinions of early individuals who were suspected to be atheist like Machiavelli. He was certainly a skeptic, but I find it hard to call him an atheist considering the praise he heaped upon pagan society in opposition to Christian society.

tl;dr pre-enlightenment genesis theories and understanding of the universe were based on theological perspectives and thus most people only understood the world from a theological standpoint.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

Excuse me, I'd like you to meet Epicurus...

But seriously, the idea that "God is Dead" is not a new one, it's an old one.Scientific progress has buttressed Atheism somewhat by explaining some things that were previously inexplicable. It's worth noting, though, that Science still hasn't answered the two questions you gave as examples. We still don't know how the universe came into existence and whilst we can roughly trace human evolution we still don't have any understanding of what human consciousness really is.

 

[Lord Celestine]

Atheism wasn't possible in the medieval era because atheist ideas are based on scientific theories that didn't come into existence until the 19th century. Religion at this time served an important function as it answered a lot of questions for people that science at the time couldn't - like how the universe comes into existence, how humans were created and so forth. Thus anyone who chose to stop believing in a particular religion often just swapped it for a different religion, even if it's just one of their own creation.

Look at the ancient Greeks as an example - even if a lot of philosophers rejected the Olympean pantheon, a lot of them came up with their own philosophies on the universe which were based on assumption rather than any fact. Also look at the opinions of early individuals who were suspected to be atheist like Machiavelli. He was certainly a skeptic, but I find it hard to call him an atheist considering the praise he heaped upon pagan society in opposition to Christian society.

tl;dr pre-enlightenment genesis theories and understanding of the universe were based on theological perspectives and thus most people only understood the world from a theological standpoint.

One need not knowledge of the natural world in order to abandon the belief in a god, you're giving to much credit to science and not the rational thought that exists within everyone, and I use the term rational as in people rationalizing things, not that the disbelief in a god is any more rational than a belief in one even though my personal bias would have a tendency to lean towards this way of thinking.

 

[Aries666]

Because if someone publicly revealed that they were an "Atheist" at this time bad things would happen.

That still applies in many a country even toady!

 

[sreckom92]

There was totes mcgotes systematization in the middle ages and antiquity. For as long as people have been questioning things there has been systematization, perhaps it didn't just apply to religion there has always been proponents in that regard.

To say 'cynicism' was the only viable option for ck2 is ludicrous, atheists have never been viewed with much equality. Many people who merely went out of the frames of accepted 'dogma' were burnt at the stake.

I don't like the big bang, I don't believe in the big bang, for so many years it's been the 'accepted' theory of the universe and left at that and no one really bothered to try and explain it or explain the universe before it. Science is indeed a faith, you have to have faith to believe what the scientists are telling you is accurate and secondly that said science has no political agenda behind it.

And just look at what they're saying about the universe that it's expanding! they haven't even come up with a new name to describe the end result of the phenomena which they propose!

Here's the definition of the Universe

All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

(with big bogus theory attached) The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago.

Do you know how nonsensical that sounds?! That the universe is FINITE!? That to me is the equivalent of saying that the earth is flat! Or that the sun revolves around the earth!

If we are in some cosmic bubble then we need a name for these bubbles, but that scientists have so decadently decided to obscure this with just simply calling it 'the universe' is to me a very very underhanded technique since they above all people should know the definition of the word UNIVERSE! And that is another thing! as the universe literally means ALL THAT IS by saying that the universe even had a beginning is pure lunacy! maybe the unnamed cosmic bubbles may have had a beginning but not the universe!

What's going to happen if I go to the edge of the Universe am I just going TO FALL OFF BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING!?

I suggest that you dedicate a bit of time and read about the subject, rather than talking about things you apparently barely know about.
I also suggest this to be moved to OT forum, or closed.

 

[Aries666]

you believe that your "ratio" (ratio in latin - i dont know how in english) works well, that the empirical world is real etc. But why? Why are you not a "brain in jar" mad scientist? Or this all is not a MATRIX? Or dream of xenomorph in a coma? Very limited rationalism...

The brain works through electrical impulses and biochemy - inject some other chemicals, and you will be a hippie believer in cosmic energy. Several electroconvulsive therapy and completely change your personality and completely different way of thinking. Which way of thinking is objectively correct? Or a madman in psych learned the truth? But since we all live in a lie, so he are for us madman?

Why do you think that your way of thinking is correct? Narcism? You are the you, so you are right?

Where is "rational principle"? Nowhere...

So yes - atheism is faith. Like a faith in reality of the world, or that the senses show the truth about the world, or that we live, or that god exist... All based on faith...

What is this regurgitated brain vomit

 

[SigurdStormhand]

What is this regurgitated brain vomit

He's describing Epistomological Relativism, not the most fluent description - but accurate.

How do you know you aren't plugged into the Matrix, or dreaming?