Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RavingManiac]

If too many worshipers come into your fortress, he goes berserk!

Exactly. Just like in real life, where nonbelievers are prone to violent action vs believers.

Oh wait, I forgot. It was actually the other way around...

Both ways, really. It just depends on how hardcore you are.

[assimilateur]

Both ways, really. It just depends on how hardcore you are.

Give me an example of atheism-motivated violence aimed at believers and I'll shut up.

And I'm talking violence here. Telling believers that they are deluded doesn't count as violence.

[RavingManiac]

Both ways, really. It just depends on how hardcore you are.

Give me an example of atheism-motivated violence aimed at believers and I'll shut up.

And I'm talking violence here. Telling believers that they are deluded doesn't count as violence.

Well, I managed to find one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_J._Murray

To be fair, he was pretty much batshit insane in the first place, and it is not clear if his hate of Christians meant hate of Protestants, Christians or theists in general, as he joined a Mormon and Catholic church.

On a side note, religious violence tends to happen between sects and religions, as opposed to between theists and atheists(apart from fighting over ethical issues like abortion). In this regard, atheism is pretty much treated as a "neutral" side.

[assimilateur]

it is not clear if his hate of Christians meant hate of Protestants, Christians or theists in general, as he joined a Mormon and Catholic church

Exactly. This is far from a clear-cut case of an atheist killing theists for being theists, which is what you seem to have postulated when you said it went "both ways, really".

On a side note, religious violence tends to happen between sects and religions, as opposed to between theists and atheists(apart from fighting over ethical issues like abortion).

In this case I consider your previous "both ways" statement refuted; by yourself, no less.

[Neonivek]

This isn't a good area to be having this sort of debate since it isn't helping to come up with solutions.

Anyhow.

For Atheism there need to be three types however four are possible:
-Note: I know these arn't all Atheism but it fits the goal of this suggestion well.

1) The Individual believes in gods but doesn't worship any at the moment.
2) The Individual believes in gods but doubts their divinity or right to be worshipped.
-In a god active world this could be a very bad idea. While unbelievers just need to be shown the way someone like this needs to be made an example.
3) The Individual doesn't believe in gods but does so unreligiously.
4) The individual doesn't believe in gods but does so religiously.

The 4th is a bit controvercial so I am not sure Dwarf Fortress should ever apply it given its ability to cause fights.

Basically 2 and 4 take on religious propertise and can act according to docterine while 1 and 3 have little-no impact unless acted upon by another religion.

[assimilateur]

4) The individual doesn't believe in gods but does so religiously.

That isn't just "controvercial" (sic), that's showing a lack of understanding of what religion and atheism mean.

[Servant Corps]

If too many worshipers come into your fortress, he goes berserk!

Exactly. Just like in real life, where nonbelievers are prone to violent action vs believers.

Oh wait, I forgot. It was actually the other way around...

This is Drawf Fortress. Drawves goes berserk for any reason. Kings goes beserk because nobles appernatly live in exactly the same living conditions as the King.

This thread, it's going down. If Gods are actually real, then atheism would be pointless. Philosphies will be suggested seperately.