Print

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

Judaism

0 (0%)

Christianity

17 (23.3%)

Islam

1 (1.4%)

Hinduism

0 (0%)

Taoism

0 (0%)

Buddhism

0 (0%)

Scientology

2 (2.7%)

Other (please tell)

7 (9.6%)

Athiest

35 (47.9%)

Undecided

1 (1.4%)

Agnostic

10 (13.7%)

Total Members Voted: 70

[Folly]

The definition of atheism has not necessarily evolved, but rather it continues to be debated. Implicit and Explicit Atheism.

I don't think we're allowed to argue here, so I won't go into which one I think is right...I'll simply state that the definition of atheism appears to be far less certain than it's competitors.

[Rolan7]

but but "nonreligious" means no religion in particular or at all

@Folly I agree, the definitions are vague.  Because not-being-religious was a dangerously abnormal thing until recently, and still is to a real extent, so of course the definitions/titles are going to be in flux.  It's like herding cats, cats in the middle of a pack of wolves.

I prefer my definitions
obviously
I think they're pretty popular though

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Folly, you are describing the difference between weak and strong atheism.

Agnosticism says "we can't/don't know that (well)." It is not exclusive to atheism! Agnostic atheism says "it cannot be proven, and I do not believe." Agnostic theism (very rare) says "it cannot be proven, and yet I believe." People don't like to admit that they are irrational, so this last group is uncommon. People like to say that their religion is objectively true and obvious, and that there are no uncertainties in their religion, so this last group is uncommon.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god.

Weak atheism says "pragmatically, we might as well act as if no gods exist." Hitchens put it well: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

Strong atheism says "this god does not exist." When applied to the concept of metaphysical entities as a whole, this cannot be proven. However, it is possible to prove, say, that a god cannot exist that is both the smallest and the largest.

Ignosticism says "what do you mean, 'god'? There's no clear definition of your god." Ignosticism is basically agnosticism+ (not to be confuse with atheism+, which just sucks). As an example, I am agnostic about there being a teacup orbiting Jupiter. I am ignostic about a teacup made out of pure neutrons and yet also blue, orbiting Jupiter but also Proxima Centauri, and nonexistent but also capable of being touched.

Apatheism says "I really don't give a shit." There's really nothing else to say about apatheism.

Antitheism says "religion is bad." It is not necessarily coincident with any other position, nor exclusive to any other position. I can believe in a god and also believe that religion is harmful.

[Imic]

I am in a position of agnostic theism, mainly because there was actually a person named Jesus, and that there's a part of our brains designed to belive in some form of higher entity. But which one is real? There have been hundereds of religions over the generations, all claiming to be the real one, so the proper answer is, "Who knows!" Quote from a friend of mine, "All religions often forget the golden rule: respect each other."

[Folly]

There have been hundereds of religions over the generations

Thousands.

[Imic]

There have been hundereds of religions over the generations

Thousands.

Ooooooh woooooooow. That's... A lot of religions.

[ChairmanPoo]

What about roleguns though? Particularily multi-roleguns

[Starver]

This is a common misconception about Atheism. Atheism is not actually about what people do not believe, but rather what they believe is not. Atheism is a faith that divine entities do not exist; a blind faith, considering that it is impossible to prove a negative, therefore any certainty of the lack of a god or gods is pure supposition.

No, this is a common misconception about atheism. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god.

HTH, HAND. And now we return you to your regularly scheduled derailgun...

[sprinkled chariot]

It is thought that Imperial forces of Wh40k do not make use of Railgun, since their purging power is not exactly great (after all, you can't exactly have a railgun flamethrower), but if I recall correctly, one of multiple explanations of Nova cannon is that it's an huge railgun. Some places mention that heavy bolters are also coilguns (which makes them have a kicker charge, speed up the projectile by coil and then have a rocket on top of it, because three ways to make a bullet faster is better than one or two... if they only painted them red) but that's very obscure knowledge.

Necron "Gauss" weapons are not railguns. They are reverse railguns, since they pull the thing they're shooting at towards themselves, effectively "flaying" the enemy and ripping him apart one layer at a time, which is also why they're quite useful against vehicles. It should be noted that Necrons also utilize "Tesla" weaponry which basically shoots electricity because that obviously makes sense. One could argue that they are named like that because Mechanicus have a preserved skull of Nikola Tesla that they use to shoot lighting out of - which implies that they might have skull of Carl Friedrick Gauss and use it as a gravity gun.

Of course, Tau make heavy use of railguns but their railguns are so simple and regular that there is not much to write about, apart maybe from Cluster Shell system from Heavy Rail Cannon Arrays which allow them to execute multiple human civilians at once.

Since I have noticed the new name only just now, what about we discuss some other weaponry, like chainswords with flamethrowers underneath? This is the most holy combination of two weapons that are most useful for righteous purging, why it is not used more? Catholic Church would certainly benefit from priests armed with Eviscerator chainswords.

Catholic church does not have genetically ehnaced superhumans in power armour to wield flamethrower-chainswords

[Starver]

Catholic church does not admit to having genetically ehnaced superhumans in power armour to wield flamethrower-chainswords

ftfy

[Kot]

Well, I am pretty sure that Klovis The Redeemer, Wh40k resident comic superhero, is a regular (if a bit... orthodox) human without power armour, yet he waves a flaming chainsaw around and having another huge flamethrower on his head that he ocassionaly uses to express his disgust in mutant and heretics.

Seriously, this dude is hilarious.

[smirk]

Super-Antitheist:  Kratos, determined to murder all gods

Point of order: That is, in fact, a Deicide. Having deicidal tendencies assumes belief in whatever god or gods you are attempting to kill, since elimination from existence requires that existence first.

An effective Deicide will likely also have fervent belief in railguns.

[Loud Whispers]

An effective Deicide will likely also have fervent belief in railguns.

Nah, deicidal maniacs prefer chained swords, as opposed to theistic maniacs who prefer chain swords. Know the difference, it could save your life

[Kot]

What about chains with swords?
Or chains with chainswords?!
Or better, chainchains with chainswords!?!
FLAMING CHAINCHAINSWORDS WITH CHAINSWORD CHAINS!!!???!!!

[TempAcc]

This reminds me that, when I played hellmoo, there was a weapon you could get off certain psychopaths called a flame chain, essentialy a chain thats on fire. You could mod it with a flame mod and get yourself the legendary FLAME FLAME CHAIN.