General / Off-Topic Atheist Goverments - The sword of reason

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

Proving that god is created by man is not quite the same as disproving his existence.

Well, technically you cannot prove anything does not exist.

What you could prove is that it spontaneously appears in human culture, without an apparent catalyst.

Come to think of it, if no religion arises, it might prove that God does exist because in the absence of an specific action, like the appearance of a Prophet that could be attributed to a God, it means a God must take action in a Godless society to become known.

Premise: Humans are naturally atheist. The idea of a God must either be externally imposed or God must take action to create belief.
Test: In absence of an external source, do humans start to believe in a god?

If they do not start believing in a God, that means there was an external force that created the belief in God in the past, therefore God does exist, and has not yet reveled themselves to the humans on the planet.

If they do start believing, it could either be: An act of God. Or, a spontanious creation of a god to worship. Either way, we cannot prove how it came about, so we have no proof if God exists or not.

 

[athiestorm]

Proving that god is created by man is not quite the same as disproving his existence.

you dont need to try and prove a negative, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if someone claims a god it is up to them to prove its existence.

Anyway, proving that this particular god was made up would not prove all others were made up. After all, I could invent a mental construct named Chuck Norris and attributed with supernatural powers of meme generation. My invented Chuck Norris would not negate or preclude the simultaneous existence of an independant Chuck Norris, also gifted with supernatural powers of meme generation.

yes but for anyone to take you seriously you would need to provide evidence of either, of which you would have none.

The more educated a nation is (with the exception of the u.s.a) generally, the less religious they are. Id guess by 3300 religion will be no more than a tiny collection of sects around the universe, humanism and the importance of family will be ubiquitous.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Why would athiests be militant? why not have humanist planets
Humanist-Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It is not a mystery why relatively, ignorant primitive people do so.
People want to explain stuff. People want power. If you combine the two you get priesthood.

Derren Brown once did an interesting experiment.

Got a bunch of self proclaimed atheists together and made them perform a task on their own. At the end they got a small reward depending how well they did. The catch is; he made it possible to cheat. Quite a few cheated to get a bit more of a reward.

Next another bunch same test. But this time he also tells a story about an old chair in the room. Says the chair was said to be haunted and folk in old times believed there's the spirit of an old lady still present. All said in a lighthearted manner and off the cuff. The next bunch cheated a lot less.

Atheists and religious people aren't different in their irrationality. They just have different ways expressing it.

And before some scolds me for daring to call religion irrational, love is irrational, self sacrifice is irrational, lots of good and noble things are irrational. I never get why people take offense of that.

 

[Iskariot]

But they have a template to work
from, so is it nature or nurture?

I think it is part of nature. But even nurture can be considered nature.
These days it is not considered that black and white anymore.
Many isolated communities have created gods independently, without templates.
On the other hand there are also a few communities without gods.

Of course nature then is complemented with nurture or childhood indoctrination.
I am not using the term indoctrination in a negative way. It is just the way humans raise their children.
It is simply natural that you teach your kids what you believe to be true, no matter how nonsensical this truth may be.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Atheists and religious people aren't different in their irrationality. They just have different ways expressing it.

I agree completely.
Atheist can believe in ghosts, the boogie man, the monster of Loch Ness, fascism, homeopathy etc.

 

[Vasious]

I propose that humans would find a planet and claim it as religion free, god free and they would actively keep it that way.
Sure, most government types could be seen as secular, but in a galaxy with hundreds of theocracies, there would be a militant atheist government somewhere.
It stands to reason ;-)

Are there really hundreds?
I'd be surprised if there was over a hundred [singular]
I dont recall there being that many when I was going my minor faction type survey
IIRC Prison Colonies seems more common

 

[Louella]

How about this idea instead

I don't see that it adds anything that is different enough to existing government types, that really justifies creation of a new government type.

militant anti-theism fits with an authoritarian dictatorship, in terms of how it operates and behaves, so all that is needed is an appropriate name.

Or, create your own player-derived minor faction, That's an option open to you.

 

[Vasious]

---

Oh also, once we get to land on worlds with life, we should occasionally come across the back to nature types mentioned in the FFE journals, isolationist & Eco-Terrorists types both.

 

[CariadocThorne]

you dont need to try and prove a negative, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if someone claims a god it is up to them to prove its existence.

I never said anyone needed to disprove the existence of god, merely that god being created by humans is not the same as god not existing. It could also be interpreted as proof that god does exist, since, after all, we should know, we made him.....

yes but for anyone to take you seriously you would need to provide evidence of either, of which you would have none.

Evidence? What kind of evidence would you consider sufficient to prove the existence of Chuck Norris? A venomous snake which died after biting him?

 

[Ironwolf]

I don't see that it adds anything that is different enough to existing government types, that really justifies creation of a new government type.

militant anti-theism fits with an authoritarian dictatorship, in terms of how it operates and behaves, so all that is needed is an appropriate name.

Or, create your own player-derived minor faction, That's an option open to you.

Theocracy governments can exist within the Federation, so should Anti-Theist governments.

Should the Federation only acknowledge Theocracies?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Are there really hundreds?
I'd be surprised if there was over a hundred [singular]
I dont recall there being that many when I was going my minor faction type survey
IIRC Prison Colonies seems more common

Not sure on the total number of Theocracies, does seem like a lot.
Anyone have a spreadsheet with the total?

So I used the description of 100's just as a rough guess.
But I can safely, so far, say that there are no anti-theist governments anywhere in E D, a shameful zero!

 

[Vasious]

Theocracy governments can exist within the Federation, so should Anti-Theist governments.

Should the Federation only acknowledge Theocracies?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



Not sure on the total number of Theocracies, does seem like a lot.
Anyone have a spreadsheet with the total?

So I used the description of 100's just as a rough guess.
But I can safely, so far, say that there are no anti-theist governments anywhere in E D, a shameful zero!

Just seemed like inflating the number as part of your argument.
And no it is not shameful, beside the "my special interest group isn't included" point of view with doesn't make it shameful, as covered earlier, there is nothing in the descriptions on their stance on the Atheist, Secularist, Pluralist, Moralist spectrum.

And no the Federation would not have Anti-Theist governments if they have Theocracies as well.
From the description you provided it would be "Militant Atheist. A faction that has been recognized as an Anti-Theist Organisation under Federation Law."
So Federation law recognizing an entity that is out to destroy "A faction that has been recognized as a Religious Organisation under Federation Law" ie other entities they have recognized.

No government would give legal recognition to two sub groups with one driven by "unfetted hatred" aiming to destroy the other.
It is bad for taxes if not votes and general civic order.

And the thing is, with regards to you wanting the faction, people have provided you options on how to get it done and it was too much effort

Actively opposing Theocratic faction in game using the BGS was too much effort for you
Creating an Player group to get a player minor faction was too much effort for you

You are not going to put in any effort to effect the change you want in game, just going to try to use "shame" to get the Dev to add the faction for you.

 

[Louella]

Theocracy governments can exist within the Federation, so should Anti-Theist governments.

Why ?

Should the Federation only acknowledge Theocracies?

Why shouldn't they ?

I can safely, so far, say that there are no anti-theist governments anywhere in E D, a shameful zero!

The Empire doesn't recognise theocracies.


I've said that anti-theist government fits with the type "Dictator", especially for independent systems.

You're saying that it should be a separate government type, but haven't made the case that their behaviour is different enough from existing government types (authoritarian dictatorship), to justify creating a new type of government.
And you're going round and round, saying they should exist, without countering any of the points made by other people. Just re-stating "anti-theists should exist", without providing reasons why.

 

[Ironwolf]

Just seemed like inflating the number as part of your argument.
And no it is not shameful, beside the "my special interest group isn't included" point of view with doesn't make it shameful, as covered earlier, there is nothing in the descriptions on their stance on the Atheist, Secularist, Pluralist, Moralist spectrum.

And no the Federation would not have Anti-Theist governments if they have Theocracies as well.
From the description you provided it would be "Militant Atheist. A faction that has been recognized as an Anti-Theist Organisation under Federation Law."
So Federation law recognizing an entity that is out to destroy "A faction that has been recognized as a Religious Organisation under Federation Law" ie other entities they have recognized.

No government would give legal recognition to two sub groups with one driven by "unfetted hatred" aiming to destroy the other.
It is bad for taxes if not votes and general civic order.

And the thing is, with regards to you wanting the faction, people have provided you options on how to get it done and it was too much effort

Actively opposing Theocratic faction in game using the BGS was too much effort for you
Creating an Player group to get a player minor faction was too much effort for you

You are not going to put in any effort to effect the change you want in game, just going to try to use "shame" to get the Dev to add the faction for you.

I do listen to everyone who cares to post here.
No need to be mean, just because I am trying to push the conversation in a direction that hopefully engages.

And please don't tell me what I am prepared to make effort over.
I'm making effort talking, listening, and thinking.

This is not RL. Its a futuristic space game where theocracies outweigh the non-existent anti-theist governments.
That said, I'm not going to hug you.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The Empire doesn't recognise theocracies.

I've said that anti-theist government fits with the type "Dictator", especially for independent systems.

You're saying that it should be a separate government type, but haven't made the case that their behaviour is different enough from existing government types (authoritarian dictatorship), to justify creating a new type of government.
And you're going round and round, saying they should exist, without countering any of the points made by other people. Just re-stating "anti-theists should exist", without providing reasons why.

It highlights an interesting aspect to the E D galaxy.
The Federation has Theocracies.
The Empire does not.

There seems to be a religious divide between the major powers.

If I just followed your guidance, then the only place a anti-theist government would settle would be within the Empire.
And guess what opposes them, Federation Theocracies.

That's starting to shape up like a holy war.

 

[Vasious]

I do listen to everyone who cares to post here.
No need to be mean, just because I am trying to push the conversation in a direction that hopefully engages.

And please don't tell me what I am prepared to make effort over.
I'm making effort talking, listening, and thinking.

This is not RL. Its a futuristic space game where theocracies outweigh the non-existent anti-theist governments.
That said, I'm not going to hug you.

I never brought RL into it.
As you said it is a game
You have been provided how to use to game to achieve your objectives
Either Destroying Theocracies by attacking their influence in the BGS
Or
Creating a Player Minor faction, adding the lore of what is is, as every other PMF has done and try to grow your minor faction.

It's a game , there is the mechanics to achieve your objectives, two options, do one or both.

Minor faction types have been cut
Alliance Prison Colonies, Imperial Co-operatives, Imperial Confederacies
Despite efforts to get them added back in the word was no they are not supported by the BGS

So don't expect you to get your own minor faction type, effectively changing the rules of the game just for you.

No hug needed.

 

[Apos]

I think that anti-theist government is an oxymoron.

The government type is how the faction runs its own assets. Not how much of an expansionist or warmongering and towards who it is. A theocracy implies that their laws and constitution stems and is weaved directly from their doctrine. A theocracy could perfectly be an isolationist and xenophobic society that wants nothing to do with anyone else, let alone introduce them to their dogma.

Since the lack of a religion does not have a doctrine, it can't be a form of government, since it doesn't provide direction on how to run the place.

Technically, theocracy itself might be a stretch to be considered a standalone government type, since it is bound to use a structure from something else like feudal or even some form of democracy. That extra leap of being bound with fervor to a doctrine sets them apart enough to get their own mention.

 

[Marra Morgan]

It highlights an interesting aspect to the E D galaxy.
The Federation has Theocracies.
The Empire does not.

There seems to be a religious divide between the major powers.

If I just followed your guidance, then the only place a anti-theist government would settle would be within the Empire.
And guess what opposes them, Federation Theocracies.

That's starting to shape up like a holy war.

The Empire venerates their Empress; it's unlikely that Imperial law would allow enclaves where their citizen's devotion could be distracted.
The Federation is a democracy; freedom of religion is one of their things.

Is this a tinderbox for holy war between the Federation and Empire?
No, I don't think so. The rational and reasonable thing to do would be to let each other get on with it.

 

[Ironwolf]

No hug needed.

Good.

I understand what you are saying, but I am using people here as a sounding board.
Do the atheists and militant atheists really think a minor faction, and an independent dictatorship at that, is the only solution?
I figured a conversation would be better than a poll.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The Empire venerates their Empress; it's unlikely that Imperial law would allow enclaves where their citizen's devotion could be distracted.
The Federation is a democracy; freedom of religion is one of their things.

Is this a tinderbox for holy war between the Federation and Empire?
No, I don't think so. The rational and reasonable thing to do would be to let each other get on with it.

I figured that was the reasoning behind the lack of support for Theocracies within the Empire.
I guess there is no noticeable impact if a Theocracy is brought into the imperial fold, even if they are not tolerated.

 

[CariadocThorne]

It highlights an interesting aspect to the E D galaxy.
The Federation has Theocracies.
The Empire does not.

There seems to be a religious divide between the major powers.

If I just followed your guidance, then the only place a anti-theist government would settle would be within the Empire.
And guess what opposes them, Federation Theocracies.

That's starting to shape up like a holy war.

So you want a faction who ban religious freedom, foster unfettered hatred of believers, don't even accept agnostics due to the belief that "There is only one truth, there is no god", want to eradicate religion, and who now apparently want to turn the simmering tensions between the empire and federation into a "Holy War" due to the existence of theocracies in the federation.

And they call themselves the "Sword of Reason"?

 

[Apos]

Good.

I understand what you are saying, but I am using people here as a sounding board.
Do the atheists and militant atheists really think a minor faction, and an independent dictatorship at that, is the only solution?
I figured a conversation would be better than a poll.

Or a patronage using its resources to take away power from religious parties.

But the description is what will make the difference really.

 

[Ironwolf]

I think that anti-theist government is an oxymoron.

The government type is how the faction runs its own assets. Not how much of an expansionist or warmongering and towards who it is. A theocracy implies that their laws and constitution stems and is weaved directly from their doctrine. A theocracy could perfectly be an isolationist and xenophobic society that wants nothing to do with anyone else, let alone introduce them to their dogma.

Since the lack of a religion does not have a doctrine, it can't be a form of government, since it doesn't provide direction on how to run the place.

Technically, theocracy itself might be a stretch to be considered a standalone government type, since it is bound to use a structure from something else like feudal or even some form of democracy. That extra leap of being bound with fervor to a doctrine sets them apart enough to get their own mention.

The lack of a religion can have a ideology, educating evolution and not creationism, science and not superstition. A system of ideas and ideals that forms the basis of anti-theism.

But I understand the subtlety of your point. It would've been better if Government Type, Economic Model and Religion were separated out as individual characteristics, imho.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

So you want a faction who ban religious freedom, foster unfettered hatred of believers, don't even accept agnostics due to the belief that "There is only one truth, there is no god", want to eradicate religion, and who now apparently want to turn the simmering tensions between the empire and federation into a "Holy War" due to the existence of theocracies in the federation.

And they call themselves the "Sword of Reason"?

You are jumping the gun a bit there. Under the appropriate circumstances within the BGS things could happen. I don't think the society I envisage would be on a war footing, just prepared to be if threatened.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

When 'we' die, we stay dead ;-)

 

[Ironwolf]

Is there a chart somewhere that shows how different government types impact others, I think it was from a PP perspective.
The one with the best resistance to theocracy would be sensible, depending on what that actually is.