Jagyr Ebonwood's page

I seem to remember a few feats/rogue talents, one of which made an opponent lose their Dex to AC for the turn if they missed an AoO against you, and one which made a failed AoO against you provoke an AoO from you.

Assuming that these things exist and I'm not just imagining them, it seems fairly straight forward to combine them with a Combat Reflexes rogue to tumble around deliberately provoking in order to get some sneak attacks and put your enemies off balance.

I am going to see if I can find these abilities in the rules. It's possible I'm misremembering or just crazy.

EDIT: After perusing the rules, I have determined that I am crazy. The closest thing I could find is the Panther Style feat and the capstone feat for Snake Style, both of which allow you to hit someone who makes an AoO against you, but they only let you do so with unarmed strikes.

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

In fact, I just killed the GM's character in my game this weekend via a gibbering mouther's engulf ability, which is a horrible disgusting way to go, so I expect some level of retribution. :D

As the player who had the character that got gobbled up by that gibbering mouther.....Yes Jagyr Ebonwood will be playing in my game this weekend :D

I suppose when I think of revenge, I think of Ken's revenge with a steamroller in the movie "a fish called Wanda" link

I guess I could say what I'm planning but that would spoil the surprise!

How much for a scroll of Energy Resistance (Steamroller)?

I was perusing the PRD today, and came up with a few questions about poison.

1) Using poison has often been used as an example of an evil act in previous editions (I believe this was one of the reasons that the assassin PrC had an evil alignment). Does this hold true in Pathfinder? I didn't see it described as such in the core rules. Is using poison still evil? Maybe only deadly poison use is evil, but drow poison and the like is neutral?

2) If it is the case that poison use is canonically evil (or even if it's only deadly poison that's evil), why does the poison spell not have the evil descriptor?

3) I'm confused about which types of poison stack with themselves. I understand the current rules of adding another dose to increase the DC by +2 and the duration by +50%. I'm confused that the rules seem to state that this is only possible when using ingested and inhaled poisons (not when using injury or contact poisons), and then immediately use an injury poison as an example of stackable doses. Here is the relevant section from the PRD:

Unlike other afflictions, multiple doses of the same poison stack. Poisons delivered by injury and contact cannot inflict more than one dose of poison at a time, but inhaled and ingested poisons can inflict multiple doses at once. Each additional dose extends the total duration of the poison (as noted under frequency) by half its total duration. In addition, each dose of poison increases the DC to resist the poison by +2. This increase is cumulative. Multiple doses do not alter the cure conditions of the poison, and meeting these conditions ends the affliction for all the doses. For example, a character is bit three times in the same round by a trio of Medium monstrous spiders, injecting him with three doses of Medium spider venom. The unfortunate character must make a DC 18 Fortitude save for the next 8 rounds. Fortunately, just one successful save cures the character of all three doses of the poison.

Can anyone clear these up for me? Thanks.

https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/bestiary/monster-listings/human oids

Unless they have class levels, the only have simple weapon proficiency.

The five stages of grief are not true.

I'll explain, if you read them, know them and believe in them, your grief can follow that course. Despite this proof, the 5 stages are not the same for all people, or across all cultures, and won't always go in the order of the theory, or all of them showing up.

It is a made up simplification, peddled far and wide.

All that said, even though they are not necessarily "stages", they are probably the five most common forms that grief takes in western culture, so still a useful reference point even if the idea of progressing through them is inaccurate.

As for grief in response to character death - I never really get emotionally attached to my characters, partly because I never get to play in a game long enough or often enough to do so. Always the GM, never the player. :(

We'll be starting a new game soon where I will have the opportunity to start a character at young age/apprentice level, and build from there, so I hope to be able to make a PC I can actually invest in to the point where I do feel something in my cold heart when he inevitably gets murdered by an otyugh. In fact, I just killed the GM's character in my game this weekend via a gibbering mouther's engulf ability, which is a horrible disgusting way to go, so I expect some level of retribution. :D

That is correct. To be legal for PFS organized play (ie, to be allowed at any given PFS game), a character must be generated according to the official PFS rules, which include a 20-point point buy.

I don't think he wants a TPK any more then we do.

Oh ho ho, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Remember what happened last time you played in one of my Ptolus games, Mister -96 HP?

I seem to remember a ruling from some designer from 3.0 that addressed this in the context of stat-boosting items (I think it was a question of someone with a Strength of 11 wearing a belt that gave +2 Strength wanting to take Power Attack).

From what I remember, the ruling was that you can take a feat if you qualify for it at the time you take it, but as soon as you no longer qualify for it (you lose your magic belt, get hit by ray of enfeeblement, etc) you lose all the benefits and abilities that it granted (retaining any penalties the feat may impose), as well as all the benefits or feats that use that feat as a prerequisite.

I personally don't see a big problem with this. If someone wants to take a feat that they normally don't qualify for with the drawback that they only gain access to it by expending the use of a spell/ability/wand/etc, that seems like a fair trade.

To avoid potential abuses, I'd be tempted to make a ruling similar to Name Violation's, but I'm not sure that would be absolutely necessary.

I do consider it a necessity to have faith no matter what you believe in. If nothing else, faith that you're intelligent enough to figure anything out and faith in a set of beliefs about the universe, a deity or deities, or lack thereof. In the bold text I meant actively believing in what they consider to be a religion. It's all semantics at this point though, isn't it?

Speaking of semantics...

If we're going to start talking about faith, we need to nail down a definition first. I find that there's mainly two ways of using the word faith:

1. Trust in a person or event, which is usually based on past experience. E.g. I have faith in your abilities, or I have faith that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.

2. Belief without evidence. E.g. I have faith that God is watching out for me, or I know your life is difficult but you need to have faith that there's a divine plan for you.

I propose that in discussing faith we reserve the word "faith" only for the second definition, and use "trust" or similar for the first definition.

Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist.

Wrong. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in god(s). Atheism makes no positive claims about the universe.

What you're talking about is something like gnostic atheism, which is a rare position to take (unlike the common position of agnostic atheism, which is generally what people mean when they say "atheist").

In fact there is no truly neutral position. Everyone believes something about these things.

Not quite. Someone who has never heard of the concept of god(s) (e.g. an infant) has no belief about these things at all.

The existence of God can't be absolutely proven one way or the other.

And neither can the existence of the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, the teapot orbiting Mars, or the invisible pink unicorn in my bathroom. Hell, the existence of anything can't be absolutely proven - there's always the possibility that solipsism is correct and I'm just a brain in a jar imagining all of reality.

But there is such a thing as probability. Just because you can't say 100% or 0% probability of existence doesn't mean you can't say any number in between, and it certainly doesn't mean that it's automatically 50%.

The probability of god(s) existing is a vanishingly small percentage.

Also, depending on which god we're talking about, we can say for certain that it's probability of existing is 0% - there are, for example, some gods who are defined as having characteristics which are logically impossible, and can therefore be discarded as nonexistent.

BigNorseWolf managed to irk Moff and Kirth with his most recent post, but I agree with that post completely. Let me see if I can rephrase it a bit.

The reason that I am wary of those who say they get their morality from God/the Bible is, essentially, the Abraham and Isaac moment. If someone truly fully believes in the god of the bible, there's the possibility that their own morality could be overridden by some internal or external anomaly. What happens if my Christian friend thinks he hears God commanding him to kill me in my sleep? According to the Abraham and Isaac story, he should be willing to do whatever God commands.

Atheism does not include any statements about morality. It is silent on the issue. It allows for objectivism, anarchism, humanism, whatever. The only thing it precludes is the idea of an absolute moral authority in a deity. In my opinion, that idea is a potentially very dangerous one, and athiesm is morally superior to theism on that one point. The rest of it is up in the air, because that's the only point where atheism has anything to say.

If we wanted to start talking about secular humanist morality versus theistic morality, that'd be a conversation with more meat to it.

Relevant links:
Euthyphro Dilemna
Matt Dillahunty on the Superiority of Secular Morality

Don't be too happy yet. The generally dynamics of the thread seem to have changed from "the glory days".

;-)

Oh dear. I haven't gone back and read any of the posts. Is it now customary to slap someone's mother before engaging in discussion with them?

What's the issue of the day?

I just got back from a several-month hiatus from the Paizo boards, and I can't tell you how happy I am to see this thread still going strong.

Hi Moff, hi Bugley! Hi new faces.

So, where are we? What's the current score? ;)

Hello Paizo boards, long time no see. I've been out of the PFRPG loop for a little while, and I am considering starting up a new game. My previous games have kind of fallen flat, due partly to my campaign-ADD, my pool of players, and my limited player options for previous campaigns.

So, I'm bringing in some new players from my FLGS, and I plan to run a game set in Ptolus (which will allow me to switch plots and themes if I get bored, because Ptolus has a bit of everything). To open up player options, I want to allow almost anything from PFRPG and D&D 3.5 (and of course anything from Ptolus). I will still reserve the right for a case by case review/veto (Oh, you found a third party book that lets you play a red dragon with only a +1 LA? Let me think about that...), but I'm not sure about how to balance things in general.

I know PFRPG classes/races are slightly ahead of most 3.5 classes/races, but I'm not sure what exactly I need to do to ensure that everyone is on a mostly level playing field.

Any advice?

Hey Paizonians, I'm looking for advice.

I've got a PC that's a couple years old (Compaq Presario SR5410F running Vista). This week, a friend is giving me her old external hard drive. What I'd like to do is use the hard drive to back up all my important files, and then reformat my PC back to factory settings to get a fresh start, and then transfer stuff back from the hard drive an an as-needed basis.

Now, I'm not ignorant when it comes to tech, but this is the first time that I will be backing up to an external drive and the first time I will be resetting a box, and the prospect of me doing something stupid and accidentally losing all my files has me worried.

So, do you have any tips, tricks, or advice for someone attempting this for the first time?

While I haven't seen the thread in question (I've been away from the boards for a month or three), I can sympathize with those who are unnerved by posts from certain users. When I don't care for a poster's style I tend to simply ignore that user, and refuse to give them attention by responding to their posts. If they really become a nuisance (ex. prolific spamming) I take "ignoring" a step further, and block them with an ignore script in Greasemonkey.

To speak in specifics instead of generalities, I have also been discomforted by posts from Shuriken Nekogami, though he is not currently on my Greasemonkey ignore list simply because he and I don't frequent many of the same sub-forums. I think his in-character and out-of-character posts include a level of personal/sexual content that is inappropriate - not in general (I'm certainly no prude), but specifically to the Paizo gaming forums.

I don't know what the solution is here, to be honest.
It's obvious that Shuriken has some real-life difficulties that he's struggling with (while I'm not one to push therapy, I feel morally obligated to urge anyone contemplating any kind of self-harm to seek the advice and assistance of a competent friend or professional), and I think that our virtual community is compassionate enough not to simply shun him and lock him out.
That being said, the creation of this thread and the number of people chiming in certainly shows that at least a few users' experiences here are being made less enjoyable by Shuriken's contribution, and if a single user is causing a significant disturbance, something does need to be done about it.

TL;DR - Shuriken Nekogami's posts bother me as well, but I think we should hesitate to flame and/or ban him, and instead work toward a solution wherein everyone can enjoy posting here.

Haven't read the article yet, but I have read his book. In fact, I have a signed copy :) Gilsdorf is a local - he went to the college I work for - and when he came back to town for his book tour, I got to meet up with him at the local bookstore.

I'm looking for some advice/feedback on an email debate I recently got into with my Mormon sister-in-law. I'm looking for a place where I can post the exchanges and others can comment on them. I don't want to hijack this thread, and the Paizo boards are hardly the place for it.

So, Kirth et al - anyone know of a decent atheist messageboard that I could get some good responses from?

Thanks for the input Kirth. The philosophical jargon gave me the feeling Robbin's position was that of "a theologist, not a dispassionate philosopher". I expected the word "truth" to be capitalized.

most of the rest of us reject PN in favor of a Provisional (as opposed to Intrinsic) Methodological Naturalism -- we provisionally look first for naturalistic explanations first because of their proven track record in explaining observed phenomena, but have no particular philosophical attachment to them.

That describes my position as well, though I'm a layman, not a scientist.

So, jocundthejolly, would you care to clarify your position in your own words?

Maybe we can take a long break from dueling absolutisms. Quote is from Jeffrey W Robbins' introduction to Richard Rorty's "An Ethics for Today."

While some philosophers, scientists, and commentators (e.g., the crop of "new atheists" such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens) might revel in the discrediting of religious beliefs, they themselves have erected a double or surrogate for God, on the basis of a philosophical foundationalism that Rorty deems out of step with a postmodern sensibility wherein radical contingency goes all the way down, making it impossible to ever touch bottom, to get at truth once and for all.

Mind breaking that down for us a bit? I understood it up to the word "God", and then it got a little jargony and I had trouble parsing it.

As far as I can tell, it sounds like the old cry of "atheists have faith too" or "atheists are just as bad as fundamentalists". Please explain what my "god surrogate" is, and why it prevents me from getting at "the truth".

Chubbs McGee wrote:

Terrorists use homosexuality? Does it come in a tube?

Only half the time.

Oh Jesus, I just got the joke on the second read through.

Also, despite your protestations, I think it's funny that the gay-batsignal actually worked.

Moff -

This whole tangent is partly related to religion - the semi-original point was that the only real objections to gay marriage are religious objections. Beckett then insisted that there are secular objections as well, such as fear of terrorism. Since then, I've been trying to pin him down to see if he truly believes that, and have been exposing the many flaws in that and other arguments.

However, I do agree somewhat, in that we've wandered away from "there is no non-religious objection to gay marriage" to "there is no non-irrational objection to gay marriage", as Beckett's arguments seem to be less church and more Limbaugh.

I am not sure if we are or not. But, as an unrelated issue, I think it should be up to each state to decide for that state, rather than a federal issue. Heterosexual marriage works that way, too, by the way.

You haven't answered my question. You said that gay marriage poses a non-trivial threat if legalized, in the form of terrorists and illegal immigrants. You then said that states should be allowed to legalize it individually, but that the federal government shouldn't legalize it for the country.

So which is it? Is there a security threat from gay marriage or not? If the threat is real, then gay marriage should be prevented (and we should give serious thought to revoking or curtailing straight marriage rights), right?

And if the threat isn't real, what's the objection?

If the country's not ready for it, and it would weaken the nation by allowing in damnable foreigners and terrorists, then why did you say that it would be okay to allow it at the state level? Once one door is open, the Scary People will start coming in, right?

Also, just for the record, it is impossible to prove an opinion. An opinion can not be right or wrong.

...
Also, how am I not being nuetral on the issue?
...
But, I do not believe my opinion is more correct than anyone elses, just because it is my opinion.

I don't get this attitude. The obsession with neutrality, the insistence that all points of view are equally worthy. One must realize that there are many issues on which there is a clear right side and/or a clear wrong side. By always staking claim to the median, one gives false credibility to the blatant wrong/bigoted/crazy/etc position.

There must be some reason you hold the positions you do - these aren't just opinions, these are the things you believe in and hold to be true. State your opinion, defend it, back it up with evidence! These are issues of Truth, issues with great moral implications - don't just go all wishy washy and say "maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, oh well, who knows?"
This isn't "which ice cream flavor do you prefer", this is serious s!!! here!

I do think that the [terrorist] threat is significat enough to hold off on allowing [same-sex marriage] country wide right now. I'm not sure if I would concider that a "Right", as there is nothing keeping homosexual couples from being together. Heterosexual marriages can and are invalidated by different state regulations, usually dealing with either age or parential conscent, and I view this as the same thing, just a different degree.

There is so much wrong with this paragraph, but I don't have the time to unpack it right now. Some quick notes until I can devote more time:

Argh. I'm going to be busy for the rest of the night gaming. Samnell, get in here and address these points for me.
*turns on gay Batsignal*

Beckett, thank you for answering my questions, I truly appreciate it. I hope you will continue to indulge me by answering a couple more (you'll find they are familiar):

1. Do you object to the legalization of mixed-race marriage? If so, why?
2. Do you believe that "the threat of terrorism" is a legitimate reason to object to the legalization of mixed-race marriage?
2b. Do you think that religious belief is a legitimate reason to object to the legalization of mixed-race marriage?

Once you've answered these questions, please reread the following statements, replacing "same-sex marriage" with "mixed-race marriage". Would you still agree with your statements? If not, why not?

My concerns are simply that I do not feel that the country is ready for [same-sex marriage] yet. I am not against same sex marriages on any sort of moral grounds, religious grounds, (which I honestly do not concider myself anyway), and I absolutely believe each state must keep thier own laws about what is or is not allowed with same sex marriages, just like they do with opposite sex marriages.

...
I do believe that religious motivation is a valid reason.

No, my religious background does not make me want to object to same-sex marriage.

A few more things:

I was reminded of this.

Quote:

DH2. Responding to Tone.

Which reminded me of this:

You're Being Hostile

This is a great one to pop out if it seems like they’re going to push the matter. After all, nobody wants to be “hostile”, do they? In a culture rigidly defined by social protocol, invariably designed to favour the privileged, people are very concerned about “getting along with others“.

Especially Marginalised People™! Know why? Well, since they’re marginalised, they experience a variety of discriminations, usually in many aspects of their daily lives. It is not at all unusual, therefore, for Marginalised People™ to have to be accustomed to being very, very cautious about the way they engage with the Privileged®. This is because discrimination may mean they routinely encounter violence, silencing, oppression or just good old-fashioned outright ridicule and diminishment. That can make life stressful and exhausting, so many Marginalised People™ develop complex strategies to avoid hostile engagements with Privileged People® .

Further to this, Marginalised People™ are forced into a certain sort of social behaviour by Privileged People® - “appropriate” behaviour. After all, there are different rules for them than there are for the Privileged®. This training in “appropriate” behaviour usually begins when they are very young, so it is well-ingrained.

By accusing them of hostility, you will successfully enliven their sense of caution and anxiety around this matter. You may also provoke a feeling of guilt that they are not “behaving” the way they have been trained to.

But even better - by accusing them of hostility, you pass the blame back to them, rather than consider what you might have said that was so offensive and hurtful it caused the “hostility”!

This will definitely work in your favour, because it will further insult and enrage them. You are making progress…

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

I saw this op-ed piece linked over at Jerry Coyne's blog

Do I know you over there? And have I asked you that before?

I read often, but rarely post. If I do ever post, it'd be under Jagyr, Jagyr Ebonwood, or Brandon. I do see you pop up every so often, and so far I've refrained from waving and yelling "Hi!". :)

What could it possibly be. I can't think of anything else...

Well, I give up. :P

Don't worry, you'll figure it out eventually.

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

Samnell wrote:

him!

Oh, my.

Seriously, you're not put off by the fact that he's shot full of arrows? To me that's a red flag that says, this person has unresolved issues. :-)

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. This is not one of those times.

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

And as for everyone focusing in on that one remark of yours...well, [...]you've given them something fresh, new, exciting, and raving mad.

The remark that turns out to be true? Which one, because I do not see anything yet I actually ned to defend.

Okay, how about I reword my objection. It is truethat legalizing same-sex marriage would present an opportunity for terrorists to gain citizenship/entrance into the country. However, in light of the already existing ways into the country (straight marriage, student visas, travel visas, already being a citizen, and plain old stealth), the "increased terrorist threat" posed by gay marriage is trivial. That is why citing terrorism as a legitimate non-religious reason to oppose gay marriage is raving mad.

I often have trouble comprehending some of your posts due to what I assume are typographical errors (I share your frustration with posting via mobile), so it's possible that I misinterpreted your original post. To clarify, perhaps you could answer these questions:
1. Do you object to the legalization of same-sex marriage? If so, why?
2. Do you believe that "the threat of terrorism" is a legitimate reason to object to the legalization of same-sex marriage?
2b. Do you think that religious belief is a legitimate reason to object to the legalization of same-sex marriage? (This is question 2b because it's outside of the original topic of "non-religious objections to gay marriage", however, I'm still interested in the answer)

I just hope that some people take a step back and return this to a civil conversation, because I do not want it to get shut down.

I saw this op-ed piece linked over at Jerry Coyne's blog, and it immediately made me think of this thread. If I may quote a quote:

By mid-morning Thursday [at the National Institute for Civil Discourse], Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush were conducting anger-management classes, working with Fred Phelps and his civility-impaired congregation from the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. Mr. Phelps and his strident adherents filed into the institute waving their famously uncivil signs: “God Hates F+*@,” “Priests Rape Boys” and “You Are Going to Hell.” After two hours of tea and therapy with the two former presidents, Mr. Phelps and his followers emerged bearing signs that said: “We Believe That the Non-Sectarian Divinity May Not Approve of Certain Sexual Orientations. You May Have A Different Opinion. Let’s Compromise!” and “Some but Not All Priests Have Struggled With Pedophilia. If You Disagree, We Are Willing to Listen!” and “Have A Great Day! Before You Go to Hell!” All of their signs featured cheerful emoticons and happy faces.

. . . The centerpiece of the tour was a look at how even a topic like abortion, predictably rancorous and caustic, may be elevated in tone to an acceptable level of civility. Observers were allowed to watch through one-way mirrors as pro-lifers and pro-choicers struggled to converse civilly and accommodate each other’s polarized views under the watchful eyes of institute mediators.

By noon, progress was undeniable, as pro-choicers were overheard politely saying, “If you will respect my right to choose, I may respect your right to harbor demented religious delusions.” To which the pro-lifers decorously responded, “If you will respect the word of God and the sanctity of all human life, I may respect your right to murder unwanted babies.” Still not quite there, but the day was barely half over! . . .

. . . Still, the civility institute hopes that these time-honored free-speech fundamentals can be modified. Just a bit. If we promote civility, might we not achieve a political nirvana where it is possible to be robust, vehement and caustic while at the same time remaining punctiliously civil and decorous?

Sure, but that would bring to mind another Ambrose Bierce quotation: “Politeness, n. The most acceptable hypocrisy.”

*Starts selling tin-foil hats*
Guaranteed to keep out terrorists and rational thought! Get 'em while they last!

Beckett, you still haven't told us what you think about straight marriage. Isn't that a terror risk as well? And as for everyone focusing in on that one remark of yours...well, you can't expect everyone to spend time responding to the same old misinformed points that you've been posting to Samnell for two or three pages now, when you've given them something fresh, new, exciting, and raving mad.

I've tried, but he's got St. Sebastian and how do I compete with that? I mean, look at him!

Oh, my. Number 3 especially.

Ah, the semantics of the religious.

'It's not homosexuality, it's just sex with men!'

Not just the religious - I have relatives who work for HIV prevention groups focused towards gay men. They have trouble labeling themselves as a group, because besides the gay and bi men that they reach out to, there are many who consider themselves straight, and they just happen to occasionally have sex with men.

, wrote:

Odin-ism (Sorry for not actually knowing enough to use the correct term)

Asutra

I thought it was Asatru?

Beckett, assuming you're still reading, I can only ask you if you object to heterosexual marriage as well?

My desire to remain civil prevents me from typing further.

Kudos to Samnell for having the patience that I don't.

Bruno Kristensen wrote:

Ricca Adri' Thiakria wrote:

You didn't really want to use your First Amendment did you?

Not this again...not the first time I've seen someone bring first amendment up in relation to forum censorship. When you signed up to Paizo, did you accept the terms of service? If yes, then you also probably accepted a limitation of your first amendment rights.

Wow, did someone wake up on the wrong side of his rock today?

Get a sense of humor.

To be fair, it is entirely common for people to start making exactly the kind of remarks you did about the First Amendment whenever the topic of messageboard censorship comes up.

You can't really blame someone for not having a sense of humor when your joke post is absolutely identical to misguided, serious posts on the same topic.

I believe that the reason behind the half-elf summoner favored class option is that multiclassing when you're a summoner is a poor choice. Because of this, the half-elf multitalented racial trait is useless, so the powerful favored class option is avaible to "make up" for this.

The critical threat range of this observation is twice as big as normal.

S&@! piss f**$ c+@$ c*$@*$@%#@ m~!&*%~#$@@~ and t!*~.

Edit: Just testing the limits. Personally, I don't find it too bothersome to simply choose a synonym for whatever word got blocked. Then again, I'd be fine with no filters at all, so take that for what it's worth.

If you can get your hands on the Serenity RPG by MWP, it has decent descriptions of how spaceships work in the 'Verse, even if a good portion of the description is technobabble.

Do you also believe that hispanics should be forced to foresake all of their cultural practices except except when it doesn't affect nonhispanics? [...]Maybe all african-americans need to be legislaturally forbidden from using non-European names?

Well, if that's the analogy you want to make, let's do a find/replace, shall we?

Forth, you don't see to understand that blacks are, when comparred to all whites, in all ways a minority. But the important thing here, besides wanting the few to govern the many as dictators in a sense, is that you don't seem to understand how much whites, all whites, put into the country, the government, the economy. In both an economical and political sense, no other group, and most other groups combined simply can not compare to the benefits that charity work, free services, and donations white organizations povide. It isn't about money. It's about time. Resources, volunteers, and locations. Almost every white organization, [...] offers free services to their communities. Simple things like confession, soup kitchens, family services, homeless shelters, youth organizations, counciling, etc . . . Sure, there are black groups that do similar things, or to be more specific, there are groups that are specifically not white, but they are by far much less numerous. They are the countries economical wild card, and no megacorporation's monitary contributions could compare to the amount of money these organizations save the country.

Besides that sounding all the more hideous when applying your religion = race/culture analogy, that last bit is blatantly wrong in the original context as well. The massive, specially privileged tax loopholes given to religious organizations cost the country a tremendous amount of money. I won't deny that charity helps society, but if you want the economic pros of churches to count, you have to recognize the cons as well.

Not only are you saying we should just wipe those out of the picture, but the politics and beliefs of all those individuals are a bad thing.

See, this is what Moff was complaining about, and one of the many places I agree with him - putting words in someone's mouth and telling them what they believe.

Thirdly, you are being extremely hypocritical and closed minded. Essentually saying only my opinion on what is right should be allowed. That in a political sense, only a certain group of people should be allowed to sway or guide the laws and rules, morality and the norm, but everyone should be restricted by it. Wait, isn't that oe of the big faults that atheists point at the church for as a great evil? Forcing everyone to believe and act as they do. Besides, the truth is, that is how it is. Prayer was taken out of schools because an individual felt that they shouldn't have to hear it and everyone else be damned, not the other way around.

Wait, you're not Poeing us, are you? This paragraph reads like a list of the greatest hits of misconceptions about atheism:

Beckett, I propose that you take this opportunity to ask Samnell and I any questions you might have about atheism. It truly seems to me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the atheist position, and we would be happy to clarify things for you. Please, ask away, even (perhaps especially) if it's just a question of "I'm pretty sure that atheists believe X, is that true?"

(Edited to correct quote tags...the bane of my existence!)

I thought it travled on Wash's good looks.

Fixed that for you ;)

Urizen wrote:

There are militant atheists as there are militant believers.

Or, as they're most often used: there are "militant" (outspoken) atheists, just as there are militant (violent) believers.

If it had no effect, I'd agree with you that it's a meaningless nitpick. But I don't think that's the case, because it's increasingly being used as a very overt way of demonizing an out-group.

Quite right. By the dictionary definition, it's true that many outspoken, nonviolent atheists are indeed militant.

However, I have never seen an outspoken theist referred to as "militant" in any media source. As Kirth has pointed out, atheists earn the adjective simply by stating their opinions, whereas believers generally must commit, sponsor, and/or promote violence in order to be labeled "militant".

I entered the discussion by asserting, as I continue to assert, that the words "militant" and "intolerant" are given different meanings when applied to atheists, vs. believers. Not "slightly different nuances," but completely different connotations.

I agree with this statement ^. > Pic related <

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

Good stuff.

Indeed, I am a weak atheist then. Which means I really need to work on spelling Atheist right. I and E's always trip me up...

"An atheist is athier than an agnostic, but he's still not the athiest." :)

I think I've brought this up before, but it bears repeating in light of some of James Martin's recent posts:

Atheism is not the belief that gods don't exist. That's antitheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.
The difference is small, but important. Antitheism is a negative statement, while atheism is the absence of a positive statement.

Also, it's important to realize that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. When it comes to religious belief, there is a chart similar to the alignment chart. One axis runs from gnostic to agnostic, and the other runs from theist to atheist.

Do you believe a god or gods exist? If you say yes, you're a theist. If you say no, you're an atheist.
Do you know whether a god or gods exist? If you say yes, you're a gnostic. If you say no, you're an agnostic.

These are yes or no questions. There is no in between, no "Neutral" alignment on each axis.

Understanding this distinction is what led me to actually call myself an atheist. I was under the misapprehension (a popular one) that all atheists were antitheists, or gnostic atheists.

I am an agnostic atheist - I don't believe that gods exist, but I don't know for an absolute fact that they don't. In a practical sense though, I might as well be a gnostic atheist. I'm 99.9% sure that gods don't exist, however, that number is close enough to 100% that it's pretty much identical in all practical senses.

tl;dr - What's colloquially referred to as "agnosticism" is actually a form of atheism (sometimes referred to as "weak atheism"). If you don't believe in god(s), you're an atheist, whether or not you're absolutely certain about your position.

The thing that I don't get, and that I see alot of on this board, especially recently is this: What is it about another person's lack of faith that threatens your own personal faith so terribly? Is it the idea that an alternative exists and the practitioners of that alternative aren't unhappy, bitter people who are obviously missing something in their lives? Does the fact of my unrepetent heresy make your faithfulness less valid?

I think there's some truth to what you say, although as I said to Moff in another thread, I'm loathe to put words in someone's mouth.

I'd venture a guess that most of the theist posters in this thread don't feel threatened by the existence of happy atheists.

As for those that do feel threatened by atheism, well, you might as well ask for an explanation of how gay marriage threatens traditional marriage. You're likely not going to get a coherent (or at least rational) answer.

James Martin wrote:

I dig. It's the unchallenged part that bothers me.

Well, yeah -- I see very little value in an echo chamber. I most likely wouldn't bother to read a thread entitled "Why I'm a Godless Heathen" that catered to an uncontested Atheists-only viewpoint. There would be nothing at all for me to learn there.

Agreed. I once attended an atheist meetup group. Jeez, it sucked. Just a bunch of people sitting around agreeing that gods don't exist and then arguing about what the point of the meetup was. Ugh. Atheists don't need other atheists around to be atheists.

Activism is one thing - sitting around and saying "gee it's swell we agree" is quite another. I come here to exchange ideas and to debate, not to intellectually isolate myself.

Now, let me add my stats to Samnell's spreadsheet:

Woah woah woah. Why did nobody tell me this place was out of the archives?! I want my dot back, dammit!

One thing I've found interesting recently is that a number of atheists have expressed their displeasure about other atheists and their "civility". I myself have been disappointed in how some Christians have behaved at times.

If your own faith (or lack thereof) thinks that you've probably crossed a line -- you probably have.

The Gnu Atheist vs Accommodationist debate (aka the Don't Be A Dick debate, thanks to Phil Plait) is HUGE in the atheist community. The big task in my opinion is to properly define what is meant by "offensive" or "civil".

In many debates, "You're being uncivil!" is used by theists as code for "I don't like your opinions so you need to shut up!". That is, accusing the atheist of being rude allows the theist to disqualify the atheist from the debate without having to actually respond to any of the points raised by the atheist.

The debate is multifaceted, and I'd be happy to discuss it in further detail elsewhere, but the basic summary is that atheists don't all agree on the optimal strategy for engaging the theist population.

I'd just like to go ahead and reiterate and add my support to a sentiment from the first page:

"Try not to be offensive" is good advice. "Try not to be offended" is equally good (if not better) advice.

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

Would you concede that asking "Is it possible that you simply imagined your experience?" is at least more civil than stating "You're just imagining what happened to you" ?

That really is a tough call. I guess, I'd ask more -- what are you hoping to gain from that? To learn or to be right?

That's a fair question. I admit that, in these discussions, I believe that I'm right until someone shows me I'm wrong (but doesn't everybody feel this way? ;) ), so part of my answer is "to be right". But it's more complicated than that.

I also want to learn more about the other person's point of view. "Is it possible that you simply imagined your experience?" should be followed up with "If not, why not?" I want to know more about the person's thought process, so I know which approach to take in attempting to show them another perspective.

I guess that's my real goal - to share different perspectives, and assisting in the spread of critical thinking. I also want to hear the perspectives of people with differing viewpoints so I can test my own critical thinking skills and see how my views stand up against someone who disagrees.

It's when someone responds with "You can rationalize all you want, but you're still wrong about what you believe" that the conversation becomes less exploratory and more adversarial. At which point no one is served.

When a conversation starts that way, sure. But what about several pages of the same/similar arguments being put forth and refuted ad nauseum?

In the appropriate context, I find this response entirely reasonable:
"You can make that argument all you want, but I/we have already pointed out the flaws in that line of reasoning several times. I'm/we're not going to continue to debate a point that has repeatedly been discredited."

Moff - Yes, saying that someone is merely imagining something falls into the "armchair psychology" category I mentioned earlier. Faith isn't imaginary, belief isn't imaginary (even if I think that the objects of that faith or belief are imaginary).

However, I believe that people who claim supernatural experiences are indeed imagining those experiences (whether "imagining" means hallucinating, dreaming, or simply mistaking the mundane for the supernatural may vary depending on context). I don't think you would deny that many of these experiences (alien abductions, for example) are indeed imaginary.

Would you concede that asking "Is it possible that you simply imagined your experience?" is at least more civil than stating "You're just imagining what happened to you" ?