Why can't players choose to be atheist in EverQuest?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It makes sense to have Agnostic. In a world where magic and god-like beings are real, the standard for what a true "god" is is much higher lol. If a "god" can be killed, is it really a "god"?

[Jibartik]

An athiest would say there are no gods then proceed to kneel in front of a computer and say that if we dont continue working for it we will all die and one day it will make us live forever.

This is because, if athiests are right we are evolved to REQUIRE worship of an alpha entity. So therefore, if athiestm exists, then it CANNOT exist.

[Elfminster]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

An athiest would say there are no gods then proceed to kneel in front of a computer and say that if we dont continue working for it we will all die and one day it will make us live forever.

This is because, if athiests are right we are evolved to REQUIRE worship of an alpha entity. So therefore, if athiestm exists, then it CANNOT exist.

An atheist would say that all polygons, texture maps, music, classes, races, spells, quests and 'gods' in EQ automatically evolved over billions of years from a single pixel which was created by a random server crash by a server which nobody created.

[Ennewi]

Originally Posted by Elfminster [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

An atheist would say that all polygons ... evolved over billions of years from a single pixel which was created by a random server crash by a server which nobody created.

Thereby making them...a poly-theist.

[Dural_Levant]

So, a big problem here is that the meaning of the word, “agnostic” is often misunderstood. It comes from Greek and originally meant, “without knowledge” or “unknown”. When the word is used in a philosophical or religious philosophical context it’s used to establish an epistemological position. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of knowledge. It asks what can and cannot be known.

The computer I am typing these words at, for example, is it real? Or, am I in the Matrix and just typing on a simulated computer in a VR environment? Meanwhile, my actual brain is in a jar connected to a real computer. The intellectually honest answer is, “Shit, I don’t know; there is no way to tell.”

In the real world, when applied to the question, “Is there a god?”, an agnostic would say, “I don’t know; there is no way to tell. I suppose it is a matter of faith.”

Faith as justification for belief isn’t really a thing in a world in which you can physically interact with gods and see manifestations of their power first-hand, on a daily basis. Their actual existence never comes into question, because you have objective evidence that holds up to scrutiny. Because of this, atheism, would also not be a thing.

The question then becomes, “Which god do I choose to follow or devote myself to, if any?”

Thus, I would argue that Verant’s use of the term “agnostic” was a poor choice when they originally set up their religion system. It would have been more appropriate to use a term like: “None”, “Non-Devoted” or “Follower of None.”

[Mblake1981]

Originally Posted by Dural_Levant [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thus, I would argue that Verant’s use of the term “agnostic” was a poor choice when they originally set up their religion system. It would have been more appropriate to use a term like: “None”, “Non-Devoted” or “Follower of None.”

[Pain and Suffering try to strike you but miss!]

The agony of modern gamer senses. Agnostic works just fine back in 1999, looking at a list of religions, which to me was novel for even being in a game, with things like Dragon and Earth Mother worshipers.

20 years later here comes e-gamer Richard Dawkins to piss on everyones faces and some guy trying to make a shitty misplaced compromise.

[Dural_Levant]

Originally Posted by Mblake1981 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Pain and Suffering try to strike you but miss!]

The agony of modern gamer senses. Agnostic works just fine back in 1999, looking at a list of religions, which to me was novel for even being in a game, with things like Dragon and Earth Mother worshipers.

20 years later here comes e-gamer Richard Dawkins to piss on everyones faces and some guy trying to make a shitty misplaced compromise.

For the most part, I agree with you. The average layperson is not going to care.

It only becomes a thing when you take a deep dive into the underlying philosophical questions and assumptions that are the bread and butter of these types of conversations.

In which case, its important to be precise with your language or the discourse becomes a mess.

[Elfminster]

Originally Posted by Dural_Levant [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So, a big problem here is that the meaning of the word, “agnostic” is often misunderstood. It comes from Greek and originally meant, “without knowledge” or “unknown”. When the word is used in a philosophical or religious philosophical context it’s used to establish an epistemological position. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of knowledge. It asks what can and cannot be known.

The computer I am typing these words at, for example, is it real? Or, am I in the Matrix and just typing on a simulated computer in a VR environment? Meanwhile, my actual brain is in a jar connected to a real computer. The intellectually honest answer is, “Shit, I don’t know; there is no way to tell.”

In the real world, when applied to the question, “Is there a god?”, an agnostic would say, “I don’t know; there is no way to tell. I suppose it is a matter of faith.”

Faith as justification for belief isn’t really a thing in a world in which you can physically interact with gods and see manifestations of their power first-hand, on a daily basis. Their actual existence never comes into question, because you have objective evidence that holds up to scrutiny. Because of this, atheism, would also not be a thing.

The question then becomes, “Which god do I choose to follow or devote myself to, if any?”

Thus, I would argue that Verant’s use of the term “agnostic” was a poor choice when they originally set up their religion system. It would have been more appropriate to use a term like: “None”, “Non-Devoted” or “Follower of None.”

Before you saw the Matrix though you wouldn't have asked yourself if you were living in the Matrix. Somebody very recently came along and implanted that new idea in your head which you're now repeating. But there was a time when you would not have thought about such things.

Is god existing a new idea like the Matrix is?

Let's imagine there are no atheists/christians/hollywood in the world.

You look up at the moon. What do you say?

"God doesn't exist"?
"Am I living in the Matrix?"
"Who created that?"

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Elfminster [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Before you saw the Matrix though you wouldn't have asked yourself if you were living in the Matrix. Somebody very recently came along and implanted that new idea in your head which you're now repeating. But there was a time when you would not have thought about such things.

Is god existing a new idea like the Matrix is?

We are not the same.

[Dural_Levant]

Originally Posted by Elfminster [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Before you saw the Matrix though you wouldn't have asked yourself if you were living in the Matrix. Somebody very recently came along and implanted that new idea in your head which you're now repeating. But there was a time when you would not have thought about such things.

Is god existing a new idea like the Matrix is?

Let's imagine there are no atheists/christians/hollywood in the world.

You look up at the moon. What do you say?

"God doesn't exist"?
"Am I living in the Matrix?"
"Who created that?"

No, probably not, if I had no knowledge of the intellectual discourse the came before me. But that is not the case.

It's not like this is a new conversation. People have been talking about this sort of thing for millennia. That laid a groundwork of rigor around "thinking" that modern-day people can build upon.

While the "Matrix" is new, the idea it expresses is not. Epistemologists have just been using different examples. The Matrix is just the latest incarnation.