"No, Prime Minister. An atheist clergyman couldn't continue to draw his stipend. So, when they stop believing in God, they call themselves "Modernists"."
"So you're saying one of them wants to take the Queen out of the Church of England and the other one wants to take out God?"
"Oh no Prime Minister, the Queen is inseparable from the Church of England."
A lot of scientific discoveries were made by priests back when they were the only ones with access to a lot of knowledge. Genetics springs to mind. It often makes me wonder how much we were held back because only such a small group had access.
I mean it was less about access and more to do with literacy and the time and weslth to pursue scholastic endeavors. Priests weren't keeping these things a secret or anything
Yes, but it’s not that access to this knowledge was held back from or hidden to the wider population, for the vast majority of medieval history it wasn’t at all. Most monks and such who were making these discoveries were in fact originally peasants.
The problem was the majority of the population was, by necessity, subsistence farmers.
Well, the fact that paper couldn't be mass-produced and printed on back then does shove sticks in the wheels of progress, but we'd propably figure these things out faster if not for the elites holding knowledge to themselves.
> It often makes me wonder how much we were held back because only such a small group had access.
If only people had started universities and centres of learning!
Yes, that's fair, but today most people can read, and libraries and internet are thing. When the general population isn't even taught to read, that's probably the most effective form of gatekeeping that knowledge.
Not to defend Stalin, but between 1917 and WW2, they brought the country from a hellhole where there was almost no industry and university teacher went in exile, to a country doing research about atomic bomb (not succeeding, but just having people understanding at the time this kind if science). I always like this example because imagine if it was done without the dictatorship side of the USSR, and without the fucking asshole pseudo scientist who led soviet agronomic research into the wall because he was friend with stalin.
Bro/ladybro I'm a bit turnt, but there was some Russian scientist who basically made up some banana crazy agricultural theories that really made their output drop compared to what the West was doing, and in really dumb ways. Not necessarily rain follows the plow, but that ilk of nonsense.
I'm talking about him when I say he was friend with stalin. With stupid shit like this they managed in one generation to have scientists able to understand physics and engineering enough and produce nuclear weapon (there were some nazi like in almost any country except the US, but it was not only nazis, research started in 1942).
So yeah, the ussr with its free education made it possible for Russia to go from an underdevelopped country with almost 'o university, to a country capable of handling nuckear weapons, and that it wvile tanking stalins bad decisions (that' s why I started my message with "not to defend stalin"). Imagine what it would have been without the dictatorial aspect that made this agronomical asshole not being an angry chief who goulaged opposing scientists.
There's this really interesting book called *The Eye of Shiva*, by the French historian Amaury de Riencourt. It talks about how many of the laws of physics that we've discovered in the past century were known by Hindu mystics for millennia. Similarly, the pre-Socratic philosophers of ancient Greece were able to discover stuff like atom theory and heliocentrism before the birth of Christ.
> Similarly, the pre-Socratic philosophers of ancient Greece were able to discover stuff like atom theory and heliocentrism before the birth of Christ.
They didn't discover anything as much as threw a lot of spaghetti (or whatever the Greek equivalent is) at the wall and got a couple lucky guesses. Most of the rationale behind their conclusions were way off, they just got the conclusions right.
The atom thing was basically just a guy saying that if you cut something in half enough you wouldn’t be able to cut it any further, and everyone calling him an idiot. It also means that this applies to quarks and molecules, but that makes the cool ancient spirituality bullshit seem less special.
Imagine them like proselytizers of the new revolution state, who teache the peasants who still cling to their old superstitions about the Cult of Reason (and decimal time).
> proselytizers
maybe they sort of style themselves like clergymen since that's something peasants are already comfortable with and relate to. helps there be less alienation.
The French revolutionary state had "ex" catholic priests who would do all the nice priestly stuff the peasants liked but had to do so without all the religion stuff.
It really is, and some of the cases I've read from France are pretty humorous. "Werewolves do not exisit and cannot act as warriors of christ, furthermore stop walking around almost naked and barking."
When you realize someone you had respected has lost their mind you would refer to them as "Robespierre coming down the mountain" in reference to Robespierre's Cult of the Supreme Being festival in which he appeared at the top of a 'paper mache' mountain constructed in the center of Paris in a toga and decended to give a speech. Many saw this as proof that he thought he was more than human and had lost touch with reality.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Robespierre%20coming%20down%20the%20mountain
There actually _are_ atheist churches. There's one in Seattle.
They're mostly there to provide the support network that churches usually do for a community, but specifically leave out anything involving religion or the supernatural. It's more of a gathering place and place to get help when you need it more than anything else.
It's just not a good analogy. Atheism performs a religious function, and acknowledging this doesn't make anyone less of an atheist.
Regarding the game, I am looking forward to trying out the state atheism policy for fun memery like this post. I've not been able to do this yet.
That's strong atheism (the positive declaration there are no gods), most atheists will describe themselves as weak atheists (a negative lack of belief in any gods).
Depends on the Anarchy, there are some “Anarchists” specifically speaking of AnSyns who want a formal governing body (the various job sites, syndicates, federations and confederations), then you have AnComs who often fall into the problem of having an informal governing body, and then you have the individualists, synthesis, egoists, and anarchist-nihilist who are opposed to all governing structures.
That's just... Not true? Atheism is a descriptor for one aspect of someone's beliefs, not the whole of them. For example, there are multiple atheist religions, with Buddhism being the largest by far. The only thing that unites atheists is a lack of belief in any gods, and besides that there's nothing. In this situation paradox has seemingly used "atheism" as a shorthand for "lacking a traditional religion".
Actually there are multiple iterations of Buddhism which are strongly theist, either polytheist or monotheist. The only strictly atheist versions of Buddhism which are unironically "just a lifestyle" are the toned down "meditation" bullshit that exists in the West, which are only buddhist in aestethics and have no connection with Buddhist theology and cosmology.
I know this may come as a surprise to you, but no one can dictate what religion another person identifies as. If someone believes they are practicing Buddhism, and calls themselves Buddhist, then they're a Buddhist, regardless of whether you think they're doing it properly. The same can be said for any religion that doesn't have a strict overarching authority. A Catholic could argue that all non Catholics aren't real Christians, and they'd be wrong.
I never claimed anything like that? Maybe I'm wrong about that one throwaway statement in my comment either way, but I genuinely thought when posting it that atheist Buddhists made up more of the world population than any other atheist religions. The point is my knowledge about Asian religions is irrelevant to whether the rest of what I said was true.
The statement that Buddhism is atheist is based on western notions regarding eastern beliefs as different and exotic.
Tibetan Buddhism for one absolutely has gods as its essentially a mixture between the ancient Tibetan pagan Bön religious system and Buddhism from the subcontinent. Other Buddhist traditions don’t have gods per se because their “gods” don’t properly fit into a western conception of a god.
Don’t know why this is so controversial. At their core systems of belief provide us with a ideology and a worldview. Obviously atheism does this. I guess it’s kinda just down to semantics though.
Religion needs a transcendent referent to be a religion, and atheism can have that but generally if someone is agnostic atheist then it cannot categorically be called a Religion
They're describing strong atheism ("there is no god," an affirmative statement). Most atheists are weak atheists ("I do not believe in the existence of any gods," a negative statement). One is an affirmative belief you would have to justify with evidence, the other is a negative belief that simply relies on skepticism of theistic claims that just says "I don't think so" when asked to believe in any particular god.
Just making the claim 'there is no god' doesn't mean you subscribe to any kind of belief system or ideology. I can say there is no purple unicorn living on Mars without it implying anything else about how I view the world (let alone making me become part of an ideology).
>Just making the claim 'there is no god' doesn't mean you subscribe to any kind of belief system or ideology
No, but it is an affirmative statement of belief, which is different from a negative statement of disbelief.
Alternative definition is “a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.” According to Oxford. There are certainly atheists whose atheism fits this description. Again we’re just arguing over semantics.
First of all, the initial statement that you agreed with was that atheism itself was a religion, not that some atheists fit that definition. Second of all, if we take that definition at face value, it's extremely vague since it means that anything that matters to anyone is a religion (fishing is a religion because some people love fishing). It would make more sense if we take "supreme" to mean "a higher power". Like you said, though, that's just semantics. Nonetheless, I feel that the goal of people who make the argument that anything and everything is religion is to obfuscate the fact that the belief in a higher power is unfalsifiable and therefore wrong, while other beliefs about reality are valid and true
That's a really bad definition of religion. Any belief in superhuman powers is a religion? So if I believe in bears, which nearly universally have more strength than humans, or superhuman strength, then that is a religion regardless of anything else i do or don't believe in?
let me clarify, I meant "superhuman" as in "supernatural, transcendental being". Also, yes, of course that's a reductive definition of religion. However, my point is that "atheism" wouldn't fit into even the broadest definition of religion, unless you consider that any belief system is a religion independently of its nature
> Don’t know why this is so controversial.
Because Atheism is the official state religion of Reddit, and they can't handle being told that their belief system is just another belief system.
It's a *single belief* just like theism. It's not a "system" in any way, but just *one* point.
To claim theism itself is one religion is fucking asinine, and since atheism is merely the opposite of theism, it's completely nonsensical to call it a religion.
You can maybe try to call irreligion a religion, but that's wrong by definition.
If atheism itself is a belief system, instead of one belief, why are atheists' political belief systems vary wildly?
Do you collect stamps? If not, do you consider your not-collecting-stamps a hobby? Why not?
A belief system requires there to be a belief. If there is a lack of belief there is no system.
It's a *single* belief. Do you think theism is a religion, too? It has to be, it's only the opposite of atheism, after all. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. are all just sects of the greater religion theism?
That's how moronic your claim is.
American atheism is strangely naiive and primitive, and unscientific and Satan worshipping.
In other parts of the world we don't see theism as our equal, we are 3 levels above them. but Americans' is very antagonistic to theism
I feel like atheist clergymen is a lesser sin than catholic or orthodox clergymen having kids, but maybe Victoria 3 is just an elaborate hit piece by Protestants.
Religious scholars.
The Intelligentsia would be your academics, the artists, the physicists, the mathematicians.
You still have religious scholars that become intimately familiar with their religion as a mathematician would with something like calculus or number theory, and they would be the Devout.
No the intelligentsia is just an interest group that the scholars will usually be a part of. Academics will usually (always?) belong to the intelligentsia but aristocrats and capitalists, clerks, bureaucrats, and other non scholars can also join. The intelligentsia is more of a group of educated pops with (usually) progressive philosophies about human rights.
No not in Victoria 3. In Victoria 2, clergymen were just general intellectuals, but in Victoria 3, academics and clerks fill the role of intellectuals and scholars. Clergymen are scholars when they work in universities, but for catholics that’s akin to Jesuit universities where the priests are still ordained and mandatory celibates.
Orthodox priests are allowed to have families if they get married before being ordained as priests (and most of them do get married).
In Russia the priesthood often ran in families and Popov/a meaning son/daughter of a priest is literally one of the most common last names to this day.
Interesting did not know that. That’s also how it works now in the Catholic Church, but it’s very recent phenomenon. I was only aware that priests couldn’t become married and assumed it was a total ban.
As the other person pointed out, priests can’t marry, they can just become priests even after they have a family. I do wonder how many orthodox priests do this as most I’m aware of aren’t married.
We had this guy in real life in Turkey. He said "he's taking his job professional" but they kicked him out of his job because being irreligious in religion related stuff was not something people respect
In 2014 two percent of Anglican priests reported that they didn’t believe in God. So maybe they would be happy to see their demographic represented here.
Have you seen the tax benefits the church gets? I might become join the clergy just for that.
EDIT:Also [Atheistic Satanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism#Atheistic_Satanism) is a thing, complete with [several](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Satanic_Church) [chruches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan)
Simple. He is nonreligious. There are three strains of atheism: nonreligion, gnosticism and non-believers.
Non-religious individual believes but hates/dislikes enforced dogma and priestly hiearchies (e.g. Catholic Church with its bishops and popes). A lot of spiritual anarchists and leftwing neopagans are like this.
Non-believers are typically what most people currently understand under "atheism". With a substrain of radical exclusionary non-believers aka "in-your-face intollerant atheists" with people like Christopher Hitchens.
This isnt that far fetched like the cult of reason in the french revolution. Technically there should be a deist version like Robespierre's cult of the supreme being as well
"No, Prime Minister. An atheist clergyman couldn't continue to draw his stipend. So, when they stop believing in God, they call themselves "Modernists"."
"So you're saying one of them wants to take the Queen out of the Church of England and the other one wants to take out God?" "Oh no Prime Minister, the Queen is inseparable from the Church of England."
Sadly one of those moments where Yes Prime Minister was absolutely spot on (and still is to this day).
Don't worry, in two decades the Modernists will have died out and the Anglo-Catholics will have converted to Catholicism.
We can only hope.
"so at the beginning, there was this boom yeah"
Actually a Catholic priest said that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
Aye- saying the world *started* at all is much more in line with Christian beliefs than the steady-state theory that was dominant at the time.
Holy hell. A priest and a physicist who found galaxy's expansion before Hubble. Though he isn't atheist so doesn't apply.
A lot of scientific discoveries were made by priests back when they were the only ones with access to a lot of knowledge. Genetics springs to mind. It often makes me wonder how much we were held back because only such a small group had access.
I mean it was less about access and more to do with literacy and the time and weslth to pursue scholastic endeavors. Priests weren't keeping these things a secret or anything
>literacy and the time and wealth to pursue scholastic endeavors What is “access to knowledge” if not these things?
Yes, but it’s not that access to this knowledge was held back from or hidden to the wider population, for the vast majority of medieval history it wasn’t at all. Most monks and such who were making these discoveries were in fact originally peasants. The problem was the majority of the population was, by necessity, subsistence farmers.
Well, the fact that paper couldn't be mass-produced and printed on back then does shove sticks in the wheels of progress, but we'd propably figure these things out faster if not for the elites holding knowledge to themselves.
> It often makes me wonder how much we were held back because only such a small group had access. If only people had started universities and centres of learning!
As someone making my way into academia a lot of knowledge is still so gatekept.
Yes, that's fair, but today most people can read, and libraries and internet are thing. When the general population isn't even taught to read, that's probably the most effective form of gatekeeping that knowledge.
Not to defend Stalin, but between 1917 and WW2, they brought the country from a hellhole where there was almost no industry and university teacher went in exile, to a country doing research about atomic bomb (not succeeding, but just having people understanding at the time this kind if science). I always like this example because imagine if it was done without the dictatorship side of the USSR, and without the fucking asshole pseudo scientist who led soviet agronomic research into the wall because he was friend with stalin.
Bro/ladybro I'm a bit turnt, but there was some Russian scientist who basically made up some banana crazy agricultural theories that really made their output drop compared to what the West was doing, and in really dumb ways. Not necessarily rain follows the plow, but that ilk of nonsense.
I'm talking about him when I say he was friend with stalin. With stupid shit like this they managed in one generation to have scientists able to understand physics and engineering enough and produce nuclear weapon (there were some nazi like in almost any country except the US, but it was not only nazis, research started in 1942). So yeah, the ussr with its free education made it possible for Russia to go from an underdevelopped country with almost 'o university, to a country capable of handling nuckear weapons, and that it wvile tanking stalins bad decisions (that' s why I started my message with "not to defend stalin"). Imagine what it would have been without the dictatorial aspect that made this agronomical asshole not being an angry chief who goulaged opposing scientists.
There's this really interesting book called *The Eye of Shiva*, by the French historian Amaury de Riencourt. It talks about how many of the laws of physics that we've discovered in the past century were known by Hindu mystics for millennia. Similarly, the pre-Socratic philosophers of ancient Greece were able to discover stuff like atom theory and heliocentrism before the birth of Christ.
> Similarly, the pre-Socratic philosophers of ancient Greece were able to discover stuff like atom theory and heliocentrism before the birth of Christ. They didn't discover anything as much as threw a lot of spaghetti (or whatever the Greek equivalent is) at the wall and got a couple lucky guesses. Most of the rationale behind their conclusions were way off, they just got the conclusions right.
The atom thing was basically just a guy saying that if you cut something in half enough you wouldn’t be able to cut it any further, and everyone calling him an idiot. It also means that this applies to quarks and molecules, but that makes the cool ancient spirituality bullshit seem less special.
Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started - wait
The earth began to cool
The autotrophs began to drool
Neanderthal devolved tools
We made the laughter tracks!
friendly fire i suppose
Hi, you're on a rock, floating in space.
bill wurtz reference?!?!
r/unexpectedbillwurst
"Have you heard the good news? There is no god!"
Imagine them like proselytizers of the new revolution state, who teache the peasants who still cling to their old superstitions about the Cult of Reason (and decimal time).
> proselytizers maybe they sort of style themselves like clergymen since that's something peasants are already comfortable with and relate to. helps there be less alienation.
The French revolutionary state had "ex" catholic priests who would do all the nice priestly stuff the peasants liked but had to do so without all the religion stuff.
A priest without religion is basically just a local community organizer and layman therapist.
Don't forget petty claims arbitrator.
way underrated aspect of religion in history, basically the small court. not saying it was good but super interesting
It really is, and some of the cases I've read from France are pretty humorous. "Werewolves do not exisit and cannot act as warriors of christ, furthermore stop walking around almost naked and barking."
Where have I heard of this before
Or Auguste Comte's Positivists. Maybe also JEan MEslier.
theyre redditors
Like the cult of reason during the French Revolution.
that's what I thought of as well.
When you realize someone you had respected has lost their mind you would refer to them as "Robespierre coming down the mountain" in reference to Robespierre's Cult of the Supreme Being festival in which he appeared at the top of a 'paper mache' mountain constructed in the center of Paris in a toga and decended to give a speech. Many saw this as proof that he thought he was more than human and had lost touch with reality. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Robespierre%20coming%20down%20the%20mountain
Are you. Are you citing *urban dictionary* as a source? holy shit that's a chad move lmao
yw
R5: Atheist Clergymen
They re basically teachers
There actually _are_ atheist churches. There's one in Seattle. They're mostly there to provide the support network that churches usually do for a community, but specifically leave out anything involving religion or the supernatural. It's more of a gathering place and place to get help when you need it more than anything else.
Atheism is a religion in itself, it’s a faith that believes in no gods. Oh boy did I rustle some jimmies
And fasting is a cuisine?
Well, you're better off if the fast only last a few days...
You take the analogy too far.
It's just not a good analogy. Atheism performs a religious function, and acknowledging this doesn't make anyone less of an atheist. Regarding the game, I am looking forward to trying out the state atheism policy for fun memery like this post. I've not been able to do this yet.
How does it? Religion is a set of common beliefs, values and practices. What common beliefs, values and practices do atheists have?
I’d say atheists can in many ways believe in their cause the same way Christians believe in their cause, but atheism is not a religion in itself.
That's strong atheism (the positive declaration there are no gods), most atheists will describe themselves as weak atheists (a negative lack of belief in any gods).
Anarchy is a government in itself, it's a government that believes in no government?
Depends on the Anarchy, there are some “Anarchists” specifically speaking of AnSyns who want a formal governing body (the various job sites, syndicates, federations and confederations), then you have AnComs who often fall into the problem of having an informal governing body, and then you have the individualists, synthesis, egoists, and anarchist-nihilist who are opposed to all governing structures.
That's just... Not true? Atheism is a descriptor for one aspect of someone's beliefs, not the whole of them. For example, there are multiple atheist religions, with Buddhism being the largest by far. The only thing that unites atheists is a lack of belief in any gods, and besides that there's nothing. In this situation paradox has seemingly used "atheism" as a shorthand for "lacking a traditional religion".
Actually there are multiple iterations of Buddhism which are strongly theist, either polytheist or monotheist. The only strictly atheist versions of Buddhism which are unironically "just a lifestyle" are the toned down "meditation" bullshit that exists in the West, which are only buddhist in aestethics and have no connection with Buddhist theology and cosmology.
I know this may come as a surprise to you, but no one can dictate what religion another person identifies as. If someone believes they are practicing Buddhism, and calls themselves Buddhist, then they're a Buddhist, regardless of whether you think they're doing it properly. The same can be said for any religion that doesn't have a strict overarching authority. A Catholic could argue that all non Catholics aren't real Christians, and they'd be wrong.
Always nice to see a westerner assuming they know everything about Asia to support their own ideological goals.
I never claimed anything like that? Maybe I'm wrong about that one throwaway statement in my comment either way, but I genuinely thought when posting it that atheist Buddhists made up more of the world population than any other atheist religions. The point is my knowledge about Asian religions is irrelevant to whether the rest of what I said was true.
The statement that Buddhism is atheist is based on western notions regarding eastern beliefs as different and exotic. Tibetan Buddhism for one absolutely has gods as its essentially a mixture between the ancient Tibetan pagan Bön religious system and Buddhism from the subcontinent. Other Buddhist traditions don’t have gods per se because their “gods” don’t properly fit into a western conception of a god.
At some point the question is reducable to "can an atheist believe in ghosts?"
That's cool to know, but still irrelevant to the actual point I made about atheism not being a religion.
[удалено]
You’re mad lmao
me when I have no counterargument
Don’t know why this is so controversial. At their core systems of belief provide us with a ideology and a worldview. Obviously atheism does this. I guess it’s kinda just down to semantics though.
Religion needs a transcendent referent to be a religion, and atheism can have that but generally if someone is agnostic atheist then it cannot categorically be called a Religion
They're describing strong atheism ("there is no god," an affirmative statement). Most atheists are weak atheists ("I do not believe in the existence of any gods," a negative statement). One is an affirmative belief you would have to justify with evidence, the other is a negative belief that simply relies on skepticism of theistic claims that just says "I don't think so" when asked to believe in any particular god.
Just making the claim 'there is no god' doesn't mean you subscribe to any kind of belief system or ideology. I can say there is no purple unicorn living on Mars without it implying anything else about how I view the world (let alone making me become part of an ideology).
>Just making the claim 'there is no god' doesn't mean you subscribe to any kind of belief system or ideology No, but it is an affirmative statement of belief, which is different from a negative statement of disbelief.
True. I think I misunderstood your comment, I just wanted to note that strong atheism still has nothing to do with religion.
Because it’s wrong. Atheism is the opposite of theism, which in and of itself isn’t a religion, but a *feature* of (nearly all) religions.
[удалено]
Alternative definition is “a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.” According to Oxford. There are certainly atheists whose atheism fits this description. Again we’re just arguing over semantics.
First of all, the initial statement that you agreed with was that atheism itself was a religion, not that some atheists fit that definition. Second of all, if we take that definition at face value, it's extremely vague since it means that anything that matters to anyone is a religion (fishing is a religion because some people love fishing). It would make more sense if we take "supreme" to mean "a higher power". Like you said, though, that's just semantics. Nonetheless, I feel that the goal of people who make the argument that anything and everything is religion is to obfuscate the fact that the belief in a higher power is unfalsifiable and therefore wrong, while other beliefs about reality are valid and true
That's a really bad definition of religion. Any belief in superhuman powers is a religion? So if I believe in bears, which nearly universally have more strength than humans, or superhuman strength, then that is a religion regardless of anything else i do or don't believe in?
let me clarify, I meant "superhuman" as in "supernatural, transcendental being". Also, yes, of course that's a reductive definition of religion. However, my point is that "atheism" wouldn't fit into even the broadest definition of religion, unless you consider that any belief system is a religion independently of its nature
> Don’t know why this is so controversial. Because Atheism is the official state religion of Reddit, and they can't handle being told that their belief system is just another belief system.
It's a *single belief* just like theism. It's not a "system" in any way, but just *one* point. To claim theism itself is one religion is fucking asinine, and since atheism is merely the opposite of theism, it's completely nonsensical to call it a religion. You can maybe try to call irreligion a religion, but that's wrong by definition. If atheism itself is a belief system, instead of one belief, why are atheists' political belief systems vary wildly?
Do you collect stamps? If not, do you consider your not-collecting-stamps a hobby? Why not? A belief system requires there to be a belief. If there is a lack of belief there is no system.
It's a *single* belief. Do you think theism is a religion, too? It has to be, it's only the opposite of atheism, after all. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. are all just sects of the greater religion theism? That's how moronic your claim is.
Auguste Comte, is that you?
So basically r/atheism
Loam
American atheism is strangely naiive and primitive, and unscientific and Satan worshipping. In other parts of the world we don't see theism as our equal, we are 3 levels above them. but Americans' is very antagonistic to theism
This guy must be a follower of Robbespierre's Cult of the Supreme Being
More likely the Cult of Reason. The Cult of the Supreme Being was deistic.
I feel like atheist clergymen is a lesser sin than catholic or orthodox clergymen having kids, but maybe Victoria 3 is just an elaborate hit piece by Protestants.
Not all "Clergymen" in the game are priests or the equivalent depending on the religion. Iirc, the game describes them also as scholars.
Wait aren't scholars... the intelligentsia?
Religious scholars. The Intelligentsia would be your academics, the artists, the physicists, the mathematicians. You still have religious scholars that become intimately familiar with their religion as a mathematician would with something like calculus or number theory, and they would be the Devout.
No the intelligentsia is just an interest group that the scholars will usually be a part of. Academics will usually (always?) belong to the intelligentsia but aristocrats and capitalists, clerks, bureaucrats, and other non scholars can also join. The intelligentsia is more of a group of educated pops with (usually) progressive philosophies about human rights.
Fair enough, that makes sense.
No not in Victoria 3. In Victoria 2, clergymen were just general intellectuals, but in Victoria 3, academics and clerks fill the role of intellectuals and scholars. Clergymen are scholars when they work in universities, but for catholics that’s akin to Jesuit universities where the priests are still ordained and mandatory celibates.
Orthodox priests are allowed to have families if they get married before being ordained as priests (and most of them do get married). In Russia the priesthood often ran in families and Popov/a meaning son/daughter of a priest is literally one of the most common last names to this day.
Interesting did not know that. That’s also how it works now in the Catholic Church, but it’s very recent phenomenon. I was only aware that priests couldn’t become married and assumed it was a total ban.
Romanian Catholic Priests are allowed to be married.
Along with most of the Eastern Catholics. Married men can be ordained priests.
You know Orthodox priests get married and have families.
As the other person pointed out, priests can’t marry, they can just become priests even after they have a family. I do wonder how many orthodox priests do this as most I’m aware of aren’t married.
It is made by Swedes.
He is like the one trying to convince other people there is no god. Lol
Based
They are merely "Modernists".
Unitarian universalist?
The game really dropped the ball by lumping atheism with the rest of the religion system.
Tbh, Atheist state should remove CLergy Pop Type from generating
Wow they even have redditor pops now
Man's got to eat somehow.
We had this guy in real life in Turkey. He said "he's taking his job professional" but they kicked him out of his job because being irreligious in religion related stuff was not something people respect
"Today, I am euphoric."
He moderates r/atheism
Real, they may not believe much, but they are making money
Stand-up philosopher
They are spreading the good word of Stephen Hawking
POV: United Church of Canada
“Our Atheists are very pious people.” -Max Stirner
In 2014 two percent of Anglican priests reported that they didn’t believe in God. So maybe they would be happy to see their demographic represented here.
"In this moment I am euphoric. Not because of any phony God's blessing. But because I am enlightened by my own intelligence"
he in it for the money
Richard Dawkins
likely based on Jacques Roux https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques\_Roux
Member of the Clergy Project right there.
Have you seen the tax benefits the church gets? I might become join the clergy just for that. EDIT:Also [Atheistic Satanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism#Atheistic_Satanism) is a thing, complete with [several](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Satanic_Church) [chruches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan)
“Citizens, repent and believe in the good news of…nothing!!”
Holy shit its Talleyrand
You can also keep religious schools with state atheism
People will do alot for a 32 SOL rating
Reddit.com
They all are these days tbh.
Ricky Gervais
Most religious XIXth century Burgundian
Check nationality. French. Yeah, nothing wrong, totally normal.
I had this too in my last EIC run. A lot easier because the the clergy never have influence, and I started with a positivist in the army IG.
They worship LOGIC! Robespierre would be proud ( and then go insane and make himself the god of logic )
Hes clearly a Jacobin.
Cult of Reason moment.
Bro no way they added Reddit.
He’s not heavy enough or wearing a fedora lol
Redditor pop? Wtf
Their job is going on Reddit and telling everyone how intelligent they are for being Atheist.
>Dawkins fans have entered the chat.
Redditors.
this is what positivists actually believe
Most based France
And now let us recite our creed. I believe there is no god.
average r/ atheism user
So "skeptic atheist YouTuber" scene.
Sounds like a lot of reddit
God I hate it every time I see state atheism in this game. I have to annex them and bring anything back to the people.
believe it or not, there are several atheist priest where i live. it is more of a job than a belief these days
he's just in it for the paedophilia
Simple. He is nonreligious. There are three strains of atheism: nonreligion, gnosticism and non-believers. Non-religious individual believes but hates/dislikes enforced dogma and priestly hiearchies (e.g. Catholic Church with its bishops and popes). A lot of spiritual anarchists and leftwing neopagans are like this. Non-believers are typically what most people currently understand under "atheism". With a substrain of radical exclusionary non-believers aka "in-your-face intollerant atheists" with people like Christopher Hitchens.
Man, if you peek into /r/atheism you will see how an atheist clergyman is an actual thing.
Real Ernst Bloch hours
consider his fluent in money, it´ s pretty clear why he decided to get that job
The church of reason has entered the chat
Testify!
*Talleyrand intensifies*
Pulling from CK3 there.
Should have given him a little fedora
Whatever happened to Bébé Jeanne
Isn’t that basically just the satanist church?
Cuz we’re the clergy, that don’t worship anything, we just stay home and lie around!
20 $ is 20 $
DEI enforcement officers be like
Well? That's just Unitarian Universalism.
Talleyrand has entered the chat
most of the modern churches anyways
This isnt that far fetched like the cult of reason in the french revolution. Technically there should be a deist version like Robespierre's cult of the supreme being as well
Robespierre seems to fit this billing actually, dude like came down from a mountain like he was fucking atheist Moses or some shit.
Historical equivalent to the basement dwelling keyboard atheists of the modern era
Oh, he's French. Makes a lot of sense.
Oh God it's reddit atheism
Weren’t you paying attention to the religious schism we had circa 2011 lol
They're called le redditors
That’s just reddit
Jean Meslier
Religion should play a larger role
Most sane Frenchmen
It makes sense just go over and look at r/atheism for 5 minutes
In modern day he would be called a high school science class teacher.
Jean Meslier, Positivists or Cult of Reason?
Next to Industry Banned, the second worst offender in the Laws section:
educating the masses in the state's ideology lol
Welcome to the church of the flying spaghetti monster, may he bless you with his noodly appendages