How to play the most neckbeard, worst kind of atheist

>This character is a dumb caricature of a group of people i dislike in real life

Genius OP, i'm sure everyone will appreciate your wit and creativity.
Actually no, those characters are never interesting.

>Also, make him lecture people about how they deserve bad things to happen to them.

Isn't explaining why bad things happen literally the purpose of religion?

>Isn't explaining why bad things happen literally the purpose of religion?
Yes, which is why atheism is like a religion. Which is IRONY.

I kekked a bit

This

I bet OP makes whiny ">the church is actually evil" threads too

Right, time for some metadetails here.

There's a series of 3 books in the Golarion setting, which were written by an Angel, Tabbris, who was tasked with learning the truth of the planes and putting it to paper.
In learning of Heaven he wrote on the subject of good, the exalted and beauty, then he left to learn of the rest of the planes and was lost.
Aeons later he returned a changed, fallen creature and threw down before the gods themselves two other books, which make a mockery of the truth of the first and was banished from Heaven for fulfilling his task and duty (And for tearing a piece of himself free to guard/power the evil book).

The books were called The Chronicles of the Righteous (The Good Book), The Concordance of Rivals (The Betweeny book) and The Book of the Damned (Take a guess)
Supposedly these books between them contain the nature of the planes, of good, of evil and how all gods, not just the evil aligned ones make a mockery of anything even resembling justice, the BotD contains in its pages the Truth of Reality, a secret so foul and vile that learning it can shatter the good in even the purest of hearts and cause them to lose faith, if this secret ever got out it could damage the fabric of reality itself.

What you need to do my nigger, is play a character that wants to read the shit out of all three books and then reveal to the world the foul secrets of the gods themselves and their secret agreements with the forces of Darkness.

Be the Snowden of Fedora-tippers, learn the truth, leak it to the world and take a huge, steaming turd on all sides of the Great Game by showing everyone whats happening behind the screen.

No need to rant about how the gods are all evil, after all then the Gods'll know you're planning something, just manipulate events constantly and do neverending research towards your goal of finding all three books.
Seek the Knowledge that they hide from mans eyes and then tip your Fedora so hard it breaks reality.

It's just that I've never heard any atheists say anything like that. Maybe have him be incredibly fatalistic with a "shits going to happen anyway so why bother" attitude would fit better while still ironically mirroring the attitude of religious types

Some atheists (the crazy ones) think that christians being murdered is a good thing. They're the same people who sitck (DIE BIGOT) stickers next to those fish things people have on the backs of cars.

Gross, I guess I just don't know enough assholes then.

I believe it's in that God-aweful "Fighters of Glorarion" supliment, you play as a fighter from said Not!Greece Athiest land and get spell restive to ALL divine spells, including healing spells and magic items.
It really sucks in the long run, but could work for someone like the character you want.

That is a delicious endgame and I am all for it. The DM wants to work in our back stories so he would probably let me go down that path. The best part is the pacifist oracle wants to prove that the "Iron Gods" are "false gods" and thus not worthy of worship.
So I would be "helping."

I'm not trying to make a straw man, I'm making the iconic neckbeard weeb atheist. Based on an actual subculture.
------------

Im still not sure what the MLP analog should be. Maybe a series of morality parables written for little girls?

I think that's a cavalier archetype, so I could see if the DM would be willing to adapt it to samurai.

My Enlightenment Pony?

Oh, I've got it! My Little Brownies. Big eyed fae used in fairytales. Perfect.

I still need a name though. What's a name that screams iconic atheist neckbeard?

Probably is, truth be told, I never paid too much attention to the splat books for Golarion, mostly because they usually weren't worth it as much as the "advanced x guide", "Ultimate Y" or "Inner Sea Z" books.
even after I sold all my Pathfinder stuff I still have inner sea gods just because the pantheon is pretty cool.

Jon TrueSeer. Get it? GET IT, YOU PLEB?!? I don't know why I bother. *rolls eyes*

I actually do remeber the book, it's called "inner sea's combat."

Fenyr Ar'dura.

>Tips crucifix

>not real atheism

I don't understand what that means, I have never seen someone use that defense against.... Something? I'm atheist and everyone I have met is just cool with it because I'm not a dick about it and I don't judge them or even really care.

I have seen asshole atheists claim that religion is inherently evil or wrong because of bad thing X. Is "not real atheism" a defense against "atheism is evil because of bad thing X"?

>"atheist."
They aren't though
They realize deities exist, they just refuse to allow their worship in the country.
Less atheist, more militantly non-religious.

>When faced with the shortcomings of atheism

What shortcomings?

Atheism isn't a belief structure, it's a lack of a belief. Atheism literally just means 'without god', as in, without belief in god or gods. You can be a gnostic atheist, I guess, though the vast majority are agnostic atheists, but even then, the only thing any two atheists would have in common is that they lack belief in a deity.

Antitheists

"Anticlerical", I think, would be the proper term.

Better question; how would you make an extreme religious character, but also extremely unspiritual? An atheistic religion, if you will.

Atheism makes you an asshole would be an example but that's based on experience with fedora tippers not steming from some objectionable fundamental spect of atheism, essentially the same kind of falacious argument a fedora would use to point out the short comings of religion. Not suggesting atheism makes people assholes just giving more ammo for OP to use, since he should definitely use the same argumentation for religion which would be hypocritical and therefore hilarious.

Atheistic religions exist in real life.

Jainism, Buddhism (deva is often translated as 'god', but that's not its meaning), etc. There are Hindu sects that treat their scripture as pure allegory, refuting the idea that actual gods exist.

>atheistic religion
That's a fucking philosophy/metaphilosophy.

Holy shit you kids fail so hard at simple language.

When you see an attractive woman, immediatly dote on her and treat her like royalty.

When she rejects your advances for being creepy and unwanted immediatly start screaming misogynistic slurs and her.

Crawl back to your party shit-faced and whine endlessly about how nice guys finish last.

Religion is defined as the structured belief in a superhuman force. Not belief in god/gods.

You're free to tell Jains and Buddhists that their religion isn't a religion, but you're not going to be convincing anyone.

>It's just that I've never heard any atheists say anything like that.

Clearly you haven't met a recent-Atheist convert from evangelical Christianity.

The Christianity goes away, but the evangelism doesn't.

>I'm atheist and everyone I have met is just cool with it because I'm not a dick about it and I don't judge them or even really care.

See . Many atheists, at least from firsthand experiences growing up in white, suburban Houston, are typically just as "religious" about being atheist as religious people are about their religion. These are the types of people who form atheist clubs, organize anti-religion events and meetings, have book talks about that ponzi-scheming Not!Preacher Richard Dawkins and how he's the best thing since Jesus, and generally tell people who they're idiots for believing in "bronze-age cults that worship a sky god made of clouds" Fuck you Micheal just thinking about you makes me mad even ten years later while ignoring the fact that they're shitting on other people for their religious beliefs.

It's such a specific and prevalent type where I live that we've subconsciously created two different categories of Atheist - "Atheists" are what I described above, while "Non-Religious" is anybody who, simply put, just doesn't believe in religion.

Of course, your results may very.

Yeah, basically. Whenever a non-religious regime commits crimes it's because of their atheism, but whenever a theocratic regime does the same thing it's a perversion of the religion.

Ironically, it's the atheists that are accused of using a "no true Scotsman" argument

>it's a lack of a belief.

The concept of "Nothing" is still something, user.

Yeah, but atheists don't have some shared belief about a great nothing that created everything. They might believe in big bang theory, or in some other model for the universe's creation, but that is a separate issue from their lack of belief in a god.

Atheists do not put faith in and worship nothing. They just don't believe in a god. Atheism is not a belief.

As it turns out, every belief system in the world have a bunch of dumb fucks (not you,btw) ruining it for everyone else.

>Whenever a non-religious regime commits crimes it's because of their atheism,

If you're referring to the Soviet Union and other Communist regimes systemically wiping out religious groups, that's not really a great example, because it was flat-out stated that WAS the reason by those regimes on multiple occasions.

>but whenever a theocratic regime does the same thing it's a perversion of the religion.

Depends on the religion (Sometimes yes, sometimes no), but when your argument is "Religion v. No Religion," the concept of religion in and of itself doesn't lend itself to violence against non-believers. On the same coin, neither does non-religion, either.

>Ironically, it's the atheists that are accused of using a "no true Scotsman" argument

Both sides get accused pretty heavily by each other, and they're both as right as they are wrong.

Have some hypocrisy and double standards. If a religious man says something, it's wrong. If a philosophically illiterate biology professor says something, endlessly suck that man's cock.

>If you're referring to the Soviet Union and other Communist regimes systemically wiping out religious groups, that's not really a great example, because it was flat-out stated that WAS the reason by those regimes on multiple occasions.

Consider: communism is not atheism.

Communist governments have been atheist. However, it's not their atheism that propels them to perpetrate acts of violence, as atheism is not an ideology - it is quite the opposite, it is a void of a certain ideology.

The acts of violence perpetrated by communists are motivated by communism.

Everyone's talking about religion or atheism, and here I am just simply not caring.
Is there a term for people like me who just simply doesn't care either way?

Oh god I'm having flashbacks.
> atheist clubs
Maximum shame.

A good player.

Atheist.

I mean, if you don't care, you don't believe in god, right?

Lurker. Should have kept at it.

How can there be non-belief if I don't even care?

Considering how it was state policy that atheism be enforced, I say there's plenty linking their atheism & some of their actions.

This is a very USA thing.

It's pretty much what happens when you have people realizing they've been lied to (from their perspective) their entire lives and find themselves suddenly in a minority that is often hated by the majority - which may include their families, friends, etc.

People who feel isolated like that tend to form clubs, societies, etc.

...Because you don't believe?

Atheism isn't a belief in nothing. It's a lack of belief. If you don't care enough to believe, you simply don't believe.

Specifically, you're an agnostic atheist. Agnostic, as in without knowledge (you don't claim to know anything for sure or care to find out), and atheist, as in without god (you don't believe in god).

>Consider: communism is not atheism.

Correct. But atheism is, and always has been, a hefty part of Communist doctrine. Communist doctrine justified violence against religious individuals by citing the idea that atheism is the "correct" belief.

>The acts of violence perpetrated by communists are motivated by communism.

True. As stated, however, atheism, by their own admission, was a crucial tenet of Communism, and was used to justify their actions.

I totally agree that atheism isn't inherently violent, or condones violence, or what have you. Just saying that it HAS been used as a justification for violence in the past. It is therefore, for all intensive porpoises, no different from religion when it comes to inciting violence.

However, atheism does not teach that state policy. Atheism does not teach anything. It's not an ideology.

Communism teaches that policy.

You don't believe the mass-scale taking of slaves and their atrocious treatment by the Ottoman Empire to reflect in any way on Christians because Muslims and Christians are both theists, do you?

Huh, I've never heard it mentioned with atheism combined, but I remember being told that my grampa was agnostic.
I still don't feel like calling myself an atheist though, I just don't care.

OP I hope you're taking notes. Just have your character spew all the self righteous bullshit in this thread and you're golden

Have him confuse religious people with the setting's equivalent of flat earthers. My friend's dad is exactly this kind of atheist and it kills me every time I meet him.

>I just don't care.

Literally what atheism means bro.

If you don't want to say "I'm atheist" to people because you're afraid they'll treat you differently, that's valid, though. But if you don't actively believe in a higher power, that's atheism. It's what the word means.

>atheism does not teach that state policy
Irrelevant. Doesn't directly teach =/= can't influence.
>It's not an ideology.
It's an opinion/stance/something people think. I can think there are no black swans. I can think that belief in black swans is harmful & justify doing harm to said people through said belief.
>it's communism not atheism
Communist enforced state atheism is still atheism. Their atheism had influences on their policy. Not all forms of atheism but it's a form.

>actively

I've never even spent any time in taking the effort to determine whether or not I believe or not. I just don't care.

I see your point.

I would argue that instances of religious violence have their basis in scripture, however, which is a component of the religion itself. Whereas communist violence is not given justification by atheism, which has no core literature intrinsic to it, it's given justification by communism.

You're also incorrect in some regards when it comes to communism, by the way. Communism does not object to theism, it objects to organized religion, on the rather unseemly basis that all organized religion is a means by which the proletariat is deprived of what is supposedly his. It's anti-religious, not anti-theist. A communist can believe in god all they want, and many did/do.

>It's a lack of belief.

Time to jump down the philosophical rabbit hole:

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief. This is correct.

However, if you have any understanding of a concept, you therefore, by extension, have some sort of belief on the matter - the human mind must make associations and link ideas together to remember a concept or idea.

You can't NOT have a belief about something you comprehend, as you have to belief SOMETHING about it in order to understand it.

Therefore, you can only "lack belief" if you've never been exposed to religion as a concept. IF you've been exposed to it at some point in your life (and if you're in this thread you already have), you must have made a choice in order to understand it.

TL;DR You can't lack a belief in something unless you don't know about the concept at all, because otherwise you have to choose what to believe in.

I'm not saying Atheism is wrong or anything, just saying that "lack of belief" isn't an accurate applicator for the belief system

>If you don't want to say "I'm atheist" to people because you're afraid they'll treat you differently, that's valid, though.

To piggyback here, just say, "I'm not very religious." Has nowhere NEAR the connotation of "I'm Atheist," which implies you're anti-religion and anti-God (correctly or not).

This is incorrect, as choice =/= belief.

An atheist who understands the god concept can be said to believe, yes, that there is not enough evidence to convince them. In which case, this has no bearing on the matter of an actual object of belief - either way, their atheism does not place their belief in anything specific.

Alternatively, they can be like and have simply never given enough of a shit to really think about it. A lot of atheists raised in atheist households are like this. They've never had the concept pushed to them, and so they've never even really considered it seriously.

I was probably this kind of atheist until I really got into mythology and theology and started to actually evaluate stuff and look for signs of validity in a few different faiths. The idea that god could really exist did not even occur to me while I was a child. It was just something other people believed in, something that occupied the same sort of space in my head as stories about Thor or whoever.

It feels like nerds scrambling to distance themselves from nerdy stuff makes them look even more autistic

There was a sperglord in my CS class who'd flip out of you mentioned anything related to 40k, Anime, Atheism, or MLP even as a joke

Just made a spectacle of himself

>How to play the most neckbeard, worst kind of atheist

Act like a theist.

Yeah, I'm aware, which is why I said that's a valid choice.

There's no reason to shout anything from the rooftops, and wanting to avoid being ostracized is perfectly understandable. I'm lucky to live somewhere where that's never been an issue for me, but I'm aware that a lot of people don't really know what atheist means and are looking for any old reason to have beef with their fellow man.

>They've never had the concept pushed to them, and so they've never even really considered it seriously.
I wonder if this were to imply that animals & plants can be called atheists.

>atheism does not teach that state policy
And theism altogether doesn't teach anything like that either. Forms of theism do. The definition of religion is that it's a personal belief of divinity & such, nothing else. There's so much diversity in the number of different theists that it's virtually impossible to find something all theism does aside from being theism. The Soviets' form of atheism was very anti-religious. Not all atheism is but their form is.

Hah, I suppose you're right, in the purely technical sense.

The Hi'aiti'ihi people, who were utterly without the god concept until discovered (but not areligious - they practice a form of animism), would be considered atheist. They had about as much knowledge of 'god' as an idea as your average otter, though, obviously, a much greater ability to learn.

>And theism altogether doesn't teach anything like that either. Forms of theism do.

Completely correct. If you tell someone that theism itself is responsible for the crusades you're being a super dumb-dumb.

The ideological conflict between Christians and Muslims, compounded by grievances on both sides about farming rights and a few other economic clashes, were to blame.

That's my issue with the thing, I say, with my unprofessional opinion, that though atheism & theism as a whole aren't guaranteed to have a "hate these guys" rule, individual forms of atheism & theism can. Atheism doesn't say imprison people in gulags but the USSR's more violent form of atheism, which I've seen atheists be ashamed of, says it's okay to do so to the religious. One bad apple (USSR state atheism) doesn't spoil the entire barrel (atheism as a whole) but that doesn't mean the bad apple doesn't exist.

I think we may have been arguing sideways of each other here.

I'm saying that atheism is fundamentally different from something like, say, Islam, because Islam is an actual belief structure with rules and tenets. You don't have to change Islam at all to justify murder with it. Atheism is not so, as it is not a belief. By itself, it has no tenets. Communism has tenets and rules.

I'm not saying atheism is different in this respect to theism. I'm saying it's different in this respect to religions. Communism has its failings, but there's no reason for an atheist to consider that any reflection on their lack of belief in god. Just as there's no reason for a Christian to feel bad about ISIS. Both the Christian and the Muslim are theists, but theism did not motivate ISIS. Islam did.

>Atheism is not so, as it is not a belief. By itself, it has no tenets.
This is irrelevant. Theism altogether doesn't do so. Forms of atheism can have some. Some atheists don't believe in any gods & that's it. Some have an added part which thinks religion is inherently harmful. Some even think that violence to religion is justified as a result.
>there's no reason for an atheist to consider that any reflection on their lack of belief in god
I didn't say so, I say it should be a reminder that atheism isn't innocent & unable to cause harm. Besides, ISIS has plenty of socio-political influences & causes including a certain US supported government.

*isn't incapable of influencing harm

OP here, yes, yes I am.

Acting like a creep and then saying "Nice guys finish last *sigh*" Yes this. So much this.

Also, I put atheist in quotes in the OP for a reason.

Rahadoum outlawed being beholden to a god or using divine magic. The Rahadoumi (I prefer to call them Rahadoumites, the same way I prefer to call Erastil's followers Erastifarians) know gods exist, they choose to go without help and without worship. They also believe they are better off for it. Moderates in the country are see it as being on their own, for good or for ill, but it keeps the extremists at bay.

Also guys, athiesm isn't the belief that there is nothing, and the belief in nothing itself. That's literally nihilism.

Athiesm most loosely is a statement that you don't believe in any given established religions.

I'm focusing on the atheists that ironically, tend to act like evangelicals, cleave to a certain set of principles outlined in books that they demand you should read, condemn you for having a different belief system etc.

A lot of them are shockingly similar, it's a whole subculture. MLP, neckbeard, overweight, fedora, saying m'lady, "nice guys finish last" etc

I'm going to play something like that, but like, legitimately they banned religion where he is from because the land was running red with blood from religious conflicts, some of which were good aligned deity on good aligned dirty sectarian violence. So he has a point that even the good gods are only as
"good" as their representatives and mortals shouldn't be beholden to literal hypocrites.

Sarenrae is the patron of liberation and there are places where her followers are slavers. Iomedae supports violent imperialism over justice for "savage" humanoid cultures.

>Theism altogether doesn't do so.

Correct.

>Forms of atheism can have some.

Incorrect. If an atheist has beliefs in regard to religion, this is not atheism, it is an ideology that they could have as an atheist. Much as Christianity is an ideology one can have as a theist. If a communist atheist kills a priest, he does so because he is a communist (or he is unsound, or he has personal reasons, etc), not because he is an atheist. If a Christian theist kills a Muslim, he does so because he is a Christian (or, again, for entirely unrelated reasons), not because he is a theist.

Theism doesn't cause harm. Atheism doesn't cause harm.

>ISIS has plenty of socio-political influences & causes including a certain US supported government.

Everything has socio-political influences. Ideologies and the way people practice these ideologies reflect their surroundings.

>If an atheist has beliefs in regard to religion, this is not atheism
Am I to believe that the USSR or Dawkins aren't atheist? They have their own forms of atheism. Atheism isn't singular or always identical. It isn't some "every atheist does this & exactly like this with nothing else". Atheism is denial of gods, nothing saying forms or subsectors of such can't exist.

This degree of IT JUST IS is almost insane. A communist atheist kills a priest possibly because his ideology claims that religion is to be destroyed. Atheism isn't exempt from having idologies,even if itself isn't one.

I don't believe in any dirty except as an ideological construct, but I don't call myself an atheist or talk about it it. The beliefs of others don't bother me unless they are harming people.

>Am I to believe that the USSR or Dawkins aren't atheist?

No. You are to believe they are atheist and anti-religious. Their atheism is not anti-religious. Them being anti-religious is anti-religious.

>It isn't some "every atheist does this & exactly like this with nothing else"

Yes, correct. However, atheism itself is separate from whatever ideology they hold in regard to religion. Atheism is not its own ideology.

>Atheism is denial of gods

No, it isn't. Atheism is lack of belief in gods. Denial of gods would be anti-theism.

Look, think of it this way. An atheist who hates theists because of some ideology they hold is basing their hate on no aspect or teaching of atheism. There are no teachings of atheism. It is not an ideology, it is a void of ideology. If, say, they are a communist atheist, they base their hate of religious institutions on the writings of Marx in regards to what he proposed was an innately unjust aspect in religion. Much as the Muslim's hatred of Jews is a facet of his ideology of Islam, rather than his theism, the communist's hatred of organized religion is a facet of the ideology of communism, not his atheism.

>Atheism isn't exempt from having idologies,even if itself isn't one.

I'm not saying it isn't.

But, just as you wouldn't say theism is responsible for some Rwandan warlord massacring whatever religious folks he disagrees with (you'd say Christianity or Islam or whatever, it could be something more esoteric), you wouldn't say atheism is responsible for communists killing theists. You'd say communism is.

did he struck a nerve? :^)

>Their atheism is not anti-religious
This is a first.
>Atheism is not its own ideology
And theism isn't either but forms of it have ideology.

>Atheism is lack of belief in gods
>no aspect or teaching of atheism
Irrelevant again. Your defence is more or less asserting that because atheism itself has no teachings, it can't have anything like subcategories or anything like such. I might as well argue the same of theism, that by being different from pure theism, they don't count.

>it is a void of ideology
Is this an assumption? Theism itself isn't an ideology but within theism there are parts with ideologies. Are nihilism & otherwise without ideologies? Or do we say that nihilism doesn't count as atheism? I see nothing within the definition of atheism that suggests it cannot have subcategories.

Holy fuck you people are bad at all of this shit.

Atheism is an active disbelief in god(s).
Theism is an active belief in god(s).

The passive, "I don't know" position is agnostic.

>inb4 agnostic atheist/agnostic theists exists.

That shit is confusing belief with knowledge. One cannot know that either atheism or theism is true of false. People saying "I know there's (not) a god" are expressing a strongly held belief. A strongly held belief is not remotely the same thing as knowledge. Don't mix commonly used senses of a word and their technical usage.

Anyway, you wanna neckbeard?
>euphoric atheist
>smug superiority
>archaic phrasings
>either MRA and get facts wrong or SWJ and get facts wrong
>sweating is helpful
>as you get more and more upset include a speech impediment
>pick some meme-worthy webcomic and quote it and memes incessantly (like xkcd and sadfrog)

whoops, didn't mean to leave that linked post in

Ignore its presence.

>This is a first.

Atheism is simply not anti-religious. If you are anti-religious... then that is another ideology.

>Your defence is more or less asserting that because atheism itself has no teachings, it can't have anything like subcategories or anything like such.

Nope. It is simply a fact that atheism cannot include a belief, as it is defined by lack of belief. You can incorporate it into a belief, but atheism is not that belief.

>I might as well argue the same of theism, that by being different from pure theism, they don't count.

You'd be right to. Not in arguing that theism can't have sub-categories, but in arguing that theism should not be conflated with theist ideologies. Theism itself is not Christianity, for example.

>Is this an assumption?

It's a fact. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a deity. If you have another ideological stance toward religion, that is not your atheism, that is some ideology you possess.

>The passive, "I don't know" position is agnostic.

Agnostic is a claim to knowledge, not a claim to god. Specifically, it is the declaration that you do not have knowledge. There is no such thing as simply an agnostic. You are an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

You keep using "ideology" like you know what it means. You don't.

An ideology is a system of ideas. That's it.

Atheism is not a system of ideas.

>That shit is confusing belief with knowledge. One cannot know that either atheism or theism is true of false. People saying "I know there's (not) a god" are expressing a strongly held belief. A strongly held belief is not remotely the same thing as knowledge. Don't mix commonly used senses of a word and their technical usage.

Completely misunderstanding the terms.

I agree that one cannot know this things. The gnostic point of view, whether atheist or theist, CLAIM to know. They are expressing a strongly held belief, but they claim to know. They think they know.

>Agnostic is a claim to knowledge, not a claim to god. Specifically, it is the declaration that you do not have knowledge. There is no such thing as simply an agnostic. You are an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
How fucking thick are you? No it's not merely the claim to knowledge because epistemologically there's painfully little you can actually claim to know.

As I said, when you make this retarded assertion, you're simply asserting a strong belief, not knowledge.

This is kind of akin to libel/slander. You can assert all day that you know Bill Clinton banged 4390832 women while in the Whitehouse, but it's still libel/slander until you can prove it, irrespective of the truth of the assertion. Simply claiming knowledge is not, nor has it ever been a philosophical standard for qualifying something as "knowledge".

Or another example:
I know you're a racist neonazi rapist.
By your standard, that's me having knowledge of you being a racist neonazi rapist...by any reasonable standard it would be me asserting a belief.

>another ideology
>Atheism is not a system of ideas.

Can't even keep your stupidity straight? Yeah that happens when you don't know what you're talking about.

>No it's not merely the claim to knowledge because epistemologically there's painfully little you can actually claim to know.

Which is why gnostic atheists are ridiculously rare.

>This is kind of akin to libel/slander. You can assert all day that you know Bill Clinton banged 4390832 women while in the Whitehouse, but it's still libel/slander until you can prove it, irrespective of the truth of the assertion. Simply claiming knowledge is not, nor has it ever been a philosophical standard for qualifying something as "knowledge".

I agree. However, the gnostic position is that they have knowledge. Try to argue this with a young Earth creationist who believes they have a personal, revelation-based faith in god, and they will tell you over and over that they KNOW god is real. They are making a claim to have knowledge.