Religious Demographics in D&D (no flames, please)


3.5/d20/OGL

101 to 150 of 241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Nicolas Logue wrote:

I am a Loguist. I belive in my own unquestionable divinity. Fear not, I also believe in benevolent dictatorship...now bow before me man-things! ;-)

Do your priests channel positive or negative energy? And how do you feel about the animation or creation of undead servitors? Just curious y'know - even if those are important questions for my decision to maybe becoming a co-Lougist.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Heathansson wrote:


You're right. I'll just go eat some spaghetti and take communion to atone for the sins of hypocrisy and hubris; I really should have helped you out against the backpedalling apologist who had you on the ropes there.

Damn Heathy, did an atheist kill your dog? You've been nipping at me the whole thread, posting with an uncharacteristic lack of good humor, asking provocative questions and delting them. I'm not even turned up to my Takasi level of antagonism, and I certainly haven't even brought my A-game in terms of offensive atheism, so I'm mystified as to why your panties are in such a knot.

Grand Lodge

For more on atheism and its most vocal champions, Wired had a really good article a month or two ago.

Paizo Employee Director of Game Development

Fatespinner wrote:


Please refrain from religious commentary. Just place the facts, please.


Nicolas Logue wrote:
I am a Loguist. I belive in my own unquestionable divinity. Fear not, I also believe in benevolent dictatorship...now bow before me man-things! ;-)

Do your priests channel positive or negative energy? And how do you feel about the animation or creation of undead servitors? Just curious y'know - even if those are important questions for my decision to maybe becoming a co-Lougist.

Sign me up. If I am a loyal luietenant can I have Canada and New England?

Paizo Employee Director of Game Development

Arctaris wrote:


Sign me up. If I am a loyal luietenant can I have Canada and New England?

You'd have to defeat the incursion of the Pettists.

Contributor

Arctaris wrote:


Sign me up. If I am a loyal luietenant can I have Canada and New England?

I channel the tension created by the struggle between positive and negative. Undead rule, as long as they do my laundry for me.

And if you are a loyal lieutenant, I'll do you one better sir: Australia!!!

Contributor

Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:
Let me see this is a hard one I am an ex christian pastor who is in a same sex marriage. I sort of follow the philosophical side of the spectrum. And I tend to worship the theatre. I might try logueism next maybe it'll go well. Hey Nick can I be a bishop in your church?

If you worship theatre you are in luck. You can be Archbishop and Vicious Overseer of Theatre in my church. Unless of course, someone else wants to fight you for the title...because really, what's the point of being a deity if people won't slaughter each other in competition for your favor...

Contributor

Arctaris wrote:


Sign me up. If I am a loyal luietenant can I have Canada and New England?

I assume you mean you would like Hockey-Tuke-GoodBeer-land, and New Silly-Domain-of-Spotted-Dick-Eaters. Yes, I grant you them. They are yours to do with as you please.


I find this thread immensely interesting...and apologize for deviating from a simple presentation of facts concerning my observations.

I'll consider doing a poll at my next few sessions- I don't really self-identify my beliefs much anymore, and I never thought to inquire or discuss such things amongst my players or my DMs (not that I haven't had some idea about general religious affiliations or lack there of). I was raised Southern baptist, so I have that behind me, but as far as what I am now, I'm not really a Unitarian Universalist (while I have been to a Unitarian Universalist church, my ex-girlfriend- a girl who almost played in my game- worked and went there for services.) or a non-denominational or an atheist, or at least the technical definition of an agnostic anyway...

But, yeah...I'll be honest...

I was really hoping this was a thread about Religions IN D&D games and what religions players use to represent their characters and so forth. I run a pretty Faith heavy campaign with Ghostwalk (though only a few characters- pc or npc,) really weigh in on it).

But yes, I could start a whole tangent about that- from thoughts about recent Dragon articles on the subject to how players interpret paladin restrictions- especially concerning non-core deities...

But yeah, I suggest someone (Fatespinner or myself perhaps) create such a thread when this one cools down.

I'll be playing with an odd group today, several actually. An RPGA event and another game with my sibling, her friends, and her boyfriend- so I know they kinda lean toward non-denominational or other, Christian, I guess- with my sister anyway. Same with my brother- though he's been out of D&D for years, wouldn't know where to begin with 3.5 or where to pick back up if he could play 1st edition (or maybe 2nd?).

On a side note, though I know my DM,and probably all but one other player in my main playing group, is an Atheist in this game, he recently introduced Christianity to his own game world- and I certainly won't go into details there, but with probably every player in the group having a firm enough background in the theology of Christianity (mostly in popular scripture I guess), walking around with an imaginary Holy Bible is actually pretty interesting in a game world dominated by otherwise completely different, but in a way similar, religions and cults. (After all in the game world, we're turning into a small cult of Christians on the plane of existence we're playing in...which is a shift in how Religion is typically handled in my D&D experience, that's for sure.)

Now, I'm already sorry for going off on a tangent as you asked for just the facts. So if anyone wants to just ignore my comments, that's fine. I did my best to avoid value judgement, I'll probably just cut a bunch of the more direct game related stuff out and just start the D&D PC/NPC Religion discussion, where actual flaming would probably occur irregardless of cooler heads.

But yeah, hadn't really thought about Religion and D&D apart from the whole "controversy" angle, never thought to ask anyone I've played with what their religious beliefs were. And it isn't like those don't matter...it's just that I never thought to make any mention of it during play. Sure, I know/knew a lot of the people I played with well enough to either have a general idea or a really good one- a lot have been Christian of some denomination, but most were also atheist or just "other," but yeah- never thought to ask really or be concerned about such matters.

I even run my game on Sunday, I do have ONE player that I know is Catholic, as he goes, or at least used to go, to mass...so with the store we game at opening at noon and us (rarely) starting at 1, there's actually plenty of time for Sunday timed religious activity before and after the session with most games ending by 5, and other days aren't really conflicting either- though I guess religious obligations aren't so geared towards scheduling in my groups as much as they could be. (though I'm sure we've had players cancel or delay sessions on at least 3 occasions due to outside conflicts involving church and whatnot- I just didn't about it much since High School at least.)

But yeah Numbers- projected figures. >/=5-8 Atheist/Agnostic (NOT the same, but this is a projection) >/=3-6 Christian (not really denominational, but I'll bet 3 or so have been Protestant of some type, I know my first DM was- or catholic, in retrospect I have no clue.), >/=2-3 Catholics that I've actually played with, though one wasn't there but one game. >/=5-7 Other/totally unknown.

But that's like a rough estimate- not counting heads really- of ALL the players I've gamed with and MY assumptions/observations or actual knowledge of their affiliations.

Generally, as with most life type things actually, my players and fellow players don't bring much outside of basic day to day chatter to the gaming table that concerns work, school and other overt scheduling/stress issues.

I don't think it matters to most D&D people I know what religion you are, or much of anything else personal, as long as you bring your enthusiasm for the game to the table.

The only obvious minority in the groups I've played in are girls! ;)
(I've gamed with 6 all time though, so no that bad largest ratio was 3 to 2 in the group I just started male to female- which is probably closer demographically to a lot of groups running these days than 5:0 male:female.)


Lilith wrote:
I can't speak for the rest of my gaming group, but religion has always been to me a deeply personal experience that can't really be taught or shared. I would have to say I'm more "spiritual" than "religious."

In retrospect, I'd have rather bowed out to Lilith's comments, but you asked so I answered to the best of my knowledge.

I would also consider myself more "spiritual" than "religious."

Again, not pressing any value statements as to that, as I respect religious beliefs and spiritual beliefs...

I mean, how can I NOT? Hello, Cultural Anthropologist? even if I choose not to be all about Cultural Relativism, I still have to buy into it a little for my understanding of Anthropology, Culture, Humanity, Religions, Spirituality and my OWN spiritual beliefs and/or feelings.

Essentially, I'll over-analyze everything and duck and dodge anything other than an assertion of my opinion on occasion as to a possible way of understanding my perspective or other perspectives rather than put forth any value statements or judgments. "Right" or "Wrong" as far as personal beliefs go is pretty much as personal as you can get.

Liberty's Edge

Sebastian wrote:
Heathansson wrote:


You're right. I'll just go eat some spaghetti and take communion to atone for the sins of hypocrisy and hubris; I really should have helped you out against the backpedalling apologist who had you on the ropes there.
Damn Heathy, did an atheist kill your dog? You've been nipping at me the whole thread, posting with an uncharacteristic lack of good humor, asking provocative questions and delting them. I'm not even turned up to my Takasi level of antagonism, and I certainly haven't even brought my A-game in terms of offensive atheism, so I'm mystified as to why your panties are in such a knot.

I don't know. I'm probably more disturbed by it than you are.

I think I'll shut up about it now, and amend my rule as follows:
"Heathy, never discuss religion or atheism on a day that ends with a y" in respect for those who believe or have come to the conclusion that atheism neither is nor could possibly be transformed into a religion.
I also had a really bizarre week of dodging bullets that, though figurative, nonetheless carried a vicious bite. I should prolly take Steve Greer's advice on "days not to post" under consideration.

Silver Crusade

I am a Unitarian Universalist (although that's a somewhat recent development).

For my personal beliefs, I think that every religion has something valuable to teach us. And I figure that if I had all the answers to life's mysteries, there would be no point to live anymore. Life is about searching for answers, not having them.


Sebastian wrote:
Damn Heathy, did an atheist kill your dog? You've been nipping at me the whole thread, posting with an uncharacteristic lack of good humor, asking provocative questions and delting them. I'm not even turned up to my Takasi level of antagonism, and I certainly haven't even brought my A-game in terms of offensive atheism, so I'm mystified as to why your panties are in such a knot.

You know, Sebastian, before you get all up in Heath's grill, maybe take a look at your own blanket statements - in this thread, you've been pretty judgmental of agnostics, made statements that pagans might be offended by, and jokes that could be construed badly. And good grief, no one has attacked atheism, but you've gotten all snippy yourself over it. Calm the freak down. Yeesh.

Liberty's Edge

Laeknir wrote:
Sebastian wrote:
Damn Heathy, did an atheist kill your dog? You've been nipping at me the whole thread, posting with an uncharacteristic lack of good humor, asking provocative questions and delting them. I'm not even turned up to my Takasi level of antagonism, and I certainly haven't even brought my A-game in terms of offensive atheism, so I'm mystified as to why your panties are in such a knot.
You know, Sebastian, before you get all up in Heath's grill, maybe take a look at your own blanket statements - in this thread, you've been pretty judgmental of agnostics, made statements that pagans might be offended by, and jokes that could be construed badly. And good grief, no one has attacked atheism, but you've gotten all snippy yourself over it. Calm the freak down. Yeesh.

It's all good, bro. I love Sebastian; he doesn't play around; he's blunt but honest. I just want it to be squashed, and I'm backing out of it all before I get to be too assinine and end up with a reminder from the postmonster or some such thing.


I love Sebastian too (you know, in that platonic "love all God's children" way*). And I usually like his posts. But seriously... calming down would be a good thing. And fewer blanket / snotty statements about what he doesn't believe. Just don't go to the dark place, it's all good y'know?

*and yes, that was meant to be humorous. ;)


Fatespinner wrote:
erian_7 wrote:
Oddly, I've never met a gamer from any of the other "major" wide-spread world religions (Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism) of which I'm aware.
I used to play with a Buddhist couple a few years ago, so they're out there... just hard to find. Then again, Buddhists in general are a rare find in America.

I myself am Zen Buddhist. Just not a very good one.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Heathansson wrote:


I don't know. I'm probably more disturbed by it than you are.
I think I'll shut up about it now, and amend my rule as follows:
"Heathy, never discuss religion or atheism on a day that ends with a y" in respect for those who believe or have come to the conclusion that atheism neither is nor could possibly be transformed into a religion.
I also had a really bizarre week of dodging bullets that, though figurative, nonetheless carried a vicious bite. I should prolly take Steve Greer's advice on "days not to post" under consideration.

Sorry to have contributed to riling you up old dog. I tried dodging the whole is atheism a religion question when it first got raised because I realize it's as much one of my red flags as it is for other people. Out of curiosity, if you're up for responding, is your position that atheism is always a religion or that atheism can be a religion when it has a utopian end goal? I can agree with the later, or agree to disagree on the former.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Laeknir wrote:


You know, Sebastian, before you get all up in Heath's grill, maybe take a look at your own blanket statements - in this thread, you've been pretty judgmental of agnostics, made statements that pagans might be offended by, and jokes that could be construed badly. And good grief, no one has attacked atheism, but you've gotten all snippy yourself over it. Calm the freak down. Yeesh.

Yeah, but I'm always an a~&#~~!. Heathy on the other hand is a good guy.

And like I said, this isn't my A game of offensive atheism, this is my restrained try not to piss people off game.

Agnostics and atheists are basically cut from the same cloth. It bugs me that they don't stand up and admit to atheism, it bugs them that I don't admit I lack the ability to absolutely determine the exsitence of dieties but act as if I do. My personal experience as an agnostic is that I said that to stave off hostility from religious types and to acknowledge the limits of human capacity. I picked up the atheism label when I realized that it better described my belief system because, regardless of whether a divine being does exist, I sure as hell don't think it's found in any particular existing dogmatic religion. Since that's the essence of atheism to me, a rejection of deism as it most commonly manifests, that's when I picked up the title.

I'm baffled at the offending pagans thing. Was it the comment about spirituality? I'm one of those bad old atheists with a chip on my shoulder against Christianity (Jesus killed my dog). Pagans, as far as I know, don't have much of a dogma, rarely try and force belief-based subject matter down school children's throats, and generally leave me the hell alone. All in all, they're what I like to see in a religion.


Sebastian wrote:
Yeah, but I'm always an a*@%#&#.

Not usually, at least in my experience. I guess I was partly surprised by your, uh... zeal in this particular thread.

Sebastian wrote:
...Agnostics and atheists are basically cut from the same cloth. It bugs me that they don't stand up and admit to atheism, it bugs them that I don't admit I lack the ability to absolutely determine the exsitence of dieties but act as if I do. My personal experience as an agnostic is that I said that to stave off hostility from religious types and to acknowledge the limits of human capacity.

I understand your view, but you shouldn't really assume that all or even most agnostics are the same in this regard. Maybe some agnostics say they are such because they are being PC, but many agnostics I know have genuinely given their stance a great deal of thought.

Sebastian wrote:
...I'm baffled at the offending pagans thing. Was it the comment about spirituality? I'm one of those bad old atheists with a chip on my shoulder against Christianity (Jesus killed my dog). Pagans, as far as I know, don't have much of a dogma, rarely try and force belief-based subject matter down school children's throats, and generally leave me the hell alone. All in all, they're what I like to see in a religion.

Well, your thing about spirituality was fairly insulting, yes, particularly because many pagans (in this technologically advanced information age) don't call themselves pagans so much as spiritual people. But in one of your first posts, you also said something along the lines of "all people are atheists about Thor and Apollo", which is a dig against pagans who literally believe in those deities.

All I'm saying... if you've got an issue with literally believing in any deity, that's fine. Just don't make huge leaps about what other people believe, or blanket statements that are insulting. You don't like it when people do the same to atheism, and frankly there's no reason to start a fight here. Many people with faith have a simple, straightforward faith, others have spent years researching and engaging in philosophical discussions to help them analyze their faith. Neither type should be hand-waved away in an insulting manner, because of one person's conclusions about deity.


Our regular group consists of one ex-catholic and one never-religious atheist, one non-denominational atheist Buddhist, and two undeclared.

Aside from checking no-one was going to be p'd off by my satirically pseudo-Medieval-Catholic state religion in my game world, we've never discussed religion.


Altair Vex wrote:
Aside from checking no-one was going to be p'd off by my satirically pseudo-Medieval-Catholic state religion in my game world, we've never discussed religion.

You are wise!


Quick question, what is the diff between atheist and agnostics? I didn't know their was a very wide gap.

The last time I was in a religious debate. I went in claiming to be an atheist. Then some lady asked me to prove god did not exist and I told her that it was impossible, as is proving his/her/it's existance.

She then told me I was an agnostic, not an atheist. So I said O.K. and that is what I've considered myself since. So, what the hell am I? I'm definitely not trying to be PC. Not that I fully understand how claiming agnostisism is PC over atheism if anyone would elaborate on that.

Grand Lodge

I've always gone with the idea that an atheist is convinced that there are no divine beings, while an agnostic accepts that there might be, but doesn't care. There's probably more to it than that, but it is a starting point...

Liberty's Edge

Sebastian wrote:
Heathansson wrote:


I don't know. I'm probably more disturbed by it than you are.
I think I'll shut up about it now, and amend my rule as follows:
"Heathy, never discuss religion or atheism on a day that ends with a y" in respect for those who believe or have come to the conclusion that atheism neither is nor could possibly be transformed into a religion.
I also had a really bizarre week of dodging bullets that, though figurative, nonetheless carried a vicious bite. I should prolly take Steve Greer's advice on "days not to post" under consideration.
Sorry to have contributed to riling you up old dog. I tried dodging the whole is atheism a religion question when it first got raised because I realize it's as much one of my red flags as it is for other people. Out of curiosity, if you're up for responding, is your position that atheism is always a religion or that atheism can be a religion when it has a utopian end goal? I can agree with the later, or agree to disagree on the former.

No, I don't believe that atheism is always a religion. I think the speed of light is always the speed of light; I'm not the greatest expert on physics but I think Milton Friedman said there's only two sure things in life: death and taxes.

I don't even think that in most cases it is a religion.
I do, however, believe that it can be the basis of a religion, just as any noun can, from socialism to a Coca Cola bottle; just ascribe the "noun" with supernatural powers and whammo! Religion.
I've also thought about everything some more, and I guess being Atheist entails, like Jade said, a certain knee jerk reaction from certain people. Not being one of those personally, and in fact often coming into conflict with those, I guess I tend to forget about them pretty easily.
Heathy: "so what are you?"
Coworker: "Atheist."
Heathy: "oh. When's lunch?"


In response to Sexi:

Can't prove a negative. The question itself is an infinity loop. It's like saying, "Prove that pure water isn't harmful to your health." You may be sure that it isn't, but now prove it. An atheist is not required to, and technically can never actually disprove the existence of God.

Random thoughts:

For every story I hear about someone who has killed in the name of God, I can think of scores of gentle souls who made it through darkest times because of their belief. I don't see why belief and disbelief have to battle each other.

And perhaps keep a good thought for the touchy atheist, because he or she may have suffered some indoctrination gone wrong at seminary or been preached to in a public stall... you never know. I've had people come up from out of nowhere on an isolated bike path or near empty train and ask me, serious as all get out, if I've been saved or if I take Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. The hubris involved in thinking that someone who doesn't think the way you think is destined for hellfire is just beyond me.

Back to Sexi:

Agnostics question the existence of God.

Atheists don't believe in God.

Arthritics hurt more when it rains.

I'm not even spiritual, I'm just honorable, ethical, and good humored and that's going to have to be good enough for those who know me.


I don't get it: does this issue really affects RPG at all? I mean, they're are just imaginary gods... Actually, I remembered now that 2 of my plaers(who were lutherans maybe) didn't want to pick a god. How weird. I'd call them stupid if they weren't my friends. It's just a game, God won't get mad at you if you pretend to like Gruumsh for 3 hours(maybe He will, considering that is Grumsh, longlive the elves!!)


HELLFINGER wrote:
I don't get it: does this issue really affects RPG at all? I mean, they're are just imaginary gods... Actually, I remembered now that 2 of my plaers(who were lutherans maybe) didn't want to pick a god. How weird. I'd call them stupid if they weren't my friends. It's just a game, God won't get mad at you if you pretend to like Gruumsh for 3 hours(maybe He will, considering that is Grumsh, longlive the elves!!)

Easy enough to create a monotheism to suit them, if you wanted to make the extra effort. I've DMed devout players who wanted crosses on their shields. It's all role play... it's all good. But different people have different lengths of leash they allow themselves when role playing. Some hold very close and tight to their real world identity, while others are willing to play anything, whether or not they agree with the alignment, habits, sexial orientation, political or religious belief... anything.


Sexi Golem wrote:

Quick question, what is the diff between atheist and agnostics? I didn't know their was a very wide gap.

OK, here are some quick definitions of the various theisms, in a rough order of most commonly to least commonly encountered. These defintions are based on years of studying philosophy and discussing the issue with various members of these groups, so make of that what you will.

A Theist: Believes in the existence of God(s), whether it is Jehovah on his white cloud, Thor, or even the universe as a whole deified (pantheism). They generally think God(s) can be known through faith, scripture, personal experience, or some other way. They usually think these beings have some impact on the universe, otherwise they may as well be an:

Agnostic: A person who has decided that it is impossible to know whether or not God(s) exist and whether certain phenomena are the result of God(s) interference in the universe or not. Agnostics can be religious or not. You may think it's impossible to know if God(s) exist so it's better to act as if they do, and some religious people fall into this category.

An Atheist has decided that God(s) do not exist, and that any phenomena that could be interpreted as being supernatural are in fact natural. Atheists tend to believe that the lack of proof for the existence of something is sufficient for someone to decide that it doesn't exist and behave accordingly. They will usually (though not always) admit that anything's possible, but the chances of God(s) existing are so remote that one is justified in treating them as zero.

A Non-Theist: Is a person who has decided that speculations on the existence of God(s) or the afterlife are irrelevant and probably detrimental to one's life, and refuses to even engage the question.

So,
Theist: He's real.
Agnostic: I don't feel confident in saying one way or the other.
Atheist: He's not real.
Non-Theist: Who cares?

EDIT: Damn, Jade you beat me to it!


kahoolin wrote:

EDIT: Damn, Jade you beat me to it!

Naw... yours was more explanatory and more fun to read.


Oh okay.

Thanks guys. Now I can with confidance claim to be an atheist.

Come to think of it now that I see the definition of an Agnostic it makes more sense why Sister Valentina would have prefered it for me.

Huh, perfect hindsight and all that......


Just the facts?
Practising Catholic...in fact, I was ALWAYS a Catholic, despite the fact that I THOUGHT I spent my Twenties as a hedonistic athiest. In hindsight, that was me pretending.
For the record though I actually take the absolute lack of evidence of God's existence as proof positive that God exists. After all if you are the omnipresent and omnipident Creator, then you're not going to be leaving clues lying around like some CSI villian, are you?
What's really funny though is how people react when they find out you're religious. I get such a laugh out of people I'd laughed along with a few days before, stop and consider what they want to say because they don't know what to say NOW they know i'm all "holy"...luckily I know some good Jesus and Pope jokes to lighten the mood.


Sexi Golem wrote:
I typically introduce myself as either a "heathen" or "self damned". Just cause they make for better conversation. I love arguing about religious beliefs with those that worship, and stirring up those who do not, but thats because I like to debate things. And the easiest way to find the dunces from a flock of believers or non belivers is to throw up a firery religious point then step back and watch the fun.

Usually I just hand out the calling card I had made up introducing myself as the God of Slaughter.

Everybody gets really quiet for a time after that.


bal3000 wrote:

Just the facts?

Practising Catholic...in fact, I was ALWAYS a Catholic, despite the fact that I THOUGHT I spent my Twenties as a hedonistic athiest. In hindsight, that was me pretending.
For the record though I actually take the absolute lack of evidence of God's existence as proof positive that God exists. After all if you are the omnipresent and omnipident Creator, then you're not going to be leaving clues lying around like some CSI villian, are you?
What's really funny though is how people react when they find out you're religious. I get such a laugh out of people I'd laughed along with a few days before, stop and consider what they want to say because they don't know what to say NOW they know i'm all "holy"...luckily I know some good Jesus and Pope jokes to lighten the mood.

I feel very much like bal3000. Though I am a Protestant not a Catholic.

I think its sad and funny how certain vocal segments in Western society go out of their way to mock faith.

But I also think its tragic how certain subsets of the faithful (all religions) stigmatize and persecute certain subcultures.

Personally I draw strength from my faith, and I value the time I spend praying with my children. I also think that there are churches that do a lot of really good positive work helping the members of their congregation grow personally, teach their children, and add benefit to their communities. My mother has a church like that in her community - I don't and its one of the things I miss about where I live.

I don't evangalize - I try to live a good life, that example is the only missionary work I do. If people ask questions about my faith or its role in my life I answer them. Surprisingly - there are a lot of people who do.


kahoolin wrote:


OK, here are some quick definitions...

Excellent summary.


Wow talk about a touchy topic, I must applaud all for the civility shown regarding such a sensitive (to some) issue.

This particular question was a big NoNo for my group before last. Having immigrated from a country torn appart by sectarian war, in a region engulfed in religious conflict, this was one topic that was off limits!
I seem to remember one guy mentioning it nonchalantly our first session, but 4 of the iciest stares and a quick intervention by the Dm saying it was not a question asked in civilized company quickly set a precedent. In 12 years of gaming with that group, no one EVER brought it up again. We talk about absolutely anything and everything but that.

Speaking for myslef, and thanks to the awsome definitions provided by my fellow paizoniand, I would have to say i'm a non-theist. It's not that I believe religion is bad per se (everyone is free to believe in whatever works for them), it's more an opposition to organized religion. I guess that's not too much of a surprise considering my background.

Carry on guys, and be safe all.


Hill Giant wrote:

...I believe in something greater than myself; I just don't have faith in it - I have empirical evidence.

What empirical evidence? All I have is raith and Possably a well developed "God-detector" in my brain.


Sebastian wrote:


Can you still enjoy a movie even though you know its not real?

I'm guessing as unreal as the "Divine Movie" may be, it is still interesting or why comment on it?

Sebastian wrote:


I'm a human, I'm subject to all the emotions as any other human, including faith, hope, love. I experience deja vu. I assemble coincidences and find patterns in life and am comforted by them.

It's just that at the end of the day, fidelity to reason denies me the ability to ascribe any of it to a diety,..

Reasonably you cannot prove or disprove any divinity, that is why beleivers use the "shield of faith" to protect thier beliefs. But at the end of the day, fidelity to my own (many times wrong) intuition denies me the ability to ascribe any of it to coincidence.

Sebastian wrote:


...and in particular, to a diety described in a book. The very thought that a being of infinite love and wisdom would limit access to itself by vesting its truth in a thing of wood and ink, something limited by language and geography, is offensive.

You have echoed my own argument against any organized religion espousing the mantra "We Are Right' or 'WAR' for short; and the rest of you infidels are going to hell." The wisdom of any divine being of infinite awareness,cannot be contained in one book or series of books or library of books. For any mortal to believe he understands the word of God is blasphemy to me. I can hear the voice but I don't understand what is being said.

Sebastian wrote:


Spirituality is a meaningless buzz word. I hesitate to say all, but damn near all, people that use the word spiritual do so in an apologetic way for not following the tenants of their (or any) religion in a stricter way. I don't go to church, but it's okay, because I'm "spiritual" or I pick and choose the elements I like from various traditions because I'm "spiritual." It's usually carried around in some compartive way, like being smarter or stronger than someone, and is used to justify feeling better about oneself. So no, I'm not particularly "spiritual."

I have to agree. Then again maybe they can't understand what thier internal God detector is sensing.

"All I know is that I know nothing and thats fine."- operation ivy

Thank you Mr. Sebastian


All four Athiests


Sir Kaikillah wrote:


You have echoed my own argument against any organized religion espousing the mantra "We Are Right' or 'WAR' for short; and the rest of you infidels are going to hell." The wisdom of any divine being of infinite awareness,cannot be contained in one book or series of books or library of books. For any mortal to believe he understands the word of God is blasphemy to me. I can hear the voice but I don't understand what is being said.

1. If you feel this way when people push their faith on you, do you also feel this way about those who push their lack of faith in the same way?

2. Why would it be impossible for a being of infinite awareness to impart wisdom in a book?

I'm just curious, as I too also don't believe all the wisdom of the divine is in one place, and no mortal could fathom it even if it was. But I don't see why at least some of that wisdom can't be passed down. But then again, I would be classified as a thiest or the more politcaly correct term of "person of faith".

Scarab Sages

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
I'm actually quite as baffled about those who have faith as those are, presumably, who are baffled by atheism. I respect people's beliefs (philosophy has taught me that, strictly speaking, my atheism is no more valid a belief system than any religion) but I just don't get it at all.

I really think that the answer to this is far simpler than you are making it out to be. Personally I think that people just want some kind of "point" to life. Many/most religions seem to define this point as some form of after-life along with quite a variety of ways to achieve this after-life. This is quite an over-simplification of it, but I really think that religion or at least the need for some kind of belief stems from this idea that people want there to be some "point" to their existence.

Given the simplified definitions of a few of the terms, I can understand Agnostics (don't know...) and "non-theist" (don't know, don't care...). What I don't understand is true Atheists. If there isn't any form of god or after-life, then there really isn't any "point" to our existence. If you take this logic to its conclusion, the "point" seems to be "to get as much out of this life as possible because it could be all over at any time." There also isn't any real incentive to be "good". It just seems to me that true Atheists should be very selfish and very self-centered. This is not the case, but I don't understand why.

As for our group -- 3 Christians, 2 Mormons, 1 Pagan, and 2 Non-Practicing Catholics.


Moff Rimmer wrote:


Given the simplified definitions of a few of the terms, I can understand Agnostics (don't know...) and "non-theist" (don't know, don't care...). What I don't understand is true Atheists. If there isn't any form of god or after-life, then there really isn't any "point" to our existence. If you take this logic to its conclusion, the "point" seems to be "to get as much out of this life as possible because it could be all over at any time." There also isn't any real incentive to be "good". It just seems to me that true Atheists should be very selfish and very self-centered. This is not the case, but I don't understand why.

An atheist does not need a reason to be "good" other than his own set of moral values. Many who follow religious principles for fear of divine punishment are really acting out of fear, not on the basis of their own judgements.

I do agree that life has no intrinsic point. It is up to us to give meaning to our lives.

Isn't D&D enough for you?!

Scarab Sages

Bill Lumberg wrote:
Isn't D&D enough for you?!

Nearly... ;)

The Exchange

Sir Kaikillah wrote:

I must be someone who has a well developed God detector because I see God everywhere. WHat about faith? Do you as an athiest have any faith? How do you as an athiest define the word faith? As an athiest with out a believe in a god or gods or divinity, are you still spiritual? Or is our lives just some random chemical, physical reaction started by something like the big bang?

I know this off the main subject. BUt what are these message boards for but sharing ideas. I am just so curious.

I have "faith" in the philosophical sense that God doesn't exist, which I can prove not more than you can prove that he does. On a practical level, though, I don't believe in the existence of a benevolent force, entity or whatever in the universe. I believe in scientific principles in terms of what created and regulates the current universe.

The Bible seems to me to be such a poor description of the current universe that its validity is highly questionable. When you take into account the seeming agenda of the Old Testament (a statement of "Jewishness" following the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon around 200BC, and a compilation of a series of pre-existing stories and homiles, doubtless agreed by committee) and the New Testament (the promulgation of St Paul's vision of a universal Christian faith for gentiles, informed by elements of existing pagan faiths and Greek philosophy, which probably has little to do with what Jesus, probably an anti-Roman agitator and Jewish nationalist, was actually talking about; overlaid with the heavy hand of the later Roman archbishops about which gospels were "in" and which were "out", decided at a conference) it seems a pretty baseless thing to establish your world view upon. I can't comment on any other texts, as I am unfamiliar with them, but I am pretty confident, to satisfy myself at an intellectual level, that at least one of the major world faiths is bogus. (I am aware that these comments will be contentious for many. I am not trying to offend, but these are my opinions.)

But what does it "feel like" to be an atheist? Well, I just don't understand spirituality. What is it like to feel spiritual - I simply can't tell you, I've never experienced it. And I can't say it feels like a hole in my psyche. I'm pretty comfortable with my belief system, it works better for me on an emotional level as well as intellectual (and this is probably also a key point). I don't like the idea of a judgemental God, I don't like the idea of heaven and hell. I'm pretty relaxed that when I die, that's it for me, my personality and whatever. I frankly think that sitting on a cloud singing "Holy, holy holy," all day sounds unbearably dull, and an eternity in damnation, possibly on a technicality, offends my sense of fair play. Being utterly extinguished sounds preferable.

The Exchange

Moff Rimmer wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
I'm actually quite as baffled about those who have faith as those are, presumably, who are baffled by atheism. I respect people's beliefs (philosophy has taught me that, strictly speaking, my atheism is no more valid a belief system than any religion) but I just don't get it at all.

I really think that the answer to this is far simpler than you are making it out to be. Personally I think that people just want some kind of "point" to life. Many/most religions seem to define this point as some form of after-life along with quite a variety of ways to achieve this after-life. This is quite an over-simplification of it, but I really think that religion or at least the need for some kind of belief stems from this idea that people want there to be some "point" to their existence.

Given the simplified definitions of a few of the terms, I can understand Agnostics (don't know...) and "non-theist" (don't know, don't care...). What I don't understand is true Atheists. If there isn't any form of god or after-life, then there really isn't any "point" to our existence. If you take this logic to its conclusion, the "point" seems to be "to get as much out of this life as possible because it could be all over at any time." There also isn't any real incentive to be "good". It just seems to me that true Atheists should be very selfish and very self-centered. This is not the case, but I don't understand why.

As for our group -- 3 Christians, 2 Mormons, 1 Pagan, and 2 Non-Practicing Catholics.

What's the point? I think Bill puts it well, but basically - it is up to you. Yes, you have only one shot, but that doesn't mean you have to go around treating people like s!@*. Personally, like most people, I like to be liked. So I'm nice to people. It probably isn't much more profound than that.

Silver Crusade

Moff Rimmer wrote:
What I don't understand is true Atheists. If there isn't any form of god or after-life, then there really isn't any "point" to our existence. If you take this logic to its conclusion, the "point" seems to be "to get as much out of this life as possible because it could be all over at any time." There also isn't any real incentive to be "good". It just seems to me that true Atheists should be very selfish and very self-centered. This is not the case, but I don't understand why.

While I'm really an agnostic, I feel like the answer to this question could be the same (although obviously I speak only for myself).

If one's faith is not concerned with the afterlife, then all that remains is to make life on Earth the best it can possibly be for all people. In essence, we make our own Heaven, and we do it here, because that's all we really have control over. We're all in this together, after all. That, in effect, becomes its own "point" to existence.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Moff Rimmer wrote:


Given the simplified definitions of a few of the terms, I can understand Agnostics (don't know...) and "non-theist" (don't know, don't care...). What I don't understand is true Atheists. If there isn't any form of god or after-life, then there really isn't any "point" to our existence. If you take this logic to its conclusion, the "point" seems to be "to get as much out of this life as possible because it could be all over at any time." There also isn't any real incentive to be "good". It just seems to me that true Atheists should be very selfish and very self-centered. This is not the case, but I don't understand why.

Do people eat only the most nutritional food, exercise daily, drive at or near the speed limit, not smoke, drink, or engage in other risky behavior? Because logically, everyone knows that all these things are the best ways to maximize your lifespan, increase your enjoyment of life, and maintain your good health. That's the fundamental answer: even assuming that the only goal outside of living a proper life is utility maximization in a narrow animal-pleasure defined way, that doesn't mean that a person lives such a lifestyle.

But beyond that, the assumption that the only means of achieving the goal of utilitiy maximization outside of divine reward is short-term animal-pleasure seeking is incorrect. Humans are hard wired to engage in social behavior, eat food when it is available, and otherwise obey certain survival instincts. Bonding and cooperating with other humans is a necessary instinct given that we are pack animals. Most people need love, companionship, and a place in the pack to be happy. Thus, even if your goal is maximizing pleasure, the need for compaionship and meaningful relationships requires that you (a) think of others and (b) have a sufficiently developed sense of integrity and honesty to be capable of engaging in such relationships.

As much as I'm an atheist, I think religion can be a very functional trait. It allows for an extended pack by creating a set of background assumptions that inspire trust among those sharing such assumptions. To me, religion is the pack instinct taken to the abstract. It allows humans to cooperate on a much larger scale than they might in its absence.

But, ultimately, I view it as an instinct, the same as the instinct that drives many people to obesity. It can be functional by allowing a person to belong to a larger religious pack and receive the benefits of membership or it can be used to suppress and control others outside the religious pack. Similarly, a person can choose to follow what their body tells them about their nutritional needs and consume a balanced diet, or a person can just eat the fattiest, highest calorie, sweetest foods to satisfy their animal hunger.

To me, atheism provides the best tool set to understanding and dealing with these instincts, including the negative instincts to dominate other packs. This is not to say that atheism cannot be subverted by such instincts, but it is a better starting point for analysis, testing, and improvement to say "I am hungry for apples because my body needs x, y, and z to form new cells, etc, etc" than to say "I am hungry of apples because they are part of my tradition and I have always eaten them this way."

The Exchange

I think Seb raises an interesting point aqbout the function of religion, though I think his analysis is incorrect. I think it operates on two levels. Firstly, in a pre-scientific culture, it helps explain the world. It may be wrong (in my view) but in those early cultures it serves a useful purpose in that respect.

However, the main role in a more modern society is to encourage conformist social behaviour. I personally think it is no coincidence that the basic message of most world religions I know about is "live a virtuous life, and WHEN YOU DIE (important point) everything will be great for you". This allows the state/rulership/whatever to co-opt religion to its own ends, as a means for controlling its citizens. It effectively offers a paradise post-mortem in exchange for unblinking obedience in life. The truth of the offer cannot be disproved, so it has power. When it appeared to offer broader solutions about life, the universe and everything, the whole package was pretty powerful. (I think it is no coincidence either that in societies where educational standards are high and free speech is allowed religious observance is lower, though there are cultural influences too.) Thus, religion can lead to very positive behaviour (very communitarian, good and selfless behaviour) and very negative (the Crusades, suicide bombings, even "just" prejudice, and so on). It encourages the believer to check their brain at the door and blindly follow, as it can promise anything - once you are dead.

This is of course not an original notion - Marx called religion "the opiate of the masses" in the 19th century. But that is the main societal problem with religion - it discourages free-thinking and blind obedience. Most of the time it doesn't matter, as most people are basically nice with or without religion. But in the hands of the unscrupulous (and let's face it, there are lots of nasty people "of faith" out there who use religion as a screen for their own ambition, as well very nice atheists) it is a dangerous tool. That is one of my main beefs with religion - it can be terribly misused.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:


However, the main role in a more modern society is to encourage conformist social behaviour. I personally think it is no coincidence that the basic message of most world religions I know about is "live a virtuous life, and WHEN YOU DIE (important point) everything will be great for you". This allows the state/rulership/whatever to co-opt religion to its own ends, as a means for controlling its citizens. It effectively offers a paradise post-mortem in exchange for unblinking obedience in life. The truth of the offer cannot be disproved, so it has power. When it appeared to offer broader solutions about life, the universe and everything, the whole package was pretty powerful. (I think it is no coincidence either that in societies where educational standards are high and free speech is allowed religious observance is lower, though there are cultural influences too.) Thus, religion can lead to very positive behaviour (very communitarian, good and selfless behaviour) and very negative (the Crusades, suicide bombings, even "just" prejudice, and so on). It encourages the believer to check their brain at the door and blindly follow, as it can promise anything - once you are dead.

That's what I thought I said. Religion allows for persons to act together in concert in greater numbers than would otherwise be possible in its absence. Conforming social behavior allows for cooperation and the sense that one is part of a larger pack that shares one's values. When the conforming behavior is functional (care for the sick, assist the less fortunate, encourage safe practices regarding procreation, etc) that's good. When the conforming behavior is otherwise (don't question the teachings of the pack, persecute those with different beliefs, etc) that's bad. But in either case, the ability to have a religious experience facilitates the bond with the larger pack.

So yes, I agree that religion is an instinctual tool to achieve conformity/cooperation, but I can't say that conformity/cooperation is a bad thing in and of itself.

101 to 150 of 241 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / Religious Demographics in D&D (no flames, please) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.