It might not even be an evil outsider group. Most deities are morally dubious, even the good ones. In Golarion, where you can get pissed drunk and go fumble around in a dungeon for a while and emerge a god, it's not really like being a deity means anything.
I'm not saying that the outsider group is evil because it dislikes deities, I was asking if there wasn't already an Evil Outsider group that follows the ideals I spoke about.
Having looked it up I think it was the Asura? Maybe not.
Furthermore Atheism is actually a very complicated belief system if you wish to deny all God-like entities.Not really. "I don't believe in god-like entities without plausible proof" isn't very complicated. In fact, neither is not believing in most any other supernatural thing that someone decides to attribute to anything.
Given that there is no tangible difference between belief in any deity and believing that Santa Clause brought those presents and not your mom, it's easy to see why many people simply don't.
Booo! These kind of weak statements make you a poor follower of Atheism. If there was a heaven, you wouldn't get in.
I require that my clerics deny ALL supernatural things. We can't leave any intellectual room for a religion. Especially since the mortals keep shifting around what it means to be a God.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's more of a rules precedent put in 3rd edition in a vain attempt to please Christian Fundamentalist mothers.. In actual game worlds like Greyhawk, Golarion,and the Realms, divine power still only is something granted by divine beings. And there certainly is no mandate from game related fiction.
1. The reason most D&D settings don't allow concept deities is because they were made in times when you couldn't have concept deities and some of the stories in those settings require for only worshipping certain things to provide magic.
2. The D&D setting that was actually released in 3rd edition (eberron), follows the conceptual deities thing completely, with people worshipping ancestors, people worshipping concepts, people worshipping outsiders, people worshipping a level 10 fighter (I think he was a fighter).3. By default druids and rangers in 3.5e and PF do not need to worship deities at all, and most I've seen got their powers from nature rather than worshipping a god. So many use conceptual divine magic.
4. Many people do not play in the premade settings and make our own, so many people do use the cleric as written rather than using things like the golarion houserules. I mean god, whoda thought that some people might prefer the rules to one persons houserules.
Whether it's a belief or not isn't really the issue. It's just a concept that gets rather sketchy when you ask questions like . "Who do you pray to in order to get spells each day?" What are you channeling the power of when you heal your comrades or scorch the undead?" And anyone who tries to bring up Thomas Covenant is going to get smacked with the Rolled Up Newspaper of Justice.It's always fun to see the lads and lasses rush out to claim, in rotation, the old trope of Atheism not being a belief.
There's already precedent for Clerics receiving power from certain ideals, the lack of belief in godhood may not itself grant the Cleric power, but perhaps the Cleric would be granted said power from other groups interested in arguing against the existence of gods?
Isn't there also an Evil outsider group who hold that the gods are either inferior to themselves or downright not actual gods? Wouldn't be too much of a stretch to argue a Cleric receiving powers from those groups.
It's more of a rules precedent put in 3rd edition in a vain attempt to please Christian Fundamentalist mothers.. In actual game worlds like Greyhawk, Golarion,and the Realms, divine power still only is something granted by divine beings. And there certainly is no mandate from game related fiction.
And I don't quite understand how to parse your second paragraph, so I can't reply to it.
Fundamentalists can be pleased? When did this happen? Maybe they just haven't figured out how to make it a sin yet.
Athiests, or rather, the athiests I know are generally talking about big g God when they say that they are certain that it doesn't exist.
As far as the op's question, I would think that Atheism is not an ideal or a god, which are the choices on offer regarding clerics.
Agnostics do not believe. Atheists believe in a negative statement.
People tend to use the same words to mean different things.
A moniker will not tell you what a person actually believes. But that doesn't stop amateur linguist from telling you that there is no such thing as atheist or agnostic, just agnostic atheists. They'll also provide a bunch of labels that only really apply to straw-men to reduce the word agnostic to a meaningless term.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Debating what Atheism means in the real world is a bit daft if you plan on fitting it into a fantasy roleplaying game. I agree with the posts that say in a Fantasy world Atheism can be whatever you want it to be. Before I go on, as a caveat, I post the link to the thread where James Jacobs makes it clear that the baseline of Golarion is that clerics must worship gods and by definition can't be atheists. That said I have had a few thoughts on the issue. That could be explored. James has expressly said this is something Paizo doesn't want to explore as religion is obviously a hot topic and as a publisher they don't want to go out of their way to offend. I probably aren't burdened with the same responsibilities...
There are a couple of key questions the of which is : what make a god a God? I would argue three things are required...
1. A portfolio - some fundamental concepts that they embody, death, fire, glory etc.
2. Followers - living souls who are attracted by the portfolio and are judged by Pharasma as true worshippers and therefore serve their god in the afterlife of the Gods realm.
3. A divine spark - inherited from parent god or granted by a patron god, stolen by killing another god, or by the Startstone etc.
It is these things that separate gods from 'powerful outsiders' as some people on thread have suggested. Based on this I have two suggested methods for playing an Atheist Cleric.
The first is the 'Trickter God' method. This is based on a chaos god in Warhammmer Fanatasy Roleplay called Necoho the Doubter. The second is the true Atheist god.
Necoho's Chaotic nature manifests itself in a contradiction which should logically make his existence impossible. He is a deity who stands against the whole idea of gods and religion. Needless to say, this means that his following is extremely small, even for an obscure Renegade Chaos God, and his name is only found in the oldest and most obscure of forbidden tomes. No doubt, this is the way Necoho likes it. As might be expected, Necoho almost never manifests himself in the physical world; if he does so he will take the form of a short plump old human man, with a permanent expression of ironic amusement.
Necoho has no known symbol. As far as is known, Bolgasgrad, a town in Kislev, is the only place in the Old World where Necoho is worshipped. Certainly it seems (from what little is known) that Necoho is as opposed to the idea of temples as he is to the idea of deities.
Necoho is generally opposed to all other cults of all kinds, although it is suspected that from time to time he may help one cult or hinder another if doing so would undermine the cult's credibility or status among its mortal followers. Taken from Lexicanum
* * *
The idea of this kind of divine patron, is that it is a god of tricksters, paradox, chaos, entropy or the void. Maybe he is the god of irony? It is quite possible that a rebel god could derive power by either diminishing the followers of other gods, or perhaps he steals the souls of those judged by Pharasma as following no one. We know that atheists are NOT burried in the boneyard - where do they go? Paizo specifically leaves these mysteries as they quite rightly don't want to offend a real world group. Domains for a Necoho type god could be Chaos/Entropy, Void, Trickery, Magic etc. Aligment could be any, but there would probably lean towards chaos. undoing/dispelling clerical magic, disproving magic hoaxes, debunking superstitions etc could all be useful.
However a key question would be, is the cleric in on the secret? Are they willingly trying to dupe others by playing the atheist or have they been tricked by the god? This would effect strictures and goals etc. Also what magic could be reasonably used. Spell selection would have to be careful to makes sure it was creating spells that undid divine works - the justificatin by the 'cleric' for the source of this power would be either the fundamental nature of the universe, the power of his disbelief, or the divinity of man. Ultimately this method acknowledges that their can be no divine magic without gods and either the atheist cleric is in on this or he isn't.
The second option is a bit more complicated and under the existing baseline that Clerics must worship a god and Oracles follow ideas it can't exist. However if you want to give it a go in your campaign, this is the proposal...
If clerics can worship ideas or fundamental forces, and these forces are the same ones the gods represent (hope, life, death etc) then why do mortals need to go through gods? In this world it is more than possible to argue that the Gods of Golarion are parasites assuming propriety rights over forces by dint of their personal strength. Medlars in the world of mortals and inherently not better than them. This works particularly well if the pantheon is like the Greek Gods, or Forgotten realms deities - squabling and fighting and all to fallible. Gods claim to have a divine spark but cannot prove it exists. The gods make mistakes and fail in their schemes and humans suffer while they do what they want for their own ends. Some gods are definitely fake - Razmiran for example - and if this could be proved it would undermine the credibility of all gods.
If you allow clerics to worship ideals or fundamental forces then any of these could be the foundation for an atheist religion. The cleric/oracle of life that believes life and death is a fundamental force and the so called gods Pharasma et al interfere with the natural process of reincarnation and rebirth. This cleric may genuinely encourage people to abandon the false gods to return to the true cycle. Freeing mortals from the shackles of an unending afterlife of servitude. This character would surely be seen as the worst kind of heretic by the other religions. This becomes even more interesting if the atheist cleric is somewhat successful in their mission but realises later that the souls are not being reincarneted and are instead meeting some other fate... dun dun daaaahhhh!
Anyway just a bit of food for though for those interested in exploring this idea in campaign.
1. The reason most D&D settings don't allow concept deities is because they were made in times when you couldn't have concept deities and some of the stories in those settings require for only worshipping certain things to provide magic.
Not to dispute your essential point of the origins - but later on the 3.5 Elder Evils book extended following ideals to all D&D settings. Tenuously. The story of Sertrous is a really interesting one - a snake demon telling the secret that no God wants us to know.
Also in the 2nd ed Planescape setting explored this explicity in several factions - the Godsmen, the Sign of One, the Dustmen, and the Athar. Planescape was the 2nd ed cosmology for the majority of 2nd ed settings before the new cosmology was released in 3rd ed.
Atheists DO NOT BELIEVE. There is a fundamental different between believing in a lack of something and not believing in the existence of something.Agnostics do not believe. Atheists believe in a negative statement.
As a tl;dr summary of what the words are commonly understood to mean:
Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). Many atheists also believe that there are no god(s); this is sometimes referred to as "positive atheism" or "strong atheism".Agnosticism is used in two concepts: Either to refer to (a) people who "neither believe or not believe" (a concept I personally cannot get my head around), or to (b) people who say that we cannot know for sure whether or not gods exist.
When used as (a), agnostics and atheists become kinda overlapping. When used as (b) (which seems more common when discussing religion), it's more of a different axis and coexists with atheism/theism; atheism/theism is one's stance on belief, while agnosticism is a stance on the possibility to know. When talking about it that way, I'm an agnostic atheist, as I don't have any faith in any gods, but I think that we cannot really have any idea (which is why I find it pointless to have faith). Others can be agnostic theists, like those who find Pascal's Wager a reasonable line of thought.
Not to dispute your essential point of the origins - but later on the 3.5 Elder Evils book extended following ideals to all D&D settings. Tenuously. The story of Sertrous is a really interesting one. Also the Planescape setting explored this explicity in several factions - the Godsmen, the Sign of One, the Dustmen, and the Athar.
I think Elder Evils is technically Greyhawk rather than all D&D settings, since that is the default setting for 3.5e material.
Just checked my copy and it does have the passage on Sertrous for the Forgotten realms. That said I did write "tenuous" because I inherently distrust any product designed to destroy player's 3rd ed settings in preparation for the new edition. Lol
I highly recommend folks who are having difficulty parsing the linguistic gymnastics of *belief* as it relates to atheism and agnosticism ... try to first get a base foundation of how epistemology works.
The most comprehensive yet easily-digestable online reference I've seen that helps people understand these challenging issues is on the Iron Chariots Wiki. Google to get their Atheist vs. Agnostic page link.
I highly recommend folks who are having difficulty parsing the linguistic gymnastics of *belief* as it relates to atheism and agnosticism ... try to first get a base foundation of how epistemology works.
The most comprehensive yet easily-digestable online reference I've seen that helps people understand these challenging issues is on the Iron Chariots Wiki. Google to get their Atheist vs. Agnostic page link.
Claiming objective word meanings is silly. The best that can be achieved is consensus. Thankfully the all-powerful Google can provide that.
ag·nos·tic:
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
a·the·ist:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Obviously you can use these words and mean something else, but this is the definition google provides and is a definition most people have easy access to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is a true statement? One worth believing (there's that word again, it seems to have several different meanings) is true?
Well, first and foremost, there would have to be something supporting that statement. Some REASON to believe the statement. Someone telling you it's true is not in itself a good enough reason. There may be thousands of reasons they would want to lie to you, and thousands more why they may not know.
As an atheist, I say with no doubt or uncertainty that I have no reason to take the statement "Gods exist" as any sort of a true statement. In short, I have found not one single reason for believing it to be a true statement.
What sort of arguments exist FOR it? Not many.
First, anything like "I have heard the voice of God myself" and anything derived from that ("I know a friend who has told me he heard the voice of God", "I heard the voice of God and this book is what he said" etc). This fails because in all honesty, people believe all sorts of things because they want to, because they have been taught to, or because they gain something from it.
Second, the existence of God should have any sort of appreciable effect on the world. Acts of God. Miracles. Water to wine. Dead coming back to life. The stuff described in the Bible/whatever is propaganda, and further, propaganda molded after piles of very similar propaganda for other religions. Jesus was not the first to walk on water. Nor was he the first to be born from a virgin. Religious people keep claiming that their prayers gets them boons from God. Fine. But even the most holy of healing springs have not managed to cure cancer even in the most devout of followers (allowing for a tiny percentage of erroneous diagnoses), and the total effect of this is far too marginal to be significant.
Third, and this isn't really an argument, just an observation. The religious structures we see today are hugely influential, wealthy and powerful. This means that believers have a MASSIVE incentive to congregate, even beyond their faith. The biggest gain they get is the right not to have their religious tenets questioned, no matter how vile, repulsive, senseless, violent or macabre they are. If someone does, see, the usual response is public condemnation and, sadly, too often violence. If someone in their organization were to mess the doubter up seriously, the leadership MIGHT have to throw the someone under the bus, but either way, the doubter got what they had coming.
All of the above makes me completely and utterly certain that Gods as described in the various religious texts do not exist. And here's the point: I don't call myself an atheist BECAUSE I am certain there are no Gods. I do so because I have yet to see ONE SINGLE REASON to believe they exist. I don't have to prove a negative. Religious people are the ones with the burden of proof - and a rather massive one at that.
Should evidence of a God's existence come up, I am quite willing to reevaluate my stance. If I heard the voice of God, though, I would personally go seek psychiatric help, or if I could not, I hope my close ones would take me there.
Claiming objective word meanings is silly. The best that can be achieved is consensus. Thankfully the all-powerful Google can provide that.
ag·nos·tic:
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.a·the·ist:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.Obviously you can use these words and mean something else, but this is the definition google provides and is a definition most people have easy access to.
Interesting. Please demonstrate where you see "objective word meanings" and how you interpret Matt Dillahunty's intent is to frame said words as inherently objective.
As for your claim that the best that can be achieved is consensus ... that's patently wrong. The best that can be achieved .. is where *all* participating parties involved in a given discussion mutually agree upon the framework of usage of a given word or set of words. The meanings of said words should be thought of as a contextually driven extension of word usage. Especially when the discussion may involve people who speak different primary languages and/or hail from disparate sociocultural backgrounds.
{. . .}
Either. Its just science but my mechanisms are calibrated one way or the other because of spaghetti code.
{. . .}Sounds Pastafarian to me . . . .
I just heard that New Zealand recently recognised the church of the great spaghetti monster.
...As an atheist, I say with no doubt or uncertainty that I have no reason to take the statement "Gods exist" as any sort of a true statement...
...All of the above makes me completely and utterly certain that Gods as described in the various religious texts do not exist...
I use the terms exist and real to mean different things. I doubt that any of us are real. It makes sense to me that we all exist within a real thing.
I call that real thing God. But whether or not their is a relevant God to our lives or hypothetical afterlife, I believe is unknowable in this universe. But, unlike an agnostic, I still choose to believe in Christianity. My reasoning behind that is purely inductive, just like my reasoning to assume that we all exist within a real thing. Without deductive proofs, you can't persuade a logical person from a belief set. You would have trouble convincing me that any two observable things are objectively different.
No, I really don't care if someone is an atheist. No, I don't care if my beliefs get me sent to heaven or if someone else's beliefs cause 'bad' things to happen to them or turn out to be the 'right way'. Any sort of afterlife is just existence with a different context. It's up to each person to give meaning to their lives. If you can't do that, it doesn't matter what you believe in, you'll be in hell.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I do, with complete and utter certainty, believe in christianity. It exists.
The real problem with drugs is that they give you an experience that goes beyond what you could have without them. This experience, in turn, makes everything else that would feel good meaningless.
Organized religion has the same problem. If you buy their view of life, with an eternity in paradise if you act according to all their tenets and serve them well your entire life and never doubt, of course you would see another way of life as meaningless. Without eternal life, you would have to face down your fear of death. Without a strict framework for what you're allowed and not allowed to do, you would have to face responsibility for determining a way of behaving to others. Without continual duties toward the church and such, you would have to accept that the meaningful stuff you do with your life is up to you. Without the comforting message of The One Absolute Truth, you would need to deal with always doubting in a world without absolute certainties.
Not everyone can do that. Just as not everyone can live the religious life without seeing the tawdry back sides, the sacrifices and the cynicism of wholesale manipulation.
I should add: I am the last person to say "people must think this way". Believe what you will. Faith, taken as the internal process of believing, is not a problem. Almost all the problems are directly related to organized religion.
As for Pascal's wager, try this: Start by assuming there IS no afterlife, just as he assumed there was one. Your choice becomes "Throw away my life for a reward that will never come" or "Live my life as well as I can until I die". You REALLY have to count the costs of being religious as well as the benefits for Pascal's wager to work.
Claiming objective word meanings is silly. The best that can be achieved is consensus. Thankfully the all-powerful Google can provide that.
ag·nos·tic:
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.a·the·ist:
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.Obviously you can use these words and mean something else, but this is the definition google provides and is a definition most people have easy access to.
Interesting. Please demonstrate where you see "objective word meanings" and how you interpret Matt Dillahunty's intent is to frame said words as inherently objective.
As for your claim that the best that can be achieved is consensus ... that's patently wrong. The best that can be achieved .. is where *all* participating parties involved in a given discussion mutually agree upon the framework of usage of a given word or set of words. The meanings of said words should be thought of as a contextually driven extension of word usage. Especially when the discussion may involve people who speak different primary languages and/or hail from disparate sociocultural backgrounds.
Ah see this is a debate tactic know as TL;DR. If someone says "Atheist" and means "Disney Princess Enthusiast", I wouldn't say that is wrong, just confusing.
con·sen·sus:
general agreement.
The best case you describe, I would say falls under the term consensus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I do, with complete and utter certainty, believe in christianity. It exists.
The real problem with drugs is that they give you an experience that goes beyond what you could have without them. This experience, in turn, makes everything else that would feel good meaningless.
Organized religion has the same problem. If you buy their view of life, with an eternity in paradise if you act according to all their tenets and serve them well your entire life and never doubt, of course you would see another way of life as meaningless. Without eternal life, you would have to face down your fear of death. Without a strict framework for what you're allowed and not allowed to do, you would have to face responsibility for determining a way of behaving to others. Without continual duties toward the church and such, you would have to accept that the meaningful stuff you do with your life is up to you. Without the comforting message of The One Absolute Truth, you would need to deal with always doubting in a world without absolute certainties.
Not everyone can do that. Just as not everyone can live the religious life without seeing the tawdry back sides, the sacrifices and the cynicism of wholesale manipulation.
As for Pascal's wager, try this: Start by assuming there IS no afterlife, just as he assumed there was one. Your choice becomes "Throw away my life for a reward that will never come" or "Live my life as well as I can until I die". You REALLY have to count the costs of being religious as well as the benefits for Pascal's wager to work.
The extent of my religious belief is john 3:16
I take everything else as advice and have more than my share of problems with organised religion.
I also don't depend on Pascal's wager for justification. But I do depend on inductive logic which makes my justification unconvincing.
I do accept that the meaningful stuff I do in my life or afterlife is up to me. You are assuming a lot about religious people and their relationship to a perceived God.
{. . .}
Here is a question that I'm not sure has been answered. Are there any clerics in the "Prophets of Kalistrad"? There is a belief system there, and I can actually see a cleric archetype based on them.
Not exactly Clerics, but a rather lousy prestige class that performs some of the same functions (but casts arcane spells, and comically lacks the ability to cast Atonement needed for a fallen member to get back in good standing). You might be interested in this thread for more conspiratorial insight.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rhedyn: The problems don't come from what they feel or believe, but from what they do, mostly en masse, because of those beliefs. And the relationships in question are relationships between people. I wouldn't think it's such a stretch (nor very controversial) to say that at least some of what religious leadership does and has done is due to religion being a perfect way to get people to do as they wish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, I think we have been asked to keep it to Parhfinder or at least game world gods rather than arguing about benefits of real world religion.
We are going off topic here... Massively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, I think we have been asked to keep it to Parhfinder or at least game world gods rather than arguing about benefits of real world religion.
We are going off topic here... Massively.
AGREED!
Let's focus on how clerics can properly not worship me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. A cleric dedicated to atheism would probably focus on the evils of organized religion, and speak of things like responsibility for your own actions, freedom from oppression, seeking truth, and so on. The domains would include liberation.
^Nice, but not necessarily so. For instance, a Cleric dedicated to Communism (which due to the recurring cults of personality isn't very good atheism, but does have atheism as one of the tenets it advertises) would agree with you on the evils of organized religion, and might even advertise the other 3 things you mention, but in reality would go against them. (Of course, once you get to North Korean style Communism, the claim to be against organized religion gets REALLY shaky.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Domains I'd peg for an atheist cleric to represent what I would expect their inclinations to be...
Artifice, Community, Healing, Knowledge, and Liberation.
It would represent pretty much everything that religion craps on. I include the community because organized religion actively damages communities by dividing them and producing contention, and I included Artifice, Healing, and Knowledge because organized religion has stood barrier to progress in advancement of virtually every field of science and medicine due to dogma. Liberation should be obvious.
Domains I'd peg for an atheist cleric to represent what I would expect their inclinations to be...
Artifice, Community, Healing, Knowledge, and Liberation.
It would represent pretty much everything that religion craps on. I include the community because organized religion actively damages communities by dividing them and producing contention, and I included Artifice, Healing, and Knowledge because organized religion has stood barrier to progress in advancement of virtually every field of science and medicine due to dogma. Liberation should be obvious.
Good good. Unleash the unbiased truth upon the incorrect masses.
Domains I'd peg for an atheist cleric to represent what I would expect their inclinations to be...
Artifice, Community, Healing, Knowledge, and Liberation.
It would represent pretty much everything that religion craps on. I include the community because organized religion actively damages communities by dividing them and producing contention, and I included Artifice, Healing, and Knowledge because organized religion has stood barrier to progress in advancement of virtually every field of science and medicine due to dogma. Liberation should be obvious.
I'm an atheist but even I can acknowledge that two of the most prestigious universities in the world were founded by the church and that church schools provided the basis for most education in the UK historically. Not to mention Christian charities taking medicine and health care to those in need. Your point doesn't leave much room for much nuance...
... That said any argument based on real world theology doesn't really stack up as their are gods in Golarion actively promoting healing, artifice, knowledge, liberation and community. If your point was a thinly veiled attack on real world religion it is massively off topic and needlessly argumentative. If it was a genuine reasoned suggestion for Golarion Athiest domains then I would say those domains are neither better nor worse than any others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Domains I'd peg for an atheist cleric to represent what I would expect their inclinations to be...
Artifice, Community, Healing, Knowledge, and Liberation.
It would represent pretty much everything that religion craps on. I include the community because organized religion actively damages communities by dividing them and producing contention, and I included Artifice, Healing, and Knowledge because organized religion has stood barrier to progress in advancement of virtually every field of science and medicine due to dogma. Liberation should be obvious.
I'm an atheist but even I can acknowledge that two of the most prestigious universities in the world were founded by the church and that church schools provided the basis for most education in the UK historically. Not to mention Christian charities taking medicine and health care to those in need. Your point doesn't leave much room for much nuance...
... That said any argument based on real world theology doesn't really stack up as their are gods in Golarion actively promoting healing, artifice, knowledge, liberation and community. If your point was a thinly veiled attack on real world religion it is massively off topic and needlessly argumentative. If it was a genuine reasoned suggestion for Golarion Athiest domains then I would say those domains are neither better nor worse than any others.
It's not a thinly veiled attack against real world religions. I myself am, or perhaps arguably was, very religious (though I've recently pulled away from dogma, I'm not an atheist). Despite not being an atheist, I have a lot of respect and understanding for the mindset of atheism, and if I were to pick a group of people who were probably most likely to be "right" about anything it would in fact be atheists, simply because their method is far superior to our own.
And yes, I do believe that religion actively damages and discourages learning. While a couple of the most prestigious universities may have been founded by the church, there have been countless advancements, studies, and scientific theories that have been crushed by the force of religion because when evidence and reason wasn't fitting in with the fables they had to go.
We've been held back and stunted for generations and it still happens today, with things like stem cell research being contested on religious grounds, or people trying to teach children in school that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that kids shouldn't listen to Biologists, Geologists, Paleontologists, etc. With nothing to back up this stifling fervor except the blind belief in some words written in a book that's been used to control and subjugate people with fear and oppression for centuries.
Similarly, religion causes problems. In fantasy settings like Golarion, gods are actively fighting, disagreeing, and rivaling with each other. Even in Paizo's first AP, a very important character essentially falls into evil because of the over-zealousness of her faithful father, which drives her to a very horrible place during a time of her utmost need.
Even in Golarion, religion and the deities in it are disgusting. There are radical cults of the dawnflower who are religious extremists and yet the supposedly good goddess still grants them spells and such, even though there's war between her own followers over it.
Religion has never been the cause of any major advancement in the history of ever, simply because religion is not about asking questions, it is about blindly, and reverently, being unquestioning of any and all things. It is about turning off the ability to reason and to believe on faith alone, and such faith is encouraged, and many religions note that it is the fool who questions, which is starkly opposite to the actual definition of a fool (which is a gullible person who believes to readily).
I'm not talking about any specific religions, I'm talking about the very NATURE of religion, which is not to question. Religion seeks (and fails) to answer questions about life. Using my own religion as an example, it is frequently and readily proven to be wrong on many things, time and time again, but still you are expected to just blindly believe because that's what religion tells you to do, because questioning and being independent are bad, because those things lead to lack of control.
Is it any wonder why some religions refer to their congregations as their flock, or sheep? That's the way of religion.
And once again, it's not the way because religion is innately interested in being evil, it's because religion demands unquestioning devotion and belief, and that always -- always -- leads to evil ends. There is no way for it not to, because it is a destructive mindset for both the self and the people around you. It encourages and praises willful ignorance and it shuns any and all who are different or do not share the same ideals.
Hence my suggestion for domains for a cleric who was uninterested in religious ideals and instead interested in the goods. I strongly believe that such a cleric would prioritize learning (Knowledge), advancement of technological achievement (Artifice), prioritize the advancement of medicine (Healing), encourage freedom of thought and action (Liberation), and seek to do what was good for the community as a whole rather than certain subsets of that community (Community).
It fits and I might play one now.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Atheists DO NOT BELIEVE. There is a fundamental different between believing in a lack of something and not believing in the existence of something.Agnostics do not believe. Atheists believe in a negative statement.
To merely not believe rather than to believe the negation is to admit the possibility of God or gods. One who admits the possibility of God or gods and the possibility that there is no God or gods is by definition an agnostic, not an atheist.
This is a false statement. Agnostics aren't sure of a higher power as they fell that divinity can not be proven or disproven.
Atheists have no belief in divinity as its lack of proof doesn't allow them to put their trust into a belief system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It fits and I might play one now.
Spells granted. Go forth and do my will!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fall-From-Grace does not worship any deities and yet is a cleric. In planescape of all places.
Domains I'd peg for an atheist cleric to represent what I would expect their inclinations to be...
Artifice, Community, Healing, Knowledge, and Liberation.
It would represent pretty much everything that religion craps on. I include the community because organized religion actively damages communities by dividing them and producing contention, and I included Artifice, Healing, and Knowledge because organized religion has stood barrier to progress in advancement of virtually every field of science and medicine due to dogma. Liberation should be obvious.
I'm an atheist but even I can acknowledge that two of the most prestigious universities in the world were founded by the church and that church schools provided the basis for most education in the UK historically. Not to mention Christian charities taking medicine and health care to those in need. Your point doesn't leave much room for much nuance...
... That said any argument based on real world theology doesn't really stack up as their are gods in Golarion actively promoting healing, artifice, knowledge, liberation and community. If your point was a thinly veiled attack on real world religion it is massively off topic and needlessly argumentative. If it was a genuine reasoned suggestion for Golarion Athiest domains then I would say those domains are neither better nor worse than any others.
It's not a thinly veiled attack against real world religions. I myself am, or perhaps arguably was, very religious (though I've recently pulled away from dogma, I'm not an atheist). Despite not being an atheist, I have a lot of respect and understanding for the mindset of atheism, and if I were to pick a group of people who were probably most likely to be "right" about anything it would in fact be atheists, simply because their method is far superior to our own.
And yes, I do believe that religion actively damages and discourages learning. While a couple of the most prestigious universities may have...
Not to venture to far into real world religions, but WOW are you super wrong here. While all religions have furthered scientific progress, I will point in particular to Islam; not only did they invent Algebra, they are responsible for incredible early strides in things like geography, philosophy, and medicine. The Italian Rennaisance, too, was often religious funded, which again provided a surge in the understanding of medicine and the human body. Religions has also been proven to strengthen communities and actually make people happier, even after accounting for the fact that they believe they will visit an eternal, happy afterlife. The community aspect of it is what does it, really. Many sects of modern Christianity believe in free will to think and act as you believe is best. Evangelical Lutheranism is probably the one I know best, if only because it originally founded my own college, but I digress.
Even today, a lot of progress in fields of medicine and such are funded by religious groups. Other than outliers like Jehovah's Witnesses, most people today are willing to accept that God will not cure their cancer, that's what chemotherapy is for. Your argument here seems to stem from a lot of misunderstanding, and in some parts, anger towards fundamentalism. That isn't unfounded, but my point here is that you're arguing that what are really the vocal minority are in fact the average joe-schmoe follower, which just isn't true.
Even from a DnD standpoint, encouraging followers not to think and have agency other than that of the church is really more inherently lawful than it is evil. Strict adherence to a set of rules is, by its nature, lawful. And in a world where your deity can literally cure your wound and bless your water, strict adherence to those rules is less dogmatic and more of a practical decision. The Cult of the Dawnflower is perhaps your best example, but that's no different than when different sects of the same religion have a spat. You know, like when Martin Luther made his theses. Just a little spat. It's certainly not the best situation for Saerenrae's followers by any means, but it's hardly a case to say that it's evil or anything you seem to be asserting.
Regarding communism, calling it atheistic is an exercise in word-wringing. Communism as it has been explored and implemented is actively a religious movement, with the same community dogma, the same expectations of sacrifice, the same transcendent happiness in the future (the Classless Society), the same view of people questioning... in short, it's not at all surprising that communism persecuted the various other religions in the countries where it got into power: Religions don't play well together. It doesn't have the prayers, but everything else fits perfectly. And as you say, the cult of personality around the current Great Leader is all the divine figure needed.
Regarding colleges: Before the 18th century, the church and the scientific community were mostly inseparable in Europe. Science was regarded as a part of religious investigation. It... didn't last. But the institutions remained. That doesn't make the church a positive force for science today by any means. That period of change is very interesting reading.
Regarding holy symbol, etc: A simple geometric pattern, like a circle, as a symbol. A dagger as weapon, because it is easily concealed from the oppression of the churches. Or a torch, to light the fires of understanding and education.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Minor correction: Islam did not create Algebra. Intellectual Muslims created algebra, and specifically those from the wealthiest and most prosperous Islamic society in history (relative to the rest of the world).
Subtle differences!
And Ashiel, using religion as the fiend for combating scientific advancement is ignoring the governments, guilds, wealthy individuals and random chance that did the exact same thing. Indeed, guilds discouraging independent innovation in their crafting arts are probably MUCH worse then churches, who were often only acting at the behest of nobles terrified by advancements that could threaten their place in society (re: gunpowder and crossbows). "Heavens, commoners will be able to kill us without having to afford heavy armor, weapons, the best food and training? BAN THEM!)
Even the fluff over astronomy boiled to "What do you mean, we aren't the center of the universe?" and powerful people not wanting to acknowledge that fact, and the whole thing with Creationism is people believing the Bible is infallible and not something written by people and prone to allegory as much as truth.
The Church's position on not wanting to learn the Bible is directly comparable to nobles not wanting commoners (and slaves) to not get educated. Because smart, educated people are dangerous, and question the powers that try to keep them poor and stupid.
==Aelryinth
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And Ashiel, using religion as the fiend for combating scientific advancement is ignoring the governments, guilds, wealthy individuals and random chance that did the exact same thing. Indeed, guilds discouraging independent innovation in their crafting arts are probably MUCH worse then churches, who were often only acting at the behest of nobles terrified by advancements that could threaten their place in society (re: gunpowder and crossbows). "Heavens, commoners will be able to kill us without having to afford heavy armor, weapons, the best food and training? BAN THEM!)
I never meant to imply that religion is or was the only thing that has stifled progress, merely that it by nature stifles progress. It takes agency out of the believer and seeks to maintain the status quo. It's a fundamental problem with the mindset that is common with religion, the reliance upon a metaphysical entity for which no evidence exists for their existence, rather than solving your own problems.
And it does so for much the same reason governments, guilds, and the wealthy have stifled the rest of humanity. Control and the desire or need to be required. It's a destructive mindset that leads to destruction. When religion has no other religions to make an enemy of, it turns on itself and its heretics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It fits and I might play one now.Since you have come up with your pick of domains... what alignment would they be and what would the tenants of this belief be, also what would lead said character to become an ex-cleric? There is also divine focus and holy weapon to consider.
The alignment I think would depend on the motivations of the cleric. Since the cleric is devoted to concepts rather than ideals there is no god to remain within X steps of and since none of the domains are aligned it's irrelevant.
The divine focus could be pretty much anything and might vary from individual to individual. Maybe a scholarly item. Concept clerics don't get favored weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
and yet, finding out the rules and laws of God's creation has been the same driving force which has led to our modern understanding of the world around us, driven often by very religious, moral men.
It's when you start veering into 'immoral' that religion starts to come onto the stage and try to stop stuff. One man's immorality is another's 'so what?', however, and so in such cases religion comes across as inflexible and reactionary.
So, 'by its nature' is not an argument. 'Having a moral code' is just as reactionary and inhibitive. And to the extent religions are responsible for much of our moral and philosophic outlook, you can blame them.
So, religions aren't 'intrinscially' to blame. The people in power in them, that's a different thing, and has nothing to do with religion, it's all about money and power, and using religion as just one more tool to hold onto it.
==Aelryinth
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't see that, Aelryinth. If organized religion is a tool for people to wield power over others and gain money, and causes suffering on the scale religion has, at some point the tool (organized religion) IS the problem, and needs to be held responsible for what has been done in its name. Religious people tend to think in precisely this way, for example with regards to gambling.
As for finding out the rules and laws of God's creation, no. Just no. It was when science divorced itself from church dogma that we finally understood how the world works. Some of those leading that charge were indeed religious, but managed to figure out great discoveries DESPITE that.
And no, saying that the Earth is no older than 6000 years old is not a reasonable fit to any meaning of "immoral". That didn't stop the christian churches from working very actively against this. The truth of the matter is that religious organizations are primed to seek and maintain power at any cost, and will strike down anything that could count as the slightest challenge to them or their influence. Index romanum librorum prohibitorum (sp?) is perhaps the best example of this, a list of forbidden books kept and updated by the RCC until (IIRC) the 1950s, which reads as a who's who of western thought.
You do realize that the rules say you can the cleric of a concept and do not have to follow a deity....?
So lets see:
Domains, I could see Artifice (we are creators not gods), Chaos (reality at it's most fundamanetal level is pure chaos, not controlled by gods), Destruction (removal of beings that say they are...
You also know that playing a cleric of a concept EXPLICITLY requires GM fiat.
While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction. (Work with your GM if you prefer this path to selecting a specific deity.)
You say a number of rules that apply to clerics of gods don't apply to worshipers of concepts, but the fact of the matter is that the ONLY rule that allows for clerics of concepts says that the GM makes the rules.
So, as the GM in this experiment, these are my rules.
These rules are not to be a dick, they are to keep you on the same ground as a cleric of a god.
What you are pitching to me, as I see it as a GM, is a "I can do whatever I want cause I'm awesome" type character. Here are my concerns with your pitch as a DM:
Domains: you cannot have both Law and Chaos domains as those are diametrically opposed and in a world with angels and demons, that means something.
Power Source: As I said, where you get your powers IS a major concern. To reiterate, there are creatures that specifically sever divine casters' connections to their faith (such as demodands) and you have the same vulnerability as a cleric of Sarenrae to them. You can't just say you're immune because you worship a concept.
Alignment: Your alignment switches from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil via a helm of opposite alignment. Any other cleric needs to seek atonement or a new god, you say it doesn't matter because you worship a concept. Sorry. Not in my house. You fall like any other cleric. So what alignment is your concept?
Code of ethics; This is specifically YOUR character you are pitching to me. No "depends on what form of atheism" here. I need your ethics. Gorum must always seek glory and challenge, Pharasma may never make undead, Iomedae is first in last out. What are yours?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets not be histrionic about this, I'm not religious, but I am a historian and I can acknowledge that the religious motivations had a major impact on education, health, sanitation, workplace safety, the abolition of slavery, and more.
The religious middle class replaced disinterested government in social improvement across the 1700's and 1800's. Education is not just pushing boundaries, sometimes it is about teaching people to read. Healing is sometimes about sanitation and community is about getting street lights turned on.
The leadership of the catholic church is only one small section of 'religion'. Sterotyping all faiths throughout history is fairly unsophisticated. Religion is far to complex and nuanced a subject to be summed up as 'religion is good', or 'religion is bad.'
*sighs*
I believe I have made my point clear. Bowing out of this discussion, because it truly is a derail. I would ask that further discussion of real-world issues is stopped in favour of atheist clerics in Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It fits and I might play one now.Since you have come up with your pick of domains... what alignment would they be and what would the tenants of this belief be, also what would lead said character to become an ex-cleric? There is also divine focus and holy weapon to consider.
Continuing on this train of thought, my specific cleric (when I get around to making one) would probably be...
Neutral Good. The cleric's "tenants" simply wouldn't be, but they would prioritize things associated with their domains. A community cleric would be interested in the development of their society into a good place where everyone was benefited, which might include devoting time and adventuring wealth into making magic items that improved the lives of the lower social classes (such as using Craft Wondrous Item to create a well using create water so peasants could know that their drinking water wasn't contaminated). If I opted for the liberation domain, freedom from oppression would probably be a central focus for the cleric, which would include but not be limited to the well being of slaves, ensuring the dignity of sentient creatures regardless of race or gender, and combating social and religious oppression wherever it exists. If I went with the Knowledge domain, the spreading of knowledge and study would be integral to the character. They'd probably build schools and magical academies (because magic and science are not opposed in D&D/PF) and again try to ensure that everyone had a fair shake at getting a good education. An artifice domain would imply putting those educations to use.
Of course, I imagine individual characters would appreciate each of these things while focusing on two of them as sort of personal interests. All of them at some level or another make for a much better and prosperous world to live in.
They would probably also, regardless of domains, have a vested interest in saving certain characters from religion and the pains it has caused them (such as the character from Rise of the Runelords) in hopes of showing them that there is life after religion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lets not be histrionic about this, I'm not religious, but I am a historian and I can acknowledge that the religious motivations had a major impact on education, health, sanitation, workplace safety, the abolition of slavery, and more.
And religious motivations have actively railed against all of those things, rendering it a wash. Perhaps worst than religious motivation is religious justification of all of those things. That is, justifying all those terrible things because the religion doesn't condemn them.
Religions halted the advancement of medicine by making it illegal for doctors to study corpses. We only have modern medicine because some placed themselves at great personal risk by illegally doing so because they wanted to save the living.
I'm not familiar with anything stressing the sanitation, at least not in my own religion, since most religions were started by ignorant people who believed that diseases are supernatural rather than biological and the appropriate response is to pray them away or figure out why you're being divinely punished, tested, or cursed.
Religion leads to nonsense like inflicting horrible and disfiguring tortures and punishments upon those suspected of committing crimes, under the idea that if they're innocent they won't die. Also witch trials.
And while religious organizations may have begun certain advancements, religion itself has nothing to do with any of those advancements, and has actively led to the decline of and resistance to the advancement of knowledge. Especially when that knowledge conflicts with the accepted dogma of the religion.
To my knowledge, there is no religion that actively promotes learning and the revision of dogma based on newly attained evidence. I have seen many religions who grow quieter and quieter on what their holy books say, or - after being drowned in the contrary and ridicule of intelligent society - attempt to make apologies and suggest that certain things aren't literal, and so forth.
You also know that playing a cleric of a concept EXPLICITLY requires GM fiat.
It says work with your GM with it, not that it is GM fiat. If it was GM fiat, it would not be a thing that says "Here is something you can do within the rules" and then give rules for it through the whole class from domains to channel energy to spontaneous casting. The reason working with the GM is necessary with matters like this is so that people don't do things like worship cheese and harm the atmosphere of the game. If you actually look at the cleric class, you'll notice that gives you all the rules necessary for what happens if you worship a concept rather than a deity because it says whether different features are based on "what god you worship" (if you lack one then it doesn't apply), "your character", or "your god (if you lack a god then go off your character".
You say a number of rules that apply to clerics of gods don't apply to worshipers of concepts,
Actually I only said 1 of the rules doesn't apply. Alignment, because the concepts do not have alignments normally (I'd imagine if you worshipped the concept of Good itself you likely could not be Evil).
Domains: you cannot have both Law and Chaos domains as those are diametrically opposed and in a world with angels and demons, that means something.
I never said the same individual would have both, I was saying what domains I could see viable for an atheist cleric. I mean god, the domain rules specifically say that you can only take alignment domains if they match your alignment.
Power Source: As I said, where you get your powers IS a major concern. To reiterate, there are creatures that specifically sever divine casters' connections to their faith (such as demodands) and you have the same vulnerability as a cleric of Sarenrae to them. You can't just say you're immune because you worship a concept.
Um... I think you misunderstood me. I was saying it can be cut off. Your being cut off from the power of the concept. The concept is what gives you your divine power. Just like nature gives power to a druid, or justice gives power to a Cleric of Justice (example of concept cleric used in the CRB).
Alignment: Your alignment switches from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil via a helm of opposite alignment. Any other cleric needs to seek atonement or a new god, you say it doesn't matter because you worship a concept. Sorry. Not in my house. You fall like any other cleric. So what alignment is your concept?
If you rule that concepts must have an alignment, I would say neutral. Though, the rules never indicate that concepts should have alignments. Also, there is actually no rule that states that having an alternate alignment requires atonement. Only if you break a gods code of conduct, which will not necessarily contain "don't be evil/chaotic/lawful/good in alignment", so being an alternate alignment would simply stop you from advancing further.
Code of ethics; This is specifically YOUR character you are pitching to me. No "depends on what form of atheism" here. I need your ethics. Gorum must always seek glory and challenge, Pharasma may never make undead, Iomedae is first in last out. What are yours?
I was actually specifically not talking about "MY character", I was talking about how it's viable for many different characters. Worshipping a concept is a more personal and dynamic thing than worshipping a god (yes it specifically is in the rules), but if required... hmm.... How about for my character "Cannot purposefully seek advice or information from theist sources" This means the player cannot contact gods (or their outsiders) for answers, no asking theist clerics to divine stuff for you since they are getting their answers from a god, no asking a theistic priest advice on a matter on which his religion has a stance, no asking a god of death where the soul of your dead wife is, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are many different possibilities for a set of atheistic domains, depending on the viewpoints held by the cleric in question. I could reasonably see arguments being made for artifice, community, darkness, destruction, healing, knowledge, liberation, luck, magic, repose, ruins, rune, strength, sun, travel, or void.
Atheism is not inherently tied to any particular alignment, although there could be a cleric focused on a broader alignment-related ideal that includes atheistic beliefs.
I'm pretty sure that the Death domain would be a decent choice for some, if only because they're more likely to look at the facts of the situation, and wouldn't have religious taboos about corpses, which would in turn lead to things like productive use of mindless undead to remove the need for things like slave labor.
However, I figured that would be an outlier and was trying to keep it pretty tight.