Why atheist exist in golarion world ?

[hellatze]

Unlike our world. The golarion have solid evidence that god exist. Most of them proven by miracles.

Are they considered heretic ? Where did they ho after death ?

[UnArcaneElection]

Search for threads on Rahadoum, Bachuan (and a couple of other places having similar restrictions), and souls being imprisoned in the Boneyard and/or fed to Groetus.

[Jhaeman]

The general atheist tack would be: "Yes, there are beings with incredible powers. Gods, demigods, monsters, demons, Level 20 wizards, etc. That doesn't mean they are divine, infallible, or worthy of our complete submission to their will. Might does not make right."

[Daniel Yeatman]

In fact, I'd argue it's actually easier to be an atheist in Golarion, at least, going with the modern terminology as referred to the great monotheisms.

Of the various Pathfinder gods, some have phenomenal cosmic power, some less, but generally they're treated as the gods in many other pantheons of the past, such as Greek, Egyptian, Norse, etc...

Meaning that they're fallible, prone to human emotions and their negative aspects thereof. And if you make the comparison, for your average citizen a level 15 anything is already godlike, and with the myriad mystical beings there are, it would be hard to draw a definite line between what's a god and what's just a huge mystical creature that demands worship.

So in this sense Golarion atheists aren't necessarily saying that gods don't exist (though some do), they're saying that no being deserves that title, and even if they do, they aren't inherently worthy of worship just because they're really good at a few things.

As far as where they go after death, last I knew they went into simple coffins within the Boneyard, and eventually were served to Groetus the Mad Moon by Pharasma in some ritual or another. It's possible this was retconned, however.

[hellatze]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Search for threads on Rahadoum, Bachuan (and a couple of other places having similar restrictions), and souls being imprisoned in the Boneyard and/or fed to Groetus.

my atheist character will have a bad day when died :(

[Melkiador]

Reincarnation is also an option for those looking to evade the boneyard. But it'd just be a delaying tactic. Sooner or later you'd end up in some afterlife.

[Jason Wedel]

I would say than instead of atheism would be a form of apathy towards the gods more than true atheism...

[Ajaxis]

"On Golarion, “atheism” usually denotes the belief that those beings commonly called “gods” are not worthy of the authority and reverence bestowed upon them by others. Atheists rarely doubt the existence of deities, and generally acknowledge that deities are very powerful beings, but deem them no more than that. Instead of gods, they tend to revere ideals such as goodness or freedom, philosophies such as the Prophecies of Kalistrade or diabolism, or nothing in particular. Though some scholars argue that the term “atheist” is incorrectly applied to these people—preferring terms such as “dystheists” or “misotheists”—such distinctions are lost on a generally religious society, and most accept the more common term." Faiths & Philosophies, p. 6.

[Trystram]

tl;dr: Automatic bad ends for athiests makes morality system impotent/unimportant.

I would've hoped that "being atheist" in PF wouldn't mirror the D&D mythos in terms of afterlife, but it appears I am wrong.

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Wall_of_the_Faithless

Because honestly, these constructs for atheists makes morality worthless, as you ultimately aren't judged on your deeds, but rather who you worship in terms of getting an afterlife.

Basically, this construct reduces morality to a question of belief or non-belief from the beginning. If you believe, then you go to the god you believe in and they do what they want with you according to whatever rules/laws/tenets they put in place (which are ultimately arbitrary per god). If you don't, you get shoved in a box and then into the belly of something else to be consumed (if my understanding of the other respondents to this topic are saying is the official campaign setting of PF).

This, imho, devalues the whole "belief in a deity" because you are putting a choice of worship vs ultimate annihilation for each soul above what they achieved in the world (Good or Evil). Many mortals will "hedge" their bets and go with worshiping something. But then is that true belief, or just paying lip service to a system in order to avoid a worse fate? if it is just lip service, is that sufficient for a god to accept someone into their "afterlife"? if so, then why bother having the alignment stuff at all? if not, then that moon must get a lot of soul-snacks...

[Melkiador]

There's so many deities, it shouldn't be that hard to find one that aligns with your morals, and just follow him. In other words, you don't follow your morals because of a deity, you follow a deity because of your morals.

[thejeff]

Melkiador wrote:

There's so many deities, it shouldn't be that hard to find one that aligns with your morals, and just follow him. In other words, you don't follow your morals because of a deity, you follow a deity because of your morals.

And if I have no problem with morals, but still see no need to follow a deity?

Or pick the wrong uberpowerful being - one who doesn't qualify for godhood by whatever the arbitrary rules are?

And hey, to link with the other recent thread, are all of Razmir's followers technically atheist and thus doomed in the afterlife?

[Dale McCoy Jr]

In Pathfinder Tales: Death's Heretic (highly recommended, btw), we visit a graveyard on the true neutral plane which is where all the souls of the rahadoumi go. They just lie there.

[therealthom]

Why do we have the Flat Earth Society and climate change deniers? People will believe what they will, even in the face of largely convincing, or even incontrovertible evidence.

HA! Suddenly realized denier is spelled the same as denier.

[Sissyl]

Trystram: The sordid saga about eternal torment in Hell has worked wonders for recruitment to christianity since the 7th century.

[thejeff]

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

In Pathfinder Tales: Death's Heretic (highly recommended, btw), we visit a graveyard on the true neutral plane which is where all the souls of the rahadoumi go. They just lie there.

Does that mean they're treated differently from atheists just because they believe, even if they don't follow a real god?

Cause that's even creepier.

[Melkiador]

If you believe in a god who's not actually a god, you still aren't an atheist. You'd go to whatever afterlife best matches your belief.

[Melkiador]

The thing is that all of this can be blamed on Pharasma. She's the one who gets to make all of these decisions about the afterlife.

[Aldizog]

I played alongside one of those "atheists" who tried to deny that the gods were gods, by setting up a strawman definition of godhood.
"Those beings are just very powerful outsiders who can grant spells, they're not gods" sounded to me like saying "Hill giants are just exceptionally large and strong humanoids, they're not giants."

Who says that gods must be infallible? Or (in-world) that there must be a clear line between a Mythic being and a deity?

"They're not worthy of worship" is at least logical; the nay-theist perspective. Creating your own definition of godhood and claiming the deities fail to meet it is not reasonable.

[thejeff]

Aldizog wrote:

I played alongside one of those "atheists" who tried to deny that the gods were gods, by setting up a strawman definition of godhood.

"Those beings are just very powerful outsiders who can grant spells, they're not gods" sounded to me like saying "Hill giants are just exceptionally large and strong humanoids, they're not giants."

Who says that gods must be infallible? Or (in-world) that there must be a clear line between a Mythic being and a deity?

"They're not worthy of worship" is at least logical; the nay-theist perspective. Creating your own definition of godhood and claiming the deities fail to meet it is not reasonable.

But you need some kind of in world definition of godhood if you want to claim some beings have it and others don't.

Otherwise Razmir is a God. He's powerful, he claims to be, so why not?

[thejeff]

thejeff wrote:

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

In Pathfinder Tales: Death's Heretic (highly recommended, btw), we visit a graveyard on the true neutral plane which is where all the souls of the rahadoumi go. They just lie there.

Does that mean they're treated differently from atheists just because they believe, even if they don't follow a real god?

Cause that's even creepier.

Wait, I was getting my Golarion nations mixed up. The Rahadoum are the atheists. The Razmiri follow the fake god, so that's no evidence for how they're treated.

[TiwazBlackhand]

To be an Atheist is to Not Believe in God/The Gods.

But there are two definitions of "Believe".

Clearly, in a setting like Golarion, you cannot 'Not Believe' in the gods in the sense of "No, Desna Irori and Asmodeus Do not Exist" because they provably DO exist, and some of them might just suddenly appear and smack you if you say they don't.

However, you CAN 'Not Believe' in them in the same way that you can not believe in a sports team, or not believe in a politician. So, sort of a "These beings exist, but they are not SPECIAL, merely powerful, and to accept that they should make the rules simply because they are powerful is to accept that the strong have dominion over the weak. Gods are not special and not worthy of worship."

At least that'd be my take on it.

[Azothath]

it's quite simple. The creator's of Golarion put Rahadoum in there to represent the idea of atheism along with a rationale for it to exist politically. The impacts of that politic are outlined in the description. Sure it's a little fanatical as written but it's a game.
Conflict/tension --> drama. That can be useful in a story.

Rahadoum and the Laws of Man. Notice that only 1 law is given in published material, "Let no man be beholden to a god.", Greg A. Vaughan, Kevin Wright. (2010). The First Heresy, p. 3. Paizo Publishing, LLC. Thus the rest of the laws are not defined and left to the GM and that was in 2010.

[Dαedαlus]

thejeff wrote:

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:

In Pathfinder Tales: Death's Heretic (highly recommended, btw), we visit a graveyard on the true neutral plane which is where all the souls of the rahadoumi go. They just lie there.

Does that mean they're treated differently from atheists just because they believe, even if they don't follow a real god?

Cause that's even creepier.

Well.....

1: Razmirans, as worshipers of a false god, almost always end up being judged by Pharasma personally (as opposed to other souls, who have a more streamlined process), who decides their fate. Most of these souls go to the appropriate plane based on their alignment, but there are a decent amount that reject Pharasma's judgement entirely, and even the concept of gods entirely, returning to Golarion as undead Apostasy Wraiths.

2: True atheists would normally be judged by their alignment, but sufficiently stubborn souls (i.e. most of them) simply refuse to be judged. Through some process (either divine or internal), their souls crystallize and form into jewel-like objects, which are then stored in the Boneyard and occasionally are fed to Groetus to delay the apocalypse.

[Melkiador]

It sounds like Pharasma just finds the idea of atheism offensive. Which makes sense, since she's a god herself.

[DM Beckett]

thejeff wrote:

Aldizog wrote:

I played alongside one of those "atheists" who tried to deny that the gods were gods, by setting up a strawman definition of godhood.

"Those beings are just very powerful outsiders who can grant spells, they're not gods" sounded to me like saying "Hill giants are just exceptionally large and strong humanoids, they're not giants."

Who says that gods must be infallible? Or (in-world) that there must be a clear line between a Mythic being and a deity?

"They're not worthy of worship" is at least logical; the nay-theist perspective. Creating your own definition of godhood and claiming the deities fail to meet it is not reasonable.

But you need some kind of in world definition of godhood if you want to claim some beings have it and others don't.

Otherwise Razmir is a God. He's powerful, he claims to be, so why not?

Therein lies the problem. What makes one worthy or unworthy of worship? Particularly when it is rather easy to get definitive answers from something like a summoned outsider who would likely tell you that deities, no matter what you call or think of them, are actually deities, across all alignments.

The powerful outsiders, but not gods/worthy of worship idea just doesn't hold water.

[Dαedαlus]

DM Beckett wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Aldizog wrote:

I played alongside one of those "atheists" who tried to deny that the gods were gods, by setting up a strawman definition of godhood.

"Those beings are just very powerful outsiders who can grant spells, they're not gods" sounded to me like saying "Hill giants are just exceptionally large and strong humanoids, they're not giants."

Who says that gods must be infallible? Or (in-world) that there must be a clear line between a Mythic being and a deity?

"They're not worthy of worship" is at least logical; the nay-theist perspective. Creating your own definition of godhood and claiming the deities fail to meet it is not reasonable.

But you need some kind of in world definition of godhood if you want to claim some beings have it and others don't.

Otherwise Razmir is a God. He's powerful, he claims to be, so why not?

Therein lies the problem. What makes one worthy or unworthy of worship? Particularly when it is rather easy to get definitive answers from something like a summoned outsider who would likely tell you that deities, no matter what you call or think of them, are actually deities, across all alignments.

The powerful outsiders, but not gods/worthy of worship idea just doesn't hold water.

Well.... humans aren't always rational. And they can be very stubborn. People believe things that simply don't add up in the end.

And in-world, my understanding of atheists is that they simply don't feel like just because someone has a big stick doesn't mean that they should bow down to a cosmic mob boss.

[thejeff]

I really need to play that atheist Oracle I've had in mind sometime.

"I don't believe in God. She drops by once in a while and we argue about it."

[Azothath]

does being religious or having a patron deity directly imply that a character believes all deities are worthy of worship?

I believe that relationship or implied function is false.
As it exists in the world of opinion, I would say it's fuzzy or probabilistic and subject to change.

[Aldizog]

thejeff wrote:

But you need some kind of in world definition of godhood if you want to claim some beings have it and others don't.

Otherwise Razmir is a God. He's powerful, he claims to be, so why not?

There don't have to be clear lines. It's okay to make subjective judgments.

Demon Lords, demigods, Mythic beings, all fall short of the game-rule definition of "gods" (for example, they can be statted) but in-world could quite reasonably qualify. Is there a specific ability that Asmodeus has that places him in an entirely different category from Mephistopheles? Or is it a continuum?

I'm okay with fuzzy lines here. I don't know much about Razmir or what he can do, but I think he falls pretty clearly short of even that fuzzy line. Unless he has Mythic ranks and can grant spells.

[thejeff]

Does not being religious or not having a patron deity directly imply that a character believes no deities are worthy of worship?

Much like belief, there are multiple means of "worthy of worship" here. A Good character would likely deny that Asmodeus is worthy of worship in a moral sense, while still acknowledging he's a peer of the Good deities that are worthy of worship, while holding that there are other Good entities that are powerful and worth emulating, but not worthy of worship for other reasons.

Honestly, I suspect most people in Golarion don't have patron deities. They may offer prayers (or more formal offerings) to specific deities when doing something that's in their sphere of influence or on their holy days. Some are more into that than others.
Some make a big deal of it for social reasons. Others pretty much ignore religion, but wouldn't deny the gods were real.

[Azothath]

Razmir

has no divine abilities
To stave off death, he seeks vials of the sun orchid elixir from Thuvia to halt his aging until he can achieve true immortality.

[Pharasma, Lady of Graves]

Melkiador wrote:

The thing is that all of this can be blamed on Pharasma. She's the one who gets to make all of these decisions about the afterlife.

Not to be That God, but the choices you make in this life are what dictate where you end up in the afterlife.

I'm more like a concierge. With infinite cosmic powers.

[thejeff]

Aldizog wrote:

thejeff wrote:

But you need some kind of in world definition of godhood if you want to claim some beings have it and others don't.

Otherwise Razmir is a God. He's powerful, he claims to be, so why not?

There don't have to be clear lines. It's okay to make subjective judgments.

Demon Lords, demigods, Mythic beings, all fall short of the game-rule definition of "gods" (for example, they can be statted) but in-world could quite reasonably qualify. Is there a specific ability that Asmodeus has that places him in an entirely different category from Mephistopheles? Or is it a continuum?

I'm okay with fuzzy lines here. I don't know much about Razmir or what he can do, but I think he falls pretty clearly short of even that fuzzy line. Unless he has Mythic ranks and can grant spells.

I think the problem is that there are clear lines on the meta level. Certain beings are listed in the source material as Gods and there's an implicit assumption that this is generally known and understood in the game world, but there's no clear reason why that would be.

If it's really fuzzy, you'd expect there to be a decent amount of slippage. In world debates over who qualifies. Some on either side of the line generally being treated as if they were on the other.

[Azothath]

thejeff wrote:

Does not being religious or not having a patron deity directly imply that a character believes no deities are worthy of worship?

That's a different argument. The same argument with negatives is the contrapositive. "does a character (that) believes no deities are worthy of worship directly imply that they are not religious and do not have a patron deity ?" {I believe the NOT-ing of an OR becomes an AND}

the meaning of "worthy of worship" I also wanted to highlight which is why I put it in the argument.

[DM Beckett]

Dαedαlus wrote:

Well.... humans aren't always rational. And they can be very stubborn. People believe things that simply don't add up in the end.

And in-world, my understanding of atheists is that they simply don't feel like just because someone has a big stick doesn't mean that they should bow down to a cosmic mob boss.

Which is fine, I'm just wondering where the suppossed line is drawn.

My understanding of Rahadoum, for example, is that they know full well that the deities are deities, and "worthy of worship". They just choose not to, anyway.

Razmiran, on the other hand, or rather those that believe in the faith, believe that all of the other deities are actually false, and only their's is a true deity, having passed the Test of the Starstone.

[Azothath]

IMO according to game mechanics a character either does or does not worship a named deity/power, philosophy or alignment.
There isn't a mechanic for multiple deities or lip service(performing rituals without belief) to a deity. And yes - those are real world things that people do and believe. Thus it's up to your home GM to do that.

Like many games, big ideas such as belief, worship, free will, etc are nebulous and left to the home GM and group to figure out the specifics. This is also true of spell casting... so viva naruto style hand gestures!

[thejeff]

Azothath wrote:

IMO according to game mechanics a character either does or does not worship a named deity/power, philosophy or alignment.

There isn't a mechanic for multiple deities or lip service(performing rituals without belief) to a deity. And yes - those are real world things that people do and believe. Thus it's up to your home GM to do that.

Does that only apply to clerics (and other divine powered) characters? Are there mechanics other than that? I guess there are some feats and things for followers of a specific deity.

I'd assume that those kinds of things are benefits for being particularly devoted to one deity and that most people don't have such benefits and thus may well not follow one specific deity.

[lemeres]

It isn't surprising. Every angel, demon, devil, and particualrly powerful ham-hock seems to be able to jump into being a demigod if they get strong enough.

Demigods have the same domain abilities as gods (sure, fewer of them- but almost seems like a question of scale rather than quality), so it isn't that surprising that some do not feel like 'divinity' is that special- it is just another form of power.

This might not be right... but it definitely seems plausible enough for people to believe it.

So why should you worship some guy just because he is powerful? You might do that for a king, but that king offers very direct benefits (infrastructure, military to guard you, etc.). For most, the gods are far too distant to really be involved with you personally- so you mostly get a code of rules that bind you from a guy that will never look at you twice.

The gods of course have servants out there, acting on their behalf. Clerics provide some great benefits... but then again, bards can cast cure light wounds too. So.... yeah. Magic isn't unique either, and while clerics are some of the best at healing, you can replace them. That is how the atheist country in setting gets by.

[dysartes]

Azothath wrote:

There isn't a mechanic for multiple deities or lip service(performing rituals without belief) to a deity.

Isn't there something allowing Hellknights to worship the Godclaw, rather than picking one of the gods within that group to worship?

[DM Beckett]

Origonally, yes, but it was changed so that you have to pick one as your patron (for spells and abilities), but can worship/respect/follow all.

Thats true for all, anyway, where you can worship the Dwarf pantheon, or whatever, but still need to pick a single patron.

[Melkiador]

A lot of the gods could be in a grey area of being god-enough to count. And you could surely go a life and an after-life without running into most of them. But Pharasma is the only god that every single person will need to deal with when they die. That's pretty godly. So why not worship her?

[Ventnor]

dysartes wrote:

Azothath wrote:

There isn't a mechanic for multiple deities or lip service(performing rituals without belief) to a deity.

Isn't there something allowing Hellknights to worship the Godclaw, rather than picking one of the gods within that group to worship?

You might be thinking of the Godclaw Oracle Mystery that was introduced in the Hellknight supplement,

[Renata Maclean]

Melkiador wrote:

A lot of the gods could be in a grey area of being god-enough to count. And you could surely go a life and an after-life without running into most of them. But Pharasma is the only god that every single person will need to deal with when they die. That's pretty godly. So why not worship her?

Sure, but you won't get into one of the cushy Good afterlives like that

(Also Pharasma doesn't personally judge every soul, her psychopomps handle the bulk of them from what I'm aware)

[Azothath]

thejeff wrote:

Azothath wrote:

IMO according to game mechanics a character either does or does not worship a named deity/power, philosophy or alignment.

There isn't a mechanic for multiple deities or lip service(performing rituals without belief) to a deity. And yes - those are real world things that people do and believe. Thus it's up to your home GM to do that.

Does that only apply to clerics (and other divine powered) characters? Are there mechanics other than that? I guess there are some feats and things for followers of a specific deity.

I'd assume that those kinds of things are benefits for being particularly devoted to one deity and that most people don't have such benefits and thus may well not follow one specific deity.

As it's RAW it applies to everybody, but only has a mechanical impact on classes that state they need a deity etc(clerics), people with feats/traits that target a character's worship of a faith or deity, and summoning lists with additional critters.

The general Golarion background stuff triggers after character death. I'm not well versed in the details of the Golarion setting  8^0   lol...

Backgrounds or settings are one of the common areas of GM tinkering. Everyone has rules they ignore or make up to suit their tastes. I'd expect the fine details of Rahadoum and Pharasma to be adjusted by your home GM. In PFS the background stuff stays in the background although it can give a clue to the plot sometimes.

[Unbegreiflich]

hellatze wrote:

Unlike our world. The golarion have solid evidence that god exist. Most of them proven by miracles.

Are they considered heretic ? Where did they ho after death ?

{tongue in cheek}

they pimp along tha reaver(pronounce live river as best you can) o souls, it's called a ley line for a reason.

[Zhayne]

hellatze wrote:

Unlike our world. The golarion have solid evidence that god exist. Most of them proven by miracles.

Are they considered heretic ? Where did they ho after death ?

I think the lore-writers misuse the word 'atheist' in general. It seems more like they use it to refer to people who acknowledge the gods' existence (as you say, it's absolutely proven in Golarion), but do not worship them.

I have no idea what the proper word is for that.

[Azothath]

there's a long discussion about the correct diction and various words to describe various viewpoints in another thread... agnostic, atheist, apatheism, nontheism...

[Knight Magenta]

Re: the boneyard.

In Golarion, when you die all your memories are wiped away and a new petitioner that shares your soul and fragments of your personality is born in the afterlife. So pretty much everyone in Golarion face oblivion after death. How is the boneyard much different?

[thejeff]

Zhayne wrote:

hellatze wrote:

Unlike our world. The golarion have solid evidence that god exist. Most of them proven by miracles.

Are they considered heretic ? Where did they ho after death ?

I think the lore-writers misuse the word 'atheist' in general. It seems more like they use it to refer to people who acknowledge the gods' existence (as you say, it's absolutely proven in Golarion), but do not worship them.

I have no idea what the proper word is for that.

I do think there's room for a difference between "acknowledge their existence", "do not worship them" and "don't acknowledge their divinity".

Consider Razmir again. No one would deny his existence - I mean there he is, standing up at the temple. You can see him. Far more proven than any God in Golarion. Many people of course don't worship him. Some worship other gods. Others just don't worship anyone - they're focused on other things.
But with Razmir, most also deny that he's a god. And in his case, they're right, per the game's rules. He's not a god. He's a pretender. Despite his proving his godhood with miracles.

Likewise it would be foolish to deny the existence of the real gods, even if you don't worship them. Some however might ask the same questions they ask about Razmir.

Me? If you ask me if there are gods, I'll ask you for a good solid definition. Once we settle that, I might be able to answer. :)

[PrinceRaven]

The gods exist, but they're undeserving of worship.

The gods exist, but I am not beholden to them, they have no right to judge me or interfere with my life/soul.

The gods exist, but they're not really gods, they're just very powerful souls who can mimic godlike abilities.

The truth of creation is hidden to us and the things claiming to be gods are charlatans taking advantage of our faith.

The gods don't exist, any proof that they do is just part of an aboleth conspiracy.