|
You might say "I do not believe in evolution", which is fine. But this is be the equivalent of a inhabitant of Golarion not believing in deities. Or a citizen of Waterdeep (Forgotten Realms) during the times of troubles.
I'm not saying anything about my beliefs. What I am saying is that evolution works as a good model for view in comparring how people could view atheism (specifically nonbelief in deities and divine magic) in a fantasy world. Your perfectly prooving my point in asserting that your way is the only true way, just like both sides in the game would. Each side will show proof that their view is true and the other side(s) are either misinformed or incorrect.
What I am saying is that evolution works as a good model for view in comparring how people could view atheism (specifically nonbelief in deities and divine magic) in a fantasy world.
Exactly, see my last post ;)
Your perfectly prooving my point in asserting that your way is the only true way, just like both sides in the game would. Each side will show proof that their view is true and the other side(s) are either misinformed or incorrect.
But there you err. You mentioned 'evidence against evolution', and you insisted on non-standard definitions of 'fact' and atheism.
[snark]
Makes me wonder what would be Golarion's version of the Scopes Trial.
[/snark]
|
|
What I am saying is that evolution works as a good model for view in comparring how people could view atheism (specifically nonbelief in deities and divine magic) in a fantasy world.
Exactly, see my last post ;)
So you are agreeing that you are infact agreeing with me?
Your perfectly prooving my point in asserting that your way is the only true way, just like both sides in the game would. Each side will show proof that their view is true and the other side(s) are either misinformed or incorrect.But there you err. You mentioned 'evidence against evolution', and you insisted on non-standard definitions of 'fact' and atheism.
Not at all. Rather the modern standard definition is not actually the true definition. Notice how that first definition specifies God and not gods? The actual definition of atheism is the disbelief in anything supernatural. I wasn't starting an arguement about that, just pointing it out. You are being particularly zealous against me here?
Are you asking be for the proof?
My take on it all is that Pathfinder is a game. You can do with it what you will.
the game itself involves a complex use of deep rooted archetypes which differ from player to player, but hold some cultural commonalities. Using gods as more powerful or more perfect embodiments of these archetypes is merely empowering a person of faith (as opposed to wizardly logic) to access deeper magic within or around themselves.
An atheistic "cleric" seems to me merely a wizard. In my imagination (again this is just a game) a cleric is merely a pious sorceror.
There is such an endless supply of permutations of archetypes and beliefs that can go together, though. For example, I played a 3.5 wizard to level 19 over the course of several years. His belief system changed several times, generally influenced by things that happened directly to him. One example was direct abyssal interference with his own soul that caused him to reject everything evil and shifted his stance from neutral to good and begin to actively champion the cause of the most widely accepted "good" aligned god.
As far as the general topic, I would say you'd more likely run into the person who doesn't think the gods are worthy of worship or simply not what they are trying to pretend to be than the gnarly, screaming crackpot who scares small children and runs around raving that they don't exist.
EDIT: As a side note, this character always believed in the existence of the gods, he just started at level 1 not caring anything about them and ended up a devout follower.
In Dragonlance, even Arcane Magic (wizardly anyway), also come from the deities. Both Clerical and Wizardly magic and abilities are controlled and granted by the deities.
That's a good point. There is so much that is up to either the campaign setting or GM tastes it can be tailored to any way you want it. I always thought of divine magic and arcane as being inherently different from different sources. Divine directly from the gods, and Arcane... well, anywhere the GM decides. Could come from within, could come from some (excuse the WOT reference) "True Source". In the case of dragonlance, all comes from a divine source. That's the beauty of this type of gaming. The GM can choose the flavor that best suits his/her campaign.
As far as non-believers? What is the prevailing opinion in the campaign world and how does this non-belief fit in/not fit in to it. From there it's just making a judgment call on human nature to determine how they are treated.
I didn't understand what you were referring to.Isn't mentioning Godwin already sufficient for invoking Godwin? ;)No not in and of itself, and I lost my bet :,[
Some people may not be familiar with Godwin's Law. Hope this helps.
|
|
Some people may not be familiar with Godwin's Law. Hope this helps.I didn't understand what you were referring to.Isn't mentioning Godwin already sufficient for invoking Godwin? ;)No not in and of itself, and I lost my bet :,[
I was thinking it was a snide joke about "because God/Bible says so", or something. (As in God wins).
There is actually much more evidence against evolution, which is mistakenly not a fact in the tradiotional meaning of the word. There is a difference between a fact and a scientific fact, and Evolution is the later. This makes for a good example of a real world religion though, for this topic. It is easy to see both ways how people can't see the other side of the arguement.
I'm not sure if you're just trolling here, but ... evidence against evolution? What?
Evolution is not a fact. It's just a very well-researched scientific theory that explains many things and against which there is no credible evidence. Your assertion that there is evidence against it doesn't make it so.
I completed graduate coursework in Evolutionary Anthropology. We basically agree, but evolution is both a fact and a theory, or actually a number of theories. Evolution is a fact. Any scientist will tell you that we can never be completely certain about anything, but biologists regard evolution as a practical certainty, far beyond reasonable doubt. The fact of evolution is as well-established as the fact of gravity. There is no debate among biologists over the fact of evolution.
'Just a theory' suggests that a theory is inferior to a fact because it is less certain. This is not the way scientists think about facts and theories. Theories don't graduate to facts. They are separate and different. Evolutionary theory, which we also commonly refer to as evolution, is a predictive and explanatory theoretical framework which concerns itself with evolutionary mechanisms (how evolution occurs), how fast it occurs, and so on.
I was thinking it was a snide joke about "because God/Bible says so", or something. (As in God wins).
Actually, I think CJ really just wants to see the evolution discussion die and go back to the OP's original topic about defining atheism in a fantasy style setting.
To refer to CJ, I think apatheism sounds about right...
|
|
Actually, I think CJ really just wants to see the evolution discussion die and go back to the OP's original topic about defining atheism in a fantasy style setting.
I'm fine with that. I wasn't intending to argue as much as try to explain my meaning. If people want some of the evidence, I'll email it, but I had no intention of throwing it here, or starting an arguement.
|
Actually, I think CJ really just wants to see the evolution discussion die and go back to the OP's original topic about defining atheism in a fantasy style setting.I'm fine with that. I wasn't intending to argue as much as try to explain my meaning. If people want some of the evidence, I'll email it, but I had no intention of throwing it here, or starting an arguement.
That would be so nice, I like on topic threads. now who wants some icecream?
|
|
With a few exceptions, like Ravenloft, I don't see a lot of opertunity for atheists to be much besides fundimentily wrong and (technically) insane. It just doesn't mesh well with the rest of the world. Saying that deities are super powered, imortal creatures, but not really deities is kind of redundant, to me at least. It's like a character starting a religion based on saying to-mah-to rather than tomato. As mentioned, planescape was another example, be even the Ather are a little different, from what I understand. More actively, aggresively agnostic than atheists. Logic really would not have anything to do with an atheist, (though an atheist could more or less otherwise be just as logical as everyone else).
As far as the afterlife punishments, it varies a great deal in different worlds. In Dragonlance, there is an entire period when no one believes the deities still exist and another shorter one when they actually don't. In FR, being an atheist literally means an eternal hellish existence after death, worse than actually going to a Hell. You literally become the tortured wall of Kelemvor's castle, or something like that, forever. You can not ever be resurected, by any means, and there isn't really a way out without taking out the deity of death. In Greyhawk, and most other settings, you simply go to the plane that is most inline with your general philosophy and alignment.
|
|
Also, I know in some of the older D&D games, the deities needed worshippers for their own power level, or Divine Rank. It can be assumed that some deities would not take kindly to an atheist for this reason, but also because if they are the type to spread propoganda or speak their mind to convince others, they might try to convert away the faithful. All in all, it is mostly up to the DM, (except in FR which is clear about this point).
|
|
With a few exceptions, like Ravenloft, I don't see a lot of opertunity for atheists to be much besides fundimentily wrong and (technically) insane. It just doesn't mesh well with the rest of the world. Saying that deities are super powered, imortal creatures, but not really deities is kind of redundant, to me at least.
This is along the lines I am thinking. Not believing in super powered beings who happen to call themselves gods, when those gods actively do things in the real world would be like one of us in the REAL real world not believing in Obama, Bush, or Brittney Spears.
I can't even see how an atheist would exist in such a fantasy world (other than "The Black Company Campaign Setting" where there are no gods or divine magic).
I would view an atheist in a fantasy setting as someone who just doesn't worship gods/super powerful beings, acknowledge that they should be worshiped, or even actively hating the gods for whatever reason. The definition of atheist would be much different in the fantasy setting than it is on our world, where there really is no proof of anything supernatural.
|
|
Is the question how to change atheism to fit in a fantasy setting or can an atheist function in fantasy game?
I'm really not a fan of the idea of a character thinking that the superpowerful immortal beings that are able to grant divine gifts are not deities or not worthy of faith, respect, or worship. It is just cheap to me. That says the character is stupid to me (as in 6 int) not logical or wise. Just my opinion.
I can't even see how an atheist would exist in such a fantasy world (other than "The Black Company Campaign Setting" where there are no gods or divine magic).
It's certainly possible in Eberron; no one sees or talks to the gods (not even angels or devils) and the existence of divine magic is no proof since you can get it from following a non-theistic philosophy like il-Yannah (or from being a druid, for that matter).
Even in core 3.5 D&D or Pathfinder, a cleric doesn't need to believe in deities in order to receive cleric spells.
|
|
I can't even see how an atheist would exist in such a fantasy world (other than "The Black Company Campaign Setting" where there are no gods or divine magic).It's certainly possible in Eberron; no one sees or talks to the gods (not even angels or devils) and the existence of divine magic is no proof since you can get it from following a non-theistic philosophy like il-Yannah (or from being a druid, for that matter).
Even in core 3.5 D&D or Pathfinder, a cleric doesn't need to believe in deities in order to receive cleric spells.
I really dislike Eberron, but as I understand it, there are a few deities that people can talk to and see, like the Silver Flame. There are also a few others that are not deities, though they can also grant divine powers, like Vol.
I prefer "misotheism" - for those non-conversant in Greek, that would be hatred of the gods. IRL, I take sadistic pleasure in (accurately) describing myself as a devout agnostic (and consider athiests to be equivalent to believers, in that neitehr can really know for sure, c.f. Schrodinger and his cat).
[/snark]
I'm fine with that. I wasn't intending to argue as much as try to explain my meaning. If people want some of the evidence, I'll email it, but I had no intention of throwing it here, or starting an arguement.
I don't really want to see the proof, but I am terribly curious about whence this proof originates.
I really dislike Eberron, but as I understand it, there are a few deities that people can talk to and see, like the Silver Flame. There are also a few others that are not deities, though they can also grant divine powers, like Vol.
The Silver Flame isn't really a deity either (more like a mass of souls). So there are a variety of non-deity creatures/philosophies/whatever that can grant divine spells, so the existence of divine spells isn't proof of the existence of deities (as Senmont seemed to imply).
I prefer "misotheism" - for those non-conversant in Greek, that would be hatred of the gods. [/snark]
I can't use that term. It makes me crave Japanese soup. ;)
I prefer "misotheism" - for those non-conversant in Greek, that would be hatred of the gods. [/snark]I can't use that term. It makes me crave Japanese soup. ;)
Perhaps you should worship the Japanese soup instead... ;D
So in the fantastical world, any polytheistic one will do, the Gods are real, their presence is tangible, etc. Does an active atheist suffer consequences for their belief?
To be more specific: The Atheist can see the works of the Gods, just as everyone else can, through clerics and avatars and whatnot - he just chooses to believe... something else. It doesn't matter what The Atheist's reasoning is, he's just convinced the Gods don't exist, that those displays of power come from some other source.
Moreover, he's actively trying to convince others in this world to believe what he believes: that there are no Gods. What in-world consequences, if any, arise for such a person? How do others view and interact with The Atheist? Do the Gods take notice? Do they take any action? Is the Atheist's "logic" at all likely to gain a following?
If memory serves, there is an ancient philosophical school in India that excercises Atheism as a way to state that, even though the gods exist, they refuse to bow to them, instead choosing a materialist way of life. It is actually a very interesting take on the subject, because it is not the "There are no Gods" Atheism most people think about, but instead a "I know there are Gods, and yet I refuse to follow them".
The main reasoning in this school (and my excuses if I'm confusing things; it is what little I recall from a course on Comparative Religions years ago) is that mortals -and their material world- are more important than anything else, and that divinity, while there, is only bent on "using" mortals for their own purposes. Hence, mortals were supposed to break free from the Gods and do their own bidding.
Such a view for a character could lead to interesting results, particularly in Golarion's way of handling Atheists. Pharasma is not only not sending them to an eternal rest/torture because there is no god to claim them, but actually dealing with souls that purposedly didn't want to get involved with any of them. If you reject the metaphysical, then you might as well try your best not to die, because that's what's waiting on the other side if you do!
Because of that philosophical school of atheism, some people instead may define themselves as nontheists. Silly prefixes and their nuances attributed to them. Oi!
|
|
I'm fine with that. I wasn't intending to argue as much as try to explain my meaning. If people want some of the evidence, I'll email it, but I had no intention of throwing it here, or starting an arguement.I don't really want to see the proof, but I am terribly curious about whence this proof originates.
Personal research and college courses. The troub;e, up until recently between the evolutionary and creationism debates was that science uses a different language, and so the participants were literelly argueing different things with the same words.
I know I've said this before, but I'm of two minds about this (from a setting neutral perspective.)
On one hand, I say the existence of spell-casting clerics implies the existence of gods, it doesn't prove them. If the setting allows spellcasting clerics that don't follow gods, well, there you go. A philosopher could argue that god-worshipping clerics are just forming an artificial belief system around their power font (possibly theorizing on Positive/Negative energies as a source,) to add strength to their convictions and focus their ability to channel it. Even if clerics must pick a god to be faithful to, in most D&D settings, gods are remote-ish entities who don't descend into the colloseum in front of hundreds or thousands like cosmic rockstars to rock your f'in socks off. Whole human lifetimes may pass between obvious public-faced avatars. A philosopher may argue that the cleric is much like a bard with a stronger specialization in healing, rather than a divine channel.
That said, on the other hand, I don't see an average medieval fantasy person really questioning what a cleric tells him, especially after said priest cures his daughter's deathbed illness. And even a philosopher should admit there's a lot of circumstantial evidence for the gods, (that clerics and paladins work the way they do, god-serving extraplanar outsiders, the planes if they are accessable to said philosopher, etc.)
In a lot of circumstances, I think a grudge against the concept of gods would be the strongest approach to a D&D atheist - anti-faith, maybe. Agnostics would be more common.
Then again, if there are spell-casting clerics who don't worship a god... I can imagine atheism as almost... fashionable among some aristocrats and sophistocates who fancy themselves armchair philosophers above loopy cults, quaint folksy conceits, and organized religious dogma.
In my campaign, there is a very real consequence to not actively worshipping a deity, whether motivated by atheism (I don't believe in them), agnosticism (I don't believe you can believe in them), apathy (I don't care about believing in them), or rebellion (I'm not going to believe in them).
In my campaign world, the deities are responsible for ushering the souls of the dead into their final resting place on the Outer Planes, as well as returning said souls to their bodies should they be raised.
The only way for a deity to have this responsibility is for the mortal creature to willingly and actively give it--that is, he worships a particular deity (over and above all others). In so worshipping, the deity takes on the responsibility of his soul.
Should a creature choose not to worship (for any reason), no deity is responsible for his soul, and upon death, that creature's soul is "lost." Recovering it (during raising) becomes extraordinarily difficult. A lost soul will likely travel to the Outer Plane most closely associated with the character's alignment (as determined by me, the DM), or it may just float around aimlessly, becoming a ghost, spirit, or fuel for the nearest undead.
*Disclaimer: this in no way mirrors or even suggests what I believe about the real world. D&D is simply a game, and whatever you can imagine becomes possible.
|
|
Actually in the Forgotten Realms, at least Faerun there's some justification for this attitude. The Gods have been seen very often on the Material Plane, worse they've been seen as fallible and on occasion as mortals. Also the relatively frequent rotation of powerful mortals to ascended beings may blur the line between divinity and mortal enough for many to have lost the awe they may once have had.Is the question how to change atheism to fit in a fantasy setting or can an atheist function in fantasy game?
I'm really not a fan of the idea of a character thinking that the superpowerful immortal beings that are able to grant divine gifts are not deities or not worthy of faith, respect, or worship. It is just cheap to me. That says the character is stupid to me (as in 6 int) not logical or wise. Just my opinion.
Sorry, I mean Superpowered immortal beings and superpowered mortal beings that live forever. . .
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You don't worship the town blacksmith just because he's the only guy you know who can shoe your horse. You respect his skill, and maybe treat him deferentially, but you don't assume he's somehow intrinsically better than anyone else, he's just a man with a particular talent you find valuable.
So why worship a super powerful mortal just because he can grant spells?
Now a God, that's a different beast altogether. A God Is inherently better than you are, because he's A God. It's not about what he can do, it's about what he Is.
|
|
You don't worship the town blacksmith just because he's the only guy you know who can shoe your horse. You respect his skill, and maybe treat him deferentially, . . .
So why worship a super powerful mortal just because he can grant spells?
Now a God, that's a different beast altogether. A God Is inherently better than you are, because he's A God. It's not about what he can do, it's about what he Is.
But you do respect him for his (her/it's) ability. I guess what I am trying to say is the fact that the individual (wrongly) thinks that the deity doesn't deserve the respect/faith/worship doesn't actually change anything about the deity. So it is kind of a weak arguement, in my mind.
Kind of like saying that a cop doesn't deserve respect or to be treated with any deference because in the end, he is only another guy with a job. He's nothing special to pay attention to.
But you do respect him for his (her/it's) ability. I guess what I am trying to say is the fact that the individual (wrongly) thinks that the deity doesn't deserve the respect/faith/worship doesn't actually change anything about the deity. So it is kind of a weak arguement, in my mind.
Kind of like saying that a cop doesn't deserve respect or to be treated with any deference because in the end, he is only another guy with a job. He's nothing special to pay attention to.
Makes sense what you're saying -- at least to me. Same way that some of us may feel about sport athletes or entertainers, ad nauseum.
|
|
You don't worship the town blacksmith just because he's the only guy you know who can shoe your horse. You respect his skill, and maybe treat him deferentially, . . .
So why worship a super powerful mortal just because he can grant spells?
Now a God, that's a different beast altogether. A God Is inherently better than you are, because he's A God. It's not about what he can do, it's about what he Is.
But you do respect him for his (her/it's) ability. I guess what I am trying to say is the fact that the individual (wrongly) thinks that the deity doesn't deserve the respect/faith/worship doesn't actually change anything about the deity. So it is kind of a weak arguement, in my mind.
Kind of like saying that a cop doesn't deserve respect or to be treated with any deference because in the end, he is only another guy with a job. He's nothing special to pay attention to.
Respect, yes (for their power if not for anything else). Worship, no. Deserving faith? Why would any deity deserve anything? It doesn't change anything about the deity, but if someone doesn't care to play the deity's game, they just don't care. It's not a weak argument and they aren't (wrong), except in the opinion of those who worship said deity.
|
|
Respect, yes (for their power if not for anything else). Worship, no. Deserving faith? Why would any deity deserve anything? It doesn't change anything about the deity, but if someone doesn't care to play the deity's game, they just don't care. It's not a weak argument and they aren't (wrong), except in the opinion of those who worship said deity.
Your taking what I'm trying to say way out of context. What I am trying to say is a weak arguement is when someone says that the deities are "just" immortal superpowerful beings that grant stuff and have lived for thousands of years, and do a bazzilion things that ONLY deities can do, but that doesn't make them "deities" because some guy says that they don't exist. I'm am implying that the deities ARE actually deities, but some dumb guy is arogant and proud that he is an atheist and says that they are not (just super powerfull . . . ).
I can see a place for an atheist, just not that one. It is like saying you don't believe that your character (normal human), needs to breath because air is just a myth that Wizards made up and your better than believeing their lies.
Anyway, it really isn't the point.
In my campaigns, I tend to go the Stargate route and my deities are just ascended mortals(for the most part). So some people believe they are Gods(worshipers do give them strength, power of faith and all that) and others think that they are just the next step in mortal evolution(other than dying that is).
And how does this argument effect the Gods that WERE mortal, those that took the Test of the Starstone? Aroden, Norgorber, Cayden Cailean, and Iomedae. They were mortal and then they became gods.
I haven't read much besides the handbook and some of campaign setting book, so I could be totally off base.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Your taking what I'm trying to say way out of context. What I am trying to say is a weak arguement is when someone says that the deities are "just" immortal superpowerful beings that grant stuff and have lived for thousands of years, and do a bazzilion things that ONLY deities can do, but that doesn't make them "deities" because some guy says that they don't exist. I'm am implying that the deities ARE actually deities, but some dumb guy is arogant and proud that he is an atheist and says that they are not (just super powerfull . . . ).I can see a place for an atheist, just not that one. It is like saying you don't believe that your character (normal human), needs to breath because air is just a myth that Wizards made up and your better than believeing their lies.
Anyway, it really isn't the point.
I think the disconnect here is, you're starting from the position that the Atheist is wrong.
And that's easy to do because, well, he is.
But if you're going to call the Atheist insane, or at the very least illogical, you need to put any notion of truth or fact out of your head and examine how the Atheist arrives at his conclusion.
My point (and the point i think others have made) is that from a mortal's perspective, especially one who doesn't have access to all the relevant information (which most mortals on Golarion don't), there is absolutely sufficient room for doubt about the existence or nature of deities.
Remember Logical=/=Correct.
My point (and the point i think others have made) is that from a mortal's perspective, especially one who doesn't have access to all the relevant information (which most mortals on Golarion don't), there is absolutely sufficient room for doubt about the existence or nature of deities.
The next question, perhaps, is how many people will come to that conclusion. In a medieval environment, it's usually a very compelling idea to believe as you are told. This is doubley so when said people are clerics who can cast spells! To a peasant for whom superstitions are often real monsters lurking in the wilds, this is dazzling evidence in and of itself.
I think atheism is possible, but likely rather rare, and mostly isolated to those who can get away with it.
... then again, I am reminded of Small Gods by Terry Pratchett, which suggests that if you try and force religion too hard on someone, they won't believe in the faith, they'll believe in the punishment or the dogmatic stricture. Their faith becomes empty. The too-often beaten donkey stops believing in the man, and just believes in the stick.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
The next question, perhaps, is how many people will come to that conclusion. In a medieval environment, it's usually a very compelling idea to believe as you are told. This is doubley so when said people are clerics who can cast spells! To a peasant for whom superstitions are often real monsters lurking in the wilds, this is dazzling evidence in and of itself.
I think atheism is possible, but likely rather rare, and mostly isolated to those who can get away with it.
... then again, I am reminded of Small Gods by Terry Pratchett, which suggests that if you try and force religion too hard on someone, they won't believe in the faith, they'll believe in the punishment or the dogmatic stricture. Their faith becomes empty. The too-often beaten donkey stops believing in the man, and just believes in the stick.
I love that book :D
Here is the problem with Atheism in a fantasy game setting. It means more than not believing in deities. Atheism means you do not believe in anything supernatural, from fey, to dragons, to magic, to the divine.
Not nessicarily. The atheist could simply beleive that the supposed "gods" are non existant, and that the clerics that use displays of divine magic to try and convince people otherwise are just using magic like any other caster.
|
|
Your taking what I'm trying to say way out of context. What I am trying to say is a weak arguement is when someone says that the deities are "just" immortal superpowerful beings that grant stuff and have lived for thousands of years, and do a bazzilion things that ONLY deities can do, but that doesn't make them "deities" because some guy says that they don't exist. I'm am implying that the deities ARE actually deities, but some dumb guy is arogant and proud that he is an atheist and says that they are not (just super powerfull . . . ).I can see a place for an atheist, just not that one. It is like saying you don't believe that your character (normal human), needs to breath because air is just a myth that Wizards made up and your better than believeing their lies.
Anyway, it really isn't the point.
I think the disconnect here is, you're starting from the position that the Atheist is wrong.
And that's easy to do because, well, he is.
But if you're going to call the Atheist insane, or at the very least illogical, you need to put any notion of truth or fact out of your head and examine how the Atheist arrives at his conclusion.
My point (and the point i think others have made) is that from a mortal's perspective, especially one who doesn't have access to all the relevant information (which most mortals on Golarion don't), there is absolutely sufficient room for doubt about the existence or nature of deities.
Remember Logical=/=Correct.
That is true. I'm not argueing against that. What I'm trying to say is different, but honestly isn't very important. It is more like a character saying they don't believe in vampires (assumning vampires do exist in that world and the character has encountered them), because they are just mortals that lie and pretend they have powers (and weaknesses).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
That is true. I'm not argueing against that. What I'm trying to say is different, but honestly isn't very important. It is more like a character saying they don't believe in vampires (assumning vampires do exist in that world and the character has encountered them), because they are just mortals that lie and pretend they have powers (and weaknesses).
A better analogy would be someone who believes Vampires are not undead, but alive and merely afflicted by an ongoing curse.
They'd be wrong, but it's possible to see how they might reach that conclusion (curses exist which do some pretty upsetting things, and vampires do start out as people). Accordingly, they'd treat vampires differently, seeing them as more innocent victims than freakish monsters.
Same thing with hypothetical atheist. They accept the presence, but deny the nature of the Gods, and accordingly treat them differently.
Consider it from a legal standpoint. If a wizard shoots a commoner with a lightning bolt, killing him, that's murder. The wizard would be condemned and hopefully jailed.
If a God shoots a commoner with a lightning bolt, that's not murder, it's divine judgment. Many might even assume the commoner did something to deserve it. No one condemns the God for his behavior because he's a God.
Our hypothetical atheist would disagree, seeing this 'God' as basically being an overpowered bully.