| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean maybe if the gods didn't create such a crappy afterlife their would be less atheists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Golarion, it is most explicitly stated that the gods don't need worship. Thus, whether people worship or not doesn't change anything for the gods directly. Gathering worshipers is something they do to gain their churches and themselves influence.
As has been stated, that proper name for Golarion atheists isn't atheists, but some version of dystheists, i.e. someone who considers deities bad. Atheism is a very misunderstood term, though. As used today, it refers to people opposed to the influence of religious organizations. Beyond the question of whether there is a god, which is called agnosticism, atheism means that question is irrelevant. See, if someone claims that something exists, they are the ones with the burden of proof. Until that has been settled, there is no reason to assume gods exist.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, if someone claims that something exists, they are the ones with the burden of proof. Until that has been settled, there is no reason to assume gods exist.
No it's not. The group making the claim in contrast to the "accepted belief" bears burden of proof until they can prove it. Not the other way around. Atheists can provide possible alternatives, but can not actively disprove deities/supernatural, or have thus far failed to do so, (due to the nature of the disagreement).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, if someone claims that something exists, they are the ones with the burden of proof. Until that has been settled, there is no reason to assume gods exist.No it's not. The group making the claim in contrast to the "accepted belief" bears burden of proof until they can prove it. Not the other way around. Atheists can provide possible alternatives, but can not actively disprove deities/supernatural, or have thus far failed to do so, (due to the nature of the disagreement).
Well, I think the better argument is "oh, no. God just showed up over there. He was pissed at a dude and turned him to dust. Left a huge crater you can see from miles away."
Also "I summoned this angel, and he was assigned to tea time duty last week when the Goddesses had a party."
While they are distant, gods and goddesses are literal, physical beings with personal goals, interests, and legions of servants. They are in other dimensions, but there are magics that lets you just go to other dimensions. And sometimes, gods come to the physical plane for one purpose or another.
These are not the omnipresent, formless style of the Christian god- these are greek style gods that have personal goals and make personal appearances to various places.
Now, asking whether they are "actual" gods worthy of worship, or if that idea of 'gods' was just propaganda made by the gods to that lesser beings bow down to them.... yeah, that is a better set of questions.
But the 'I've never seen one, so nuh-uh' argument doesn't fly here. Gods have, at various points in the setting's history, made personal appearances in public. Remember Arazni? She lead an entire military organization into a big, historic battle! She had a grave you could just go to (and even steal her corpse from)! Sure, she was a demigod, but I think it starts to give you a clue 'hey, there might just be these so called gods!' This isn't a 'I heard god's voice from the bushes' thing (I am sure they do that to, but still....). There are various historical events where gods visibly make their presence known.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not go into a real world "Who has the burden of proof in atheism" debate. At least not here. We can take it to Off-Topic, where it can be nicely locked on Monday. :)
Like Lemeres posted, I was meaning within the context of the setting. The burden of proof that the deities are not actually deities or not worthy of worship would be with those making that claim.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we can all agree that having the burden of proof has never stopped people from believing whatever they want to believe.
Also the Pathfinder gods are actually lizard people who are keeping our characters' brains in jars and all of Golarion is just a mindscape they're kept in.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because they believe in the possibility of a better world here, rather than believing that this world is nothing more than a short-term, elaborate test that determines how your real existence will be for eternity. It makes your entire life nothing more than selfishness and fear, rather than have legitimate choices without the coercion of judgment for all eternities. Every good act is nothing more than a move to improve one's lot in the afterlife, rather than being based in altruism or solidarity.
Because the religious model of Pathfinder mimics the system of serfdom, in which the threat of (eternal) punishment lingers over the populace to compel obedience policed by the quislings known as clerics, warpriests, paladins, etc. The central message that unifies all religions is: Obey, or Else.
Because religion also justifies the hierarchy of the various hereditary monarchies based on the divine right of kings and queens, which destroys the right of people to self-determine their own paths and have a meaningful input into the path of their nations as citizens.
So, faith makes one into a serf without meaningful choice, twice over.
Because, after a millennia of failure, the value of religion and monarchy in guiding the fate of the world should not be taken as the best or only way to run the world. Yet that is precisely the role of religion: to justify the status quo of eternal battle and the fetishizing of power as natural, required, or, at worst, the lesser evil.
And, of course, all the myths and stories of the divinity show a never-ending war of all against all, using weapons of might, spell, and guile. The idea that the afterlife is somehow better or different from here is dubious at best, suggesting that those stories are either fictions to justify the world as it is rather than as it might be or truths that the divine beings are no better at managing their affairs than their servants are at managing this world.
Razmir is so offensive to the religious because his lie shows the truth of the system's exploitation and arbitrary nature of divinity. Why is Razmir the fake and Cayden Cailean, of all people, the true divinity? If granting divine spells is the true test of a god, why are we to ignore the oracle who casts divine spells without needing "worship" and "servitude"?
Most of all, atheists ask: what if we believed in each other with the same fervor we believe in the powerful? What might we accomplish with the resources and infrastructure we grant to religions and monarchies? What kind of society would develop where compulsion wasn't its central and defining trait?
People of the world, unite. Believe in each other, not the powerful.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because they believe in the possibility of a better world here, rather than believing that this world is nothing more than a short-term, elaborate test that determines how your real existence will be for eternity. It makes your entire life nothing more than selfishness and fear, rather than have legitimate choices without the coercion of judgment for all eternities. Every good act is nothing more than a move to improve one's lot in the afterlife, rather than being based in altruism or solidarity.
So, only Atheists can have good/benevolent/altruistic intentions, and everyone else is deceitful, ultimately responsible for every evil in existence? Honestly, this is extremely offensive real world or in game, and basically boils down to demonizing others and blaming them for everything as if they are all the same.
Because the religious model of Pathfinder mimics the system of serfdom, in which the threat of (eternal) punishment lingers over the populace to compel obedience policed by the quislings known as clerics, warpriests, paladins, etc. The central message that unifies all religions is: Obey, or Else.
Um, huh? No it doesn't. In fact I would say it's the exact opposite, and that essentially every single religion, and the model with or without religion, (remember some things are simply universal facts beyond the deities), do what you and you will be rewarded in what way best fits you, including "atheists". No, the religious model actually instead encourages people to be better, according to different beliefs.
Because religion also justifies the hierarchy of the various hereditary monarchies based on the divine right of kings and queens, which destroys the right of people to self-determine their own paths and have a meaningful input into the path of their nations as citizens.
So, faith makes one into a serf without meaningful choice, twice over.
More likely, exactly like in the real world, it's much more evident that citizens, governments, politics, factions, and whatever utilize whatever means possible to get power and influence to do what they want and manipulate others into doing things, even borrowing from and twisting religious (or secular philosophical or atheistic teachings).
So it is rather people, humanity that tries to make slaves/serf of others and deny meaningful choice to all. Not religions.
Because, after a millennia of failure, the value of religion and monarchy in guiding the fate of the world should not be taken as the best or only way to run the world. Yet that is precisely the role of religion: to justify the status quo of eternal battle and the fetishizing of power as natural, required, or, at worst, the lesser evil.
I'm not sure there has ever been a religious monarchy in Golarion, where churches and faiths almost never hold any real political powers. So, in fact again, the exact opposite, and if there are styles of government and leadership that are not the best, that would be the secular variety. The closest few I can think of, for any length of time would be Mendev, who actively opposed hordes of the Abyss from spreading and corrupting the world, Asmodeus in Cheliax fighting against the tyranny of House Thrune, Torag trying to keep his people alive and strong in adversity, and perhaps, in a vague sense, Razmir, who as the only non-deity, actually does exactly what you are blaming on others.
And, of course, all the myths and stories of the divinity show a never-ending war of all against all, using weapons of might, spell, and guile. The idea that the afterlife is somehow better or different from here is dubious at best, suggesting that those stories are either fictions to justify the world as it is rather than as it might be or truths that the divine beings are no better at managing their affairs than their servants are at managing this world.
So, here is the thing. These things are all part of the nature of the universe, and have nothing to do with deities/churches/faiths. The constant conflict of the Elemental Planes, Angels vs Azatas vs Demons vs Devils vs Proteans vs Inevitables would all be the exact same if there was no deities at all, no religions. Similarly, the afterlife, as far as we can reasonably guess, would sill be the exact same as it is, save it would likely be a massive unorganized mess as powerful demons and devils tried to get as many souls as they could.
Razmir is so offensive to the religious because his lie shows the truth of the system's exploitation and arbitrary nature of divinity. Why is Razmir the fake and Cayden Cailean, of all people, the true divinity? If granting divine spells is the true test of a god, why are we to ignore the oracle who casts divine spells without needing "worship" and "servitude"?
No, Razmir is exactly the thing you are trying to blame on everyone else. It is so offensive because out of character/setting/game, everyone knows it is false. He is not a deity, he failed the Test of the Starstone, he manipulates people to mug, rob, swindle, extort, others of their money, actively hinders real faith's of their attempts to help others or do good things because it's based on the lie that everyone else is lying. Razmir, and his followers actively charm and dominate people into the cult, and do not have a problem with murdering, black mailing, or ruining others, all in the name of pretending to be a religion.
Most of all, atheists ask: what if we believed in each other with the same fervor we believe in the powerful? What might we accomplish with the resources and infrastructure we grant to religions and monarchies? What kind of society would develop where compulsion wasn't its central and defining trait?
I both doubt that all atheists give a crap about anyone else and all, or even most religious people do not also believe in and want to raise others. This is all in all, like with your first point, very offensive, and nothing but an attempt to demonize others.
People of the world, unite. Believe in each other, not the powerful.
This has nothing to do with following or not following a religion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TO most people, what is the evidence of gods?
Magic.
Who else has magic...?
Mediums, Occultists, wizards, witches, oracles, bards...
Yeah, if divine casters are the only ones with magic that backs up your claim of the divine (somewhat). But a priest says a prayer a wizard says some gobbleygook and they both shoot fire begs the question whether divine magic is just regular magic. How do you KNOW there's a higher being behind it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without ranks in spellcraft or specific knowledges, most mundane people have to rely on personal experiences to base their beliefs in the gods. We don't have enough knowledge of what occurs during the effects of different magics to base anything on. Divine magic could carry with it a palpable sense of good, evil, law, chaos, etc for all we know (some spells actually call this out, like infernal healing), while arcane magic could feel impersonal and erratic, barely contained power.
Kind of scary for the mundane person, you think?
|
I don't think the lore spells out an answer to this question, but I'd be interested in hearing about extrapolations.
The situation: a goblin, living in a normal Lamashtu-worshiping goblin tribe. He somehow thinks and experiences enough to be of good alignment (probably CG, since that's most likely). He rejects Lamashtu and all of the barghest low-level deities of the goblins, but has not learned of any others.
Is he an atheist in the setting sense? He would probably worship most good deities if he learned of them. Or if he died in this condition, would Pharasma simply have to use his alignment? He's not an atheist, because he has not rejected the idea of gods, simply rejected the few he knows about.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I return to my previous request: Define deities in in-world terms.
Without that the claim that Iomedae is a deity, but Razmir is not is meaningless.
Interesting. Wasn't that what everyone was asking, (the general) you to do?
Speaking only of in setting terms, it's a bit hard. Not the question itself, but rather because different deities have come to power in different ways, while comparing it to say Razmir is going to be different than to Pun-Pun, the level 21 Arch-Imp.
Some by stealing some sort of essence from others to elevate themselves, some seem to have just been born (or created) that way, some by rising through the ranks, others through the Starstone. But there are so many deities, (monstrous, dead/forgotten, etc. . .) that we don't know.
The few rather definitive ways I would say are access to some sort of divine, immortal realm to which they have near absolute control, the ability to hear (and answer) prayers, divine relics that either only work for, or are amplified only for the faithful, a specific chosen weapon, divine spells and domains, and a variety of non-mortal alliances/avatars/planar allies, etc. . .
Some of those things people like Razmir can mimic, lie, or emulate, at least to a degree, but I also do not imagine that the rest of the world is stupid. Razmir's "clerics" might be able to do a few "Clericy" things, but it's kind of odd how they seem to always burn out so much faster than any other Cleric, even ones of significantly less experience, wisdom, or mastery.
Spells to contact the god Razmir himself, or to travel to his Divine Realm, even by followers of other faiths all seem to just not work, for some reason.
Similarly, there just seems to be some things that are simply beyond them, that every single priest of another, any other actually, deity can just do.
And why is Razmir so interested in money. Can't he just, I don't know, make it or something?
One sort of key thing, though it's never really been described in any detail, is that when someone does succeed at the Test of the Starstone, the people just know they have become deities.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Rahadoumi banished all their clerics and burned down all the temples in order to be free of religious wars, which they had suffered under for more than 50 years.
This is the "atheism" of Rahadoum. For the Rahadoumi, religion caused war which caused suffering. For the sake of peace they banned religion.
(Let's please remember this is an in-game storytelling device, nothing more.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rhadoumi "atheism" would be termed "maltheism" in our world
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because there's a king who claims dominion over the place a person lives doesn't mean that person is willing to pay taxes.
Just because there's a deity who claims dominion over some aspect of a person's life doesn't mean that person is willing to worship them.
After all, it's pretty likely the sun will continue to shine if there's no sun god, the rain will continue to fall if there's no rain god, the wind will continue to blow if there's no wind god, etc. So what are these things other than "extremely powerful beings who take credit for natural phenomena." In that situation, it's likely a rational choice to simply "avoid notice by said powerful being."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM Beckett: The brave clergy of Asmodeus fighting to free the poor, downtrodden people of Cheliax from the horrible Thrunes? Right. Cheliax is a theocracy of Asmodeus. It is what he wants it to be. It is, after what it's called in the books, an engine for damnation.
Further, you missed one. Nidal. A land of shadow where torture and pain is divinely mandated.
And no, the one making the claim that something exists absolutely has the burden of proof. "accepted belief" is nowhere near a relevant concept.
Cheers. Oh, and just like your comment, all of this is purely in-setting, of course.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure there has ever been a religious monarchy in Golarion, where churches and faiths almost never hold any real political powers.
Roguerouge was referring to the divine right of kings, not theocracy as such. And the divine right of kings is the ruling political ideology throughout most of the Inner Sea region.
As for actual theocracies and/or church states on Golarion, currently we have Mendev, Lastwall, Nidal, Razmiran, Riverton (in the River Kingdoms), Nemret Noktoria (in Sekamina), and Po Li. Cheliax (both imperial Cheliax and modern Cheliax) may count as well, given that it formerly depended on the patronage of Aroden for its ideological legitimacy and to some extent its material reach, and today depends on Asmodeus in much the same way, but YMMV on whether this makes it a theocracy or merely strident in claiming divine right.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM Beckett: The brave clergy of Asmodeus fighting to free the poor, downtrodden people of Cheliax from the horrible Thrunes? Right. Cheliax is a theocracy of Asmodeus. It is what he wants it to be. It is, after what it's called in the books, an engine for damnation.
House Thrune and the Clergy if Asmodeus have different goals, and House Thrune isn't too loyal to Asmodeus.
Further, you missed one. Nidal. A land of shadow where torture and pain is divinely mandated.
Ok. Good Catch. So there is actually one thing that Roguerogue was talking about in the setting.
And no, the one making the claim that something exists absolutely has the burden of proof. "accepted belief" is nowhere near a relevant concept.
Yes, the one making the claim. The claim being that the gods don't exist/are not actually gods/are not worthy of worship. Acceptable belief, or benefit of the doubt, in this case that the gods are actually, you know, gods in the setting, is held until proven otherwise. That's how that works.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure there has ever been a religious monarchy in Golarion, where churches and faiths almost never hold any real political powers.Roguerouge was referring to the divine right of kings, not theocracy as such. And the divine right of kings is the ruling political ideology throughout most of the Inner Sea region.
As for actual theocracies and/or church states on Golarion, currently we have Mendev, Lastwall, Nidal, Razmiran, Riverton (in the River Kingdoms), Nemret Noktoria (in Sekamina), and Po Li. Cheliax (both imperial Cheliax and modern Cheliax) may count as well, given that it formerly depended on the patronage of Aroden for its ideological legitimacy and to some extent its material reach, and today depends on Asmodeus in much the same way, but YMMV on whether this makes it a theocracy or merely strident in claiming divine right.
The divine right of kings is a belief that rulers are automatically exempt from the normal mundane laws and rules, because they are placed in power directly by one or more deities, and only those deities may remove them. It doesn't exist in Golarion or Pathfinder unless the church has the ability to remove rules from power with ease or to otherwise punish rulers. For instance, no one would say "We can't conquer Cheliax, because Asmodeus himself placed Thrune on the throne, and thus it is his will that they rule, no matter what". They might say that it's basically impossible, but probably not going to say it's because they are Asmodeus' chosen rule.
I think you, (and that article), are simply referring to legitimacy. A theocracy, on the other hand is where a single church/religion is the government, like in Nidal or Razmiran. It is not the same thing as having a large central religion(s) or religion being prominent.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Divine Right of monarchs is at the very least an established belief on Golarion, independent of the ability of any given deity to remove any given monarch. The Red Mantis refuse to take contracts on sitting monarchs as a result of this very belief. In this practice, the Red Mantis emulate their own god who destroys pretenders to godhood but not true gods. (Razmir, it's only a matter of time).
Who or what establishes true godhood is as open to discussion as the veracity of the Red Mantis' religious beliefs.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, this is extremely offensive real world or in game, and basically boils down to demonizing others and blaming them for everything as if they are all the same.
You've misunderstood the point of the thread, which was to ask why atheists might exist in Golarion. I provided a perfectly reasonable way to RP it. If this topic is a trigger for you in real life, I suggest that you step away from the thread. It happens to us all from time to time, no shame in it. You're free to do what you want, of course, but you should know that I'm utterly uninterested in debating this topic with you, as such a debate about whether religion is an opiate of the masses would belong in a different forum at best and at worst could devolve into a violation of forum rules.
Also the Pathfinder gods are actually lizard people who are keeping our characters' brains in jars and all of Golarion is just a mindscape they're kept in.
You can't disprove that!
|
|
You've misunderstood the point of the thread, which was to ask why atheists might exist in Golarion. I provided a perfectly reasonable way to RP it. If this topic is a trigger for you in real life, I suggest that you step away from the thread. It happens to us all from time to time, no shame in it.
Its not triggering, nor am I angry. I just don't care for the implication that others are wrong/bad/evil for being religious, and disagree that its reasonable, but, like you said, not going to debate it.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And no, the one making the claim that something exists absolutely has the burden of proof. "accepted belief" is nowhere near a relevant concept.Yes, the one making the claim. The claim being that the gods don't exist/are not actually gods/are not worthy of worship. Acceptable belief, or benefit of the doubt, in this case that the gods are actually, you know, gods in the setting, is held until proven otherwise. That's how that works.
You severely misunderstand what "burden of proof" means. A generally held belief is still the claim that needs to be proven more convincing than the null hypothesis. That gods exist can be taken as proven in the setting. That they deserve worship? That cannot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A related issue is that you can never prove something DOESN'T exist. Burden of proof thus lies squarely on those who claim that something DOES exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A related issue is that you can never prove something DOESN'T exist. Burden of proof thus lies squarely on those who claim that something DOES exist.
You can definitely prove that a well defined thing does not exist. If I tell you "I have a dragon in my garage. It breathes fire and responds to 'Fred.'" Then if you go to my garage and call out "Hey Fred!" and there is no dragon, then I am clearly wrong.
Non-existence is generally harder to prove, because to prove existence you just need one example, where to prove non-existence you need to exhaustively show that a thing does not or can not exist.
The main problem with proving/disproving "God" is that if you ask 5 people, you will get 6 definitions of what exactly god-ness is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i suppose "meh"theism is also a thing.
Gods. Meh. Don't care.
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...
On the flip side, I'd argue that it does the opposite. What is self-sacrifice when it guarantees you a place in paradise? How much nobler such martyrdom when the martyr knows they go to damnation--or oblivion? Decoupling moral behavior from the afterlife makes morality all the more real. Being a paladin of Iomedae is so much easier than acting like a paladin with no divine backing or hope of final reward.
That kind of sounds like the set up for Constantine. Right things for the wrong reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which means there wouldn't be a world at all if it weren't for atheists.