PDA

View Full Version : Atheistic fantasy religions?



Cyclone231
2007-10-16, 02:49 PM
Have you ever made or seen a fantasy religion without any gods at all? I mean, there are some in Eberron (the Undying Court is ancestor worship, the Blood of Vol is autotheistic, and the druidic faiths are animistic), but I cannot think of any others.

Has anyone seen/made other ones?

Maroon
2007-10-16, 04:17 PM
Usually, the religions I develop are geared more towards an ideal, personification or natural force; they are usually based in psionics, like shared experience empowering the link between minds, or shared belief creating a physical manifestation of a god. Most dwarves worship the noble warrior and blacksmith, most elves the graceful hunter, and most halflings the cloaked wanderer; ogres and ghouls believe they share a part of their ancestors' power through (ritual) cannibalism, gnomes and wizards believe their minds will expand and unite with the cosmos; bugbears worship the eternal flame, goblins the keen ice and kobolds the immobile earth; and then there are a few smaller 'cults', some shared between races, like ancestor worship, empathic animism and regular pantheons. Some even worship the state (as in nation) or their race. All of these beliefs come true, in a sense, through psionics.

RelentlessImp
2007-10-16, 04:35 PM
I remember seeing one campaign setting some years ago that had no deities whatsoever. I can't remember the name of it, but I believe it was either a 2E setting or a 3.0E setting.

Sorry I can't provide more help to your query; I also think it had some novels set in it, but I could be wrong. It did, however, have Clerics, which were little more than Wizards who manipulated the magical energies to heal, rather than destroy.

Also, I have seen a novel where there were no Gods; the Elvenbane series. There is no mention of Gods anywhere in the books I've read (Elvenbane, Elvenborn).

NecroRebel
2007-10-16, 04:40 PM
Religion is a big part in devising the metaphysics of your world. Defining how the afterlife works (or doesn't), how magic works (or doesn't), and the like are all pretty intrinsically tied into your religion(s).

One problem with atheism in D&D is that the concept of Divine Magic is very much a part of most settings, and it almost always means "magic from something you worship." Atheism is, by definition (a- meaning without, -theos meaning god) a "faith" without gods and, taken to its fullest logical conclusion, without an object of worship.

A homebrew setting I've been working on off and on for a while now started off without any concept of divine magic (still doesn't, for that matter), but eventually I found it too difficult to explain a lot of things without the 5 major forces having some personification. So, while earlier versions of that world was largely atheist beyond Astral-worshipping cults, more recent ones have 5 great beings that are the personifications of 6 of the 8 planes.

The presence of gods just simplifies things, that's all.

Dhavaer
2007-10-16, 04:42 PM
The setting I'm thinking up at the moment has the Sublime Way as a religion.

Lemur
2007-10-16, 04:47 PM
Several faiths in the Warcraft setting lack gods. Shamanism and concept of the Light are both examples of this.

One thing I came up with a while back was a very Pratchett-like concept: the god of atheism. Unlike normal gods, who are powered by belief, the god of atheism is powered by disbelief. This make the god of atheism the most powerful god, since no one's going to believe that there's such a thing as a god of atheism. :smallwink:

martyboy74
2007-10-16, 04:51 PM
Several faiths in the Warcraft setting lack gods. Shamanism and concept of the Light are both examples of this.

One thing I came up with a while back was a very Pratchett-like concept: the god of atheism. Unlike normal gods, who are powered by belief, the god of atheism is powered by disbelief. This make the god of atheism the most powerful god, since no one's going to believe that there's such a thing as a god of atheism. :smallwink:

Until everyone realizes how powerful they are and starts worshipping them. Then they lose and their power, and possibly die.

Well, that, or Richard Dawkins comes along.

RTGoodman
2007-10-16, 04:53 PM
Sorry I can't provide more help to your query; I also think it had some novels set in it, but I could be wrong. It did, however, have Clerics, which were little more than Wizards who manipulated the magical energies to heal, rather than destroy.

Sounds a little like the Dark Sun campaign setting. I don't know much about it (having only flipped through a couple of the books at some point, and not having played it ever), but I think clerics in the setting get power from the elemental spheres of influence or something like that. I know magic and the environment are tied together in the setting, and some magic-users harm it when casting, while others heal it. I think that's why the world is a big, barren desert.

jamroar
2007-10-16, 04:53 PM
I remember seeing one campaign setting some years ago that had no deities whatsoever. I can't remember the name of it, but I believe it was either a 2E setting or a 3.0E setting.
That was probably Dark Sun.

Most of the religions in the Ultima CRPG series are based around cosmological systems of abstract principles instead of personified deities, with "Pagan" being the exception for obvious reasons.

Daracaex
2007-10-16, 06:34 PM
The world I'm developing has all power drawn from a source. Whether the person believes that source is divine or not is up to their religion.

The people of ancient Greece and Rome didn't have all that much of a religion. Though there were gods that they prayed to, it wasn't really the basis for an entire religion. Instead, many lived by their philosophy, like stoicism or cynicism.

Talanic
2007-10-17, 08:33 AM
Not quite what you're looking for, but I wrote up a little homebrew 'deity' called the Thousandvoices. Look for it on these boards if you'd like to know more, but basically their tenets cause all other religions to consider them heretics, as they claim that all the gods that people worship are merely different aspects of the same being.

By ancient Roman standards, that would be atheism--the denial of the pantheon itself.

Artemician
2007-10-17, 08:38 AM
In a setting where Gods can actively interfere with the state of affairs, and you only have to look to the local village healer for proof that they exist, I doubt atheism will really get anywhere.

The last bugger who philosophized whether the Gods exist or not received a lightning bolt with a note saying "Yes, we do." attached to it. This kind of thing tends to put a quencher on religious discussion.

SmartAlec
2007-10-17, 10:04 AM
Planescape treated Gods as just very, very powerful planar beings. One of the Factions amongst the Planes were the Athar:

http://www.kriegstanz.com/athar.html

A league of professional God-haters (sometimes called 'a collection of the worst aethiests and the best theists the Planes has to offer) in a setting where the Gods really physically exist.

Telonius
2007-10-17, 10:21 AM
I can imagine some sort of cult centered around magical forces in the world. A "religion" venerating each of the energy types; one for "divine" magic, one for "arcane" magic, one for "untyped" magic (like the stuff that Artificers use). Maybe even one that worships light, or gravity.

The liturgies wouldn't really take the form of, "Oh great fire god, burn our foes, and purfiy our hearts." I'm thinking something more like, "Open your mind to the reality of the fire within," would be appropriate. It wouldn't be worshipping a "god," particularly; but accepting the reality of a force stronger than yourself, that everybody can see actually exists. That would technically qualify as atheism, I think.

BlackStaticWolf
2007-10-17, 11:47 AM
One thing I came up with a while back was a very Pratchett-like concept: the god of atheism. Unlike normal gods, who are powered by belief, the god of atheism is powered by disbelief. This make the god of atheism the most powerful god, since no one's going to believe that there's such a thing as a god of atheism. :smallwink:

Especially us atheists. In fact, we're pretty adamant about that, as a whole. :smalltongue:

Lord Zentei
2007-10-17, 11:55 AM
Seeing as you can be a Cleric of a "cause" it would seem reasonable that you can have a belief system that grants spells w/o any of the powers actually being involved.

As an aside though, "atheistic religion" is a contradiction. "Atheistic belief system" makes sense.

Om
2007-10-17, 12:01 PM
One thing I came up with a while back was a very Pratchett-like concept: the god of atheism. Unlike normal gods, who are powered by belief, the god of atheism is powered by disbelief. This make the god of atheism the most powerful god, since no one's going to believe that there's such a thing as a god of atheism. :smallwink:Its a nice concept but be careful with it. This would only really apply in a setting where the existence of gods was so blindingly obvious that it takes a significant degree of belief to deny this. In addition, the belief wouldn't be centred on a God of Atheism per se (certainly not because its existence is unlikely) but on a denial of deities in general. But that's just me thinking aloud.

I do like the Athar though. They strike me as the right sort of atheists that could exist in a fantasy setting. Another archetype would be the angry young revolutionary, a la Mikhail "If God did exist, he would have to be abolished" Bakunin.

Alex12
2007-10-17, 12:47 PM
A little idea that just popped into my head, though it probably came from somewhere else and I just don't remember where.

Gods are powered by belief. Belief requires faith, and faith requires not knowing, or not having proof. So, as soon as a god provides proof that it exists, it stops existing.

Talanic
2007-10-17, 12:57 PM
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is where your reference comes from.

And that requires some assumptions:
1. That faith is required to be inherently blind. Believers MUST BE SHEEP. Personally I find this viewpoint to be disgusting, no matter who it comes from.
2. That belief is the only source of power, and dedication, worship, and all the other trappings of religion are worthless.
3. That faith is only in the actual existence of the being in question, not in the being's power/dedication/benevolence/affection.

Alex12
2007-10-17, 02:26 PM
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is where your reference comes from.


Ah, thought it was something like that.

Lord Zentei
2007-10-17, 02:58 PM
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is where your reference comes from.

And that requires some assumptions:
1. That faith is required to be inherently blind. Believers MUST BE SHEEP. Personally I find this viewpoint to be disgusting, no matter who it comes from.

That is, of course, the idea of faith. :smallconfused: If you require evidence, you are using reason.


2. That belief is the only source of power, and dedication, worship, and all the other trappings of religion are worthless.

The idea that faith is paramount is from Martin Luther; his reasoning was that good works cannot save you as no-one is perfect enough (and justifying it with "No one comes before the Father except through Me' John 14:6-9", amongst other things). It's not a position I'm terribly thrilled about.


3. That faith is only in the actual existence of the being in question, not in the being's power/dedication/benevolence/affection.

Of course, if the existence of the being fails, its power, dedication and affection are rendered somewhat moot. :smallwink:

Cyclone231
2007-10-17, 03:01 PM
As an aside though, "atheistic religion" is a contradiction. "Atheistic belief system" makes sense.Pantheism, animism, ancestor worship, Taoism, and some types of Buddhism aren't religions now? Okay.

....
2007-10-17, 03:13 PM
Dark Sun's Athas had no gods at all.

Its common people worshipped the Sorcerer-Kings, and the clerics worshipped powerful elementals.

But there were no real churches or anything like that.

Even the Starjammer setting said no one could get into Athas' crystal sphere, so new gods could never even get into its reality.

Lord Zentei
2007-10-17, 03:19 PM
Pantheism, animism, ancestor worship, Taoism, and some types of Buddhism aren't religions now? Okay.

Correct. Buddhism is not a religion: it's a philosophy and a belief system. It is often clumsily classified as a "religion" for the sake of simplicity. However, you can be a Buddhist while simultaneously adhering to other belief systems (including, potentially, other religions).

As for pantheism; check out what the word means, yes?

Hyrael
2007-10-17, 03:22 PM
I'm a Bio major, so I'm a bit down on deistic religions in general; the dont actually explain anything. I'll take scholarly druidism any day.

But, I'm also a pratchett fan. So, In my games, I portray gods as powerfull entitities that, nonetheless, DID NOT CREATE THE WORLD. most claim they did, however. For the most part, they make their will manifest through their worshipers, and operate "hands off" unless asked for aid through miracle spells or similair.

Talanic
2007-10-17, 03:25 PM
That is, of course, the idea of faith. :smallconfused: If you require evidence, you are using reason.

Oh, it's not that faith requires belief that irks me, but the idea that faith requires a complete lack of reason, and that proof of any sort makes faith into a sort of non-faith.

Go into any religion, you'll find people in its history who were its founders who apparently had revelation. Did Moses have faith? After all, he TALKED to God. Did Buddha have faith? He'd figured out how the universe worked. He KNEW, so he couldn't have faith anymore. Bull.



The idea that faith is paramount is from Martin Luther; his reasoning was that good works cannot save you as no-one is perfect enough (and justifying it with "No one comes before the Father except through Me' John 14:6-9", amongst other things). It's not a position I'm terribly thrilled about.

Agreed. But the idea of faith being paramount is applied to mortals there, not deities. That comes from later, when science fiction writers asked if, by believing in a god, did we create one?


Of course, if the existence of the being fails, its power, dedication and affection are rendered somewhat moot. :smallwink:

*chuckle* Got me there. But my little point there is that in D&D, many of those deities existed prior to anyone having faith in them; they merely gain power from the faith people have in them. Enough people believing in a mortal overlord's divinity can actually cause that mortal to ascend. If they stop believing in his divinity, that doesn't cause him to stop existing, but it could cause him to lose his divine ranks and become a mere mortal again.

As an example, Talos existing is a fact. They KNOW the Lord of Storms exists. However, it's people thinking, "Talos is AWESOME and DESTRUCTIVE and COOL and POWERFUL!" that makes Talos a god instead of a lunatic with a bunch of lightning spells. If nobody worshiped him anymore, he'd still exist, but he wouldn't have all that cool divine power.

Cyclone231
2007-10-17, 03:29 PM
Correct. Buddhism is not a religion: it's a philosophy and a belief system. It is often clumsily classified as a "religion" for the sake of simplicity. However, you can be a Buddhist while simultaneously adhering to other belief systems (including, potentially, other religions).
"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Sounds like it describes Buddhism pretty well.

As for pantheism; check out what the word means, yes?Autotheism also has the word "theism" in it, but I wouldn't describe it as having any gods.

Jacob_Gallagher
2007-10-17, 03:31 PM
faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

See #2. If it's faith, it isn't founded on proof. If it is, it's reason.

As for the OP, I have one word: Pastafarianism.

Lord Zentei
2007-10-17, 03:38 PM
Oh, it's not that faith requires belief that irks me, but the idea that faith requires a complete lack of reason, and that proof of any sort makes faith into a sort of non-faith.

Go into any religion, you'll find people in its history who were its founders who apparently had revelation. Did Moses have faith? After all, he TALKED to God. Did Buddha have faith? He'd figured out how the universe worked. He KNEW, so he couldn't have faith anymore. Bull.

I imagine that issue is something that arises more in response to the perceived incompatibility of scientific discovery versus certain points of doctrine (at least when interpreted literally).

Anyway, faith and proof are nonetheless distinct "ways of knowing". If a prophet knows his god exists, that does not mean that the prophet needs to have faith in the god's benevolence as you pointed out (though obviously, the existence must come first :smalltongue: ).


Agreed. But the idea of faith being paramount is applied to mortals there, not deities. That comes from later, when science fiction writers asked if, by believing in a god, did we create one?

A fair point. I imagine it really depends on the nature you ascribe to the god; an actual being with an independent existence, or an abstract concept that has meaning through people's actions...

As for the Hitchhiker's Guide, it's really more of a spoof than a serious theological argument, as far as I can tell.


*chuckle* Got me there. But my little point there is that in D&D, many of those deities existed prior to anyone having faith in them; they merely gain power from the faith people have in them. Enough people believing in a mortal overlord's divinity can actually cause that mortal to ascend. If they stop believing in his divinity, that doesn't cause him to stop existing, but it could cause him to lose his divine ranks and become a mere mortal again.

In D&D, then yes, your objection would be something I can agree with. Although, perhaps the Powers have a limited lifespan without followers (making them a sort of psychic vampire, gasp! :smalleek: ). Alternatively, there could be a "Time of Troubles" explanation, with an Overgod decreeing that they now need faith to survive. Lastly, a Discworld scenario, where the Creator is one type of being, and the gods (lowercase), are something else that is simply running the place, now that there are followers for them to sustain themselves on...



As for the OP, I have one word: Pastafarianism.

Egads! You dare belittle his Noodlyness by denying his divinity? Prepare to be smote, YARR! :smalltongue:

Lord Zentei
2007-10-17, 03:42 PM
"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Sounds like it describes Buddhism pretty well.

The bolding is where the description fails. Incidentally, as it happens, several of my family are Buddhists, and I have this information from them.


Autotheism also has the word "theism" in it, but I wouldn't describe it as having any gods.

Au´to`the`ism
n.
1. The doctrine of God's self-existence.
2. Deification of one's self; self-worship.

Talanic
2007-10-17, 03:43 PM
"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Sounds like it describes Buddhism pretty well.

Hmm. Buddhism doesn't make that many grand claims, from what I recall. I haven't studied it TOO in-depth, but I don't think it makes a lot of judgments about the universe, doesn't ascribe a creator, and doesn't require any form of worship. It does urge meditation and self-awareness, as well as living in moderation in all things. And it does make some claims about the afterlife. However, it is actually very different from the Biblical religions, Hinduism, and most others that I have studied.


Autotheism also has the word "theism" in it, but I wouldn't describe it as having any gods.

\Au"to*the`ism\, n. [Auto- + theism.]
1. The doctrine of God's self-existence. [R.]
2. Deification of one's self; self-worship. [R.]

pan·the·ism /ˈpænθiˌɪzəm/ [pan-thee-iz-uhm] –noun
1. the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.
2. any religious belief or philosophical doctrine that identifies God with the universe.

If you want to go to the dictionary only when it supports your claims, go right ahead. Autotheism means either a person worships him- or herself, or that God exists without any cause. So yeah, depends which meaning of the word you like.

Pantheism does claim that a god exists: god IS the universe, or IS nature. Therefore it is not atheistic. Therefore the comments about an atheistic religion don't apply to it.

Talanic
2007-10-17, 03:53 PM
I imagine that issue is something that arises more in response to the perceived incompatibility of scientific discovery versus certain points of doctrine (at least when interpreted literally).

I'd say you have no idea, but considering how polite and well-thought-out your posts are, you obviously do. Nothing makes moderate members of a religion look bad like the zealots who want to lock humanity in a closet with a book and a candle. They're the religious equivalent of the tinfoil hat people, but they get SO MUCH attention. Urgh.

Anyway, I'm also glad that this thread's been quite civil so far. Usually rabid zealots from one side or another show up, and it's impossible to reason with zealots.


A fair point. I imagine it really depends on the nature you ascribe to the god; an actual being with an independent existence, or an abstract concept that has meaning through people's actions...

As for the Hitchhiker's Guide, it's really more of a spoof than a serious theological argument, as far as I can tell.

Hitchhiker's Guide? Serious? :smallbiggrin: It followed that little quip there by lampooning the man who disproved god, didn't it? Fun times.


Egads! You dare belittle his Noodlyness by denying his divinity? Prepare to be smote, YARR! :smalltongue:

NOOO! NOT SMOTING!

Lord Zentei
2007-10-17, 04:15 PM
I'd say you have no idea, but considering how polite and well-thought-out your posts are, you obviously do. Nothing makes moderate members of a religion look bad like the zealots who want to lock humanity in a closet with a book and a candle. They're the religious equivalent of the tinfoil hat people, but they get SO MUCH attention. Urgh.

Anyway, I'm also glad that this thread's been quite civil so far. Usually rabid zealots from one side or another show up, and it's impossible to reason with zealots.

Verily. <nods sagely>


Hitchhiker's Guide? Serious? :smallbiggrin: It followed that little quip there by lampooning the man who disproved god, didn't it? Fun times.

I see that you concur with my hypothesis. <nods sagely some more>

"For an encore Man proves that black is white and promptly gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing". :smallwink:


NOOO! NOT SMOTING!

Well, threatening people with "prepare to be smited" doesn't sound as good, somehow. :(

Cyclone231
2007-10-17, 04:18 PM
By autotheism, I of course meant self-worship, just in case that was unclear.

Pantheism does claim that a god exists: god IS the universe, or IS nature. Therefore it is not atheistic. Therefore the comments about an atheistic religion don't apply to it.Fine, if we redefine "god" to mean "universe", then yes, pantheism is theistic.

But just defining a word in such a way that X object is part of that word doesn't mean it means so to anyone else. Indeed, let's consider that the universe obviously exists, but most people do not call it a deity. I would say this is probably because most people do not consider the traits of the universe to be deific. And since the definition of words relies upon the general populace's use of them...

I suppose that it depends on the definition of god - but then, the dictionary fails us there. God means "one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs" and deity means "a god or goddess". :smallannoyed:

The bolding is where the description fails. Incidentally, as it happens, several of my family are Buddhists, and I have this information from them.Perhaps you missed this little three letter bit?
"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Lord Zentei
2007-10-17, 04:29 PM
Perhaps you missed this little three letter bit?
"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

I did not miss the three letter bit. Talanic has already pointed out that even without it, the description makes more sweeping claims than Buddhism.

And did you miss the part where I stated that I have Buddhists in my family? Are you claiming to know more about their belief system than they? If you would presume to be offended and try to defend a belief system from perceived slights, take care that you know what you are talking about, that the perceived slights are not inaccurate, and that you aren't arguing against the followers of said belief system yourself.

Mr Horse
2007-10-17, 04:52 PM
Guys, there are so many different versions and branches of Buddhism that vary depending on myriad factors such as localization, chronology/evolution, founding members etc. that you cannot ever say that Buddhism is either a religion, a philosophy, a set of beliefs or even something fourth as an absolute definition.
Buddhism is many different things to many different people. It is a religion with a full pantheon of multiple gods to some, a life philosophy with no deities to others - and to many it is simply a guideline or sort of moral code which they abide by in their daily affairs.
It has close ties with Hinduism, which, like Buddhism, can also be a full religion with all the deities and superstitions that you can think of - or simply a philosophy or set of beliefs with no adherence to any patheon of gods or a singular God. It is therefore also possible to be both Hindu and Christian or Hindu and Muslim, just like it is with Buddhism. It all depends on which type of Buddhism or Hinduism you follow.

There is also not one, single Buddha either, but many different incarnations and avatars that all had different things to teach and add to the supposedly original texts.

Don't believe me? Eh, whatever.

Lord Zentei
2007-10-17, 05:00 PM
Buddhism is many different things to many different people. It is a religion with a full pantheon of multiple gods to some, a life philosophy with no deities to others - and to many it is simply a guideline or sort of moral code which they abide by in their daily affairs.

The bone of contention was largely that if a belief system has gods it can be counted as a religion, but with no gods, it becomes a life philosophy. So the distinction you draw above does seem to support my position. :smallwink:

Of course, those branches of Buddhism that do have gods can justifiably be classed a religion; but that these sects can be so classified doesn't mean that Buddhism in general can be.

Mr Horse
2007-10-17, 05:07 PM
Of course, those branches of Buddhism that do have gods can justifiably be classed a religion; but that these sects can be so classified doesn't mean that Buddhism in general can be.

Exactly! :)

That was my point - that Buddhism can't ever be classified as one thing absolutely. I didn't really see anything wrong with your description of it either, however there were some other people that were making misinformed assumptions about it. That irked me, so I just had to throw in a couple of cents. ;)

Cyclone231
2007-10-17, 05:30 PM
The bone of contention was largely that if a belief system has gods it can be counted as a religion, but with no gods, it becomes a life philosophy. So the distinction you draw above does seem to support my position. :smallwink: It is perfectly possible to believe in complex ideas about the transcendent, including sapient, unearthly entities, an afterlife and a moral code based upon these ideas, and for it to not have gods at all. I think that, at the very least, a belief system with all the aforementioned attributes should be considered a religion.

Draz74
2007-10-17, 05:33 PM
3. That faith is only in the actual existence of the being in question, not in the being's power/dedication/benevolence/affection.

This one especially is a good point.

Mr Horse
2007-10-17, 05:40 PM
It is perfectly possible to believe in complex ideas about the transcendent, including sapient, unearthly entities, an afterlife and a moral code based upon these ideas, and for it to not have gods at all. I think that, at the very least, a belief system with all the aforementioned attributes should be considered a religion.

Sure, but many Buddhists believe in neither unearthly entities nor an afterlife per se. I'm not sure what you're arguing here actually. But yes, a religion could exist without any deities, however as explained above, Buddhism can't be absolutely defined as one.

Lord Zentei
2007-10-17, 05:41 PM
It is perfectly possible to believe in complex ideas about the transcendent, including sapient, unearthly entities, an afterlife and a moral code based upon these ideas, and for it to not have gods at all. I think that, at the very least, a belief system with all the aforementioned attributes should be considered a religion.

And how do you define "gods" then, if not as sapient, unearthly entities with ideas of the transcendent including an afterlife and moral code based on beliefs of same? :smallsigh:


Sure, but many Buddhists believe in neither unearthly entities nor an afterlife per se. I'm not sure what you're arguing here actually. But yes, a religion could exist without any deities, however as explained above, Buddhism can't be absolutely defined as one.

See previous point.

Mr Horse
2007-10-17, 05:54 PM
And how do you define "gods" then, if not as sapient, unearthly entities with ideas of the transcendent including an afterlife and moral code based on beliefs of same? :smallsigh:

Well, there are religions based on nature-worshipping that do not actually include any gods (as in all-powerful, sentient, otherworldly beings), but sentient, nature spirits and what have you that are still firmly grounded in this world. Many of these nature religions do not see the main focus of worship, "nature", as a sentient being, but rather a physical force to be respected and revered (and possibly manipulated into e.g. making your crops grow through positive thoughts and actions). In some of these religions, Nature doesn't think or make conscious decisions - it just acts depending on the positive and negative energies that exist in the world.

It's quite interesting, really.

Lord Zentei
2007-10-17, 06:00 PM
Well, there are religions based on nature-worshipping that do not actually include any gods (as in all-powerful, sentient, otherworldly beings), but sentient, supernatural nature spirits and what have you that are still firmly grounded in this world.

The distinction seems to be one of semantics, not of fundamental nature of the beings involved.

From dictionary.com:

1. God
(1). A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
(2). The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

Definition #2 is the one of interest here (they say "especially male" presumably due to the distinction between god and goddess, which has a distinct entry).


Many of these nature religions do not see the main focus of worship, "nature", as a sentient being, but rather a physical force to be respected and revered (and possibly manipulated into e.g. making your crops grow through positive thoughts and actions). In some of these religions, Nature doesn't think or make conscious decisions - it just acts depending on the positive and negative energies that exist in the world.

As soon as you have removed the "belief in sentient transcendent/supernatural being(s)" aspect of a belief system, it's less a religion and more a moral philosophy/philosophy on the universal order/etc.

Cyclone231
2007-10-17, 06:13 PM
And how do you define "gods" then, if not as sapient, unearthly entities with ideas of the transcendent including an afterlife and moral code based on beliefs of same? :smallsigh:Ghosts are sapient, unearthly beings, as are aliens. Once a given type of sapient, unearthly being is existent in sufficent quantities, it tends to no longer be considered a deity. For example, despite their significant power, angels in christianity are not considered to be deities. Most spirits in animistic religions are not gods, even though they control significant power and are intelligent.

Mr Horse
2007-10-17, 06:13 PM
The distinction seems to be one of semantics, not of fundamental nature of the beings involved.

I agree to a certain extent, but not entirely - there is usually also the aspect of a world creation mythology involved with a religion that has gods. With no gods, there are no creators. Some nature religions describe the world as either having always existed in one form or another, or simply just happening on its own, without any godly intervention (as gods don't exist...).



As soon as you have removed the "belief in sentient transcendent/supernatural being(s)" aspect of a belief system, it's less a religion and more a moral philosophy/philosophy on the universal order/etc.

Quite so, but Cyclone was talking about a belief system that included supernatural beings, but no actual gods. If there's anything supernatural, any pseudo-sciences or anything superstitious involved, i'd still call it a religion, regardless of whether or not there are any actual defined gods or even a world creator in the mythology.
But again, I wasn't really sure what he was trying to argue. If he was trying to say that Buddhism is a religion regardless of the fact that many Buddhists don't even believe in an actual afterlife, let alone anything supernatural, he has some explaining to do ;)

Y'know, I don't think we really disagree on this.

Have you ever heard of Raw Foodism? Or Rael?

Lord Zentei
2007-10-17, 06:22 PM
Ghosts are sapient, unearthly beings, as are aliens. Once a given type of sapient, unearthly being is existent in sufficent quantities, it tends to no longer be considered a deity. For example, despite their significant power, angels in christianity are not considered to be deities. Most spirits in animistic religions are not gods, even though they control significant power and are intelligent.

You forgot "supernatural". Aliens are not supernatural. The distinction between angels and God is based on the doctrine of monotheism, in the absence of which they would certainly qualify.



I agree to a certain extent, but not entirely - there is usually also the aspect of a world creation mythology involved with a religion that has gods. With no gods, there are no creators. Some nature religions describe the world as either having always existed in one form or another, or simply just happening on its own, without any godly intervention (as gods don't exist...).

Gods need not be responsible for the creation of the world to qualify as gods, they only need supernatural power that causes people to court them.


Quite so, but Cyclone was talking about a belief system that included supernatural beings, but no actual gods. If there's anything supernatural, any pseudo-sciences or anything superstitious involved, i'd still call it a religion, regardless of whether or not there are any actual defined gods or even a world creator in the mythology.

In the case of any supernatural sentient being(s) that form(s) the basis of a beleif system that entails worship and/or moral philosophy and/or ritual, I would call it a god. Lowercase god, not God, mind. :smallwink:


But again, I wasn't really sure what he was trying to argue. If he was trying to say that Buddhism is a religion regardless of the fact that many Buddhists don't even believe in an actual afterlife, let alone anything supernatural, he has some explaining to do ;)

Y'know, I don't think we really disagree on this.

Have you ever heard of Raw Foodism? Or Rael?

Indeed. :smallwink:

Mr Horse
2007-10-17, 06:35 PM
Ghosts are sapient, unearthly beings, as are aliens. Once a given type of sapient, unearthly being is existent in sufficent quantities, it tends to no longer be considered a deity. For example, despite their significant power, angels in christianity are not considered to be deities. Most spirits in animistic religions are not gods, even though they control significant power and are intelligent.

Those are excellent points - especially about angels and aliens.
However, going on the Christianity tangent, some theologists and philosophers also argue that the inclusion of angels and demons in the Christian mythology just means that Christianity is still a pluralistic religion despite any claims of it being monotheistic. This reasoning comes from the very little distinction that exists between the roles that angels and demons play in Christianity versus the roles of the lesser gods in many pluratheistic religions.

But, there are still many prominent philosophers and theologists who have helped further define the singularity "God" of Christiantity/Judaism/Islam as a conceptually infallible, perfect, omnipotent and omnipresent entity that can in many ways be disassociated from the mythologies described in the testaments, torah and q'ran. So even though one might argue that Christianity et.al. is still pluratheistic because of the angels etc, there is still the non-literal and very monotheistic interpretations of these religions to contend with.

SurlySeraph
2007-10-17, 06:36 PM
Inappropriate Topics
The following topics are always off-limits on these forums, no matter what (hence, Inappropriate Topics). Any posts including these topics will be edited, and any threads started to discuss these topics will be locked. Please note that, as specifically stated below, these topics remain off-limits even where they intersect with gaming or other activities discussed on these forums, and that putting an alert for “Adult” or “Mature” content on the thread does not allow circumvention of this rule.
Real-world religions (including religious reactions to gaming)


Meaning we should probably move this discussion back to fantasy worlds.

Mr Horse
2007-10-17, 06:42 PM
umm ok.



... so... do the Athar's beliefs constitute a religion or a philosophy?

EDIT:
How about a set of beliefs that revolve around worshipping a mortal person despite knowing very well that the person was not in any way a god?




I do think it's a bit difficult to discuss without drawing parallels to real world religions and philsophies to explain one's position, but hey, maybe I just suck at explaining myself.

Lord Zentei
2007-10-17, 06:45 PM
Meaning we should probably move this discussion back to fantasy worlds.

Yea, probably.

This whole thing started on the issue I raised where I suggested that a belief system without gods isn't really a religion perse, to which Cyclone231 objected (raising Buddhism as an example), and the thing span from there.

Really, the issue seems to be how a "god" is defined: I appear to be using a broader definition than Cyclone231.


How about a set of beliefs that revolve around worshipping a mortal person despite knowing very well that the person was not in any way a god?

If he is worshipped, is he not a god?


I do think it's a bit difficult to discuss without drawing parallels to real world religions and philsophies to explain one's position, but hey, maybe I just suck at explaining myself.

That's the problem, really. :/

Mr Horse
2007-10-17, 06:56 PM
OK. Let's go on the tangent with the Athar and supernatural entities being gods or god-like.

They believe that the beings that call themselves gods are in fact not gods but just extremely powerful (supernatural?) beings.
One of the main arguments used against these beings or "powers" being gods is the notion of a god being timeless, immortal, omnipotent, and something completely beyond mortal understanding - i.e. closer to the later developments of Plato's "Good Idea" or the socalled singularity "God" than say Thakhisis or Lolth.

Now, does the fact that they do acknowledge the existence of these (supernatural?) entities, regardless of whether they refer to them as "powers" instead of "gods" make them atheistic, disillusioned monotheists, pluratheists in denial or simply agnostics?
And could the Athar then be described as having a religion or a philosophy?



... maybe i should go to sleep :D

Lord Zentei
2007-10-17, 07:02 PM
OK. Let's go on the tangent with the Athar and supernatural entities being gods or god-like.

They believe that the beings that call themselves gods are in fact not gods but just extremely powerful (supernatural?) beings.
One of the main arguments used against these beings or "powers" being gods is the notion of a god being timeless, immortal, omnipotent, and something completely beyond mortal understanding - i.e. closer to the later developments of Plato's "Good Idea" or the socalled singularity "God" than say Thakhisis or Lolth.

Now, does the fact that they do acknowledge the existence of these (supernatural?) entities, regardless of whether they refer to them as "powers" instead of "gods" make them atheistic, or simply agnostics?
And could the Athar then be described as having a religion?

It makes them realists, I guess. And it means that they place certain standards on what a "god" is supposed to be.

We might get into a discussion on what "supernatural" really means, since isn't "supernatural" really a layer of nature that is simply not understood? (Though this might risk getting the real world religions into the mix again. As for instance: is a "god" a part of the natural order or is he beyond it, having created it? Depends on the standard placed for "godhood", again).

In any case, the Athar beleive in and worship the Great Unknown, so yes, I do submit that they can be said to have a religion.

Quirinus_Obsidian
2007-10-17, 07:03 PM
The setting I'm thinking up at the moment has the Sublime Way as a religion.

that is fantastic. Just fantastic!!! More ToB!! :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin:

WillWolf
2007-10-17, 07:29 PM
*sighs* I suppose we could go on and on about this and wind up in a circle, but I suppose I should just point out one thing: proof is not equivilent to reason. For example, I could have proof that the sun circles the earth (after all it rises in and sets in the same place every day) that would constitute proof, aka empirical evidence, and be completly false.

Reason is really equivilent to logic, which differs from science. And despite what some people say believing in God is not illogical, because there is philisophical evidence (again differs from proof) for the existance of God. Now you could discuss whether the logic is faulty, back and forth if you wanted to, I personally find it to be a bit tedious for the internet and would not suggest it.

Oh and any belief that states you will be re-born over and over again until you get it right sounds like a religion to me. That's not to say that you can't get philisophical concepts or ideas from Budhism (any more or less than you can get it from Christianity or Wicca), but I personally go by the idea of "if it tells you what is going to happen to your personality when you die, it's a religion," which oddly enough includes Athiesm.

Lord Zentei
2007-10-17, 07:41 PM
*sighs* I suppose we could go on and on about this and wind up in a circle, but I suppose I should just point out one thing: proof is not equivilent to reason. For example, I could have proof that the sun circles the earth (after all it rises in and sets in the same place every day) that would constitute proof, aka empirical evidence, and be completly false.

That is not what proof means. Proof is something that you get with deductive reasoning from postulates which must be accepted a priori. Empirical observation, by contrast, allows induction, and its validity is contingent on evidence and probabilistic models (such as Bayesian calculations). Reason can encompass both, though faith is distinct from it (even though they can coexist).

^ (this above point entails philosophy, not real world religion)


Reason is really equivilent to logic, which differs from science. And despite what some people say believing in God is not illogical, because there is philisophical evidence (again differs from proof) for the existance of God. Now you could discuss whether the logic is faulty, back and forth if you wanted to, I personally find it to be a bit tedious for the internet and would not suggest it.

Then why do you raise the point? In any case, see above.

^ (again, philosophy, not real world religion)


Oh and any belief that states you will be re-born over and over again until you get it right sounds like a religion to me. That's not to say that you can't get philisophical concepts or ideas from Budhism (any more or less than you can get it from Christianity or Wicca), but I personally go by the idea of "if it tells you what is going to happen to your personality when you die, it's a religion," which oddly enough includes Athiesm.

We had agreed to drop the real world religious argumentations, on account of forum rules.

Cyclone231
2007-10-17, 09:00 PM
We might get into a discussion on what "supernatural" really means, since isn't "supernatural" really a layer of nature that is simply not understood? (Though this might risk getting the real world religions into the mix again. As for instance: is a "god" a part of the natural order or is he beyond it, having created it? Depends on the standard placed for "godhood", again).A supernatural thing is an area, object, or being which is explicitly defined as existing outside of natural perception. Sometimes supernatural objects exist inside the natural realm, but it is not an always/constant thing. Sometimes a god incarnates or effects the world, but they aren't not stuck in it. Gods can be created, of course, and the supernatural does not naturally taking precedence, or even equality, with the natural. That particular "faith creates gods" viewpoint, for example, places the supernatural as an afterthought, an add-on, to the physical. The supernatural is, in Dungeons and Dragons terms, tied to a seperate plane.

Of course, this really applies to RW religions. In a fantasy, where the gods may have a constant physical form on the material plane, it becomes more complex. Generally, supernatural in D&D means anything that doesn't follow the physical laws of our earth, since everything except magical things follow normal rules and laws. Magic is supernatural. Gods are supernatural. Celestials are supernatural, as are aberrations, elementals, and magical beasts.

You forgot "supernatural". Aliens are not supernatural. The distinction between angels and God is based on the doctrine of monotheism, in the absence of which they would certainly qualify.Man, your definition of religion vs. belief system is really weird (that is, it has something you might call a god, which is based upon magical principles). Raëlism and Scientology aren't religions?

WillWolf
2007-10-18, 12:18 AM
Lord Zentai is correct. >__>;; Long day + overworkload = fuzzy philosophy rememberance.

That being said you could also prove the existance of God, a priori, through the deductive method, buuut we'd be honestly begining to get to deep into religion if I explained how so I won't. Just saying that if your interested you should poke your head around.

Though I stand by my statement (in terms of a practical, not philisophical standpoint) of the definition of religion *nods*. And keeping away from any real word situations, to my knowledge, I don't think there are any DnD athiest religions.

Hyrael
2007-10-18, 01:02 AM
Well, there are religions based on nature-worshipping that do not actually include any gods (as in all-powerful, sentient, otherworldly beings), but sentient, nature spirits and what have you that are still firmly grounded in this world. Many of these nature religions do not see the main focus of worship, "nature", as a sentient being, but rather a physical force to be respected and revered (and possibly manipulated into e.g. making your crops grow through positive thoughts and actions). In some of these religions, Nature doesn't think or make conscious decisions - it just acts depending on the positive and negative energies that exist in the world.

It's quite interesting, really.

And the thing is, if you get rid of the nature spirits and good/bad thoughts, and replace them with non-homocentric natural laws, what you have is pretty close to modern biology. Personally, I find far more life affirmation from understanding the natural world than I used to get from religion (I was like 10 at the time, that wonderfull age where EVERYONE is religious).

Cybren
2007-10-18, 02:39 AM
Having gotten FF:Tactics for the PSP and started replaying it:

The Gods and all historical holy figures of the religion are all demons!

turkishproverb
2007-10-18, 03:02 AM
I did not miss the three letter bit. Talanic has already pointed out that even without it, the description makes more sweeping claims than Buddhism.

And did you miss the part where I stated that I have Buddhists in my family? Are you claiming to know more about their belief system than they? If you would presume to be offended and try to defend a belief system from perceived slights, take care that you know what you are talking about, that the perceived slights are not inaccurate, and that you aren't arguing against the followers of said belief system yourself.

Ello. PRacticing Buddhist here. Problem with trying to define whether or not the belief system is theistic is that its probably the least organised major world religion right now, with the most varied doctrines. There are some who practically worship the Dhali Llama as a living god. There are others whom just think he's a nutty old man. Some treat him as a pope-equivilant figure, some treat him as a normal person, some as the equivilant of a teacher.

IT all depends on how you look at it.


Either way, I do like the idea of a God of Athiesm. Could it have an invisible pink unicorn as it's avatar? :smallsmile:


In the game universe though, I'd image you woudl get some holdouts. Just like you get people who think that Mt. Rushmore was carved by lighting despite evidence, or other way-off claims.

SmartAlec
2007-10-18, 03:44 AM
In any case, the Athar beleive in and worship the Great Unknown, so yes, I do submit that they can be said to have a religion.

Not necessarily all of them, of course. :smallcool: Some Athar are just die-hard non-believers who reject the idea of Religion completely. The Great-Unknown Athar are cool with that, though, because the idea of punishing or excluding people just because they don't believe is too much like what the existing 'Gods' do.

Eldan
2007-10-18, 04:07 AM
As the poster above me said, the important thing about most planescape factions is that they are not necessarily unified (even though the harmonium has that as it's main goal).
Some certainly are religious, believing in the great unknown. But those also postulate that the force that created the universe is by definition so powerful, that the human mind is and will always be unable to ever comprehend even the smallest aspect of it, as it is beyond even the understanding of the overpowers.
Many of them actually started out as priests, like their factol for example, who, after long years of worship and sometimes direct communication with their chosen power, realized that (s)he is not really all that powerful or all-knowing and certaintly did not create the multiverse. Instead of being hypocrits, as so many priests are, they decided to stop seeing the gods as beings worthy of worship and turned to the idea that they are instead some kind of big bullies, misleading everyone.
Oh, and by Planescape canon the first gods turned up when the first belief started to drop to the outer planes from the prime. Or at least the Yugoloth claim so.

Lord Zentei
2007-10-18, 06:40 AM
A supernatural thing is an area, object, or being which is explicitly defined as existing outside of natural perception. Sometimes supernatural objects exist inside the natural realm, but it is not an always/constant thing. Sometimes a god incarnates or effects the world, but they aren't not stuck in it. Gods can be created, of course, and the supernatural does not naturally taking precedence, or even equality, with the natural. That particular "faith creates gods" viewpoint, for example, places the supernatural as an afterthought, an add-on, to the physical. The supernatural is, in Dungeons and Dragons terms, tied to a seperate plane.

Of course, this really applies to RW religions. In a fantasy, where the gods may have a constant physical form on the material plane, it becomes more complex. Generally, supernatural in D&D means anything that doesn't follow the physical laws of our earth, since everything except magical things follow normal rules and laws. Magic is supernatural. Gods are supernatural. Celestials are supernatural, as are aberrations, elementals, and magical beasts.

So "supernatural" is something that exists outside of the "natural" perception? Pretty useless definition, there. :smallconfused: How is "natural perception" defined, then? Is it anything we can detect with our senses? Are neutrinos not natural? Or is it anything we can detect with our instruments? How about string theory, then?


Man, your definition of religion vs. belief system is really weird (that is, it has something you might call a god, which is based upon magical principles). Raëlism and Scientology aren't religions?

Er... did you miss the point regarding the real world religion moratorium? If you want to ask me about Scientology, send me a PM (and please don't expect that opinion to be high :smallwink: ).



Ello. PRacticing Buddhist here. Problem with trying to define whether or not the belief system is theistic is that its probably the least organised major world religion right now, with the most varied doctrines. There are some who practically worship the Dhali Llama as a living god. There are others whom just think he's a nutty old man. Some treat him as a pope-equivilant figure, some treat him as a normal person, some as the equivilant of a teacher.

IT all depends on how you look at it.

That doesn't undermine the validity of the rejection of the generalization (as I posted above). Again, we're in dangerous territory here, if you want to talk about it some more, PM, plz. :smallwink:


Either way, I do like the idea of a God of Athiesm. Could it have an invisible pink unicorn as it's avatar? :smallsmile:

Or a flying spaghetti monster? Pretty contradictory either way, no? :smallsmile:



Not necessarily all of them, of course. :smallcool: Some Athar are just die-hard non-believers who reject the idea of Religion completely. The Great-Unknown Athar are cool with that, though, because the idea of punishing or excluding people just because they don't believe is too much like what the existing 'Gods' do.

Ah, people according to my heart, then.

I must confess my limited knowledge of the Planescape factions... based on the previous description of them, they sounded like theists. This however, would indicate that the thing that unites them is rejection of the worshipfulness of the planar Powers, yes?

SmartAlec
2007-10-18, 07:16 AM
Ah, people according to my heart, then.

I must confess my limited knowledge of the Planescape factions... based on the previous description of them, they sounded like theists. This however, would indicate that the thing that unites them is rejection of the worshipfulness of the planar Powers, yes?

That's why they have the nickname 'The Defiers'. Disrupting the operations of the established Gods and their churches is a big part of the Athar manifesto, along with the 'glimpsing the unknown' stuff.

I guess with everything like this, there's a certain amount of osmosis; every member joined for his or her own reasons, but the embittered god-haters eventually catch philosophy by rubbing shoulders with the deep thinkers, and the deep thinkers catch dissatisfaction from the god-haters.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-10-18, 08:01 AM
Not quite what you're looking for, but I wrote up a little homebrew 'deity' called the Thousandvoices. Look for it on these boards if you'd like to know more, but basically their tenets cause all other religions to consider them heretics, as they claim that all the gods that people worship are merely different aspects of the same being.

By ancient Roman standards, that would be atheism--the denial of the pantheon itself.

Except that modern Hinduism can have a bit of that in it.

Lord Zentei
2007-10-18, 08:12 AM
Not quite what you're looking for, but I wrote up a little homebrew 'deity' called the Thousandvoices. Look for it on these boards if you'd like to know more, but basically their tenets cause all other religions to consider them heretics, as they claim that all the gods that people worship are merely different aspects of the same being.

By ancient Roman standards, that would be atheism--the denial of the pantheon itself.

It also postulates a divine being of some kind, so is it really atheistic? :smallconfused:

After all, if you are a believer in one pantheon and not in another (stating that this other pantheon is merely a distorted view of your pantheon), is that not a less extreme version of the same thing?

Cyclone231
2007-10-18, 04:42 PM
So "supernatural" is something that exists outside of the "natural" perception? Pretty useless definition, there. :smallconfused: How is "natural perception" defined, then? Is it anything we can detect with our senses? Are neutrinos not natural? Or is it anything we can detect with our instruments? How about string theory, then?You know. The universe, stuff that is inside the universe. Natural. Jeez, it's pretty simple. Gravity, neutrons, et cetera, are all natural. If it's supernatural, that means it's magical (basically). If it's from another universe that's basically the same as ours, that doesn't count.

Er... did you miss the point regarding the real world religion moratorium?So you do consider them to be religions, then. :smalltongue:

Lord Zentei
2007-10-18, 06:09 PM
You know. The universe, stuff that is inside the universe. Natural. Jeez, it's pretty simple. Gravity, neutrons, et cetera, are all natural. If it's supernatural, that means it's magical (basically). If it's from another universe that's basically the same as ours, that doesn't count.

It's not simple at all, if you ascribe the possibility of other layers of reality existing. And another universe that is the same as ours is just as "natural" in the sense that it operates on the same principles.

And what is "universe"? Everything that exists? In that case, "higher" layers of reality would be encompassed by the phrase.

And would the "higher" layer of reality not operate on its own "natural" laws, with these laws and the laws of nature with which we are familiar are both simply subsets?


So you do consider them to be religions, then. :smalltongue:

No. But you apparently do. :smallwink: And discussing what belief system is or is not a religion would seem to violate the spirit of the rule in any case.

Leliel
2007-10-18, 06:33 PM
I would say that since deities are spawned by belief (mainly) it would only be a matter of time in a world with Richard Dawkins and his ilk that a god of atheism is created.

What would follow would be an excellent "non-serious" campagin idea. Needless to say, there will be awkwardness. Lots and lots of awkwardness.

Lord Zentei
2007-10-18, 06:34 PM
I would say that since deities are spawned by belief (mainly) it would only be a matter of time in a world with Richard Dawkins and his ilk that a god of atheism is created.

What would follow would be an excellent "non-serious" campagin idea. Needless to say, there will be awkwardness. Lots and lots of awkwardness.

But atheism is lack of belief, not belief in lack.

Talanic
2007-10-19, 01:22 AM
Zealots exist on all sides. I've met atheists so rabid about their lack of belief that their methods and reasons were nearly indistinguishable from fundamentalists--merely reversed. Fanatical denial rather than fanatical embrace.

Basically, if an atheist spends all his time thinking about how there is NO god and how he's right about it, how different is he from someone who spends all his time thinking about how there IS a god and how he's right about it?

No, not all atheists are like that, nor are all religious people like that. Some are, on both sides, and that's the kind of belief we're talking about.

Lord Zentei
2007-10-19, 07:22 AM
Zealots exist on all sides. I've met atheists so rabid about their lack of belief that their methods and reasons were nearly indistinguishable from fundamentalists--merely reversed. Fanatical denial rather than fanatical embrace.

Basically, if an atheist spends all his time thinking about how there is NO god and how he's right about it, how different is he from someone who spends all his time thinking about how there IS a god and how he's right about it?

That depends on the probability of the deity in question existing, the level to which such belief and aspects of culture dependent on it permeate society and to what extent it affects moral philosophy and the possibility of its further development. Moreover, people who believe in deity A are atheistic themselves with regards to deity B, C, D, E, F and G, etc. It's not just a question of belief in a god or no belief. Although it is certainly true that obnoxious zealots can be found for any position. :smallwink:


On topic: going by the "faith is food" model, if a person who believes in a deity helps create the deity and feed that deity's power, should a person who actively disbelieves (as opposed to merely not believing) in said deity not sap its power and potentially eliminate it? In that case, antagonism between worshipers of the gods and those who reject them can reach whole new levels. :smallwink:

The Extinguisher
2007-10-19, 10:54 PM
But atheism is lack of belief, not belief in lack.

Other way around. Hence the 'without god'. And atheist believes there is no god. Anything else has no bearing on his thestic believes.

Anyway, I don't know if this counts, but I've made a world where the gods, ~700 years prior sealed off the Outer Realms and Prime Material Realm from each other, which prevented, among other things, the gods influence on the realm, effectively removing themselfs from the belief systems of many races, except the extremely devout, which were usually just the diluted aasimar bloodlines.

BlackStaticWolf
2007-10-19, 11:31 PM
Other way around. Hence the 'without god'. And atheist believes there is no god. Anything else has no bearing on his thestic believes.

No, Zentei is quite correct. What you're suggesting is a very common misconception. The "without" portion refers only to a passive lack of believe. Ie, the logical default position of negation. Of course, some individual atheists take it a step further and profess active disbelief, but the majority of us don't take such a forceful position. The thing to remember is that they're taking it further than the baseline atheistic position, and if you were to ask one of the particularly rabid atheists, most of them will say the same thing.


On the actual topic... I co-created and played in a setting where a powerful wizard king killed the gods. So there were gods, but people were more apt to worship the long dead wizard because the gods were dead.

Divine casters were basically non-existant. The only people with access to that kind of magic were those who had direct ties to extraplanar forces. A big part of the campaign actually centered around attempts by new gods to enter the world and gain followers.