Another argument for atheism in D&D

[Segev]

Indeed. If the "rational atheist" is not actually trying to prove anything to anybody, he has no "burden of proof" to anybody except himself. And he has a right to start from his hypothesis and use a failure to find proof of its antithesis to support his rational adherence to his hypothesis. It's how atheists in the real world that aren't trying to prove anything to anybody else do it, in the face of whatever evidence for divinity the various religions they've rejected propose for the truth of their god(s).

If the true believer is not actually trying to prove anything to anybody, he has no "burden of proof" to anybody except himself. And he has a right to start from his hypothesis and use a failure to find proof that the evidences he accepts do not show what he believes to be true as reason to adhere to his hypothesis.

The burden of proof rests upon the guy trying to make a claim about another person and that other person's state of mind or right to act. The legal burden of proof rests upon a plaintiff or the prosecution because it is they who are asking for adverse/corrective action to be enforced upon the defendant. The burden of proof in an argument lies with the person trying to show that something is true.

The reason it gets muddy so often is because usually both sides have a claim that something is true, and are both engaged in a false dichotomy argument when they claim that either their point is true or the other guy's is.

Now, in the case of atheists vs. theists, both have a positive claim and they are true antitheses. But the only way to really establish who is right is to establish an agreed-upon definition that is testable.

Most of this thread falls apart at the "agreed-upon definition" part.

[Psyren]

I'd say "these beings (e.g. Corellon, Pelor, Lathander, Sarenrae etc.) don't exist" is irrational. Their existence is provable.

However, "these beings exist, but are not truly deities" can be a rational stance. It can either be outright wrong or largely irrelevant (i.e. even if none of them really are deities, you still have to acknowledge them and worship one, or face the consequences), but that belief itself can be rational all the same.

[johnbragg]

I'd say "these beings (e.g. Corellon, Pelor, Lathander, Sarenrae etc.) don't exist" is irrational. Their existence is provable.

However, "these beings exist, but are not truly deities" can be a rational stance.

Only if you have some definition of "deities", a standard by which the local pantheon can be tested and found wanting.

Most common practice in a D&D world would be to take the set of known and generally-accepted deities, determine what is known about them, what they have in common, and use that as a basis for a definition of "deity."

Although this thread may have established that, since the publication of Heroes of Horror and the debut of the ARchivist as a "divine caster", there may no longer be any coherent definition of what is and is not a deity.

[Psyren]

Only if you have some definition of "deities", a standard by which the local pantheon can be tested and found wanting.

Most common practice in a D&D world would be to take the set of known and generally-accepted deities, determine what is known about them, what they have in common, and use that as a basis for a definition of "deity."

Although this thread may have established that, since the publication of Heroes of Horror and the debut of the ARchivist as a "divine caster", there may no longer be any coherent definition of what is and is not a deity.

1) I already proposed one potential definition (that the FR gods could fail.). A deity, in the "this being deserves my worship/devtion" sense, could be a being who is truly infallible, truly all-knowing, incapable of being defeated or killed etc. FR gods are demonstrably flawed, demonstrably petty (in ways that only the Greek pantheon can match), and can demonstrably fail at their endeavors. How many Mystras has the setting gone through for instance? So someone could conclude "they're just powerful outsiders" and have a rational basis for doing so. Solars are extremely powerful too, but they can also die and be tricked and make mistakes and act on bad information.

2) I'm not sure what's so earth-shattering about the Archivist. If it's the fact that he can cast divine spells without worshiping a deity, clerics/druids/paladins could do that right in core long before it was even created. So I don't see Archivist changing much of anything.

[ShurikVch]

Although this thread may have established that, since the publication of Heroes of Horror and the debut of the ARchivist as a "divine caster", there may no longer be any coherent definition of what is and is not a deity.

Antimagic Field:

Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.

Thus if someone can cast in AMF, then he's a deity
(There are some means to cast in AMF, but Initiate of Mystra is not for archivists, Invoke Magic doesn't work, and Iron Heart Surge just remove the AMF)

[LTwerewolf]

The problem about the proof is that these atheists do in fact need to prove in the campaign settings in order for atheism as a belief to be more than just an individual. In a world where the presence of gods has in fact been proven to people, if you want to have more than an atheist here and there, there needs to be significant argument as to why an entire group would be them. A single here and there can be chalked up to mental instability or willful ignorance.

Then again anything can be explained by willful ignorance. If someone is dead set on believing that their shoelaces are divine, there's not much you can do to change their minds. Then again, that doesn't make their worship of their shoelaces a religion nor does it make their shoelaces a god. Likewise, one person saying gods don't exist is not enough to support an atheist belief system. You require more than a handful of followers of a belief system to consider it one.

Therefore, in a setting where everyone is brought up with the knowledge that gods exist, the burden is in fact on the atheist to prove to others for more followers of atheism. It differs from the real world, where there was always a doubt as to whether or not (a) god(s) existed. The gods in most settings still interact with mortals on a pretty regular basis.

So if we're talking about atheism as a full belief system, yes the burden of proof is on the atheist. If we're talking about an individual atheist, it's not really saying there's reason for atheism but rather that this specific individual straight refuses to believe regardless of proof.

[OldTrees1]

2) I'm not sure what's so earth-shattering about the Archivist. If it's the fact that he can cast divine spells without worshiping a deity, clerics/druids/paladins could do that right in core long before it was even created. So I don't see Archivist changing much of anything.

Someone was reading the Archivist as doing more than drawing on a non deity source(clerics/druids/paladins) but in fact being their own source of divine magic. If a being is a source of divine magic (rather than merely drawing on another source like nature/an ideal) then that might mean something something.

[Mehangel]

Antimagic Field:Thus if someone can cast in AMF, then he's a deity (There are some means to cast in AMF, but Initiate of Mystra is not for archivists, Invoke Magic doesn't work, and Iron Heart Surge just remove the AMF)

Actually, in regards to Iron Heart Surge, I was under the impression that it would not remove the Antimagic Field, but would rather simply make it no longer effect the initiator.

Also, for the most part, arguments are that a reasonable atheist may believe that the gods are simply powerful outsiders with access to epic spells. And on the topic of Epic Spells, they may function inside antimagic fields:

Antimagic field does not automatically suppress epic spells as it does standard spells. Instead, each time an epic spell is subject to an antimagic field, make a dispel check as a 20th-level caster (1d20 + 20). The epic spell has a DC of 11 + the epic spell’s spellcaster level. If the suppression check is successful, the epic spell is suppressed like any other spell. If the dispel check is unsuccessful, the epic spell functions normally.

[LudicSavant]

Okay, I think something really needs to be cleared up. It was cleared up earlier in the thread, but some people seem to need to be reminded again.

Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist

noun
1. a person who does not believe in God or gods

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods

The most inclusive definition of atheist is merely a person who lacks belief in deities. As such, saying "I'm an atheist" does not necessarily express the belief that there are no gods. It just doesn't express the belief that there are gods. No positive claim is being made.

Also, since people seem to be confused about this too, an agnostic is a type of atheist. It is possible to be an agnostic atheist or to be an agnostic theist.

[Mehangel]

Also, since people seem to be confused about this too, an agnostic is a type of atheist.

I think it would be more accurate to say that an agnostic may or may not be a type of atheist, depending upon the individuals explicit beliefs.

[OldTrees1]

The most inclusive definition of atheist is merely a person who lacks belief in deities. As such, saying "I'm an atheist" does not necessarily express the belief that there are no gods. It just doesn't express the belief that there are gods. No positive claim is being made.

Also, since people seem to be confused about this too, an agnostic is a type of atheist.

Correct. Although Agnostic Theists also exist.

[Psyren]

Someone was reading the Archivist as doing more than drawing on a non deity source(clerics/druids/paladins) but in fact being their own source of divine magic. If a being is a source of divine magic (rather than merely drawing on another source like nature/an ideal) then that might mean something something.

Gotcha. There is clearly an external source of some kind though - if they run out of spells and you take away their prayerbooks so they can't prep anything, they're essentially powerless. Even bards have more innate power than that.

[LudicSavant]

Correct. Although Agnostic Theists also exist.

I think it would be more accurate to say that an agnostic may or may not be a type of atheist, depending upon the individuals explicit beliefs.

Correct. It is possible to be an agnostic atheist or to be an agnostic theist.

Will edit to make that clear.

[Anlashok]

Hooray for redefining words.

[OldTrees1]

Hooray for redefining words.

Huh? Did you think those words meant something other than what they are describing?

[ngilop]

There have been some wondrous stances made, and on the other tip of the seesaw, some pretty garbage ones.

I have to say that getting into the super 'the definition of is, is, is' is well, defeating the point; and just ends up making one look like a donkey.

In the end much like in the real world, beings are going to either deny a deity exists or accept it; and much like in the real world no amount of proof of the opposite stance is ever going to get that person to change.


We have seen that much in this thread, people creating dozens of thread with 'evidence' that really just put up more walls to keep themselves buried behind rather than actually attempting to support their stance.

Juts lie on earth, there are people who actually believe we never landed on the moon, the earth is flat, 9/11 was government own doing, a house was destroyed completely in a storm with nothing standing over 8 inches tall, but somehow the 3 month old infant was in their bed and somehow everything fell just right to give the child some kind of super bunker, and that lava burns. No matter what anybody says ever. there are those that are just going to say 'nope do not believe it'.

and that's fine, just because in D&D people claim 'deities actually do stuff' don't mean a thing, there are a lot of people in the real world that would say the same.

wanna know a secret, there are atheist in the real world just as there are theist. Why would a fantasy world be any different?

I can say the argument of ' a wizard can do it therefore no gods!' is horribly atrocious. Just because a wizard can for example cause rain to fall and for crops to grow when they should not is nowhere comparable to the fact that if the god of the harvest and agriculture dies, nothing grows.. ever again ( well until a new god shows up to take that role)

and believing in a higher power does not make one less intelligent nor any less able to think for themselves.

In the end, why there even needs to be a thread let alone possible threads to this subject baffles my mind to a great extent. OF course there are going to be extremes on both sides, any thing in existence needs those extremes to balance itself out.

[LudicSavant]

I can say the argument of ' a wizard can do it therefore no gods!' is horribly atrocious.

It is, which is why nobody in the thread made that argument.

The argument was "if not all wizards are gods, then doing something a wizard can do does not prove you're a god."

The argument is not saying "this proves no gods exist." The argument is saying "doing something that a wizard can do does not prove that gods exist." Those conclusions are not even remotely similar.

[Illven]

Personally I'm not making the argument that the gods are beings that don't exists.

I'm making the argument that besides Kelemvor from Forgotten realms, and Mina from Dragonlance, any gods from those two settings are Evil aligned, and thus a moral person wouldn't worship them.

And I've yet to see a DM say they'd let a good person run a protection racket, let alone one where if you fail to pay you get tortured for eternity, or that they'd let a good person slaughter hundreds of thousands of innocent people because one of their followers went off the deep end, at least not without an alignment change.

If there's a DM that'd allow it, good. You're wrong, but at least you're not a hypocrite. For the DM's that wouldn't, why is it okay when the gods do it.

[Psyren]

I'm making the argument that besides Kelemvor from Forgotten realms, and Mina from Dragonlance, any gods from those two settings are Evil aligned, and thus a moral person wouldn't worship them.

And that's a rational stance too. Ultimately, not one that would work out great for your PC, but rational.

I'm curious why Kelemvor gets a pass though. Yeah he tried to remove the Wall, but he basically got smacked down and now upholds it. He's just as much a part of the (unfortunate) system as Ilmater and Torm and all the rest.

[Illven]

And that's a rational stance too. Ultimately, not one that would work out great for your PC, but rational.

I'm curious why Kelemvor gets a pass though. Yeah he tried to remove the Wall, but he basically got smacked down and now upholds it. He's just as much a part of the (unfortunate) system as Ilmater and Torm and all the rest.

Because he at least tried.

There's a world of difference in my mind between "I'm not willing to die over this", and "I'm not even going to consider if chaining up exalted good characters to be tortured for all eternity is wrong."

He's not perfect. But I do think that Lawful Neutral is a fine alignment for him.

[Psyren]

Because he at least tried.

There's a world of difference in my mind between "I'm not willing to die over this", and "I'm not even going to consider if chaining up exalted good characters to be tortured for all eternity is wrong."

He's not perfect. But I do think that Lawful Neutral is a fine alignment for him.

Makes sense. But I do think it's possible to be morally upright and still be a part of the system. The good gods are simply powerless to do anything about that particular element of the status quo (after all, it's enforced by a being that is far more powerful than all of them combined) - and doing nothing is even worse because it means that a lot of innocent souls now have no options besides the Wall or the evil gods' domains. At least by spreading the good faiths, they can save as many righteous souls as possible from both of those dark fates.

In other words, the setting itself is at fault, and that's a valid hypothesis on which a setting can be built. After all, "there wouldn't need to be paladins if the world was, like, fair." Think of it like a good-aligned resistance smuggling innocents out of a totalitarian regime - they can only help the ones that come to them, and their lack of effectiveness at overthrowing said regime doesn't mean they don't get points for doing the good they can do.

[Illven]

Makes sense. But I do think it's possible to be morally upright and still be a part of the system. The good gods are simply powerless to do anything about that particular element of the status quo (after all, it's enforced by a being that is far more powerful than all of them combined) - and doing nothing is even worse because it means that a lot of innocent souls now have no options besides the Wall or the evil gods' domains. At least by spreading the good faiths, they can save as many righteous souls as possible from both of those dark fates.

In other words, the setting itself is at fault, and that's a valid hypothesis on which a setting can be built. After all, "there wouldn't need to be paladins if the world was, like, fair." Think of it like a good-aligned resistance smuggling innocents out of a totalitarian regime - they can only help the ones that come to them, and their lack of effectiveness at overthrowing said regime doesn't mean they don't get points for doing the good they can do.

And yet. Even though they have no reason to believe that it would bring bad things to them, they still refuse to protest the wall.

It's not that they are powerless to change it. That I could understand. It's that they don't even make their disapproval known.

[Psyren]

And yet. Even though they have no reason to believe that it would bring bad things to them, they still refuse to protest the wall.

It's not that they are powerless to change it. That I could understand. It's that they don't even make their disapproval known.

We don't know that they didn't. Disagreeing with Ao strikes me as a very short conversation. (As Mystra 2.0 found out the hard way.) And again, even if they did, it wouldn't have changed anything. So they're stuck doing the good they can do in an inherently unjust world. Which makes sense - unjust worlds are prime real estate for heroes and villains alike. There's not much interesting about a world where good is winning.

And for all the flak FR gets, Eberron is arguably even worse - there's no afterlife at all, no karma of any sort for the jerks or saints. At least in FR you can get a patron and retire to bliss. In Eberron, regardless of your deeds or outlook, it's ohai dolurrh.

[Illven]

We don't know that they didn't. Disagreeing with Ao strikes me as a very short conversation. (As Mystra 2.0 found out the hard way.) And again, even if they did, it wouldn't have changed anything. So they're stuck doing the good they can do in an inherently unjust world. Which makes sense - unjust worlds are prime real estate for heroes and villains alike. There's not much interesting about a world where good is winning.

And for all the flak FR gets, Eberron is arguably even worse - there's no afterlife at all, no karma of any sort for the jerks or saints. At least in FR you can get a patron and retire to bliss. In Eberron, regardless of your deeds or outlook, it's ohai dolurrh.

Unfortunately if you want to convince me, you're going to have show me proof. I understand however that unless I have proof of a good god supporting the wall I'm not going to be able to convince you.

I would actually say FR is worse in my opinion then Eberron.

[Psyren]

Unfortunately if you want to convince me, you're going to have show me proof. I understand however that unless I have proof of a good god supporting the wall I'm not going to be able to convince you.

We saw what happened when the gods tried to stand up to Ao before - the Time of Troubles. Not exactly the same situation, but still, it gives them a plausible reason not to bother trying again. Especially when the good gods know that one of them dying (e.g. Mystra) causes even more suffering for innocents before the equilibrium can be re-established.

My point therefore is that it's not a matter of supporting or opposing it. It just is. Your argument is like saying the good gods can't exist because they haven't teamed up to wipe out Asmodeus+Orcus and scour the lower planes of all fiends forever. The fact is that some efforts are beyond even deities - and if they know it's beyond them, trying is futile too.

Now what you can say (and I think, are saying) is that, because they are ineffective, they don't deserve the worship /devotion of morally upright beings. That's a rational stance to hold, but it's one that can be disagreed with on equally rational grounds (i.e. that expecting the gods to even try is unreasonable - not only is it plainly futile, it can easily make the status quo even worse.)

I would actually say FR is worse in my opinion then Eberron.

My problem with Eberron is that everyone is treated the same, like nails in a bucket. You could be an Exalted Good ascetic or a mass-murdering serial rapist, and you'll both end up in the same place, because everybody goes there. The Wall may be a questionable construct, but as long as you avoid it by picking a patron (which, incidentally, you can actually do after you die) then you at least get a final destination commensurate with your deeds in life.

[Illven]

We saw what happened when the gods tried to stand up to Ao before - the Time of Troubles. Not exactly the same situation, but still, it gives them a plausible reason not to bother trying again. Especially when the good gods know that one of them dying (e.g. Mystra) causes even more suffering for innocents before the equilibrium can be re-established.

My point therefore is that it's not a matter of supporting or opposing it. It just is. Your argument is like saying the good gods can't exist because they haven't teamed up to wipe out Asmodeus+Orcus and scour the lower planes of all fiends forever. The fact is that some efforts are beyond even deities - and if they know it's beyond them, trying is futile too.

Now what you can say (and I think, are saying) is that, because they are ineffective, they don't deserve the worship /devotion of morally upright beings. That's a rational stance to hold, but it's one that can be disagreed with on equally rational grounds (i.e. that expecting the gods to even try is unreasonable - not only is it plainly futile, it can easily make the status quo even worse.)



My problem with Eberron is that everyone is treated the same, like nails in a bucket. You could be an Exalted Good ascetic or a mass-murdering serial rapist, and you'll both end up in the same place, because everybody goes there. The Wall may be a questionable construct, but as long as you avoid it by picking a patron (which, incidentally, you can actually do after you die) then you at least get a final destination commensurate with your deeds in life.

What exactly is the time of troubles?

[johnbragg]

What exactly is the time of troubles?

The events that happen at the introduction of 2nd edition. I don't know the details (they were in a novel or novels), but the gods are forced to walk the earth as mortals, some of them get killed and replaced by mortals (Cyric and Midnight/Mystra/something).

It provided an in-game explanation for the change in mechanics from 1E to 2E.

[Zale]

What exactly is the time of troubles?

Taking place during the Year of Shadows, 1358 DR, the Time of Troubles was a cataclysmic period during which the gods of Faerûn were forced to walk the earth in their mortal avatar forms. However, unlike when a god usually sends an avatar and its true form resides usually on one of the Outer Planes, the gods were all demoted and this was the only form they had at the time, making them very vulnerable. Several major deities died during the Time of Troubles, and a handful of mortals rose to divinity.

Ao demoted the gods themselves because somebody stole his Tablets of Fate. Divine magic stopped working unless you were near your god, arcane magic became dangerously unreliable.

It was not fun and no one wants to do it again.

EDIT: By the twisted devices of Nyarlathotep I am ninja'd again. So what John said.

[LoyalPaladin]

What exactly is the time of troubles?

One of the craziest and, in my opinion, coolest events that happened in the Forgotten Realms setting. It's also a big part of the reason I like Torm so much.

I tried to stay away. But I got the feeling my portfolio was being threatened... Psyren!

"there wouldn't need to be paladins if the world was, like, fair."

You're free to go... this time.

[Segev]

After all, "there wouldn't need to be paladins if the world was, like, fair."

You're free to go... this time.

And this is why somewhat confused villains started throwing Worlds Fairs.

Muhuhahahahaha.