[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: Religion dnd.jpg (86 KB, 700x560)
86 KB
86 KB JPG
How does the fact that a god is 100% demonstrably real and can have a direct visible impact in a setting change the dynamics of a religion? How does it change the behavior of the faithful and religous leaders compared to real-world religions? Would there be less or more corruption among the clergy?
>>
File: 1661367339858988.jpg (117 KB, 626x1087)
117 KB
117 KB JPG
It's generally implied that most clergy aren't actually clerics in terms of class, so there's no reason to think corruption wouldn't still be an issue.
>>
>>88938133
>Thinking that the wind and waves guiding us to fruitful raids isn't 100% demonstrable proof that Njord is real.
ishygddt
>>
Why would it change anything? the existing religious people already believe their god is real and that certain things are their gods actions. It only changes the actions of people who don't care much about gods. Because whilst they would be athiests in real life, they might be religious, or at least not actively scorn gods to avoid punishment.
>>
>>88938220
For the laypeople sure, but I guarantee you that most religious leaders throughout history knew they were full of shit and were just making things up that conveniently gave them more power and authority. In a setting where a god is real, a priest is gonna have a much harder time justifying using all the tithe money for himself, because his own god will probably punish him.
>>
>>88938133
I suggest if you don't believe God is real you stop playing childish games and begin reading scripture.
>>
>>88938429
>but I guarantee you that most religious leaders throughout history knew they were full of shit and were just making things up that conveniently gave them more power and authority
The fact that you think that just exposes you as a fedora retard too poisoned in the mind to understand genuine religious beliefs.
>>
>>88938455
I'm sure there were and are pleny of true believers, especially priests and shamans in small communities, but the leaders who had thousands of followers and claimed to speak with the authority of their god is another story.
>>
>>88938133
Pretty much everyone took for granted the God was real until the 18th century, and most fantasy is inspired on the Middle Ages and such, so I don't really see how it makes that much of a difference.
>>
>>88938596
No, they're not.
>>
>>88938619
Everyone took for granted that THEIR god was real, but the god other people worshipped was fake or they were worshipping him the wrong way.
>>
>>88938133
A powerful extraplanar being is 100% demonstrably real. But a god is title assigned to the worshiped by the worshipers. There's a cult in Vanatu that worships Prince Philip as a god, because he was the consort of the leader of the British Empire. His power is undeniably real, and almost unfathomable from the perspective of a Vanatuan. Joe Biden is considerably more powerful than Prince Philip ever was, and yet nobody worships him as a god. That's because power is unrelated to divinity. This is a notion you get from being low IQ, and having a fundamental moral cowardice which means you surrender all intellectual, spiritual, and moral opinions to whatever threatens you strongly enough. But in reality that doesn't make the thing you're worshiping a god, unless we're just speaking in terms of the sociological angle, and that only means that you THINK of it as a god.

Personally, I believe that Jupiter-Zeus, Dyeus Pater, is very real, but I do not worship it, and I do not consider it a god. Most fantasy "gods" are just ignorant racketeers profiting on mortal misery.

So in short, there is no way to achieve your premise. There can never be a "100% real" god.
>>
>>88938986
>There can never be a "100% real" god
What if he literally shows up glowing with power and divinty or god is really powerful human that managed to ascend and grants real power to worshippers emulating his virtues for example making sword cut steel like paper or prayer directed to said god turning undead to dust

Or or what if both happen
>>
>>88938986
>A powerful extraplanar being is 100% demonstrably real.
Okay, we're waiting for your demonstration.
>>
>>88938133
Depends on the human-ness of a god.

Your incomprehensible Lovecraftian types would end up a lot more like the modern day, with whoever controls the "filter" through which they are perceived being open to all manner of corruption and evil-doing. If the entity in question has mass-telepathy (or a near-equivalent), it may govern entirely through mass-broadcast revaluation (words, hallucinations, dreams, feelings, etc.) to all it's followers or chosen people.

More human-like... Just go look at Greek myth and see how that happens.
>>
>>88939075
>glowing with power
Level 1 PCs and entire mortal races do this in DnD, not worth remarking on.
>divinity
Not a real thing you can radiate.
>really powerful X
Who cares? I already explained to you that power doesn't matter. In fact, the vast majority of gods ever worshiped by humans are much weaker than humans, most aren't even as powerful as a human child. Yes there are Olympians and the Aesir and whatnot, but they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the gods of households, roads, tribes, and animistic gods like the kami in Japan. Divinity is unrelated to power. You need to understand this. But I feel like you consider the two equal, which is sad and quite dumb.
>superhuman feats
So what? He can do magic, or he has advanced technology - why would I imagine he is a god?
>grants power to worshipers
Yes, powerful beings frequently do this, both IRL and in fantasy settings, without even the pretense of being a god. You're obsessed with the power of some being because you feel like power invalidates all other perspectives but that isn't actually true, it's just that power can coerce weak willed people like you into compliance.
>>
>>88939166
Im talking more like sigmar
>More human-like... Just go look at Greek myth and see how that happens.
You mean sex?
Not every culture would describe gods as such also they never really showed up athena didnt really battle with poseidon. Im talking really manifesting today and having a 1v1 and people having proof of it
Or imagine a knight praying before a battle or his sword to strike true and his god literally shows up and makes the sword turn to solid gold with monoedge blade and weight of 0.1kg

Do you Play any games? In a lot of them gods are 100% real beings with real power and effects
>>
>>88939332
>In a lot of them gods are 100% real beings with real power and effects
But none of them behave in the way you’re describing
>>
In practice, nothing because most settings still make them lazy fucks that allow shit like corrupt priests to do things that should realistically tarnish the god's name.
>>
>>88939202
>DnD
I wasnt talking about it
>Not a real thing you can radiate
That's just what mortals think. UV wasnt observed in 1200ad it dose not mean that skin cancer didnt exist then
> is unrelated to power.
That's why I seperated them in my response
>you feel like power invalidates all other perspectives
No
>He can do magic
I dont know what you mean by that.

>you feel like power invalidates all other perspectives but that isn't actually true, it's just that power can coerce weak willed people like you into compliance
Or can motivate strong willed people to acts of heorism for benefit of his people rule by love after all gods dont need to concern with being loved or feard they do that they do since that's what they manifest godess of healing would heal people not hurt them and war god would wage war not for some goal(if there is one mortals literally cant grasp) it but its just what they do since they are gods
>>
>>88939374
Name some systems then instead of greentaxing my one response and saying "nawt true"
>>
>>88939507
I can’t name a system that doesn’t exist. You’re asking me to prove a negative.
>>
>>88938778
That's not at all true, only monotheistic religions try and write off other deities as being fake, and a lot of the time they didn't even go that far and just said the other gods were some kind of lesser spirit or demon that was powerful but not divine like the One True God.

Polytheistic religions were totally OK with there being other gods that other people worshiped because of course they were. They already believed in multiple gods with different domains so what's one more? You didn't sacrifice to Frimglam, patron god of Glimburg because you don't live in Glimburg, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist or have real power over the people that do live there.
>>
>>88939721
>A lot of systems do this
>No such system exists
Fuck off no games chomohomo
>>
>>88939075
The only difference between what you just described and a particularly powerful wizard/sorcerer/spirit/magic construct is that it "radiates divinity", which could just as easily be some mental influence or just sheer awe. Divinity is a fuzzy concept, and as far as we can tell whether or not an something is divine is a quality dictated by the observer, we have no objective method of measuring or observing it, we can't even agree on a concrete definition of it.
>>
>>88939843
god is a spirit worshiped by humans by definition
>we have no objective method of measuring or observing it
Yes we have the GM he is the objecttivity gods do exist in settings since he is the narrator and he says so
I dont know what you try to accomplish here
>>
>>88939494
Divinity is defined as a subjective quality, it cannot possibly radiate from a being because it consists of different things to different people. You would consider divinity to be power, I consider the concept inherently immoral and therefore recognize nothing divine. My existence is a refutation of your supposition that divinity is simply some undiscovered physical quality, because I would consider that physical quality to be irrelevant to the question of whether a being is actually a god, and my consideration is equally valid as yours or anyone else's.
>I don't understand what magic is
Okay? What do you expect from me, an apology?
>muh gods are good!
Irrelevant, I'm not calling these beings evil (though obviously many of them unambiguously are), I'm objecting to the idea that it's impossible to believe that they're not gods.
>>
>>88939920
>Divinity is defined as a subjective quality, it cannot possibly radiate from a being because it consists of different things to different people.
Not in settings I play in
>I dont know what magick is
Magic means diffrent things in diffrent systems
Not that you would know
>, I'm objecting to the idea that it's impossible to believe that they're not gods.
Its like objecting to things falling to the ground
You are a literal schitzo even worst in fact since you would be open to evile gods influance and corruption pushing you to destroy good things not outright mind you
>>
>>88940000
You're some kind of ESL troon I take it, genuinely too stupid to argue this position. Either faggoty false flagging against the zogbot SMITE THE BABIES shabbos goys or you're just one of those disgusting semitophilic homosexual kikestians who praise mutilative cosmetic surgeries on young children. KYS soon mudblooded, malding troon.
>>
>>88940179
That's a lot of words nigger too bad Im not reading em

>Verification not required
>>
>>88938133
If the gods were real and gained power from worshippers, there would be non-stop religious war and the gods would keep coming up with ways to bribe humans to converting to their religion.
>>
>>88938133
>How does the fact that a god is 100% demonstrably real and can have a direct visible impact in a setting change the dynamics of a religion
This was how christians viewed the world until the enlightenment so not much
>>
>>88939918
>god is a spirit worshiped by humans by definition
>spirit
Emperors were often considered gods and they were flesh and blood humans like in Rome, China, and Japan to name a few examples. There have been countless cults which believed that real, physical, individuals were divine beings.
>worshiped
Chinese mythology has gods for individual blades of grass and rocks that exist whether they are worshiped or not. Animist religions believe that all things have spirits or souls, and they regard all these spirits like gods and only really make a distinction between "gods we worship" and "gods we don't worship". Most monotheistic religions fundamentally disagree with the assertion that being an object of worship is what makes a god.

What you're talking about is the anthropological/sociological definition of a god, which is very different from how an individual or a group define a god within the context of their own culture and spirituality.

>Yes we have the GM he is the objecttivity gods do exist in settings since he is the narrator and he says so
The people in the setting don't know that, and this thread is about worldbuilding and how the people in the setting would act.
>>
>>88938133
Facts have never stopped politicians, scientists, etc. from lying and cheating.
>>
>>88938429
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw1-mi9mnaA
>>
>>88938756
Tradcath reactionary larpers please fuck off
>>
>>88942393
Behold! Reddit, the man.
>>
>>88938133
It's already been said plenty but the people who believed in those religions found them to be demonstrably 100% real and saw the direct, visible impact of their gods on their every day lives.

That said, fantasy RPGs do over-simplify it boringly. The big example would be the Roman religion just because it's the most accessible, but it happened in all of them that the religions were syncretic. Gods start out as local. Sometimes of a place, or people, or even specific families or individuals. They gain in power and recognition and become "oh yeah that's this other god I call them XYZ instead of ABC." Or they become patrons of city-states that go on to conquer, or be conquered, and assume the patron they conquered or become subsumed by the conquerors'. Plus multiple languages throw in another curve-ball of it's not entirely clear whether they were different gods or became different gods as people grew further apart.

So make your gods vague, give them lots of names and multiple traditions, and overlapping domains. In the alpine climate they think the sky god is god of cold but on the coast it's the evil twin of the sea god who brings frost and cold winds across the waves.
>>
>>88940179
Having 11 adjectives modify your noun is generally thought of as bad writing. A less-is-more approach with adjectives and adverbs is generally more readable.
>>
>>88940179
I've never seen so pure an example of brainwashed >>>/pol/. How did you get in here, little fella? Shoo! Back to your containment board. Shoo!
>>
>>88939166
To further elaborate on the Greek gods angle, I mean to say that more human-like gods would be petty, constantly vie for power, and likely hand out blessings and curses and dickings for the lulz to mortals who have no real means of defense or revenge. They'll defend the realm from invading gods of other pantheons, but will likely cause all manner of shenanigans during peacetime.

I imagine Joe Average would revere all the gods in general, making offerings and holding celebrations as appropriate. He likes water being wet, crops growing in the spring, and the sun rising each morning.

Only the truly intense worshippers would go so far as to choose a specific patron. In drawing the attention of a god, you open yourself to being part of it's scheming and endeavors - for better or worse.

To further extrapolate, it's likely that powerful people would be offered patronage (drafted) by individual gods (and cursed if they refuse). The result could either be fantastic or horrible based upon the god in question and the role their new piece must play.
>>
>>88938133
>If a god interacts with the world how would that change religion
Have you tried playing D&D? Have you tried thinking for yourself?
>>
>>88938133
It would definitely make theology and knowing exactly what the gods want a lot easier.
>>
>>88942570
?
>>
I've posted about it before, but I find it a bit tacky how fantasy worlds so often build religions around verifiable and consistently observable and repeatable magical phenomena, and how fantasy Gods are usually presented as just the most hyperpowered immortal mages around.
It would make more sense if fantasy spirituality was formed around things that are actual mysteries and require actual speculation and genuine faith in-universe.
>>
>>88939474
What would good Gods even need adventurers for if they bothered to actively take care of evil themselves?
>>
>>88938133
There would be no faith aspect to religion. It would just be about appeasing gods or fearing them. This means religion would not be used as a moral framework for society since the relationship humans have with gods would be transactional and would require nothing intangible of its adepts. Honestly it might be too different to even be called religion.
>>
>>88945622
>It would just be about appeasing gods or fearing them.
What do you think sacrifices were for? Worship isn't always transactional but there was plenty of appeasement going on in ancient religions, you sacrificed to Posidon so he liked you enough to not kill you at sea. You sacrificed to Aphrodite to have good luck in love, or Ares and Athena for blessings in battle. Sacrificing to Pelor or Torm isn't any different.

>This means religion would not be used as a moral framework for society since the relationship humans have with gods would be transactional and would require nothing intangible of its adepts
A lot of mythology is very clearly about explaining/emphasizing/impressing the values and morals of a culture. Tantalus gets punished because he abused hospitality laws, every other Greek hero gets fucked over by hubris, Jason loses everything he has and dies a pathetic ignominious death because he became an adultery and an oathbreaker. Just because you had to appease the gods doesn't mean it was a purely transactional relationship, nor does it mean people didn't engage with the intangibles of human spirituality. The gods were equivalent to forces of nature and should be treated as such, but ask any tornado chaser whether it's possible for a force of nature to inspire awe and evoke something deep within the human psyche.
>>
>>88938133
Hot take: it changes nothing because IRL people were 100% convinced their gods existed. Its just your modern lense that makes you think that it was a larp
>>
>>88946813
I think this post is a great reply, we can abandon this shitty fedora thread now.
>>
>>88945573
meta retardation
>>
>>88946813
>>88946853
This thread makes sense when you remember that low IQs don't into hypothetical that well.
>imagine if you didn't have breakfast this morning
>but anon, I did have breakfast...
>imagine if you sincerely believed in God
>but anon, I don't...
>>
>>88939735
Because Monotheists are right. Only the Creator can be worshipped. Not creations. Animism is a sham
>>
>>88938133
Corruption only amongst those of Neutral or Chaotic alignment. For the really Chaotic, corruption and theft might be an actual requirment of the religion.
>>
>>88938133
Gods in most settings represent mortal motivations, and ethical alignments.
>>
>>88938133
It sort of depends on how active the God is.
It's one thing for a cleric to do his rote set of miracles. That's demonstrably divine action. But it's entirely another if the God is going around punishing and rewarding people explicitly, even people outside the religion.
Imagine for a moment that whenever someone steals something, there's at least a 10% chance that they get struck by lightning and a big voice says "I am God and I did that to punish a thief" so there is absolutely no confusion about it. That's a very different world than the one we live in. Religion is going to be very impacted because there's no longer ambiguity in "maybe they'll go to hell for that" you know for a fact God doesn't tolerate thieves. Does it reduce theft? Maybe. Does it increase active worshippers? Absolutely. Especially if he sends actual literal angels to help out his good followers. Having an active divine carrot and stick around is going to change people's behaviour instantly.
>>
File: 1668533578409224.jpg (160 KB, 640x857)
160 KB
160 KB JPG
>>88938429
How many lives of prominent religious figures have you actually read up on? Try Augustine, Aquinas, Wesley, or Gregory I.
>>
>>88946813
That's not really the question though.
What changes not when people are sure that God exists, but when he's active, and demonstrates his power consistently?
There were lots of people who believed in God but still killed, raped and stole shit. What happens when God shows up to smite them? What happens not just for the sinners, who might sin anyway but for the weak who's only reconciliation a lot of the time was hoping the wicked were punished in the afterlife? Now the wicked are punished in real time. Are there less sinners? More devout worship? Do people still perform "little sins" like holding back tithe a bit or lying once in a while or are they forced to live the complete package?

Or in a less extreme examples, a priest could actually communication in some way and show that a sinner was a sinner and a godly person was godly and you could trust that priest completely because he can also wave his hands and cure the sick. What happens when the local priest denounces the local lord with the literal voice of God? What about churches and cathedrals? Do we build more because God is so active or do we build less because he wants the peasants to be able to feed themselves instead of the opulence of a gold filigree roof?

Belief is one thing, but adding active frequent, verifiable miracles to the mix will change how people act.
>>
File: 800px-Todaiji05s3200.jpg (243 KB, 800x1202)
243 KB
243 KB JPG
>>88938133
in my setting there are deep metaphysical truths which are above the gods, and unlike the gods they aren't as easy to understand or verify. so even the gods can belive in a superior power or convert to a religion; sure, some claim to be the supreme spiritual authority, but others considers themselves sheperds acting in name of a higher ideal. since mortals aren't enlightened superior beings like the gods, they usually don't think about these supreme mysteries and just belive in the teachings of gods of religious leaders. of course there are mortals that aren't satisfied with this arrangement and directly delve and meditate upon such things, and some may even reach enlightnment
>>
Speaking broadly, I've always hated the way D&D and many other settings do gods. I much prefer it where there's maybe just one creator, or a handful that are powerful and drawn back away from the world, with the rest being roughly demigod or greater tier beings that walk the land as beings far greater than mortals but have limitations.
>>
>>88938133
That depends on a few things.
1) Are gods actually gods, or just tulpas? I mean, do they need prayer? If they need prayer then they aren't gods. Gods may be mortal, hell, they may be killable my just people, but they don't need prayer. If people figure out that gods need prayer you bet your ass they'll leverage that.
2) Then you need to ask yourself, do they interfere and how often? Are they Greek style gods that have demigod children, or are they more Hindu style where they interfere in disguise? Or more Egyptian style where they only interfere when truly necessary? Or maybe they don't at all?
3) What is their power level? Depending which version of Greek mythology you're looking at gods may be harmed or even killed by mortals, but that doesn't stop them from being able to burn down or sink whole countries, cause plague that kills everyone, or cause devastating earthquakes. Or you may go the other way where mortals can't touch gods at all. Note that the idea of domains is from the Renaissance. Zeus wasn't just the sky god of lightning. He was also, in Olympia, the god of the home and family. Aphrodite was worshiped as a war goddess caled Aphrodote Area in Sparta. Even in Athens you could worship, say, Hephaestus or Poseidon for beauty, but you'd have better luck praying to Aphrodite. And Poseidon could cause storms and hurricans and thunder and lightning. So really, it's more like specialties than domains.
With all that said, I'm going to guess RPG style gods. It would, for one, eliminate atheists. At best they could claim "they're just more powerful versions of us", but there would be no total disbelief. Depending in their level of involvement people may stick to their laws 100%, or there could be changes through generations as language and culture shift. Claiming to be chosen by a god would be a very dangerous proposition, since they could smite you. Really, many things to consider here.
>>
>>88938133
Are there any fantasy settings that actually manage to handle this concept well? The main example that I can think of is Sazed/Harmony in Mistborn Era 2 after his ascension, whose approach to his church is... rather interesting. For one, he actually tells people 'not' to worship him.
>>
>>88938133
I think the balance has to be that it's still exceptionally rare and not witnessed by the vast majority of people. Say, coincidentally, the only people who have reported seeing the guiding, benevolent hand of some specific God are one of your player's characters and someone from their backstory or something. Like it happens but in a more substantial way than some Catholic peasant seeing Jesus on a slice of toast, and since few or no other people saw it, most people can go through life saying, "yeah I'm sure the gods exist but I've never seen evidence of them" and therefore act with a mere modicum of piety instead of the zeal a cleric or paladin PC may exhibit
>>
An interesting, yet pointless thing to ask.
It's an inherent property of power to change the environment.
Mere knowledge about some presumed entity's existence can change rationales and choices of countless people involved, or change nothing.
Actual presence does the same, but differently.
There are many reasons why direct manifestations aren't a good thing.
Consider basic technological advancement.
There can be a small bunch of geniuses on this planet, as in right now, who are so smart they can change the courses of history and the entire universe countless times over.
But they don't act for reasons of their own, and though some can explain their things to others, others won't necessarily believe them. Then there are scientists, not as grand, but still smart. Some contemplate, some see and become smarter, more are doubtful or dismissive. They may contemplate the notion, but not enough to incur consequences.
Yet were a tech to be created, and known, it may become normalized, and some consequence will be incurred sooner or later, though also not necessarily.
Power is just the same. Whether or not an entity is divine one doesn't matter, and neither is whether or not it's recognized by all. What matters is that it exists.
>>
>>88938133
I could actually use some advice on this kind of thing. My idea for my setting is that each of the main gods would be the embodiment of one of the setting's fundamental elements, with traits and spheres of influence related to that, like Fire also being the god of War, for example. I was wondering if there were any settings with similar ideas that didn’t botch things, especially if you ad done something like this in your own stuff, or if you had any ideas on how I might handle these elemental churches besides things like the Fire church using cremation on their dead?
>>
>>88942517
quiet pussy
Even from a anti-religious perspective, the idea that a person who is so fanatical they have deluded themselves and devoted themselves completely to the cause, thus risen to the top, shouldn't be an alien idea. If anything that type of person is MORE likely, because they have the passion and drive of a true believer, instead of someone who wants to enjoy the perks. They would get MORE done.
It irritates me that people don't think these things through to something so obvious
>>
>>88938133
1. There would be no atheists at all, because belief in a god would be the same as a belief in a tiger or a swan; they're just objectively facts of reality.

2. There'd be no faith because the god would be proveable.

3. People would tend to try to pick the one that is most beneficial to them, so religions would have to give back regularly to earn their worship.

4. If gods NEED worship to survive or gain power from more followers, then eventually you would end up with only a handful of gods with followers who are violently hateful of each other.

5. A few cults of lesser gods would persist, after all it can be better to be a king of a small island rather than a servant on a continent.

6. Religious leaders would end up in a sort of company hierarchy, with those at the top more closely working with their god, and filtering down commands and doctrine through management levels.
>>
>>88938133
>>88938451
I'm a Christian and this is a bullshit aggressive response. One of the very worst problems in the Church is that so many people have this sinful, sanctimonious anti-seeker mentality. It's not "childish" to ask questions; in fact, faith is strengthened through seriously doubting and seriously investigating to the root of the issue. When the time is right, OP, just ask yourself why you are here, why it matters, and, most importantly, why you love the things that you do. Understanding the Bible can help you know yourself, become stronger, and meaningfully improve the lives of the people that you care about, because you have the moral clarity and confidence to see it through. I hope you give it a shot, fren. If you don't, that's cool too.

But to answer your original question, go back to the Greeks and Hindus. The practical answer would be active henotheism (people would pick their favorite or patron god, but would acknowledge and propitiate the others.
>>
>>88938133
There would be fewer atheists because frankly not speccing into some vein of worship or another would be impractical. Most people would focus on whatever deity is most relevant to their needs or interests.
>>
>>88938133
Piousness will actually be proportional to rank in church hierarchy.
>>
>>88938429
That seems a lot less likely than said leadership being sincere but also delusional and self-seving.
>>
>>88951333
>instantly tries to recommend the bible
As much as I like Christians, at least try to not be so rapidly proselytizing. Nice trips.
>>
>>88938429
No, that's a brainlet take. It's more like they 100% belived it but had biases and so made excuses for shit because they wanted it, but then simultaneously belived it. Humans are more than capable of that cognitive dissonance, it's the default.

For instance like during the 30 years war when France, a catholic nation didn't join the in fighting with the catholic league against the protestants out of purely geopolitical reasons. But the way the king of France talks in his private writings it's like he really bellieves he's doing acts for god and shit.
>>
>>88951455
So that means that corrupt church officials would be rarer. After all, if a god is the one in charge of promotions, I can’t imagine that they’d choose someone who’s prone to laziness or greed.
>>
>>88951333
you christroons suffer from severe main character delusion. stop puking your propaganda on a make-belive board.
>>
>>88938133
>How does the fact that a god is 100% demonstrably real and can have a direct visible impact in a setting change the dynamics of a religion? How does it change the behavior of the faithful and religous leaders compared to real-world religions? Would there be less or more corruption among the clergy?
Substitute the god for climate change, Covid, the planet being round, the legal system, anything you like. Then look around.
Yes, there would be disbelief. Yes, there would be corruption. Yes, religious leaders and the faithful would still interpret the god's intentions in whatever way best suits their preexisting attitudes.
>>
>>88938133
idk but I always make atheist characters in these settings because it makes everyone seethe
>>
>>88938133
Being a high-magic religious leader is like being the governor of a French territory in France. You're just part of the government.
Being a low-magic religious leader is like being a French governor in the Caribbean. The crown can reach you with effort, either to support you or to punish you, but generally you have to handle things yourself and if you can't then the system will find someone who can.
Being a real-world religious leader is like being a French governor on Mars. You are the government, "France" is just an idea.
>>
>>88938133
They would annoy the shit out of their chosen deity with escalating demands and various forms of manipulation and blackmail for divine gifts. A god would most likely choose one out of two paths: Refuse to communicate and only provide assistance where needed or go full old testament and harrass the shit out of those ungrateful fucks with catalogues of asinine rules, random punishments and constant escalation of conflict.

Just imagine being a god and some dumbass tells you "if you truly loved me you'd give me money" times infinity. Bystanders would go deaf and blind from all the lightning coming down 24/7.
>>
>>88938429
You only think that way because you are godless
>>
>>88950488
This. A true believer and/or fanatic does it because of his religion (unlike hypocrites, opportunists etc. who have economical or political motives).
>>
>>88951333
>It's not "childish" to ask questions; in fact, faith is strengthened through seriously doubting and seriously investigating to the root of the issue.
Actually, yea, your spiritual immaturity is showing. The path that you are on leads to atheism, but I don't expect you to go that far, you'll keep walking that path until you realize for yourself and then you'll turn "anti-seeker". The anti-seekers are simply more mature than you.
>>
>>88938133
You should check out the Dwemer in The Elder Scrolls series, they refuted everything as real, even the gods themselves, and valued Reason and Logic above all else. They 'may' have managed to ascend to a god-like being themselves, no one knows.
>>
god is 100% demonstrably real IRL too. How does it affect us? /thread
>>
>>88958971
Surely you mean Vishnu, That one is CLEARLY real, not your stupid jewish zombie one. That one is stupid and absurd, not unlike the superior and obviously true hindu ones.
>>
>>88949079
From wargames, I think that Conquest has an interesting take on the prayer thing. Basically, deities exist without need for prayer, but a directed faith can still feed them. Hazlia, one of main antagonist deities of setting, was fed and nurtured from weak, egoless shard of a divine to one of the strongest members of the pantheon immediately active on Ea. But even at his lowest, he was still a divine being, not born from mortals but nurtured by them.
>>
>>88959184
Don't talk shit about based bodhisattva Jesus, you shudra
>>
>>88958971
Where’s the evidence then? Show us please.
>>
>>88951333
This is the most unbelievably based post I have ever seen on 4chan.
>>
>>88956730
okay fag, the cock crowed thrice so?
>>
>>88962067
You’re literally not allowed to test god. Your mindset is that of Satan, lmao.
Just as a reminder, Gödel had a breakdown after failing to prove the prime mover.
>>
>>88947151
Seems a bit arbitrary, especially if it’s a gmless game. Why would they worship one player over the other?
>>
>>88938133
The existence of a god being real depends heavily on the nature of the god. But the AFTERLIFE being provably real changes the game entirely. It encourages people not to be afraid of death, because they know for a fact that they will just wake up someplace else, and it strongly incentivizes them to play by whatever rules will get them the best eternity.

In the real world, a starving man will steal bread to survive because while stealing is a sin they don't want to die.
In a fantasy world with a confirmed moralistic afterlife, a starving man should just fucking kill themselves because it will end their suffering faster and stealing bread to survive puts their afterlife in jeopardy. Its not worth stealing bread to live a few years longer if you risk damning yourself to eternal suffering for having done so, better to quit while you are ahead. If suicide is a sin in your religion, that just means you are incentivized to find some other, non-sinful, way to quit being alive with minimal suffering to achieve the same ends.
Hell, its probably not uncommon for there to be churches that just outright offer divine-sanctioned mercykilling as a service. "Looks like your life has taken a bad turn, thats rough buddy. Lets get you into heaven before you are tempted to fuck things up by hardship."
>>
>>88938133
>a god
Almost all settings have dozens or hundreds of gods with efficacious powers in the real world. So shut the fuck up and die.
>>
>>88938455
>Martin Luther was a fedora retard with a poisoned mind because he revolted against the corrupt pharisaic that claimed to be the sole representative of God's will on Earth while being, demonstrably, an infidel.
>>
>>88938133
Actual reason to believe an afterlife exists would definitely change behavior. Even among those claiming to be religious practically none act like the afterlife is a real place. If they really believed this life was their trial to get in they'd be trying much harder.

I think most religious people are secretly hedging their bets and doubt it's truth but will never say that just in case it is real. There's even some famous argument along these lines claiming hedging your bets is a good enough reason to believe and these idiots actually cite it like God isn't listening and won't know you're faking.
>>
>>88947151
First of all, polytheism isn't animism. Those are two completely different models.
Second of all, polytheists didn't "worship" the gods in the way you understand the term. They practiced rituals and made offerings in the same way you do to political authorities -- because it smooths your experience within the contexts they have power over.
It's only Christianity and Islam that go all-in on total universal spiritual devotion and infinite submission. In other systems, as you said, this wouldn't make sense.
>>
>>88962750
Isn't this the way they do things now in Canada?
>>
>>88962880
Pascal’s wager. And it begs the question to the point of redundancy, I.e. why worship a hypothetical god and not a hypothetical devil.
>>
>>88947151
>Because Monotheists are right. Only the Creator can be worshipped.
Cool. Judaism is actually polytheistic, though. El Elyon is the Highest Of The High. Yahweh is the local god of the Israelites.
>>
>>88962750

>stealing to survive is a sin

Spot the LE god
>>
>>88958931
>They 'may' have managed to ascend to a god-like being themselves, no one knows.
They may have also erased themselves from existence instead, either by accident or by literally disbelieving so hard they made God question his perspective.
>>
>>88962750
>Its not worth stealing bread to live a few years longer if you risk damning yourself to eternal suffering for having done so
What the fuck sort of real-world religion believes that? Did Christianity drop the whole "survival before commandments" deal?
>>
File: 1516772667962.jpg (2.44 MB, 2521x4000)
2.44 MB
2.44 MB JPG
>>88938220
>the existing religious people already believe their god is real
Do they really, though? Christians and Muslims are still sad when their family dies, far beyond the mourning you'd expect if they're only temporarily lost because they're in heaven
The human brain KNOWS, on some level, that the shit you experience every day is more real than some grand narrative you've conjured out of hymns and literature and gibberish about the light and the lamb. Hence whenever they try to convert someone they're like "oh, you don't really need evidence, you can just it because you want to be happy" or because it's tradition etc.
You're basically psyopping yourself in half-believing that the ultimate truth doesn't need to be true, you really see this in faggots like Jordan Peterson
>>
>>88967760
agreed, much of the cognitive dissonance would probably stop, and you would have real zealots everywhere, because while before you partly believe in it, but then also you conveniently don't at certai ntimes and you don't go looking for truth. Now you'd actually know that it's true and god really could be watching you at any time.
>>
>>88938133
Honestly I would say the biggest thing would be what this god does and how it proves itself. Like if a war god proves that dying valiantly in battle really does get you into heaven then I fully expect a lot of very almost suicidal warriors to show up in quick order.

Honestly objective gods that intervene in the world rapidly becomes alien to us. Because it implies questions like "Do those gods control souls? Does soul exist? Do the gods define morality or is morality something inherit to the universe that they follow? How does one truly prove they are a god and just a higher powered being?" In most cases the answers to these questions turn into a horror show if thought about for more than a minute. Which is why DnD and the likes never really goes too deep into stuff like this.
>>
>>88967760
>Christians and Muslims are still sad when their family dies, far beyond the mourning you'd expect if they're only temporarily lost because they're in heaven
I don't know what you're talking about. Religious people absolutely use belief in the afterlife as a way of coping with grief. Believing that the dead are in a better place and that they'll eventually be reunited with their loved ones gives a lot of people comfort both during and after the mourning process.

They're still sad because they won't see the loved one again in this life, which is a very long time, and they'll miss them. Knowing that they're in heaven doesn't change the fact that they aren't HERE, which is where the pain and grief come from. Have you actually talked to any devout religious person about how they cope with loss? Or are you just supposing some shit because it lines up with what you think you've seen and heard?
>>
>>88962253
You can't test your God, but you can absolutely ask questions about the doctrine. Remember, sincere questions aren't the same as trying to play gotcha with God. I mean, Bible is very clear about this.
>>
>>88938133
What I have learned from this thread is that despite growing up in a culture deeply shaped by western religion a lot of people have trouble understanding how religious people view the world and relate to God. Much less how ancient people with very different conceptions of what a god is related to their deities.
>>
>>88970672
Enlighten us please. Save us from our ignorance.
>>
>>88970485
That sounds suspiciously like “don’t ask uncomfortable questions”. Like “what if you’re terribly, terribly wrong?”
>>
>>88972127
No, it means not asking insincere questions. Person deeply concerned about, say Ehud's or Samson's actions in context of New Testament is different form guys starting random threads about shatnez on /his/.

Testing God isn't about asking questions about the doctrine, including the hard ones. Frankly, most examples of trying to test God are less about doctrine and more about stuff like demanding a sign or miracle. For average person "don't test God" is about demanding a sign in moment of doubt or trying treat God's Grace like a irl plot armour. For the doctrine, it basically amounts to: don't troll, don't rule lawyer, don't argue in bad faith.
>>
>>88972354
Yeah, it’s basically it’s own version of rules lawyering, in that you totally can test god “b-but he won’t smite you if you challenge him because reasons”. Your god goes to a different school, one that’s too far away to test.
>>
>>88972417
No it's not. Asking about what rules mean is like 50% of the tradition of faith. Trying to understand somebody and his rules and testing somebody are two different things.
>>
>>88972514
No it’s not, lol, 99% of it is blindly following, or twisting the rules to fit the current zeitgeist (see: the current pope, the 2nd Vatican council, the entirety of the New Testament, etc etc). Serious coping is only done by outlying thinkers like Augustine and that other guy who ripped off Aristotle.
I thought you were “seriously investigating the root of the issue”, but it sounds like you’re afraid to consider the axiom in question I.e. that the whole thing is bollocks.
>>
>>88972572
Please, go back to /his/. I don't have time to discuss the basic apologia in a thread about fantasy worldbuilding. And yes, "is my belief true" is basic apologia.
>>
>>88972587
And this is why no one takes you seriously as a genuine knowledge-seeker; you’re trying to understand someone, when you should be trying to ascertain if there’s anyone there to understand. You’re not interested in examining your belief, you’re interested in strengthening it by engaging in worldbuilding auto-fellatio, kek
>>
>>88972633
No, I'm not interested in holding a serious theology talk about the basic apologia with guy in a worldbuilding thread.
>>
>>88938133
Can you even still call it a religion if the god in question is undeniably, demonstrably real? Is there really any faith involved when you just straight up know god is real?
>>
>>88938133
It resulted in a Small Gods style revolt against the gods for being mostly-shitters.
They spent a few generations bound into human form by the might of mortal sorcery, for some classic 'Wait, you fuckers have to breath all the time? By me, this is harder than it looks!'
The setting has ended up being a kind of free market democratic theocracy, with the gods having to actually earn their followers instead of presuming they're entitled to humanity.
Those gods that spent the entire time seething over ti and didn't learn a thing are the setting equivalent of demons and proscribed by the Empire.
>>
>>88938133
>implying your "demonstrations" are proof
Fuck off neo-shaman.
>>
>>88972675
Seemed pretty interested when you were congratulating yourself on how you’re not like all the other evangelists.
>>
>>88962750
If evil people go to hell and good people go to heaven, then killing people is unambiguously a good thing to do — is the god marks me as evil for it and decides to send me to hell, though, it would mean he was wrong. Since he is judging wrongly, all the people I killed were also (sometimes) sent to the wrong afterlife, meaning that my killings were evil and the god was right. But if he was always right…
>>
I think it would make the average person less religious, actually, since not only YOUR god is 100% demonstrably real, but also dozens of other gods that also have their clerics running around.
In the end I'd think it would eventually look more like politics than religion, with a few true believers here and there and most people either following a deity out of self-interest / tradition or outright ignoring the full thing.
So less holy wars and more political intrigue.
>>
>>88972879
>Seemed pretty interested when you were congratulating yourself on how you’re not like all the other evangelists.
What are you talking about? Doctrinal questions and apologia are literally a staple of the Church tradition. I'm the ending discussion.
>>
>>88973059
>> One of the very worst problems in the Church is that so many people have this sinful, sanctimonious anti-seeker mentality
> Jehovah’s Witness-tier “I’ve got a meeting to go to” backtrack
Man, you sure are probing those depths.
>>
>>88973059
>>88973101
Wait no, I’m retarded
> I’m the ending discussion
Not
> I’m ending the discussion
>>
File: 213983.jpg (60 KB, 709x900)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
>>
File: 1663958026134859.png (65 KB, 734x605)
65 KB
65 KB PNG
>>88938429
Repent, ye fedora tipper
>>
>>88970757
There have been several posts in this very thread trying to do so.

People who claim that it would make a big difference to the faithful don't seem to realize that many faithful are already confident in the existence of God, and that historically the existence of God or the gods has usually been taken for granted by most people and cultures.

People who claim that it would turn religion into a simple transactional relationship of appeasing the gods with sacrifices and ruin the spiritual and moral aspects of it forget that older religions used sacrifices in that exact way. They explicitly viewed sacrifices as a way of appease the gods or earn their blessings and this didn't stop them from having extensive spiritual and moral components.

In general there are a lot of people in this thread that don't seem to realize the vast breadth and depth of religious beliefs among humanity and the many different forms it can take. Or how seriously people took it in the past and today.
>>
>>88938133
Anyone who says that actually having a demonstrable god wouldn't be any different than our reality is either delusional or lying.
>>
>>88974060
What resources do you have for this? So that these people can educate themselves and can’t deny that it’s not just something that you’re saying with no proof.
>>
>>88974150
Until 100 years ago atheism was limited to a fraction of the intellectual elite.
>>
>>88945573
>actively take care of evil themselves?
I think the Tolkien(ish) approach works best here.
When Gods go to war with each other the world burns. cracks and the "sun" dies. Having proxy wars allows for the fun with out the game ending.
>>
>>88961784
To the mere fact we exist
>>
>>88979188
Yeah, but we exist because we are shards of the greater consciousness of a newborn god as it comes to terms with itself, in other words god does not truly exist until it comes to tbe conclusion.
Therefor our existence isnt proof.
>>
>>88979293
Oh what I meant was
There isn’t a way to create something out of nothing, so the fact that there is something already proves that there is something that can be classified as a God.
>>
>>88978308
Do you realize there's a difference between believing a God exists and being able to objectively prove it?
>>
>>88974150
>Religious people are delusional or lying
Yes. What took you so long?
>>
>>88979646
>There isn’t a way to create something out of nothing
You don't actually know that this is true. But if this IS true then it's true for everyone including gods.

>so the fact that there is something already proves that there is something that can be classified as a God.
Christ.
>>
>>88974060
>People who claim that it would make a big difference to the faithful don't seem to realize that many faithful are already confident in the existence of God, and that historically the existence of God or the gods has usually been taken for granted by most people and cultures.
Yes, religious leaders invented proof out of thing air, that was literally their job. What if they didn't have to? Wouldn't that change something? Surely it must have occurred to at least one of you retards that this might change something? No, of course not, that isn't the kind of question that you're allowed to ask.

>People who claim that it would turn religion into a simple transactional relationship of appeasing the gods with sacrifices and ruin the spiritual and moral aspects of it forget that older religions used sacrifices in that exact way.
Yes, they cut the throats of their own daughters for entirely made-up reasons. You might use your imagination to explore what would have happened if actual gods, angels or demons approached them and offered them real things in exchange for their daughters.

>In general there are a lot of people in this thread that don't seem to realize the vast breadth and depth of religious beliefs among humanity and the many different forms it can take.
No there aren't. You can't point out a single one. Your position is pure cope.
>>
>>88938133
It doesn't matter if you believe in a god or not, having actual proof makes it no longer about belief. People might argue about the meaning or implications, but provable gods would shift the focus from belief to devotion.
>>
>>88980939
Provable gods would shift the focus from unreasonable belief to reasonable belief. Devotion would exist either way.
>>
>>88980969
The gods focus would be on followers that adhere to their tenets. It wouldn't be like current religions where just saying you believe is enough.
>>
>>88979646
That depends entirely on how you define God. I have heard people argue that any kind of a prime mover can be called God, but the fact that we exist doesn't imply that the original cause is sentient, active or even that it still currently exists. Besides, if something can't come out of nothing, then surely that applies to whatever existed before the universe we now know, too, and if what came before had a creator and what came before that had a creator and so on, can any of these creations really be considered a god?

>>88981127
Putting an end to cope about Eye of the Needle being a gate too small for a camel to pas through in ancient Jerusalem would definitely be a change.
>>
If this is a /histg/ thread, does anyone know much about Sumerian religion? Are there any esoteric or theological apologies for how Inanna is a god of love and murder? It seems to have been a unification done for political expedency.
>>
>>88945527
>It would make more sense if fantasy spirituality was formed around things that are actual mysteries and require actual speculation and genuine faith in-universe.


I'm curiousd, how do you think this would make more sense. If the world already provides you with a death God or a given afterlife what greater mystery do you think the average peasant would care enough about to distract them from their worship of more immediately relevant gods?
>>
>>88951483
I mean, what else a good Christian would do?
One of the core tenets of the faith is trying to save others from hell by converting them, and one of the most basic archetypes for a Cleric.
Pity actual Clerics have no divine power to show for his faith.
>>
>>88938429
Counterpoint: Henry VIII
He was fully on board with his faith and was horrified by the idea that he was sinning by marrying his brothers widow, took her miscarriages as proof of divine punishment and was distressed at the idea that he couldn't get his marriage annulled, with all the pressure on him to produce a viable heir and prevent the Wars of the Roses from starring up again.
You literally can't understand his break with the Catholic church in any other context.
>>
>>88980939
Not necessarily. Consider the Warhammer gods, which are objectively real with all which entails.

Nonetheless, belief and actual True Faith is an incredibly important factor because gods themselves are actually shaped by the worshippers perception of them.
Basically entire Warhammer revolves around Ork make-believe, except actually true for everyone, just doesn't have such a profound impact as for Orks.

So the strengh of your belief in the god shapes his actual abilities as well as your status if you're an active worshipper.
>>
>>88962848
>Martin Luther was a fedora retard with a poisoned mind
Anon, are you a fucking retard? This guy is the degenerate. The west is cucked because of this faggot. You've got all your history fucked up.
>>
>>88938986
>There can never be a "100% real" god.
he's called jesus christ.
>>
>>88978138
>and can’t deny that it’s not just something that you’re saying with no proof.
That's their fault if they deny something self-evident. You want to make appeals to historicity? How about you look at how religiosity functions today then compare and contrast to the past?
>>88980652
>nooo you can't just interpret that the earthquake that murdered half the citizens in my capital city as divine retribution for moral decadence
>if everyone isn't an ADHD faggot who needs instant gratification like me that proves Gods are not real
>>
You all think like materialistic jews.
>>
>>88983400
lmfao

>>88983513
It's too late, conformist. You have already internalized the egocentric anti-establishment values which characterize your liberal western foundation. No religion will save you, no cope will save you, you are a contrarian conformist and your life will continue to be slapstick.
>>
>>88938451
>I suggest if you don't believe God is real you stop playing childish games and begin reading scripture.
>thinking that God can be found between the pages of a book written by a man
You are everything that is wrong with "religious" people.
>>
File: 1651511461108.png (2.03 MB, 2454x1920)
2.03 MB
2.03 MB PNG
>>88938133
>How does the fact that a god is 100% demonstrably real and can have a direct visible impact in a setting change the dynamics of a religion?
What if the god is literally in front of you to explain you when you got it wrong?

Anyone saying "you just need to believe and it's 100% real" are underplaying that if a believer cannot explain what they believe in outside of incredibly vague concept they will not even know what "corruption" mean since it will be within everyone's margin of error.
Any self-correcting loop would be based on the same interpretation of those vague concept, giving the power to whoever set the standard at a certain moment.

To change the dynamic, you'll need that "100% demonstrably real" god to actively correct you without human being able to change its ruling in any way. Which open the question of "how lenient would a god be?" and the limit will be arbitrary.

Also, if there's several "gods" and none of them created the others, then they become open to comparison. If they are in competition there will be limit to the level of piety they can afford, hard to be a god if another killed all your believers, destroyed your holy sites and you are left with peasant who just heard about you.
>>
>>88983154
You got weird idealized idea about the Catholic church. Catholic church never "unified" the West and by the sixteenth century Northern Christendom was already having so strained relationship with Rome that it would have just waited for another chance to cut ties, and there was so much religious unrest and protest movements even without Luther that another chance would almost certainly have come.
>>
>>88938133
It's hard to say. In the real world the decline of religion largely only came about because many of the world's largest religions placed themselves in direct opposition to an ideology that produced tangible results. In a fantasy world where the gods directly intervene, most would have no reason to question them

Of course, in a fantasy world people would certainly question whether certain gods were worthy of worship, or whether they were dictators who cared little for their patrons. Hell, even abrahamic religions do that, establishing that while other gods DO exist they are unworthy of the title

>>88983687
what manga is that
>>
>they don't believe in Narrative Causality
>we exist so there's something to tell about

Terry Pratchett was a prophet.
>>
File: file.png (161 KB, 1038x446)
161 KB
161 KB PNG
>>88983803
>what manga is that
>>
>>88939202
Retard.
>>
>>88962253
God speaks directly to your soul if you listen to him. Anyone telling you that God can only be accessed through scripture is either a charlatan trying to take something from you, or a fool that fell for another charlatan.
>>
>>88983154
>Anon, are you a fucking retard? This guy is the degenerate. The west is cucked because of this faggot. You've got all your history fucked up.
Being able to pay your way into heaven is totally a non-degenerate concept
>>
>>88983987
That wasn't even the worst problem, one major glaring issue in Catholic church of the era that also led to conflicts with secular rulers were absent bishops that could just breed their mistresses in their opulent Italian residences while draining money from foreign lands they had never even seen. Speaking of Italy the renaissance era Catholic church was also highly politicized institution and it wasn't a secret, it was vulnerable to lobbying by nobility and wealthy merchant families.
>>
>>88982668
The first thing you have to understand is that ancient gods were never - never - ‘god of X’. They were simply ‘gods that do X’, so you could pray to them for help with X. There is no single god of war, just gods who do war and gods that don’t.
>>
>>88984019
But it was le based.
>>
>>88984408
Well, I wouldn't say that real world gods never held dominion over concepts, just that those dominions weren't thought of as their central character concepts (as they often are in fantasy pantheons).
>>
>>88938220
>the existing religious people already believe their god is real
Strongly doubt it
>>
>>88985240
So in your mind billions of people are just pretending, is that it?
Mongoloid.
>>
>>88985291
>pretending
Yeah. Being part of a social group is a very strong asset.
>>
>>88967760
>if they're only temporarily lost because they're in heaven
"Temporarily lost" is still a lifetime to a human perspective
>>
File: atheist.jpg (34 KB, 640x209)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
>>88973101
nta, but you're clearly a fedora tipper arguing in bad faith. Honestly, reading all your posts, you come across as pic related. You're not actually trying to understand that anon's arguments, but just want to pull him down because he's religious and uses his brain.

I'm not surprised, though, since atheists love to talk about how they aren't religious because they're enlightened and can think critically, unlike those brainwashed Christian. The existence of a Christian who thinks critically so fundamentally contradicts the foundation of an atheist's ego that he can do nothing but seethe like you have been.
>>
>>88985456
Talking about atheists as some kind of a united group of people makes complaining about others arguing in bad faith seem pretty ridiculous.
>>
>>88938133
Too many variables to answer your specific questions. Was the god mortal once or it's an inhumane entity? Is good and evil just morals or a force of the universe? God of what? Followers give them more power or it's just an ego boost? Does he care about the mortal realm or just about the divine matters? Can he change the world in a meaningful matter or another god's doing will counteract it to return the world to the status quo? Etc, etc.
>>
>>88985291
I don't know the ratio, but yes, people act as though social truths are true even when they know them to be factually untrue. It's semi-voluntary, like breathing, you have to concentrate in order to stop yourself (but most people don't even catch themselves doing it because they live entirely unexamined lives, they *do* believe for some purposes and *don't* believe for other purposes).
>>
>>88985456
Everyone here is playing softball, you would have met more direct opposition on any messageboard (excluding some but not all exclusively-christian messageboards) 20 years ago. And now you sheltered twits air your mental illness on 4chan, because you're a brave oppressed minority and because everyone hates you for knowing the truth, just like all the other sheltered twits airing their mental illness on 4chan.
>>
>>88987444
>everyone hates you for knowing the truth, just like all the other sheltered twits airing their mental illness on 4chan
That's an excellent description of what it's like to be an internet atheist
>>
>>88967760
I don't see how being sad about death means you don't believe in anything. According to the bible, Jesus cried about Lazarus' death moments before resurrecting him. Pretty sure that means it's okay for his followers to feel sadness about it as a natural human reaction.
>>
>>88981127
>The gods focus would be on followers that adhere to their tenets.
That makes sense but it's complicated. It depends on individual gods and in how interested they are in governing, any problem that plagues human hierarchies is still potentially on the table. If a god demonstrates his power, but doesn't pay close attention to what people are actually doing in the name of that power, some of his deputes are going to get even sillier than real-world religious leaders.

>It wouldn't be like current religions where just saying you believe is enough.
Yea, because 'belief' becomes less relevant, so it just comes down to whether or not you bend the knee. Even if a god is standing right there and reading your mind, and you're standing right there disliking them as they read your mind, it still counts for a lot to say "I submit to you and will continue submitting to you".
>>
>>88938429
>but I guarantee you that most religious leaders throughout history knew they were full of shit and were just making things up that conveniently gave them more power and authority.
Certainly false for the first few hundred years of Christian history (you don't go to martyrdom like most of the apostles for something you know to be a lie), probably false for most other religions too. Truly successful religions intentionally crafted by liars are extremely rare in history--there's pretty much just Mormonism. Most of them get stuck at the weird cult stage like Scientology, then wither and die out. Eventually religions do tend to enter a phase where their adherents believe in them only as allegories rather than literally, but that's a different thing.
>>88938778
Christians did not believe other peoples' gods were entirely fake until relatively recently. They just thought they were demons.
>>
>>88940179
>called out for being nogames
>has a panic attack live on set
Literally every single day /tg/ proves that the well of discussion is being poisoned by people who don't play games
>>
>>88987805
>Certainly false for the first few hundred years of Christian history
You can call it Christianity if you want, but it wasn't the same religion, the religion which you are referring to didn't exist until it was invented by roman political leaders in the 4th century.

Beliefs held by poor martyrs rarely survive for long, human religion is generally shaped by rich romans or their analogues. You should also think about the ways in which poor people derive personal power and authority from the idea of being martyrs, and understand that those were the people shaping Christian religion even in its first century. The people who get crucified, even in a martyr cult, have less say than the people who don't.
>>
>>88987879
Pretty sure most people don't actually play games, I don't, I can't imagine why you think sitting around playing pretend is a good use of time. Kind of like how obviously most religious people don't actually believe in their religion.
>>
>>88959184
Jesus is just one of many sons of Vishnu/Krishna/Rama.
>>
>>88987896
>The people who get crucified, even in a martyr cult, have less say than the people who don't.
Paul did more than anyone but Jesus to shape the way Christianity developed, and he was martyred.
>>
>>88988308
He actually had a lot more power in that respect, because he was in a key position to determine which of Jesus's teachings were remembered and how, because he survived after Jesus was martyred.
>>
>>88987879
I wasn't called out on anything you retard, I just didn't want to engage with the dumb tranny who couldn't grasp the idea of magic outside of the context of a game rules system. Try defending his position, I'd love to see someone who isn't a cross dressing faggot make the attempt.
>>
>>88988403
You're the one that failed to grasp what magic was, and yes, you definitely had a panic attack live on set.

Your central point is an accusation of amorality and cowardice (supposedly, people who aren't you are equating power with worthiness), but you're just using that to defend bad semantics. You don't have a working definition of divinity, it's part sociological ("divinity is the property of having people think you are divine") and part semantic warfare ("divinity can't exist and if it exists it isn't divinity"). It's the kind of half-baked position that will evolve and mature over time, but in the meantime you really don't even understand what you're mad about, you're still working things out.
>>
>>88988681
>failed to grasp what magic was
Nigger, you're confused, that malding troon was the one who literally responded to me saying that a being could simply be using magic or advanced technology to achieve whatever effect it is. I wasn't saying this in regards to any particular rule system because it applies truthfully in all contexts, both fictional and real.

>accusation of amorality and cowardice
Nah, I only called that faggot a subhuman worm because he is, not because he's wrong. Him being wrong is just a side effect of his degenerate lifestyle and insane cognitive dissonance, but the specific reasons for his position being incorrect were already explained. That is what you need to respond to, not the attack on that child grooming creep.

>divinity is part sociological ... part semantic warfare
No, you're misunderstanding. Divinity is like morality, it's a subjective quality determined in the eye of the beholder. I recognize that some people believe in divinity, and thus it exists as a social concept, but I do not behold divinity in anything. I would consider worship to be demeaning for both the worshiper and the worshiped. It is a pathetic creature which would get off on being exalted as a god, even in the event that you had to masquerade as one it would just make your stomach churn to watch people bow down and worship you. The worshiper throws away his dignity, going lower than a kowtowing sycophant for his "god" and subordinating his entire existence before it, it's disgraceful. But of course there is also just the simple matter of fact that no amount of power, even total, would make me consider a being to be intrinsically more important than me or my values. I will think of such beings only as great spirits, or transdimensional alien organisms, or whatever else they appear to actually be, they'll never rise to the degree of "god".

And so obviously there are people like this in any given setting, fantastical or not.
>>
>>88988342
That's an odd way of putting it, since Paul didn't become a Christian until after Jesus was crucified.
>>
>>88988008
I can't imagine why you think it's a good use of time to sit around posting on a board dedicated to a hobby you consider a waste of time. Playing games is fun, though, that is it is subjectively enjoyable on several different levels.
>>
>>88990159
>"It's fun!"
Not an argument
>>
>>88990207
When it comes to whether a leisure activity is a waste of time or not, it absolutely is an argument.
>>
>>88990207
Anon do you know what the point of a hobby is?
>>



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.