Civ 5 Religion Mod

[Malkaviel]

Im not trying to argue your description of religions conflicting, its a simple term, but sbrylski06 gave no mention of conflict so you cant "also feel" in this regard. Besides people conflict not religion. Youve addressed me but havent answed why this quote makes sense
Please try again if you want.

From what I remember the developers only negative statement about religion in civ4 concerned diplomacy, so far I still dont see any positive diplomatic options for religion in civ5.

"If you're entire nation is Buddhist, but one city is Hindu, that city should be pretty unhappy"

"I also feel there should be some small happiness penalty for towns with religions conflicting the state's"

not sure where you missed the comparison...

"In foreign diplomacy, if your Buddhist border cities are next to a Toaist nation, both nation's cities should suffer some unhappiness."

or are you hung up on this...

Actually I'm not real sure where the poster was going with this. It seems like an open-ended incomplete thought. Are we referencing the former sentence if, say, your state religion is christianity, and you've just conquered buddhist territory, now bordering a taoist rival? Yes, I think it should be near-impossible to maintain order, without heavy military influence or some policy (civic) to relegate tolerance, for some time. There may be a chance of those cities even seceding to the rival if he has one or more buddhist cities.

If he just meant "my rival with whom I share a border has a different state religion", the statement is pointless because civ4 diplomacy mechanism already operates as such.

 

[r_rolo1]

@Jecrell

English is definitely not a language that deals well with logical operations But instead of doing some Venn diagrams or enter in boolean operations, let me point you that not having faith in X happening is not the same as having faith that the oposite of X is what happens. Said in more mundane terms, not having sure that Obama is sleeping right now is not the same than believing he is awake

 

[Jecrell]

@Jecrell

English is definitely not a language that deals well with logical operations

I can only do English and Japanese though (いい&#12397, so I have to make due with what I've got.

But instead of doing some Venn diagrams or enter in boolean operations, let me point you that not having faith in X happening is not the same as having faith that the oposite of X is what happens. Said in more mundane terms, not having sure that Obama is sleeping right now is not the same than believing he is awake

[Edit]

So I've simply revised my thinking here.

You were suggesting Atheism requires 'faith' that gods don't exist. I think it's safe to classify faith as an irrational belief (belief without evidence) and in this case A-theism is rational nonbelief (nonbelief without evidence). Some may argue that there is evidence, but then according to them atheists are in denial (nonbelief; evidence exists), which still is not faith.

 

[Dryhad]

Agnosticism is not only the position of those that think those things are unknowable, it is also the position of the ones that, regardless of thinking that is unknowable or not, are not sure of the existance of deities.

Atheism, as I said , is the position that states there are no deities.

From Britannica


A lot of those that would fall in your definition of Atheists would actually be Agnostics, specifically the ones that simply don't know if deities exist or not... lack of faith in X existance is not the same than faith that X does not exist, after all

Atheism has to do with belief, agnosticism has to do with knowledge (in both cases, actually, the lack thereof). You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, or a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist (although "gnostic" is rarely used, and sometimes refers to specific religious beliefs. Do not make the mistake of confusing that usage with my usage here). There is a difference between "strong atheism" (which is the positive belief in the lack of deities) and "weak atheism" (implict atheism or "there's insufficient evidence, therefore we conclude there's nothing there"). Weak atheism differs from "pure" agnosticism (which is not a lone position, but let that pass), as per your Brittanica citation, in that it does not consider the existence of deities "unknowable" but instead approaches it with the same standard as one might approach the existence of leprechauns or faeries (or even things that exist, for they are held to the same standard of evidence).

 

[Padje Dog]

The mod should play as the player as the religion. When that religion is dominant in a city then they player can control that city. Various ways can increase your religion and decrease others. The game auto-plays for some time to populate the world with cities and then the religions are spawned in cities.

Game on.

 

[r_rolo1]

@Dryhad

Your argument would be far more impressive if your weak atheism was logically justifiable. You can never prove that a lack of observation means a lack of existance ( pretty sure someone will call me Popper ) , so your weak atheism basis is logically faulty under their own premises , atleast as a atheism . Not mentioning that your clasification create some nice situations where people don't believe , but know that is surely not logically coherent.

@ Jecrell

My response to you follows similar lines: first, a belief can never be logically backed up ... or otherwise it would not be a belief, but a deductive certainty. As you can only prove the existance of one thing and never it's absense ( call me Popper if you want ), the belief that a thing does not exist can't be anything else besides a faith, regardless of how many data you have stating that the presense of that thing was not detected. At best you can say that in your opinion that thing does not exist because you had searched for it and had not found it or that it seems logically inconsistent to the rest of the observable data. That, my friend, is a very elegant way of saying "I don't know, but my bet is that X does not exist" and that is agnosticism by definition, very close of atheism, but still a agnosticism.

Atheism and Theism are a completely diferent group of beasts: they state that X exists ( either X being the existance, or the non existance, of deities ), but neither can deliver a strong and unambiguous evidence of their statement. That, by definition, makes it a faith ( with faith i mean the synomym of belief, not and organized group of people stating their belief in X : you don't need to go to a temple to be a theist )

Oh, and you have my respect on knowing japanese ... I'm learning it now and my mind is spinning just with the use of hiragana in writing

On the game:

Regardless of knowing if atheism is in self a faith, there is no doubt there are organized groups of people with the belief that god does not exist that act pretty much like churches ( by definition any marxist party is one of those ... not that they are the only ones ), so it would not shock me to see some kind of militant hardline atheism in the middle of the religion packs

 

[Jecrell]

@ Jecrell

My response to you follows similar lines: first, a belief can never be logically backed up ... or otherwise it would not be a belief, but a deductive certainty. As you can only prove the existance of one thing and never it's absense ( call me Popper if you want ), the belief that a thing does not exist can't be anything else besides a faith, regardless of how many data you have stating that the presense of that thing was not detected. At best you can say that in your opinion that thing does not exist because you had searched for it and had not found it or that it seems logically inconsistent to the rest of the observable data. That, my friend, is a very elegant way of saying "I don't know, but my bet is that X does not exist" and that is agnosticism by definition, very close of atheism, but still a agnosticism.

Yet I would not say I have faith there are no unicorns. The point is that I acknowledge that unicorns have the possibility of existing, but I have seen no evidence to suggest they do. Whereas if I had faith that unicorns do not exist, I would suggest their existence is impossible.

Atheism and Theism are a completely diferent group of beasts: they state that X exists ( either X being the existance, or the non existance, of deities ), but neither can deliver a strong and unambiguous evidence of their statement. That, by definition, makes it a faith ( with faith i mean the synomym of belief, not and organized group of people stating their belief in X : you don't need to go to a temple to be a theist )

Well I must simply disagree with you if you are simply insisting faith and belief are the same, and we will have to agree to disagree.

Oh, and you have my respect on knowing japanese ... I'm learning it now and my mind is spinning just with the use of hiragana in writing

It's very difficult, and I've spent years trying to find the best method of studying it. It really helps to take university courses as that definitely helps you adjust to a routine of discipline towards learning it (If you can't do that, then the next best thing would be lots of textbooks). The big problem comes after said courses and maintaining your knowledge when you're not yet high enough in proficiency (e.g. you can't read fast enough to enjoy yourself). At that point it's all about cramming as much vocabulary and kanji as you possibly can on a day-to-day basis, and I won't lie, it's not fun. If you ever get to that point I recommend the application Anki for vocabulary crunching; I also used a DS and a Japanese game called the Kageyama method - Kakitori-kun to study Kanji. [Edit] Also while I'm mentioning software -- Firefox with Rikaichan is a godsend for looking up terms on articles and improving reading speed over the internet.

 

[Dryhad]

@Dryhad

Your argument would be far more impressive if your weak atheism was logically justifiable. You can never prove that a lack of observation means a lack of existance ( pretty sure someone will call me Popper ) , so your weak atheism basis is logically faulty under their own premises , atleast as a atheism .

Let me introduce you to Occam's Razor. I don't have to prove that deities don't exist, the onus of proof is on those who claim that they do. Can you prove unicorns don't exist?

Not mentioning that your clasification create some nice situations where people don't believe , but know that is surely not logically coherent.

What, you mean gnostic atheist? Yes, that describes people who believe that the existence of deities is knowable, and that it is false. That is perfectly logically coherent, I suspect you are still confusing agnosticism and weak atheism even though I made it clear I am referring to different things when I use those terms.

 

[r_rolo1]

(P.S. before you get mad at me , i have a scientic area degree and use the goood old friar method on daily basis ... and no, I'm not a theist )

My friend, Occam razor is in itself a faith, a faith that some obcure and ill defined superhuman entity keeps things as simple as they can be while producing the world we can sense Can you prove that things are like that ?

And i think I got what is making us difer: you are implying that the awnsers to the question of the faith in existance of deities has to be binary and you put everyone that says that has no strong faith in the existance of deities in the atheism bag. I adhere to the definitions of atheism , theism and agnosticism i made a page or so ago, that roughly adhere to the answers "Yes" "No" "I don't know" to the question "Do you believe in the existance of deities?" .... so we are stuck in definition discussions. Not good

 

[Dryhad]

(P.S. before you get mad at me , i have a scientic area degree and use the goood old friar method on daily basis ... and no, I'm not a theist )

Then why do you find it so difficult to apply the scientific method to the existence of deities? Or rather, to accept that doing so is a logically consistent position, as we must not forget that that's all we're arguing here; neither of our personal beliefs are really relevant.

My friend, Occam razor is in itself a faith, a faith that some obcure and ill defined superhuman entity keeps things as simple as they can be while producing the world we can sense Can you prove that things are like that ?

I find it difficult to believe that you have a science degree when you so catastrophically misunderstand this fundamental underpinning of science. Occam's razor doesn't tell you how the world is, it tells you what is rational to believe. Deities might exist, weak atheism admits this. That's why it's weak atheism. However, there is insufficent evidence to conclude that any do. Once again, prove that unicorns don't exist.

And i think I got what is making us difer: you are implying that the awnsers to the question of the faith in existance of deities has to be binary and you put everyone that says that has no strong faith in the existance of deities in the atheism bag. I adhere to the definitions of atheism , theism and agnosticism i made a page or so ago, that roughly adhere to the answers "Yes" "No" "I don't know" to the question "Do you believe in the existance of deities?" .... so we are stuck in definition discussions. Not good

It's not binary, but it's not linear as you have it, either. Agnosticism is not the middle ground between atheism and theism. Agnosticism says that the existence of deities is unknowable. You might also apply it to personal knowledge: "I personally don't know", that also works. However, that doesn't tell the whole story. As a scientist perhaps you are predisposed to assume everyone would adhere to occam's razor in that case, but as I said agnostic theism exists and is logically consistant. It's very popular, in fact: "I don't know, but I have faith".

 

[Deathstar]

I would like to see a change in the way your state religion is defined. I think it should shift automatically (and without anarchy), according to which religion is most widely spread in your civilization (number of cities and population of those cities). That would prevent manipulation of religions in an unrealistic fashion and would demand that the player takes some responsibility for spreading the religion that is wanted. Also, it would make theocracy more powerful as you could prevent an unwanted flip into a different religion.

I'm the absolute ruler of my civilization. Constantine changed the state religion of the Roman Empire from Paganism to Christianity did he not? If you're the leader, you can do whatever you want to

 

[r_rolo1]

Then why do you find it so difficult to apply the scientific method to the existence of deities? Or rather, to accept that doing so is a logically consistent position, as we must not forget that that's all we're arguing here; neither of our personal beliefs are really relevant.

Well, the scientific method is what it is called in philosophy a non-deductive method: we observe things, check for regularities, extract conclusions and try to see if they aren't wrong. That means that at best you are provisionally not wrong, and that applies to all the areas where you apply the method, not only to the existance of deities. The issue is that, most likely for laziness, we tend to call our not-unproven theories scientific certainties. Like ol'Popper would say, seeing 400 white swans does not mean that all the swans are white...

I am being logically consistent btw: I'm just stating that proving the exactness of the existence or not of deities has the same odds of happening than proving the exactness of proving the existance or not of flying whales , because of the way the scietific method works ... until you see one, you can only say you never saw one, not that they don't exist. That is a aplication of the scientific method

I find it difficult to believe that you have a science degree when you so catastrophically misunderstand this fundamental underpinning of science. Occam's razor doesn't tell you how the world is, it tells you what is rational to believe. Deities might exist, weak atheism admits this. That's why it's weak atheism. However, there is insufficent evidence to conclude that any do. Once again, prove that unicorns don't exist.

You mean:

Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate

?

The Occam razor, as used in science, is a economical device, a heuristic. It is simply used to avoid losing time with convoluted theories before discarting simpler ones ( given the context, it is oportune to recall Laplace remark to the person that asked him his stance on the existance of God :"I didn't needed to use that hypothesis" ) ... it has 0 to do with rationality or logic , unless you have a philosophical frame that implies that the world's laws are as simple as they can be as long as they produce the world around us as we can sense it ( what I meant to say in the part of my post you are responding to ). Without that frame behind, Occam razor is simply a cut time tool, with no pretensions of being rational or even of producing more based afirmations


Like i said before, we are revolving around the definition of agnosticism and of some other words used in coloquial english, like faith, belief, hope, knowledge ... this has nothing to do with Occam razor or the existance of deities ( you are treating me like if I was defending some kind of theim, a thing that I'm surely not ). You are right in stating that agnosticism has to do with knowledge ( not the possibilitiy of knowledge, mind you ), but where IMHO you are erring is suposing that faith and knowledge are completely independent variables when there is no proof of existance of the said thing .

It's not binary, but it's not linear as you have it, either. Agnosticism is not the middle ground between atheism and theism. Agnosticism says that the existence of deities is unknowable. You might also apply it to personal knowledge: "I personally don't know", that also works. However, that doesn't tell the whole story. As a scientist perhaps you are predisposed to assume everyone would adhere to occam's razor in that case, but as I said agnostic theism exists and is logically consistant. It's very popular, in fact: "I don't know, but I have faith"

And again we are discussing meanings of words. Unknowable is not the same as unknowed ( a-gnosis btw means unknown, not unknowable). There are two ways of a thing ( in this case, a binary awnser to the question Deities exist? ) being unknown: or it was not discovered yet, but it exists, or it can't be discovered at all ... and those situations are operationally indistiguishable as long as the thing is unknown.

About the "I don't know, but I have faith" ...well someone is using either or both the words know and faith in a very twisted way, atleast acording to the dictionary:

Spoiler dictionary.com definitions :

faith (fāth)
n.

1.

Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3.

Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4.

often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5.

The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6.

A set of principles or beliefs.

know
1   /noʊ/ Show Spelled [noh] Show IPA verb,knew, known, know·ing, noun
(snip for verb with object meanings )
–verb (used without object)
8.
to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.
9.
to be cognizant or aware, as of some fact, circumstance, or occurrence; have information, as about something.

People are obviously not forced to speak by the dictionary, but using coloquial non-standart meanings to words can make easily people think that you mean a thing when your actual postion is diferent...

 

[Dryhad]

Well, the scientific method is what it is called in philosophy a non-deductive method: we observe things, check for regularities, extract conclusions and try to see if they aren't wrong. That means that at best you are provisionally not wrong, and that applies to all the areas where you apply the method, not only to the existance of deities. The issue is that, most likely for laziness, we tend to call our not-unproven theories scientific certainties. Like ol'Popper would say, seeing 400 white swans does not mean that all the swans are white...

I am being logically consistent btw: I'm just stating that proving the exactness of the existence or not of deities has the same odds of happening than proving the exactness of proving the existance or not of flying whales , because of the way the scietific method works ... until you see one, you can only say you never saw one, not that they don't exist. That is a aplication of the scientific method

I have no idea why you think proof is necessary for atheism, or that the absence of proof indicates faith. If that were the case, anything beyond Cartesian solipsism would be blind faith. This is not a very productive position, nor one that is conducive to science, nor one that is commonly held. I have no proof. I need no proof. Proof is for mathematicians, not scientists and not theologians.

You mean:
?

The Occam razor, as used in science, is a economical device, a heuristic. It is simply used to avoid losing time with convoluted theories before discarting simpler ones ( given the context, it is oportune to recall Laplace remark to the person that asked him his stance on the existance of God :"I didn't needed to use that hypothesis" ) ... it has 0 to do with rationality or logic , unless you have a philosophical frame that implies that the world's laws are as simple as they can be as long as they produce the world around us as we can sense it ( what I meant to say in the part of my post you are responding to ). Without that frame behind, Occam razor is simply a cut time tool, with no pretensions of being rational or even of producing more based afirmations

Occam's razor is necessary to the application of science beyond Cartesian solipsism. I might be dreaming. You might be a sophisticated computer program. We all might be brains in jars. We can't prove any of these things false, because you can't prove a negative. But science is predicated on the assumption that they are false, that our senses are reliable to a point, and that nature is uniform. I can't understand why you are demanding a greater standard of evidence (to the point of proof) for the existence of deities than that which is usually demanded of anything.

Like i said before, we are revolving around the definition of agnosticism and of some other words used in coloquial english, like faith, belief, hope, knowledge ... this has nothing to do with Occam razor or the existance of deities ( you are treating me like if I was defending some kind of theim, a thing that I'm surely not ).

I am treating you as if you mean what you say. When you say you are not a theist I treat you as though you are not a theist. And when you say atheism requires faith I treat you as though you mean that. If you are unhappy with how I am interpreting you, perhaps you should take more care to not be misinterpretted. For my part, however, I think this fear is unfounded. I am not treating you like any such thing.

You are right in stating that agnosticism has to do with knowledge ( not the possibilitiy of knowledge, mind you ), but where IMHO you are erring is suposing that faith and knowledge are completely independent variables when there is no proof of existance of the said thing .

For the record, the "possibility of knowledge" definition came from your own Brittanica citation.

And again we are discussing meanings of words. Unknowable is not the same as unknowed ( a-gnosis btw means unknown, not unknowable). There are two ways of a thing ( in this case, a binary awnser to the question Deities exist? ) being unknown: or it was not discovered yet, but it exists, or it can't be discovered at all ... and those situations are operationally indistiguishable as long as the thing is unknown.

About the "I don't know, but I have faith" ...well someone is using either or both the words know and faith in a very twisted way, atleast acording to the dictionary:

Spoiler dictionary.com definitions :

People are obviously not forced to speak by the dictionary, but using coloquial non-standart meanings to words can make easily people think that you mean a thing when your actual postion is diferent...

Well you for one certainly don't use dictionary definitions, if you believe proof to be a necessary component of belief.

 

[xcrissxcrossx]

Whenever religious discussions come to this point, I just have three words.

Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

And again we are discussing meanings of words. Unknowable is not the same as unknowed ( a-gnosis btw means unknown, not unknowable).

The literal meaning of the word's parts is less important than its historical origins and use. And historically, the term "agnosticism" was coined to describe the stronger, "unknowable" position.

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

- Thomas Henry Huxley (emphasis mine)​

Not that it matters too much; words evolve. People describe themselves as "agnostic" without committing to strong agnosticism; they're just looking for a term for a middle ground between religiosity and atheism. Besides, the word's more useful when more general, especially when applied to things besides the existence of gods: "flat tax agnosticism", "string theory agnosticism".

As for the more relevant question of agnosticism/atheism as a religion in the Civ series, I think the test is far simpler than an inquiry into the semantics of the terms and the nature of belief itself. In short: Does historical atheism behave like a religion for Civ purposes? The answer is clearly "no". It doesn't spread through a missionary tradition, doesn't build shrines or temples, doesn't inspire cultural output. (I'm not fond of the idea of switching cultural benefits for scientific, either: though most scientists are atheists, most atheists are not scientists. And Stephen Hawking certainly didn't say, "I'm going to discover black hole radiation for the glory of godlessness!") Speaking purely in Civ4 terms, there's plenty of room in the religious civic column for "State Atheism"; "Free Religion" sure doesn't cover the likes of the USSR. And that seems like the best place for atheism in general: it's pretty invisible and irrelevant for the purposes of modeling historical religions until someone at the top decides to make it mandatory.

State Atheism: No spread of non-state religion; Temples and Cathedrals have no effect; +1 happiness in all cities; +1 happiness, +3 production from Courthouse, Jail, and Security Bureau​

Just a thought.

 

[Malkaviel]

More like,

State Atheism : No negative effect of unhappiness. -1 population in all cities in your empire for each religion present. No effect from holy shrines. +1 production from mines, quarries, lumbermills. -2 diplomacy hit with all leaders with state religion. -3 diplomacy hit with leaders with free religion. -20% culture in all cities. No culture bonus from religious buildings. 5% chance (non cumulative) of 1 turn civil unrest every turn in any city with religion in your empire.

 

[r_rolo1]

Spoiler cleanness :

I have no idea why you think proof is necessary for atheism, or that the absence of proof indicates faith. If that were the case, anything beyond Cartesian solipsism would be blind faith. This is not a very productive position, nor one that is conducive to science, nor one that is commonly held. I have no proof. I need no proof. Proof is for mathematicians, not scientists and not theologians.

Well. if you don't have proof of X and you treat X like a truth, what should I call it, besides faith in X? Operational certainty? Hopeful self-deceiving? A jump in the unknown?

Scientists normally know they are skating on thin ice everytime they produce a statement of how things are in this world ( if they are not , they should be ... how many scientific ideas have been proofed wrong after being believed that they were the truth for a while? ). About theologicians ...well, they are deductive creatures ,so their conclusions are as based as their axioms.

Spoiler cleaness :

Occam's razor is necessary to the application of science beyond Cartesian solipsism. I might be dreaming. You might be a sophisticated computer program. We all might be brains in jars. We can't prove any of these things false, because you can't prove a negative. But science is predicated on the assumption that they are false, that our senses are reliable to a point, and that nature is uniform. I can't understand why you are demanding a greater standard of evidence (to the point of proof) for the existence of deities than that which is usually demanded of anything.

Well, the assumption that our senses are reliable ( even if to a point ) is a little bit shaky... at best we scientists use Occam razor and pretend that our senses are reliable until that proposition seems stupid. Same for the other assumptions ( and not all of them are even constant: I can point you a lot of scientific theories that assumed and assume that the nature is not uniform )

Notice a thing: I am not asking anything more of the proof of existance or not of deities than i ask of anything else. I'm just not trying to make a absolute truth out of a usage of the scientific method and of the ol'Occam razor ( and make no doubt, afirming the non-existance of gods is stating a absolute truth, a dogma in the original sense of the word, because, as you pointed above, you have no proof and you don't need one ). The only output than the scientific method would give in this situation is the Laplace one I quoted: i didn't needed that hypothesis of work until now ... but if I notice any phenomenon that does seem to need that hypothesis, I'll use it. Same as the hypothesis of work than all the cars in a certain track in a highway follow in the same direction: you can treat it as operational certain if you like ( and most of us do , thankfully ) , but that does not mean that you can't find a car driving in your direction.

Spoiler cleaness :

I am treating you as if you mean what you say. When you say you are not a theist I treat you as though you are not a theist. And when you say atheism requires faith I treat you as though you mean that. If you are unhappy with how I am interpreting you, perhaps you should take more care to not be misinterpretted. For my part, however, I think this fear is unfounded. I am not treating you like any such thing.

Ok, let me explain why i said it: because of the usage of the Occam razor you tossed against my argument. You should know better that occam razor is a heuristic in science and not a philosophical necessary point ... and because using Occam razor like you tried to use agaist my argument is a well known sport of a lot of people vs theist arguments. If that was not your idea I apologize .

Spoiler cleaness :

Well you for one certainly don't use dictionary definitions, if you believe proof to be a necessary component of belief.

Who said that? My point was that , up from the moment you state you have either faith or proof, the question of knowledge or not of the thing is out of the window, because either you already have it solved ( proof ) or because you have no need for it ( faith ). That was what I meant with the two being non-independent in this context, obviously in a not clear enough fashion.

For a example, look above to your own text: you say you have no proof and you don't need one . So the question of gnosis is out of the window: you can't make a case about if you know a thing or not when you state that you don't have proof and you don't need one, so a person that states that can't be a agnostic or even a weak atheist by your own definition ( not because they don't know or not, but because they don't even care to know ). That leaves the question of if you believe in the existance or in the non-existance of X.


@The Cosmic Kid

As I pointed in other post, there are two reasons that can make a thing unknown: your inability of solving it so far and the impossibility of getting a awnser. Both are operationally equal in a context where you can't produce a proof that you can't get a awnser ( and AFAIK that is the situation where we are ATM regarding this issue ), so in the end the strong agnosticism you describe ( I don't know because it can't be known ) is something else.... I'll not use the word faith to not flame things further though

And about the usage of agnosticism term like you described it... another Huxley ( the Aldous one ) made a nice text about the misusage of certain words and gramatical constructions in modern english. I guess it fits here quite right

On your sugestion ... well, maybe 3 prod from governemental buildings is a little offside, no? I would chose that civic 99,99% of the times I had acess to it just because of that

 

[The Cosmic Kid]

More like,

State Atheism : No negative effect of unhappiness. -1 population in all cities in your empire for each religion present. No effect from holy shrines. +1 production from mines, quarries, lumbermills. -2 diplomacy hit with all leaders with state religion. -3 diplomacy hit with leaders with free religion. -20% culture in all cities. No culture bonus from religious buildings. 5% chance (non cumulative) of 1 turn civil unrest every turn in any city with religion in your empire.

Meh, too involved for vanilla Civ; I'm looking for something that's clean, simple, and intuitive. Maybe this one would fit better in a more simulationist mod. But why bypass the standard happiness/unrest system?

On your sugestion ... well, maybe 3 prod from governemental buildings is a little offside, no? I would chose that civic 99,99% of the times I had acess to it just because of that

It'd need playtesting, of course, but I figured the bonus had to be pretty impressive for all that you're giving up, both in terms of Temple benefits and those of the civics you're not using. On paper, at least, it seems like State Atheism would have serious trouble with unhappiness compared to Free Religion (which is exactly how it should be).

 

[r_rolo1]

I wonder if 3 prod in city would not be too much of a bonus That would total 9 prod units, roughly the equivalent to 2 free mines. That, when passed by the multipliers could give some pretty nasty hammer power ( for your enemies that is ) ...

This would only be worse if there is a civic that could deny the completely , like HR in Civ IV ( as long as you are willing to build the units for that propose ) ....

 

[Malkaviel]

I wonder if 3 prod in city would not be too much of a bonus That would total 9 prod units, roughly the equivalent to 2 free mines. That, when passed by the multipliers could give some pretty nasty hammer power ( for your enemies that is ) ...

This would only be worse if there is a civic that could deny the completely , like HR in Civ IV ( as long as you are willing to build the units for that propose ) ....

Make missionary units like spy units who can stealth in and implant religion in a city, then add a provision where you can remove religion from a city with 3-4 modern military units and suffer -2 or -3 population. Then see how much you like it.