Ideas, Requests, and Feedback

[Opera]

There is only one reason why I'm opposed to religion and that is because it is a basic template that allows people to stop thinking rationally.*

So you're opposed to emotions too?

 

[Valkrionn]

Okay, I guess I didn't bring my point across very well.

There is only one reason why I'm opposed to religion and that is because it is a basic template that allows people to stop thinking rationally.*

And does it really do any good? I doubt it. I'm convinced that people who are good for religious reason would be good even if they didn't belief in God. That is just their nature, and to some extend it is human nature.**

So in the end we have a dangerous warping glass that may at times focus rational behavior to be more effective but at all times comes with the danger of allowing people to set themselves completely free from the bounds of reason. "Deus lo vult." is just too convenient an answer. For everything.


*Of course the same can be said about all radical ideologies.

**(Besides I doubt that Mother Theresa for example actually believed in her religion, after all catholicism is the denomination that would send Gandhi to hell for all eternity. She most likely followed her own interpretation of religion, one that was loosely based on her official alignment.)

Sure, in that context I actually agree with you.

Just one problem: People are not rational. We are entirely irrational beings. And as you stated, the same thing can be said for ideologies, nationalities, theories, anything that people feel strongly about. It is a part of human nature, more than it is the nature of any one man-made organization.

And again, religion is also capable of carrying people through times that would otherwise be debilitating; As with all else, it's not a wholly bad institution, nor is it wholly good (or, IMO, even mostly good, but that is more an issue with the religions themselves than religion as a concept).

Now, if you were choosing to direct your arguments against specific religions, the vast majority of which were founded millenia ago by people with a very basic understanding of the world, I would be more agreeable.

They played an MP game. Not sure why it's in this thread, as they were not play RifE but Tasunke's new mod.

 

[Tasunke]

but it made me feel better ... though next time i need to be faster - you managed to send a message before the kick

anyway ... it's also not civil to
a) send Pirates (( AI never goes just out of range of Fireballs - i know it was you ))
b) to claim that there will be "grand" battle, and then go for Tower of Mastery



// just for the record: you were unbanned several minutes later //

I saved the game the turn after you left. Since you were also going for the mastery, I decided to build it before you :O

But still, I have the save ... so we can still have our battle (ps. I really REALLY want to do the grand battle still)

[also, lets move this to another thread, eh? Maybe the #erebus thread]

 

[Krieger66]

Okay, I guess I didn't bring my point across very well.

There is only one reason why I'm opposed to religion and that is because it is a basic template that allows people to stop thinking rationally.*

And does it really do any good? I doubt it. I'm convinced that people who are good for religious reason would be good even if they didn't belief in God. That is just their nature, and to some extend it is human nature.**

So in the end we have a dangerous warping glass that may at times focus rational behavior to be more effective but at all times comes with the danger of allowing people to set themselves completely free from the bounds of reason. "Deus lo vult." is just too convenient an answer. For everything.


*Of course the same can be said about all radical ideologies.

**(Besides I doubt that Mother Theresa for example actually believed in her religion, after all catholicism is the denomination that would send Gandhi to hell for all eternity. She most likely followed her own interpretation of religion, one that was loosely based on her official alignment.)

I think your really missing a huge point of religion: it gives its followers hope of a better, eternal life even if everything else in it is hell. For peasants in medievil times life was always about work and staying alive; but the concept of heaven let them have hope throughout their otherwise dreary lives. Religion caused the vikings to settle down and stop raiding post-roman Europe. How can you say religion has never done anything good for someone?

Would even half of the good religious people devote a majority of their time to helping others if they thought they would just decay in the ground after they die in any case, and are basically a self-aware chipanzee?

I sort of doubt it.

Sorry if I come off as hostile in my little wall of text up there, I just get a little worked when someone says basically no religion has done anything for anyone. Especially, since I grew up in a pretty religious home myself.

 

[legowarrior]

Yes, yes they would. Maybe not as many of them because fear is a good motivator, but like Valkrionn said, we are not all that rational (we can be rational, but some research indicates that trying to be completely rational can lead us to bad outcomes, and being trying to be completely rational is time consuming, and so it might not be the most rational thing to waste so much time trying to be rational when you are choosing between a slice of pizza or a hamburger).

Anyway, in can make sense evolutionarily because if the good deed costs little, it heightens your social status (helps with the opposite sex) and there is the idea that they will in turn help you back some day. Usually the cost of helping is less then the benefit to the other person.

 

[Torugu]

Humans are not entirely irrational beings. Sorry, but that's nonsense. Human decision-making is a struggle between emotions and reason. Religion allows you to change the "reason" side of this equation to fit whatever emotions you may have atm. And that frequently goes horribly wrong.

Would even half of the good religious people devote a majority of their time to helping others if they thought they would just decay in the ground after they die in any case, and are basically a self-aware chipanzee?

Sure they would. I'm an heterosexual, white, lower upper class male, I should be defending religion. But I don't. Because it's wrong.

I think your really missing a huge point of religion: it gives its followers hope of a better, eternal life even if everything else in it is hell. For peasants in medievil times life was always about work and staying alive; but the concept of heaven let them have hope throughout their otherwise dreary lives. Religion caused the vikings to settle down and stop raiding post-roman Europe. How can you say religion has never done anything good for someone?

So you are saying that numbing down medieval peasants is a good thing? I'm well aware that it was still to early for a proper democracy but the medieval society was advanced enough to grant them some basic rights at least. (Keep in mind that this is the period where lords had the right to claim the virginity of every peasant daughter born in their lands if they so desired.)

And last time I checked the vikings didn't settle down because of religion but because they were bought off with lands and huge amounts of money and because of an increasing centralization of their government (independent from their conversion to Christianity as can be seen at the example of Sweden).

Sorry if I come off as hostile in my little wall of text up there, I just get a little worked when someone says basically no religion has done anything for anyone. Especially, since I grew up in a pretty religious home myself.

And that is the worst thing about religion. You have all right to be angry about my posts, but you can't be angry "because you grew up in an religious home". If you're going to hate me, hate me because you yourself came to the conclusion that I am an a**hole.


I really feel bad about derailing this threat so much...

 

[Opera]

We don't really care about your opinions on religion in this thread, you know...? You're right to feel bad about derailing the thread. Perhaps you could stop now?

 

[Torugu]

The large number of very constructive replies tells me that at least some of you do care.

But you're right I should stop now. I'm sorry.

 

[Valkrionn]

Humans are not entirely irrational beings. Sorry, but that's nonsense. Human decision-making is a struggle between emotions and reason. Religion allows you to change the "reason" side of this equation to fit whatever emotions you may have atm. And that frequently goes horribly wrong.



Sure they would. I'm an heterosexual, white, lower upper class male, I should be defending religion. But I don't. Because it's wrong.

As my last reply on the subject...

Yes, humans can be rational. And frequently when we attempt to be, things go horribly wrong. Just as when we come to irrational decisions, things frequently go terribly wrong. That argument does not, cannot, and will not render religion as a concept wrong. I'm sorry, it simply doesn't. Again, if you want to argue against SPECIFIC religions, my stance would be different.

And actually, you fall square into the category that I would expect to rail at religion the most, so no, I wouldn't be expecting you to defend religion in anyway.

 

[Krieger66]

Humans are not entirely irrational beings. Sorry, but that's nonsense. Human decision-making is a struggle between emotions and reason. Religion allows you to change the "reason" side of this equation to fit whatever emotions you may have atm. And that frequently goes horribly wrong.



Sure they would. I'm an heterosexual, white, lower upper class male, I should be defending religion. But I don't. Because it's wrong.



So you are saying that numbing down medieval peasants is a good thing? I'm well aware that it was still to early for a proper democracy but the medieval society was advanced enough to grant them some basic rights at least. (Keep in mind that this is the period where lords had the right to claim the virginity of every peasant daughter born in their lands if they so desired.)

And last time I checked the vikings didn't settle down because of religion but because they were bought off with lands and huge amounts of money and because of an increasing centralization of their government (independent from their conversion to Christianity as can be seen at the example of Sweden).



And that is the worst thing about religion. You have all right to be angry about my posts, but you can't be angry "because you grew up in an religious home". If you're going to hate me, hate me because you yourself came to the conclusion that I am an a**hole.


I really feel bad about derailing this threat so much...

I'm not angry at you(and not becuase I grew up in a religious home, I'm saying religion is good, and I disagree, because it gives people hope for a better future, and just that little boost in morale can give that person a better life. I've seen people given back their hope and had their life changed for the better due to religion, and I strictly don't agree with you that all religions are these blood-sucking vampires), I learned awhile back that disagreements and diversity are some of the best things about life(que sappy music here...). Anyway I'm just going to end my part in this whole train-wreck of a discussion right about here.

Seriously, I'm done now.

 

[/]rchon]

Oh I wanted to ask now, with the Mechanos anti religious stance, will they in future updates become immune to religion of any sort spreading to their cities?

I mean if you were playing another highly preachy race like the Order and you were aiming for a total religious victory, shouldn't logically having the Mechanos as neighbors be the biggest hurdle possible, cause they'd be completely resistant to conversion and possibly extremely hostile to such attempts?

Also have you ever planned or considered a UU for any race thats essentially the Nautilus to some extent or another?

Also with the Mechanos do you plan to remove naval vessels (wooden hulls and sails) from their list to leave just air units?

Or might they be able to get something like the Civ IV default Ironclad (look wise) or something along those lines as a number limit UU thats essentially a Steam Tank thats stuck to moving only on water?

 

[Opera]

I don't think the Mechanos shouldn't have wooden and sails boats, at least early in the game. That said, ironclads and a Nautilus unit might be nice. Not confirming anything mind you.

Maybe we should do that for the Mechanos, yeah, 'immune' to religion.

 

[Valkrionn]

Iron Clad is already in for the Khazad.

 

[Krieger66]

I don't think the Mechanos shouldn't have wooden and sails boats, at least early in the game. That said, ironclads and a Nautilus unit might be nice. Not confirming anything mind you.

Maybe we should do that for the Mechanos, yeah, 'immune' to religion.

Or a civic that is equivalent to theocracy, but doesn't require a religion and is unique to the mechanos?

 

[Opera]

I thought about that too Krieger. You'll have to wait for the update to see

 

[Draconian]

I think the perception required to enter the heavy mist in Sidar cities should be reduced to 4. At the moments it's nearly impossible to capture Sidar citites. The only reliable way I've found to get units with perception 5 are recon units with Sentry II and Griffon Blood. This means your units need at least 26xp for the Sentry promotions and you need to capture Griffons. On top of that your recon units need to be able to kill all those city defenders, which might be problematic as well because the AI loves to spam Archers and recon units don't have access to City Raider or Cover II. And if your units get killed you need to find new Griffons, if there aren't any left you're out of luck.

Reducing the needed perception to 4 would at least get rid of the need to find and capture Griffons.

 

[KrugSmash]

I think the perception required to enter the heavy mist in Sidar cities should be reduced to 4. At the moments it's nearly impossible to capture Sidar citites. The only reliable way I've found to get units with perception 5 are recon units with Sentry II and Griffon Blood. This means your units need at least 26xp for the Sentry promotions and you need to capture Griffons. On top of that your recon units need to be able to kill all those city defenders, which might be problematic as well because the AI loves to spam Archers and recon units don't have access to City Raider or Cover II. And if your units get killed you need to find new Griffons, if there aren't any left you're out of luck.

Reducing the needed perception to 4 would at least get rid of the need to find and capture Griffons.

Alternately, get an adept with air 1, and cast gust of wind to clear the mist. If you need time to get elementalism, pillage their land so that it takes them forever to build new units. I think sun 1 is supposed to have a spell that increases perception as well.

I never bother with sentry promotions, and just bring along a magic user.

 

[Draconian]

Thanks for the hint, wasn't aware that gust of wind removes mist as it's missing a description.

 

[Krieger66]

@Opera: Thats what they all say...

I think something should also be done about the Hyborem/Demon peace; I keep trying to build a massive fleet but when I build a privateer they walk in and destroy them.

I was thinking something along the line of sending demon units into the fiery pit of hell if they move to the 1 tile mark around Hyborem's cities, it would create some form of epic fiery explosion of fiery doom and be pretty sweet. There would also be fire.

 

[Valkrionn]

IMO, that's the cost of barbarian peace.

Hyborem doesn't seem the sneaky type, either.