This game discriminates against Atheists!

[AfterShafter]

Atheism is not lack of religion, it is a religion that believes in the absence of God.

Load of bull, and at best a catch phrase of a religious types who like to see things in an "us and them" light. The functional differences between atheism and religion in society are notable, as are the majorities of their respective beliefs.

 

[viz]

Load of bull, and at best a catch phrase of a religious types who like to see things in an "us and them" light.

I concur, theism means belief in one or more gods, 'a'theism is the lack of belief in any gods.

Touching on an earlier post, atheism is widely split into both strong atheism - the belief that no deity exists and weak atheism - an absence of belief in the existence of deities. They are both still atheist however. Agnosticism is the 'sitting on the fence' between believing and not believing, the 'we don't know, they don't know' camp are agnostic.

If you don't believe you are an atheist (as I am), if you don't know/care, you are an agnostic, if you believe you are a theist.

 

[Hadrean]

I really don't care about having religeon in the game or not

 

[dh_epic]

"Not believing" is not the same as "believing not". Lots of people don't believe in God, but that doesn't prohibit you from not believing in the absense of God. But I'm sure you know what I'm saying.

(I'm somewhere between weakly atheist, agnostic, and weakly spiritual, depending on the day.)

I guess we're not talking about all the huge biases in Civ 4 anymore? Because there's a TON. As much as Atheistic people might take issue with religions providing only positive benefits, there are Religious people who might take issue with religions only being the opiate of the masses rather than a force of justice.

Seriously, get over it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

OK, to reference the

#1 v. #2 (about anything)
1. I believe there is no X
2. I have no belief in X

The fact is about every concept that has ever been mentioned to you, you have a 'degree of belief' in it. Once the idea of 'God' has been given to you you automatically assign (not necessarily exactly or consciously) a probability that this concept is actually real/true. From this point on in your life, every new experience you get will modify that probability

So for any idea/concept introduced to a person you can say 2 things
1. How much they believe in it
2. What evidence would change that level of belief

Someone could definitely be an atheist merely by being at 0% on # 1
However, that person could be a weak atheist, of the total evidence they have only a little would change their mind... the same could be said for theists would move them to.

Of course there is also, the "given new evidence what Parts of your beliefs are changed"...

The fact is all of them are beliefs... The fact is Gravitational Theory, Cell Theory, etc. Are all just Theories... and have been shown to be untrue several times, and new theories (by the same name because they talked about the same thing) took their place.

I will readily state that I have faith (limited) in current Gravitational Theory. Faith is required because it Is a belief (and it is limited because of its problems reconciling with Quantum theory). I have faith that China exists, etc. This pushes it to the Decartes' edge... but there is no solid 'these are facts, these are theories' line...(unless you include logical if-then statements, or definitions)

The degree of faith "needed" is the degree to which the evidence allows Other explanations. (and as we can see from Decartes there is Always at least one other explanation) I have a strong Faith that the Decartes' demon is not real, and it is Only faith that makes that so, as it is consistent with every possible evidence.

The fact is the atheist has faith that god does not exist... they may not have much faith, so that they will easily change to a position that god does exist, or they may have a lot of faith such that meeting God face to face would merely make them believe they were hallucinating. Their faith is based in evidence, as all faith is.

Now atheism may be described as a religion, using definition #3 or 4, but only for certain people. However, many atheists have some other 'religion' using definition #3 or 4 (communists, other utopians, etc.)

Of course, as the 'religious/cosmological/teleological' beliefs of many people are of minimal impact on them, it seems imprecise that those who have minimally impacting beliefs that are classed as supernatural, would be labeled as having a relition and those who have minimally impacting beliefs that do not reference the supernatural are classed as non religious, when for a better description, they are Both secular.


And this should probably get moved back to Off-Topic, the last non dh_epic mention of civ was probably ~10 pages ago.

 

[JudeMorrigan]

So I take it that it's your opinion that, had people had the means during those religious wars, they wouldn't have used machine guns, tanks, bombers, mustard gas, nuclear warheads, etc, and would have rather stuck to swords and bows to keep the death count down? And that the fact that there simply weren't nearly as many people didn't have a great deal to do with the lesser deathcount? Didn't realize religious wars were waged with nerf bats while only in secular wars were the most effective means of killing, at the time, employed.

Certainly the greater death totals for modern wars is due to advances in technology rather than a difference in motivation. Honestly, trying to compare casualty totals is a bit silly. But that said, I think it's worth noting that there have been significant wars that were not fundamentally religious in nature. Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but my inclination is to belief that if one were able to wave a magic wand and banish religion from the world, people would find other excuses to continue to kill each other.

I'll add that I could make the exact argument in reverse. I could easily say that people have done more good and helped more people in more people 'in the name of God' than for all other reasons in history combined. Much if not most of the charity work done 'back in the days' was religious in nature. And there are still plenty of religious folk who do genuinely good work. But I'm also inclined to suspect that if you waved that magic wand, those people who do good work in the name of God now would continue to do so regardless.

 

[JudeMorrigan]

Second, the early roman catholic church selected the 4 main gospels of the new testament from a list of about 20. And wouldn't you know it, the ones they included all preach that you should love and adore your church while several that they left out preach that you can love god without a church. Hmmm..self serving interests anyone?

I would disagree that this was a fair assessment of the development of the New Testament canon. In his work "Against Heresies", St. Irenæus testified to the existance of a four-fold gospel, and named Matthew, Mark, Luke and John explicitly. This sets the establishment of the primacy of the Tetramorph to the last quarter of the second century AD at the very latest. This was before there was any real "selecting" of the New Testament canon by the Catholic Church. The real discussion in the third century AD had to do with works such as Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John. In short, the best historical evidence we have is that the emergence of Tetramorph as the preferred gospels simply happened too early and in too organic of a fasion for it to be truly fair to say the "roman catholic church" (that sould really simply be "catholic church" for the timeframe we're talking about) selected the gospels from a "list".

 

[jac0001]

If there was no religion there would have been no science as we know it.

Religions particuarly before modern religions were established were basically moral codes. Without these moral codes societies would not have formed. These moral codes set the foundations of laws. Without the formation of societies technology wouldn't have progressed and been biult upon generation after generation.

 

[Mr.Domino]

So I take it that it's your opinion that, had people had the means during those religious wars, they wouldn't have used machine guns, tanks, bombers, mustard gas, nuclear warheads, etc, and would have rather stuck to swords and bows to keep the death count down? And that the fact that there simply weren't nearly as many people didn't have a great deal to do with the lesser deathcount? Didn't realize religious wars were waged with nerf bats while only in secular wars were the most effective means of killing, at the time, employed.

Now now. read my post carefully and give me a little credit. It was "thoughts on arguments I disagreed with" and the piece you quoted is essentially a critique of diamond's "more people have been killed in the name of god than all other causes combined." Obviously thats vague since I didnt get around to quoting him explicitly anymore than I quoted those who argued Buddhism was atheist. But I thought it was clear I was simply arguing that religons have not killed more people than other causes, and I actually argued one of your points, that part of the reason was simply there were more people in the 20th century (I picked 1700 since it was after the reformation/dark ages when presubambly all the religous wars were fought, and pointed out that there were still barely as many people in Europe as were killed in the world wars.)

 

[StarWorms]

I don't see what the argument is about. I am an athiest but I strongly recognise the role that religion has played. Without religion we wouldn't have science. However Free Religion is in the game, which is basically athieism so it's good enough for me.

 

[viz]

Everyone is atheistic to some degree.

A christian believes there is only one god, therefore that christian is athestic towards all other religions - he/she lacks belief in those other religions. The same applies to everyone, religious or not - unless you believe in EVERYTHING you are somewhat atheist, it just so happens that I for example lack faith in one more god than the christian I just mentioned. Of course the same is true of all non-compatable religions not just chritianity.

On topic: I would like to see some extra incentive for not being a religious civ. I think religions are too powerful and influential as they are (as in reality), and the amount of potential gold that can be generated from shines allows much more funding for research than the free religion civic can even approach, not to mention allow support for much larger armies, faster production and huge political power. Check out my gold in the 'Gold!' thread, that's the power of religion right there.

 

[Chose]

There is no need for the element of faith in the instance of atheism, because fundamentally it bases understanding and 'belief' upon proof, measurable and testable hypotheses and results one can see, touch, and measure. I was taught in elementary school that 2 + 2 = 4. Do I need to have faith in order to believe that to be true? No, because it is a fact.

I do not need to have faith that God doesn't exist because no rational evidence exists that convinces any reasonably-minded person of any alternative. If there were a radical mathematical sect out there that 'blasphemously' taught schoolchildren that 2 + 2 = 5, despite all evidence that it equals 4, then yes, that would be a viewpoint that would require a great deal of faith to support and embrace. This is the equivelant of religion in the modern era of human development - a point of view contradicted by all rational authority that still maintains its insistence on the literal truth of its teachings.

Benjamin Franklin, an early American statesman, thinker and non-Christian, once rightly pointed out that to "see with the eye of faith, one must close the eye of reason," or words to that effect. A viewpoint contradicted by science, facts, logic and reason is the only viewpoint that requires 'faith' to believe in. Atheism is supported, rather than weakened, by appeals to rationality - it requires no 'faith' to embrace, only a brain capable of knowing that 2 + 2 = 4

As for the Big Bang, the underlying physical principles behind it render it entirely possible. Plausible or a particularly 'strong' theory by scientific standards? Certainly not, but as Sherlock Holmes pointed out, "once you remove the impossible, that which remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." While the quote does not translate precisely into this discussion, you can take "once you remove the the impossible" to mean "once you remove all points of view not in any way based upon rational thought (read as: Scripture)", and "must be the truth" to mean "must be the truth we accept for the time being until a better one is uncovered". A sloppy transciption, but effective in this scenario nonetheless.

I do so enjoy arguing with religious folk. Their arguments are usually so easy to tear down that it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Have your beliefs, people, but please, follow three simple rules.

1) Keep them to yourself.

2) Keep them out of civilized adult discussion in the twenty-first century.

3) If you must talk about them, try to at least SOUND intelligent and convincing.

I am a student at the University of Minnesota double-majoring in sociology and theology. You will have to do better than this .

2+2 has been PROVEN to equal 4 so you DONT need any faith to believe that, God as NOT been proven to not exist, so what you said about 2+2 can not be use in a argument about theories.

Who make the an adult discussion, yes us non adults like me (im 14) have to be reasonable, but this for is not just for adults.

about the big bang is has been proven the somthing in a frictionless environment and starts spining all of the pieces would spin in the same directioin, there are all kinds of planits spining in the wrong directiong, how did that happen ., also i think it takes more "faith" to believe the big bang than the bible, things dont just start spinning and then blow up. u say things lilke all the all the evidence shows that there is not God, but i think it all shows there is a God, just look at the sun rises, people, grass, all this tells my that that did not happen by chance but an All-powerful God made it

what evidence the oldest living thing is 4,300 years old (right after the flood) the oldest desiert is also 4,300 years old (they proved that by look at how much bigger it gets every year), if you add up the dates in the bible the flood happend 4,440 years ago. that is just some evidence, so dont say lies like all the evidence shows there is not God cuz that a not true


all that aside, as i said b4, somthing was always here right, A God or a Rock THEY BOTH TAKE FAITH BECAUSE YOU CANT PROVE ETHER OF THEM if you truley had no faith the only stuff you would believe is facts stuff you could feel and see, evolution and the big bang are not. if you did not have faith you could not believe that those are true

if you think a rock was always here is is up to YOU to pove that to me. As is for me and my God, if i think God was always here it is up to me to prove that to you

Science has fundamentally and systematically destroyed the credibility and accuracy of every religious text in the world's history (the bedrock for most matters of faith, as it were). If I can prove to you that the Bible is not the divine, infallible, literal and inspired word of the Lord Thy God (which I easily can on multiple occurences), then I have cut the head off of your religion (in this case the popular example of Christianity), and your 'body' will soon die without the guidance of the neural center of the brain. When there is no backing that is not found in your own scripture to support your conclusion, then that is a view that requires faith to embrace. Mine is not.

that is a lie is so many ways

if I can prove to you that the Bible is not the divine, infallible, literal and inspired word of the Lord Thy God (which I easily can on multiple occurences)

then tell me one

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Um, the Bible contradicts itself in numerous places, so the whole thing can't be infallible. And since "the Bible" is more recent than the Bible (ie the books that, it was decided, would be in the Bible were chosen long after any were written), there might be some that shouldn't be there.

And heck, I believe in the Bible, more or less.

 

[trada]

I think you really want to research what you are talking about, Eran of Arcadia. And then try saying that again.

 

[Datian]

The fact that maybe a flood could have happened (and you'd better do some research about it because it's everything but proven yet) doesn't mean it was the will of some god. It just means it rained a lot.

As for the Bible well, the genesis itself is a problem, taken litterally. Let's sum it up :
Adam and Eve are the first - therefore, the only - man and woman. They have two kids, Cain and Abel. Cain kills Abel. Cain is left alone to wander and ponder what he did. Ok divine justice. Then he sets up, gets married, and have loads of children. Hmm ok, with whom ? His hidden sister ?

 

[AvianAvenger]

Adam and Eve are the first - therefore, the only - man and woman. They have two kids, Cain and Abel. Cain kills Abel. Cain is left alone to wander and ponder what he did. Ok divine justice. Then he sets up, gets married, and have loads of children. Hmm ok, with whom ? His hidden sister ?

I dont take most of the bible literally, its the moral of the story that counts. Who cares if it was a apple / bananna / whatever... God could've said dont have anal sex for all you know or care,.. it all really doesnt matter, however the moral of the story still matters.
The whole point of the adam and eve story is to say that mankind sin's so mankind pays the price for it.

A christian believes there is only one god, therefore that christian is athestic towards all other religions - he/she lacks belief in those other religions. The same applies to everyone, religious or not - unless you believe in EVERYTHING you are somewhat atheist, it just so happens that I for example lack faith in one more god than the christian I just mentioned. Of course the same is true of all non-compatable religions not just chritianity.

I believe all there is only one God, but that all God's are really the one and same, regardless of the story's surrounding him...

@diamond
So far the only people that have agreed with you are like minded athiest, so if your so good at tearing down peoples arguements then go convert a preist to an athiest... then we will give you some credit.
So unless your willing to & can do that, quit the child like bullhorsehockye bragging. It not that hard to see how immature you really are when you post stuff like that.

 

[JrK]

Why hidden sister? The bible doesn't say Cain and Abel are their ONLY children now does it?

 

[AvianAvenger]

On topic: I would like to see some extra incentive for not being a religious civ. I think religions are too powerful and influential as they are (as in reality), and the amount of potential gold that can be generated from shines allows much more funding for research than the free religion civic can even approach, not to mention allow support for much larger armies, faster production and huge political power. Check out my gold in the 'Gold!' thread, that's the power of religion right there.

Actually i agree with you about the extra incentive for not being religious, i hate rushing for a religion at the start just for the extra gold it brings. I would rather just let them come in time.

-
You have to remember & take into consideration that the bible is written by many different authors, at many different periods in time (each with their own point of view and opinions), initially in a language which isn't well understood these day, and then translated repeatidly. An then they're are still arguements these days as to which translation is best. Anything that is written by man should always be treated with a skeptical mind, however you should not ever deny something just because you cannot prove it to exists, thats the metaphorical equivilant of standing on a railroad track while not believing that a trains comming your way just because you cannot hear it.

 

[TheBoatman]

maybe agnostic civic - no state religion, -1happy because of doubts, -1health because of suicides, but +30% culture because of those existencionalists' masterpieces

 

[Dreath]

Err how can you discriminate against athiests in religious terms? Athiesm isn't a religion.