This game discriminates against Atheists!

[Lance of Llanwy]

I'm a theist with my own theory...since God is such an intelligent and all-powerful guy...doesn't it make sense he would provide any number of ways to serve him...and since he's so nice and all and loves us blah blah blah....I don't think he cares how or even if we worship him...

 

[Chieftess]

Moderator Action: I was thinking of leaving this moved in Civ4Gen, but looking at the OT nature of this thread, I think it's best to move it there.

 

[Ansar]

Ok...then make a mod with an Atheist civ... *walks away*

 

[QuoVadisNation]

I honestly don't see how a relgious scientist has to be dumber, in theory, than a scientist that embraced atheism. If not God, then the atheist scientist would bark at some other fruitless endevour, like an belief in a better government or something, ya know?

Religious tolerance, of course, I can understand. But isn't that what civic Free Relgion is for?

 

[brennan]

religion is not only a lie, but also completely illogical, and people who believe in god are mindless sheep who can't think for themselves

I couldn't have put it better myself. *sorry - couldn't resist*

I believe China is officially atheist. "Religion is poison" - from 7 Years in Tibet.

 

[kcbrett5]

This thread has got to be a ******* joke. I'm sure that you care so much about not being discrimatory when you imply that the world would be twice as technologically advanced if it weren't for religion. If you are trolling, then you've succeeded in pissing me off. Good job.

By the way, the free religion civic already in the game is very similar to what you're suggesting, that is, without implying that worshippers are backwards idiots.

Well there is some historical basis in this, religion has stood in the way of scientific progress at times. Galileo was excommunicated for defending copernicus' view of the sun as the center of the solar system. We are still debating Darwin's evolution to this day, and now the conservative christian base in the US in preventing medical research to advance by limiting development of new embryonic stem cell lines.

Of course, these are only a few examples and you may agree with the church's position. But that doesn't change the fact that religion is impeding scientific discovery. It isn't saying that people of faith are dumb or backwards, just that they are trusting of the bible even when it flies in the face of scientific observation.

 

[dh_epic]

Get over it. Civ is a game, and is unfair to a LOT of people.

I'd say it's discriminatory to revolutionaries -- from George Washington to Mahatma Gandhi -- because it portrays their Civilizations as existing from the beginning, rather than showing the result of their rebellion.

I'd say it's discriminatory to PEOPLE -- since people just sit around, waiting for you to give them more luxuries, rather than having any say or power over what happens to your civilization.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You can run an Athiest Theocracy if you really want to keep those religious nuts out.

That's in Civ 3 Conquests, actaully. It's called Fascism.

 

[Bad Player]

Read the first page and a half... got bored...

IIRC from vanilla civ 4 I felt that free religion was quite a bit more powerful than the religious civics and I thought that it was the designers' way of putting their atheistic worldview into Civ 4.

 

[Phlegmak]

"Faith is believing in something you know isn't true" --Mark Twain

That is the most brilliant quote I believe I have ever seen. That sums up perfectly so many religious beliefs.

 

[pboily]

Is "discriminate" the right word here? Even I would have to agree that religions have played a larger role (for better or worse) in the world than atheism/agosticism over the last 6000 years. Will that be the case 6000 years from now? I don't think so, but it is neither here nor there as the game is supposed to recreate history, not the future.

 

[De Lorimier]

Get over it. Civ is a game, and is unfair to a LOT of people.

I'd say it's discriminatory to revolutionaries -- from George Washington to Mahatma Gandhi -- because it portrays their Civilizations as existing from the beginning, rather than showing the result of their rebellion.

I'd say it's discriminatory to PEOPLE -- since people just sit around, waiting for you to give them more luxuries, rather than having any say or power over what happens to your civilization.

Agreed for the US, but to say that India was born in the 40's after the British rule ended is, well, misinformed.

Freedom of religion suits me fine as an atheist. No debate from me there.

 

[ComradeDavo]

i think it does- every religion gives benefits while not having religion does not? Who invented that? I think not havign a religion should increas eur science twice- would be more acurate.

I am an staunch atheist. I don't care. I like the religious aspect of civ4.

Last time I checked, atheists (right or wrong) had not managed to form a significant political or cultural block with any longevity, never mind one that should make the top seven.

I think you'll find that alot of the western worl is atheist these days.

 

[Veritass]

I know a few atheists, and they are right about some things. They ask some good questions. I just don't like the ones who try to make people with faith feel bad about what they beleive in.

Most atheists (I was a rabid one for much of my life) mainly have a problem with religious types who want the atheists to feel bad about what the atheists don't believe in. Oh, wait, I forgot, they are just trying to save my soul and make sure I don't burn in hell, so it's OK.

 

[Phlegmak]

I honestly don't see how a relgious scientist has to be dumber, in theory, than a scientist that embraced atheism. If not God, then the atheist scientist would bark at some other fruitless endevour, like an belief in a better government or something, ya know?

It seems like you're saying atheists' primary purpose is to attack something. If that's what you're saying, you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Veritass]

I honestly don't see how a religious scientist has to be dumber, in theory, than a scientist that embraced atheism.

As a Religious Scientist, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Neither science alone nor religion alone can provide a complete understanding of the human experience, and I think they fit well in each others' gaps.

 

[Elrohir]

Actually, about 72.2% of scientists are atheists, and 20.8% are agnostics (leaving a scant 7% for believers), though that varies from field to field (more atheists in life sciences, fewer in mathematics). Numerous studies have found that intelligence and religiosity are inversely proportional, and that education and religiosity are also inversely proportional.

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/gallup.htm

I'm of the opinion that since most atheists are deconverts (I only have an informal forum poll for that, but out of 200 people, only about a third were raised atheists), it probably has more to do with the process that leads to atheism than atheism itself. The kind of person who is open to the possibility that they are wrong is the same kind of person who I would expect to be fairly intelligent. I think if 80% of the US population were atheists, then we'd see the opposite trend. Atheists who are open to the possibility that they're wrong would be more intelligent, but also more likely to convert if presented with sound reasoning.

That information is useless unless you can show that the religious scientists are inferior scientists. You've shown that more scientists are atheists than religious - fine. But that says nothing on the quality of any of those scientists, or whether scientific research would be increased if 100% of scientists were religious, or whether it would be decreased if 100% were religious.

Saying someone is a better or worse scientist based upon whether they believe in God is absurd. You can't narrow it down like that.

 

[El_Machinae]

That information is useless unless you can show that the religious scientists are inferior scientists. You've shown that more scientists are atheists than religious - fine.

Depends what evidence they're willing to ignore due to their faith, doesn't it?

And, as a sideways, it also depends upon which experiments that they're unwilling to do. I mean, is the person who's willing to cut open a corpse (to perform an autopsy) a better scientist than the one who refuses for religious reasons?

 

[Elrohir]

Depends what evidence they're willing to ignore due to their faith, doesn't it?

And, as a sideways, it also depends upon which experiments that they're unwilling to do. I mean, is the person who's willing to cut open a corpse (to perform an autopsy) a better scientist than the one who refuses for religious reasons?

Not if the scientist who refused is an astronomer. Or a geologist. Or a chemist. Or a physicist. Or a mathematician. Or....

It would only make that person a worse scientist if it was their job to cut open dead bodies - if doing that has absolutely no impact on their field, then they are not any the worse because of it. Now if it is their job to perform autopsies, and they refuse, then yes, I see your point - but who would specialize in a field that they could not practically work on? In the vast majority of cases, refusing to perform an autopsy would have zero impact on whether someone was a competent scientist.

 

[skadistic]

I like how when it changed forum sections the posters changed.

Remember folks It was called the dark ages for a reason. Religion has stifled scientific advancment before and still does today ie. Clones and stem cells.