This game discriminates against Atheists!

[Spartan117]

Well you're grammer and spelling aren't speaking highly for your oppnion.

Even if there was a scientific gain for countries with no religion as opposed to those religions, twice would be way too much, which for most would be obdivious, not you I guess.

you do know he is either typing too fast, or english is not his native english.

 

[ggganz]

If you had no religion then no one will be mad at you. And Free Religion does give you a happiness and research bonus. DUH!

 

[smellymummy]

dont switch to any religion

you wont get a happy bonus, but if you found a religion, the holy city then gets +5 culture. by not converting, that means the next religion you found will also produce a +5 culture holy city. those +5's really come in handy for expansion and culture wins.

of course by not switching to a religion you won't get any diplomacy bonus, or penalties. and also by not switching you are saving yourself from 2 turns of anarchy (1 for conversion, 2nd for religious civic). that's 2 extra turns you can build/research.

however if you end up playing a spiritual civ, it makes no sense not to take advantage of religion and its civics

in the end, i find that some games it makes no sense at all to waste turns in the early game to focus on religion. asides from researching and founding religions, being an atheist civ (and more than often a brutal slaving civ), for me, happens much more often than being a religious pioneer

 

[Rule Brittania]

Well you're grammer and spelling aren't speaking highly for your oppnion.

Even if there was a scientific gain for countries with no religion as opposed to those religions, twice would be way too much, which for most would be obdivious, not you I guess.

why do people get so caught up in the spelling, havn't you realised that people make mistakes when typing maybe you should just stick to the topic at hand. Anyway i agree that athiesm if added should increase your science becuase like it or not religion has in some cases held it back science look at Darwin he tried to tell people about evolution but the church did its best to stop him becuase it went against the bible when all the evidence points towards his theory being true and still it is denied like i heard about these people in America that where trying to have the teachings of evolution taken out of schools becuase it go's against the bible and they belive it to be wrong but where is the bible has no evidence that there was no evolution so how can you say its wrong, and i know people are going to say i'm just bashing religion and i do belive that if someone wants to belive in christinaty or any other religion they should but i'm just sick of having to be be carefull all the time about what i say so there i'v said it.

 

[QwertyKey]

Well I appolgive for my previous comment, but it seemed as if he said that religious people are half as smart as Athiests which I felt was offensive.

And to Rule, generally the smarter the person, the fewer mistakes they make spelling and grammer wise. This guy, who almost anybody would assume is an Athiest, is claiming he is twice as smart as any religious person, though by his post, he didn't seem very smart.

 

[Emerald Melios]

Uhhhh....there's two atheist religions in Civ4: Buddhism and Confuscianism.

 

[Emerald Melios]

So scientists were not imprisoned and/or tortued for saying the world was round or that the earth wasn't the centre of the universe? (exaderated but my point stands that religion holds back science)

Once Arab astronomy was introduced in Europe during the Middle Ages, there was little to no doubt that the Earth was indeed spherical. (it was in fact first proven by Aristotle)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

To compare actual nations, rather than individuals, it should be pointed out that most of modern science came from the heavily Christian countries of the US and Europe. Of course, medieval science flourished most in the predominantly Muslim world. And the Confucian Chinese had their breakthroughs as well. Now, the Soviet Union during its heyday certainly contributed to a lot of what we know, but also had its shares of quacks (like Lysenko, whom I mentioned). Even if every scientist in the world were atheist, most are in religious countries, which tends to show that usually science is not stifled by religion.

 

[Otsoga]

Dude, the civics are roughly progressional. Free religion = secularist government. The game's use of religion shows how silly religion is. Religion unites small groups and divides large ones. Civ 4 shows civs adopt religion for political reasons, not because of the merit of particular a religion.

 

[Shaihulud]

If atheism is supposed to bring on benefits, then it should be researched just like any tech. It makes no sense for the society to default as "atheist" before religion.

 

[AvianAvenger]

Hmm, benifits of athiesm?
- Crime, drug lords and slave traders would be raking it in.
- Science, no moral debate to questionable experiments.
- Free Loving, population boom... but widespread starvation.

And thats about it.

 

[CharmzOC]

OK everyone stop bickering. Most of the posters are hypocrits. Honestly how can you have a debate when people say things like religion is a childish fairytale and then get offended when some tells them that they will burn in hell, and vice versa. Three year olds argue with that mentality of he said it so then i have to get him back the same way he got me. trust me you look better and get more respect for taking the high road and not stooping to broad generalizations.


Anyway, on to the matter at hand. Historicly, until communism took hold in russia, there were very few countries who followed no set of beliefs. You can use the free religion to make a secular government. In the game having a atheist theocracy, that is a no religion theocracy, you would be shoving your beliefs down your peoples throats which exactly what you are angry at people in the real world doing with christianity or other religions.

 

[Watiggi]

A non state religion system (in Civ IV) will give +1 culture to a city with any religion in it.

I haven't read the whole thread, so I just thought it might be worth saying in case it hasn't been said yet.

 

[AvianAvenger]

Where I get annoyed is when the president tells me he's doing "god's will" by invading foreign countries.

Oooh, you've got no idea how much i agree with you there.

Why would anyone want to believe in a god that promotes war?

Except this part, thats the problem... the bible teaches to tolerate EVERYTHING, not declair war and all that bullshite. The pres claiming his religious is just a bullshite publicity stunt to try and con people over for votes, like hell he actually is one. Yeah, sure the 911 attacks were bad and all... but just how many more people are losing thier life because of what the pres is doing. No only that, it also encourages more terrorist attacks by breeding hatred between the two nations.

Unless he is willing to whipe them ALL (and by all, i mean pretty much that entire part of the hemisphere) out of existances he will never succeed

to quote a lame old movie & pretty irrelivant quote (but i just feel like it, so what the hell)
"Jesus loves prostitutes too, doesn't he phil"
"Yes, jesus love all prostitutes"

Tolerance is the hardest thing to learn in life, regardless of what you believe.

 

[Naokaukodem]

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.

It's all wrong. But most importantly, it is just very STUPID.

That's just you so-little atheist vision of the things... I feel sorry for you.

I could say in the same way that it is the other way around.

Religions are supposed to bring happiness. A well applied religion should give infinite hapiness and act like the Globe Theater in every city with a religion.

Beside that, Man is born with religion. Without a religion you're not a man. So think twice before spitting on religions.

 

[MrCynical]

Beside that, Man is born with religion. Without a religion you're not a man. So think twice before spitting on religions.

Rather a strange viewpoint, and somewhat insulting to atheists. While many people are religious, I don't consider it a basic requirement for them to be people.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Sorry if you feel insulted, but that's an innocent point of view. Is this point of view true?

Plus you didn't express yourself about people barely insulting religious "freaks" is this very topic, so your point of view seems pretty biased.

Of course people can live without religion, they are still people. Or missionaries would not attempt to "save" them. But are they fully responsible?

 

[AfterShafter]

Of course people can live without religion, they are still people. Or missionaries would not attempt to "save" them. But are they fully responsible?

Yes. Happy?

 

[AfterShafter]

Hmm, benifits of athiesm?
- Crime, drug lords and slave traders would be raking it in.

Oh yes, because there has been no drug trade nor organized crime in religious countries in the past.

- Science, no moral debate to questionable experiments.

Right. We need a clear moral center... Like the one that leads to crusades, inquisitions, religious wars, suicide bombings, veritable genocides in the name of faith...

- Free Loving, population boom... but widespread starvation.

Yep, it's certainly the "free religion" secular world that's starving now, isn't it? Have you checked the birthrate in many of the "free religion" countries in the world recently?

And thats about it.

Not really. Superficial look at one very small side of a hugely complex issue, loaded up with a lot of bias. The freedom of thought brought by Athiesm is not without its benefits and pitfalls, just like the moral and social structure brought by an organized religion is not without its benefits and pitfalls. You may see this if you're looking at this without a predefined opinion of "Well, my side is obviously right and the other side doesn't have jack going for it."

 

[Chode]

Hmm, benifits of athiesm?
- Crime, drug lords and slave traders would be raking it in.
- Science, no moral debate to questionable experiments.
- Free Loving, population boom... but widespread starvation.

And thats about it.

dumb, dumb dumb. I love this anti-intellectualism you ignorant people have.

Crime? Drug lords? Slave traders? I'm pretty sure all that still happens, since the Roman times. Slave trading was pretty much eliminated around the time of the beginning of the industrial revolution.

No moral debate to experiments. Uh huh. Show me your proof of atheist societies (there is no such thing but I will humor you) committing horrible things. oh, and Hitler was not an atheist.

Population boom? Show me any kind of proof, other than uninformed bias. Relatively, the crude population growth for the planet has slowed down (except in Africa) in the past 50 years.

Try opening your mind and reading another book (not your bible) for some facts on how the world actually works.