This game discriminates against Atheists!

[MrCynical]

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

I'm not personally feeling insulted for the simple reason I'm not an atheist. However I don't think it's true a person has to hold religious beliefs to "be a man".

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

I haven't read the whole of this thread, I just dropped in at the point where you threw out ths particular comment which I felt was particularly strange. I don't approve of insults being hurled at anyone, religious, atheist or other.

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

"Responsible" in what sense? Responsible as in knowing the difference between right and wrong, and hence are culpable for their actions? Without question that is true, as much as it is true for the religious, since most atheists follow a moral code (usually very similar to that of the religious).

 

[Older than Dirt]

There you go - using inflammatory words with religious meanings like "right" and "wrong."

 

[Naokaukodem]

Responsible in the sense you know what the hell you do on Earth. Or you are just a fool wandering around. Oops, i meant "soul".

 

[AfterShafter]

Responsible in the sense you know what the hell you do on Earth. Or you are just a fool wandering around. Oops, i meant "soul".

I think many of us know plenty well. So, again, yes. Happy?

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

If anything, this thread discriminates against theists in general. You accuse Firaxis of ignoring you, accuse still others of stereotyping you, yet you fall into your own stereotypes about the religious. I once knew some one of great faith. She was quiet, calm, and was certainly way better at math than I ever will be. Evangelicals....aren't faithful. They're loud, selfish idiots. DO NOT judge me by them. They would let the world burn, so long as they are saved...

 

[Naokaukodem]

I think many of us know plenty well. So, again, yes. Happy?

Let's hear a little about your own case then...

 

[AfterShafter]

Let's hear a little about your own case then...

I prefer to keep my personal life out of message boards, thanks.

It seems like you have some set condition for someone being "responsible" in the sense you've described... That sense being that we "know what the hell we do on earth." Please, fill us all in - I would love to hear what that is, and find out if I actually know what the hell I do on earth.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Oh because your purpose to be on Earth should be a secret. (secret mission maybe? ) Please share those secrets with us poor souls please, should be VERY valuable, sincerely.

As for me, there's no secret here: it is simply to believe into a life after death, for example. Who can really stand any cynical notion of death? Life would be impossible: not enough time, too much for one man to wear. Only fools not questionning themselves never can stand such a thing.

 

[paulhager]

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.

Well, yes and no. Consider that the most "religious" developed country in the world, based upon extensive sociological research is ... The United States of America. This is true in large part because the U.S. separates church and state, neither promoting nor restricting particular religions nor religion in general which creates a free market in religion. Also consider that, by far, the largest producer of "science" measured by scientific articles and Nobel Prizes, is ... The United States of America.

What the game does is to say that "Free Religion" gives a science benefit. This would seem to mirror reality although the underlying reality is a little more complex.

While it would appear that abandoning "superstition" would be beneficial to a nation state, the atheistic Soviet Union and Peoples Republic of China were relatively backward scientifically. The U.S.A.'s principal rival in the Cold War, the Soviet Union was generally pretty bad at scientific innovation (though seemed excel in the one area of theoretical mathematics) and relied heavily on espionage and reverse engineering to try to maintain military parity. Thus if religion were a major factor in scientific development, the Soviets should have had a huge advantage.

What is missing in the analysis is that irrational belief, whether religious or secular, when yoked to the power of the state is absolutely deadly. The Soviets promoted Maxism/Lenninism as the functional equivalent of a state religion. That, coupled with top-down rule crippled the Soviets. I'd recommend looking up Lysenkoism to see an example of how Soviet dogma helped to create a pseudo-science that ******ed Soviet developments in biology and, most importantly, agronomy and agriculture.

Now, for the game to be more accurate, it should upgrade Free Market, and downgrade the two secular religions of socialism ("State Property") and environmentalism. However, since the designers have been - as most people who pass through the American public school system - indoctrinated in these two secular belief systems they are blind to their faults. They undoubtedly don't even realize that they are in the grip of secular dogmas.

 

[AfterShafter]

Oh because your purpose to be on Earth should be a secret. (secret mission maybe? ) Please share those secrets with us poor souls please, should be VERY valuable, sincerely.

Why not take a note from one of the most devout spiritual men of the past two centuries, Christian philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, and consider that one's relationship with the absolute may well be incommunicable in any meaningful sense due to the ultimately subjective nature of a human being. This man was wise enough to see that one's personal relationship with God is something that can't be explained in truly adequate terms - and I for one don't like to do such an important notion the disservice of whoring some woefully inadequate explanation of it out on an internet message board. Or perhaps Kierkegaard was just another lost soul?

Besides, I'm not the one trying to suggest that I have any idea what it means to be a lost soul or not - that little bit of hubris is entirely yours. Seeing as you're the one claiming to have some knowledge of the subject, as opposed to me, it seems only fitting that you be the one to pony up and give your answer. (which you do, and I will deal with in some length)

Oh, just for the record, I know my place, and I am not lost. I don't suggest that I have any idea what your place is, so I wouldn't presume to try and tell you - and as such, any exposition on the subject by me would be a wasted endeavour.

As for me, there's no secret here: it is simply to believe into a life after death, for example. Who can really stand any cynical notion of death? Life would be impossible: not enough time, too much for one man to wear. Only fools not questionning themselves never can stand such a thing.

They key words - "as for me." Thanks for admitting that this is your singular interpretation of existence.

Anyways, let's examine this, claim, shall we? How many minds do you *truly* know? Can you see into the hopes, fears, dreams, feelings of defeat and victory, despairs and joys, and every little nuance that makes up the delightfully complex and contradictory human being? How many exmpales of this do you have again? One. You, and you alone. What goes on in your head is the only comprehensive frame of refence you have for judging how another human being's mind works on such concepts of import as are in question here.

The solution fo the problem you're facing, one has to admit, requires an intimate knowledge of the things outlined above. One man can't stand the notion of having a spider crawling on his hand, while another loves his pet tarantula and has it crawling on his hand all the time. One could try to explain it as "Well, he just can't stand the feeling of something crawling around on him" but words like that are shallow representations of an incredibly complex and impossible to fully communicate series of mental events taking place when the spider is on its hand. The bottom line? Such mental events can't be communicated completely.

How do we understand what's going on in others' minds then? Now Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments is a useful guide. Since we don't *really* know what's going on in another's head at any given time, we know others by putting ourselves in their shoes. The short version of this is that we know what others are feeling because we assume that what makes us feel pain makes them feel pain, that their smiles and tears mean the same thing as ours in their heads. We don't know them by *really* knowing what's going on in their heads - we know them by, at base, an assumption that their minds work similarly to ours.

Here's the catch though - all this means it that we only truly know our mind, and only know others through transposing ours... So if someone elses' mind doesn't work like ours on some level, we're in the dark. There is no thought reader which lets you know what a person really thinks, how they truly feel. Thus, when you say something like "Who can truly stand the cynical notion fo death? Life would be impossible" what you're really saying is "I can't stand the notion of death without life after it, and my life would be impossible without the idea of an afterlife... And I assume that everyone else is like me." How arrogant to assume that we're all in the same boat as you, because your basis is a sample size of one. All I have to do is look at my sample size of one, myself, and *know* you're wrong.

Maybe God can know my mind. You can't. Nor can you know anyone elses' in such a comprehensive manner as to make assertions about what other people can take or not, or how deeply they've looked at their own lives. Look at figures like Friedrich Nietzsche, who no doubt analysed his state more deeply than you or I ever will ours, and his conclusion was vastly different from the little bit of tripe you just shot out, trying to pin your own frailty in the face of death upon all of humanity.

Your frailty in the face of death, I say? Oh yes! And it's a frailty many do not have. Even look at some religions - in Buddhism, the highest ideal is complete, true, and final release, the exact type of death you're saying people can't face. One of the most populaced religions in the world laughs at your assertion that any human being who thinks they can handle the idea of death without an afterlife is simply a fool who hasn't questioned themselves enough. Indeed, you're suggesting that Siddharta Gautama - the Buddha - is just some fool who obviously wasn't aware of his place in existence to the extent that you are! Take a minute, at this point, to admire your own arrogance.

Hubris is a sin, one of the deadly ones, if I'm not mistaken. Judging by that post where you're trying to tell figures like the Buddha and Friedrich Nietzsche, along with the rest of humanity, that they're fools who haven't examined themselves enough, I'd say you have some serious confessing to do.

 

[paulhager]

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.

Qualification (and please see my comments on the original post) - religion + state power impedes science. The first two examples you give demonstrate that. The situation with stem cell research at present does not because the state is not restricting anything, just not getting the feds more involved than they already are. In fact, the best thing that could happen for stem cell research is for the feds to stay out of it.

I comment in my other post about Lysenkoism. That was an example of Communist ideology promoting an "alternative" to Darwinian Theory and actively suppressing Darwinian Theory. In fact, the top Soviet geneticist, who resisted Lysenkoism disappeared into the Gulag.

There is no functional difference between a state religion and a state dogma. Today, I'm prepared to assert that the most dangerous state dogma is environmentalism.

 

[paulhager]

...

I think Firaxis may indeed have given that +10% science boost for Free Religion as a nod to secular society, not atheist. At the end of the day, I would rather have government leave the entire question of faith out of their decision making. Just let people believe whatever they want to believe, whether that belief is of a god or not. Where I get annoyed is when the president tells me he's doing "god's will" by invading foreign countries. Why would anyone want to believe in a god that promotes war?

I agree with the first part. However, I must respond to the last statement. Bush has NEVER said that he was doing "god's will". He may personally believe in destiny (as Lincoln did) and that god put him where he is to deal with a global threat but that's nowhere in evidence as regards foreign policy. About the only thing Bush has said about religion is that "Islam is a religion of peace."

 

[paulhager]

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)

And Vavilov was imprisoned by atheist Communists. As I say elsewhere, the issue is more complex than simple belief in "god", whatever that is. If everyone were truly agnostic (as opposed to atheist) the world would be a better place. The fact is that atheistic true believers in Communism have demonstrated that absence of religion doesn't produce a utopia - quite the reverse.

It is also worth noting how Bjorn Lomborg has been savaged by environmentalists for questioning some of environmentalisms "truths". There have been organized attempts to destroy his career, although, unlike Vavilov, no one has thrown him in prison.

There is no functional difference between religious and secular ideologues who are unwilling to question their assumptions.

 

[lateralis]

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

thank you for illustrating my point better than I ever could

 

[AfterShafter]

And <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov">Vavilov</a> was imprisoned by atheist Communists. As I say elsewhere, the issue is more complex than simple belief in "god", whatever that is. If everyone were truly agnostic (as opposed to atheist) the world would be a better place. The fact is that atheistic true believers in Communism have demonstrated that absence of religion doesn't produce a utopia - quite the reverse.

Well, hardly a fair case for athiesm having the possibility of bringing good things into the world. Communism viewed religion as fundamentally hostile (the "whole opiate of the masses" thing, it was supposedly a systemic tool for maintaining class distinction) and treated it as such. Athiesm itself doesn't demand the abolishion of religion - but doctrinal communism has that aim, creating an "Athiestic communist VS theistic bodies" environment.

Athiesm in itself does not seem hostile... Athiesm with a dogmatic hostility towards religion - as in Communist Russia - on the other hand? That's hostile.

 

[paulhager]

I would say that the prevelance of religion in our society accounts for the fact that there are so many closet atheists. (I would also dispute that all agnostics are really atheists.) Right or wrong, the United States still has a religious character.

I agree that there is a distinction between atheistics and agnostics. Speaking as an agnostic, I define agnosticism as follows:

• There is no proof for or against the idea that there is a self-aware entity that created the universe
• There is no way to design an experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of a deity
• The existence or non-existence of a deity is irrelevant to the practice of science

Atheists make a categorical statement that there is no deity despite there being no evidence for it. I've blogged on the subject before: see Idiotic Design versus Theistic Evolution.

 

[paulhager]

Well, hardly a fair case for athiesm having the possibility of bringing good things into the world. Communism viewed religion as fundamentally hostile (the "whole opiate of the masses" thing, it was supposedly a systemic tool for maintaining class distinction) and treated it as such. Athiesm itself doesn't demand the abolishion of religion - but doctrinal communism has that aim, creating an "Athiestic communist VS theistic bodies" environment.

Athiesm in itself does not seem hostile... Athiesm with a dogmatic hostility towards religion - as in Communist Russia - on the other hand? That's hostile.

I agree.

I was making the point that secular or atheist dogmas can be just as deadly as religious ones. Soviet Russia is a particularly good example precisedly because its variant of Communism was actively hostile to religions.

 

[jeps]

As a mildly religious person, I have this to say:
HISTORY DISPROVES YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUEMENT (I think not havign a religion should increas eur science twice)
PROOF = Beit Hamikdash (The temple. The hebrews were scientifically ahead of all civilizations at the time, simply because of their faith.)
Tower of Bavel. The religious people used science to be closer to g-d, however much trouble that got them in.
Your argument would work IF they had religions having different benefits, so christianity would lose some science, confucianism gain some, etc. BUT because the game has (smartly, to avoid outrage like denmark) all religions equal, your idea does not work.

 

[lateralis]

I agree that there is a distinction between atheistics and agnostics. Speaking as an agnostic, I define agnosticism as follows:

• There is no proof for or against the idea that there is a self-aware entity that created the universe
• There is no way to design an experiment that would prove or disprove the existence of a deity
• The existence or non-existence of a deity is irrelevant to the practice of science

Atheists make a categorical statement that there is no deity despite there being no evidence for it. I've blogged on the subject before: see Idiotic Design versus Theistic Evolution.

I really like your definition. The unfortunate truth is that most people mis-define both atheism and agnosticism in common parlance. Your definition of agnosticism is the correct one : a-gnostic - not know. Basically that we can as human can never know the nature of god - including his/her/its existence.

the problem comes when people mis-define the second term as you have. atheist is the same as agnostic :
a-gnostic - not know
a-theist - not belief in god

many people wrongly assume this means "belief in NOT GOD" when in fact it is "NOT belief in god", more than a semantic distinction. atheism in its most basic form is simply that - an absence of belief in a god or gods. Now there are many "militant" atheists who have a problem with religion or actively deny the existence of deities, and these folks are atheist but with a dogmatic bent and can rightfully be called "religious" in their own way, but this is not atheism. some call this distinction hard atheism vs soft atheism but I find that somewhat flawed. the fact is (as pointed out) that institutional "atheism" can be as flawed and destructive as institutional religion and for the same reasons : being institutionalized.

I like to describe myself as atheist for one simple fact : I do not hold any belief in a "god" as posited by any of the definitions I've come across.

now I ALSO have problems with organized religion but this is a secondary concern which has more to do with my political and social desires than it does my lack of belief.

all in all, I thought it was summed up perfectly by a member of my site in a discussion with a believer:

"Atheism is a religion in the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."

 

[Moonsinger]

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.

Yes, there are benefits for not having a state religion and I'm not talking about "Free Religion". For example, a city with 5 religions and no state religion will give +5 culture points per turn instead of 1 without having to build any culture building.