This game discriminates against Atheists!

[Eran of Arcadia]

The way I saw it, it runs roughly like this:

soft agnostic - I don't know whether God exists.
hard agnostic - humans cannot know if God exists.
soft atheist - I don't think God exists.
hard atheist - God doesn't exist.

Thus a "hard" atheist is the only one of the bunch sure of anything.

 

[ombak]

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.

The main point was to indicate this double standard that exists against atheists/agnostics.

If a religious person says "it's too bad you don't believe in God" or feels pity for someone who doesn't believe in God, this is supposed to be a good quality, but if an atheist were to express the idea that it's too bad that someone is holding on to a mythology for comfort in life, that would be an intolerant sentiment? They're both the same kind of concern, but one is expressed by a minority (atheists/agnostics) and the other by a powerful majority (theists of any kind).

Generally speaking most atheists wouldn't say that though, I think he was just pointing this double standard out. Your average atheist would view being religious as normal, just as being an atheist is normal and they wouldn't say something that they know the religious person would find insulting. OTOH, the religious person who says something like that likely views atheism as something unusual or even abnormal and doesn't realize they are being insulting/intolerant in what they say.

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.

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.

Ditto here. I disagree with Paul Hager's definition of an agnostic for philosophical reasons I guess. As I see it an agnostic says "there's evidence for God, and there's evidence against God, I don't know which is more convincing, they both look good, I can't decide yet".

As an atheist I see no evidence for God that is convincing. I'm not interestd in proving a negative (the non-existence of a God) and I apply Occam's Razor. As far as I'm concerned, as far as I can tell, there is no God.

I also agree that "militant" atheists can be just as intolerant as "militant" religious types and institutionalized atheism could be just as destructive.

 

[ombak]

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. i don't agree with the views of most atheists, but I, like a hippy(a race that I hate by the way), accept there differences. I can't beleive that I just typed that... Anyways, shouldn't this be in general discussion?

I can't believe that in the 5-6 pages folloiwing this post there was only one calling attention to this: "a hippy(a race that I hate by the way)".

Wioneo, just how stupid/prejudiced are you?

 

[EdCase]

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.

Tell that to the victims of the Inquisition,The Crusades and many others right through 9/11 to the present day.

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

I was born without the ability to talk or comprehend fully (as were you).
I was born with a navel.
I most certainly am a man(it would appear a more openminded, forgiving one than you it seems.)
But I was most certainly not born with religion.
In saying that, I cannot recall ever spitting on another mans belief system. The most I ask for is that people respect my personal belief (or lack there of) in all matters pertaining to Religion

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think that whether it is a believer or a nonbeliever doing it, "feeling pity" can be very condescending. Saying, "I feel sorry for you, I have freed my mind from those obviously ridiculous fairy tales you follow" is bad, as is "look around you, you have to be some kind of idiot to deny God". On the other hand, I do feel that religion has enriched my life in a way most nonbelievers would not be able to understand, and it hasn't cost me my intelligence or intellectual integrity.

I also think that everyone who mentions the Crusades should also have to mention all the religious charities that exist . . .

 

[EdCase]

The operative word though Eran was supposed the fact of the matter is Religion causes strife no matter how many charities exist.

 

[wioneo]

I can't believe that in the 5-6 pages folloiwing this post there was only one calling attention to this: "a hippy(a race that I hate by the way)".

Wioneo, just how stupid/prejudiced are you?

That hurts my feelings I geuss that I'm not allowed to show my sense of humor around here. By the way, don't tell me any crap about being prejudice. I am an African American living in Moody, Alabama(we won't be here long) I've seen my share of prejudice. I've never actually been called stupid, either... My brother doesn't count.

One things that I have noticed after reading all of these pages is that many people have mentioned the bad that has come from religions, the crusades, various executions, 911, repeatedly. However, I have only seen one person, on this page(or maybe after my post the previous page), mention anything about the good.

Also, I beleive that one who does not beleive in any religion is an atheist. They can then be further divided into other classifications, just as theists are subsequently divided into Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc... I will, for the sake of ease, refer to ALL of these denominations as atheist.

The ideals that seem to be popular among atheists about God supporting these various things that bad(I define bad in the a general sense) people do is just wrong. If anyone can take a look through the bible and show me were it says that Christians should mass murder non-believers. I will retract my statement. I cannot say that about other religions. Religiously inspired and hateful events such as the various crusades are also inspired by human (I'm thinking of a word for bad qualities...) that are similar to racist beleifs. It's just the natural way that people don't like other people when they are different. Remember the Holocaust? I don't, because I wasn't born yet, but I'm sure that a few of you had been born.

In referance to the game, Civilization is mainly based on events from the past. I did say MAINLY, and atheism is as far as I know a pretty recently emerging trend. Correct me, if I'm wrong.

I am really disappointed to see how angry people can be made to get about a computer game. I thought that this would be a more tolerant community. That statement was directed at ALL posters, theist or not.

 

[ombak]

That hurts my feelings I geuss that I'm not allowed to show my sense of humor around here. By the way, don't tell me any crap about being prejudice. I am an African American living in Moody, Alabama(we won't be here long) I've seen my share of prejudice. I've never actually been called stupid, either... My brother doesn't count.

If you meant that as a joke, then I apologize for insulting you. I still find it rather unfunny - mostly because if it is a joke it's impossible to tell, but I do apologize for my tone.

 

[ombak]

The ideals that seem to be popular among atheists about God supporting these various things that bad(I define bad in the a general sense) people do is just wrong. If anyone can take a look through the bible and show me were it says that Christians should mass murder non-believers. I will retract my statement. I cannot say that about other religions. Religiously inspired and hateful events such as the various crusades are also inspired by human (I'm thinking of a word for bad qualities...) that are similar to racist beleifs. It's just the natural way that people don't like other people when they are different.

True, if God is benevolent, then these things are not supported by him. but that's not the point. The point is that institutionalizing religion, especially through government, allows things like this to happen. It creates a big "us vs. them" mechanism, no matter how good people are supposed to be according to their religion. And it's that "us = good, them = bad" mechanism that permits people to engage in cruelty toward other groups.

 

[wioneo]

True, if God is benevolent, then these things are not supported by him. but that's not the point. The point is that institutionalizing religion, especially through government, allows things like this to happen. It creates a big "us vs. them" mechanism, no matter how good people are supposed to be according to their religion. And it's that "us = good, them = bad" mechanism that permits people to engage in cruelty toward other groups.

A good example of this would be the Americans hating Muslims thing that is going around now. People do, and will continue to group other people. If there is anyway to link them together we will. That is our nature, religions do add to the list of things to discriminate about, and even in countries like the U.S. where we have "Free" religion, the popularly expected religion is Christianity.

I am just here to defend my beliefs and not to attack anyone else's. Your comment did not attack theism in any way(that I can see), so I will end my comment here.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The operative word though Eran was supposed the fact of the matter is Religion causes strife no matter how many charities exist.

So does having a different skin color or living in a slightly different place. Let's face it, humans are irrational beings, and we look for any excuse possible to cause strife with each other. I highly doubt the Assyrians, the Mongols, etc. were motivated to conquer everything in sight based merely on religion.

 

[wioneo]

So does having a different skin color or living in a slightly different place. Let's face it, humans are irrational beings, and we look for any excuse possible to cause strife with each other. I highly doubt the Assyrians, the Mongols, etc. were motivated to conquer everything in sight based merely on religion.

Just a point of interest that has nothing to do with the discussion--

Did the Mongols even have any religion? I've never heard of any...

 

[Dionysius]

Just a point of interest that has nothing to do with the discussion--

Did the Mongols even have any religion? I've never heard of any...

http://atheism.about.com/library/world/KZ/bl_MongolilaBuddhism.htm

 

[lateralis]

Just a point of interest that has nothing to do with the discussion--

Did the Mongols even have any religion? I've never heard of any...

rufus: why don't we ask them?

bill & ted : huh?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

So does having a different skin color or living in a slightly different place. Let's face it, humans are irrational beings, and we look for any excuse possible to cause strife with each other. I highly doubt the Assyrians, the Mongols, etc. were motivated to conquer everything in sight based merely on religion.

All this "kill the heathens" stuff looks more like a Monotheism related problem for me. The Romans didn't care if people called their gods Zeus, Odin or Baal until the empire became Christian.
But religion has led to war's and it is a good tool for a leader to justify his imperialist ambitions.

 

[Tekee]

No Religion dosen't cause Strife it's the Governments that attached themselves to this religion, as you can see how CIVS hate other state religions.
AnD Firaxis said that they wanted all religions to be Positive becuase also historically More Relions in a city dosne't always mean more happiness.
Atheism is Free Religion, and perhaps some ancient people were atheist but The State was Hindu and still hate the Buddists
(just 2 randoms religions)

 

[brianshapiro]

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.

You of course know that most people within the Church agreed with Galileo's findings and he was put on trial not for his arugments, but when he started mocking the Church in his dialogues, making the official Church position spoken by a character named Simplicitus. Even as many in the Church agreed with Galileo the canonical position was still based on Aristotle, and was not really inherent in the Bible. The idea that the earth must be at the center because of some passage in the Bible, was only an interpretation of the Bible which they connected with arguments by Aristotle, and with what they understood as common sense.

In that particular case, the Church did serve as an impediment to Galileo's discovery; because of their role in politics. But the Church was also a major patron of the arts and sciences; in the Renaissance sponsoring many intellectuals, and in the middle ages the first universities were religious foundations, started by monks. During the middle ages, monks and priests preserved a lot of ancient thought through scholastic research. The first modern philosophy was priests reconciling science with religion [St. Thomas Aquinas], and Newton and Copernicus were motivated highly by religious sentiment.

The role that the Church often plays in history, in so far as it is political, is it tends to be defensive of mainstream scientific views; so that when new views arise it tends to be a bullwark of orthodoxy. But the Church has been involved in pushing science as much as it has been an impediment. There are reasons evolution continues to be an issue; its because even if the basics of evolutionary theory shouldn't be denied its been based on a very narrow metaphysical understanding which limits its application in science as well. One of the most intelligent and refreshing analyses of evolutionary theory was been done by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest. As for stem cells, thats a highly political issue on both sides, anyone who thinks people argue for government funding aren't essentially being political, doesn't understand the politics of the issue.

In all, its no coincidence that Christianity has been the primary religion in the same society in which the greatest modern scientific development has occurred. It has just played a certain role in the society, which to would-be revolutionary scientists seems very frustrating.

 

[brianshapiro]

True, if God is benevolent, then these things are not supported by him. but that's not the point. The point is that institutionalizing religion, especially through government, allows things like this to happen. It creates a big "us vs. them" mechanism, no matter how good people are supposed to be according to their religion. And it's that "us = good, them = bad" mechanism that permits people to engage in cruelty toward other groups.

Us vs them occurs whenever there are any real major struggles--it can involve religion--but also any ideology, like communism. One of the largest recent us vs them struggles has been the United States vs. Soviet Russia. It also doesn't mean that us vs them is necessarily wrongheaded. Was the cold war an unnecessary struggle? I think this is a false understanding of history. I don't think religious struggles are always disconnected from reality either. If there was no reason for God to forbid against something, it wouldn't be an important defining doctrine of a religion. When religion has been a part of war, there have almost always been -real, political- issues. The 30 years war was in large part connected to the ambitions of the Schmalkaldic League, for instance. Right now the conflict between islamic terrorists and the US also has real political issues and isn't all just disconnected-from-reality fundamentalism.

Its not like buddhism is disconnected from war either. Buddhist thinkers have said that war is sometimes necessary. Its just that because of its nature, there is no central god for buddhists to rally around. But, it does involve inself in other centralizing traditions. Warriors in ancient china were influenced by buddhist thinkers in preparing for battle to defend a divinely-mandated king. Who is to say there would have been as much bloodshed without buddhism? The way buddhism is set up just lets people who believe in it to think their hands are clean.

 

[ombak]

Us vs them occurs whenever there are any real major struggles--it can involve religion--but also any ideology, like communism. One of the largest recent us vs them struggles has been the United States vs. Soviet Russia. It also doesn't mean that us vs them is necessarily wrongheaded.

Us vs. them is wrongheaded in that it oversimplifies things and, as I stated, allows people to engage in cruelty towards others. It paints the world in black and white and says "they're different". And once the others are different, you're slidng down a slippery slope that ends somewhere around "subhumans who should be eliminated".

I don't believe any religion calls for this. But it is a pretty easy way to get people into this mentality. And yes, I know other ideologies can do this just as well.

I don't think religious struggles are always disconnected from reality either. If there was no reason for God to forbid against something, it wouldn't be an important defining doctrine of a religion.

Like? Shellfish (today)? Pork (today)?

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

In Christianity's defense, it had a turbulent childhood. It was vigorously oppressed by both its "father"(Judaism) and the pagan Roman Empire. It is little wonder that Christianity developed very negative views of Jews and Pagans, for it spent its childhood being shunned and abused by both. It doesn't excuse what has been done in its name, but it's an oversimplification to say that any religion is inherently more violent or less tolerant than others. A religion is merely a religion, and it is the followers who shape it. Christians simply grew up on tales of martyrs being brutally slaughtered by pagans and treated poorly by Jews. And, in the very "closed"(i.e. limited learning) of the Dark Ages in which it came into its own, it is little wonder that Christians became such an intolerant bunch. By and large, most followers of ANY religion are perfectly reasonable today because their education doesn't consist of "Heathens are evil. They did this and this to our forefathers because they reject God and we have to spread God's word to them or they'll burn for an eternity in Hell." The Bible was the only textbook for most everyone.

And don't get started from the Catholic Church. For much of its life, it has been a temporal political force as opposed to a spiritual one.