This game discriminates against Atheists!

[wioneo]

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?

 

[Norseman2]

Anyways, shouldn't this be in general discussion?

Definitely. This has nothing to do with strategy or tips.

 

[Elrohir]

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.

Ermak, I think you missed the memo - this is a game. It's not supposed to cover every possible idea or concept, just the ones the developes feel will earn them money. And as for your assertion than an "atheist religion" should increase you science twice - don't be absurd. Some athiests are good scientists, and some are bad, while some people of faith are good scientists, and other people of faith aren't. You can't say one religion (Or lack of religion) would do that - that wouldn't be "acurate" at all.

As it is, the game isn't discriminatory. In fact, I think they went a bit too far in trying to be inclusive.

Anyway, wouldn't Free Religion cover this - and it gives a 10% boost to scientific research, that's pretty significant. And if you really don't want any religions in your city, beeline to Theology and run Theocracy - others can spread their religions in your civ. How you could run an atheistic theocracy is beyong me, though.

And yes, this should go in General Discussion.

 

[lateralis]

I just don't like the ones who try to make people with faith feel bad about what they beleive in.

sorry but I had to jump in on this one.

if a christian thinks I'm going to hell, to burn in fire and damnation for all eternity, how is this NOT supposed to make an atheist "feel bad" about not believing?

in that vein, just like when believers say things to me like "I just feel sorry for you that you'll never know god" why can't I say things like, "In the same way I feel sorry for you that you'll never grow up and move beyond needing a fairy tale to not be afraid of the world"?

why am I being intolerant simply because my "religion" is an absence of belief? It seems like, as long as what you believe in was written down by someone who is currently dead you somehow get a free pass on the whole "not treating people like they are below you" issue and I think that's a load of crap.

 

[Norseman2]

And as for your assertion than an "atheist religion" should increase you science twice - don't be absurd. Some athiests are good scientists, and some are bad, while some people of faith are good scientists, and other people of faith aren't. You can't say one religion (Or lack of religion) would do that - that wouldn't be "acurate" at all.

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.

 

[DigitalBoy]

sorry but I had to jump in on this one.

if a christian thinks I'm going to hell, to burn in fire and damnation for all eternity, how is this NOT supposed to make an atheist "feel bad" about not believing?

in that vein, just like when believers say things to me like "I just feel sorry for you that you'll never know god" why can't I say things like, "In the same way I feel sorry for you that you'll never grow up and move beyond needing a fairy tale to not be afraid of the world"?

I think people are entitled to believe whatever they want to believe in; I'd just like it if people were more respectful of each other's beliefs. In this case, the "I feel sorry for you never knowing God" comes off not as a legitimate concern but rather some sick sarcastic jab at you for being an atheist. That's wrong. I think you understand why you can't (shouldn't) say

In the same way I feel sorry for you that you'll never grow up and move beyond needing a fairy tale to not be afraid of the world

to a Christian if you take offense to things like

I just feel sorry for you that you'll never know god

.

 

[wioneo]

Lateralis, you seem to have chosen to ignore most of my post Anyways, maybe you don't realize that someone saying that they "feel sorry that you will never know God," is actually a sentimental comment, and that they might actully care about you. However your comment, which I don't really feel like re-typing is rude, and theist or not, you should show some manners.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

If you want to get the science bonus of atheism, just build libraries and univeristies instead of temples and cathedrals.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

increas eur science twice- would be more acurate

speaking of acCurate...

 

[ChuckDizzle]

The guy that started this thread must have been a troll. If he's not, he's ridiculously bitter. Why isn't there an "Atheism" religion? Because historically, most societies have developed some kind of beliefs in supernatural forces. Atheism as a social force is really rather a modern development. Even in countries where there are numbers of atheists, there are still many religions. Besides, atheists hardly have a monopoly on intellect. Historically, more contributions have been made to philosophy, science, the arts, and literature by persons of faith rather than atheists.

For my final point, this is the wrong forum for this post, and it should be moved by a mod.

Sincere apologies for feeding the troll.

 

[alpha wolf 64]

burn the atheists..........................

oh crap <runs and hides>

 

[GoodSarmatian]

"Grow out of religions". This happens to individuals and not to civilizations.
There was no atheist state (except Albania, but old Enver was a loon). The closest we have is a secular state which is covered by the free religion civic.
Maybe someone could mod ideologies to replace religions in later games. Then Isabella would attack anyone who is not communist...

 

[JrK]

I'll just post here and point out that science philosophy has shown that science isn't truth, and therefore that various faiths might be true. So think again before you say science is 'the' answer.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

So which resource is going to be the one that doubles production of an Athiest cathedral?


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.

 

[Petrucci]

More than ever in history, what is being shown is that both science and religion work together more and more. So many "truths" that all of the religions have preached over the years are now fitting in with what science is discovering. Coincidence or something more? Lets face it, religious bigits and scientific atheists are bedmates in the fact that its not idiology that drives their ignorance, its the political ramifications of losing power and money. I guess the point of this thread is narrowminded in my opinion. Look beyond what, "religion" and "scientists" say because none of them will ever have answers, yet at the same time they speak to the same things because deep within all of us, if we'd just open our eyes, we all know what our existance is all about. Just wish more people could understand we are all the same regardless of beliefs, cause hell most of the time we agree, but politics and pride get in the way! Yet we are just talking about a game mechanic so perhaps im thinking too much, sure make an atheist religion...errr

Note: the use of existance i belive is infered once one starts to speak of religions and science, because that ultimatly is what we are trying to find out and understand.

 

[Branoic]

Wait a minute - if the original poster can name one actually athiest civilisation then I'd agree with his point. Fact is though, that while many millions of individuals throughout history have been athiest, states, empires and kingdoms have always had a religion.

 

[Petrucci]

I'm no expert but isn't China and wasn't Stalin's Russia athiestic? Perhaps other's can give better insight.

 

[voek]

Who cares, it's a game, lets play and have fun. Don't agree? Mod it or don't play it and design your own game.

Edit: Oh yeah, why is this thread under Strategy and Tips????????

 

[shivute]

Religion gives structure, order and control to people's lifes. This can be shown in the benefits of having a religion over not having a religion in the game.

In some areas of the world today religion doesn't appear to be as important as it was in the past, however the more "civilised" an area of the world is (more cities, infrastructure, police, army, government, hospitals eg the trappings of a modern civilisation) the less the need for religion to give that structure and order to people's lifes.

I think that the idea of religion in the game works well. I also believe it has been designed not to discriminate against anyones beliefs (or lack of them).


Or am I just talking crap?

 

[lateralis]

I'm really not trying to be confrontational, I just don't understand why saying what I did can't come from a genuine concern for a person who hasn't grown out of childish beliefs in the same way them thinking I'm going to hell does?

my whole point is that it seems a lot if people (not necessarily people here, I refer to people in general) think it's ok to believe whatever you want, no matter the implications for your fellow humans, as long as you call it religion. but when the atheist says "I believe that you are wrong but I don't have something equally fantastical to fill the gap" that they are automatically being intolerant.

I do however agree that this is more of a philosophical discussion and not a strategy discussion so I'll knock it off now.