This game discriminates against Atheists!

[El_Machinae]

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

Yeah, this counter-point was obvious. I see you've seen past it. We see it all the time in stem cell research because we have Catholics who refuse to do certain types of research. But these, very excellent, scientists work on adult stem cells and contribute greatly to the field.

But our discovery of the world is lessened if no one is willing to cut open the corpse. But I see that you already understand the gist of my point.

 

[Elrohir]

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.

Actually, I was posting in this thread before it was moved.

It was called the Dark Ages because of Global Dimming was higher in those days. Didn't you know that Skadistic?

The Dark Ages is a misnomer, and terribly innacurate. The problem of those days was not religion, it was a stifled economy and backwards and barbaric governments. As it was, if it were not for the Europeam monasteries (Religious institutions, by the way) European civilization would be several centuries behind the power curve - and likely the world as well, as it was through European colonization that modernization took place.

 

[kcbrett5]

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.

But this is not the point of view put forward by the "religious" representation in the media. They seem to argue the 2 are mutually exclusive more often than not. I think if more of them had your perspective, the world would be a better place.

As a non-believer myself, I often feel discriminated against in everyday life. It feels a bit like the rest of the world is telling me there is something wrong with me on a regular basis. They simply can't accept that I can be happy having no faith and as such, are forever trying to "fix" me. Its quite irritating.

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?

 

[skadistic]

Actually, I was posting in this thread before it was moved.

It was called the Dark Ages because of Global Dimming was higher in those days. Didn't you know that Skadistic?

The Dark Ages is a misnomer, and terribly innacurate. The problem of those days was not religion, it was a stifled economy and backwards and barbaric governments. As it was, if it were not for the Europeam monasteries (Religious institutions, by the way) European civilization would be several centuries behind the power curve - and likely the world as well, as it was through European colonization that modernization took place.

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)

 

[Norseman2]

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.

Let's say we have one team of 93 people, and another team of 7. Whichever team has the fastest 7 runners wins. Which team are you going to place your money on? The atheist scientists don't need to be universally better, they don't even need to be better on average, there's just such an absurdly large number of them it doesn't even matter. Again though, I don't think an atheist state would benefit from this. I think it has much more to do with the process that leads to atheism. I think you have smart individuals to begin with who decide atheism is correct, instead of the other way around where stupid people decide atheism is correct and become smarter.

Edit: Actually, having read skadistic's post, I think he makes an interesting point. An atheist state probably wouldn't benefit much from having more scientists or smarter people (there's just no way that saying you're an atheist is going to make you smarter) but what it would benefit from is not interfering with science (free religion). There wouldn't be all this nonsense like with Galileo, or when contraception was invented, or stem cells, etc. Well, maybe there would be, but it certainly wouldn't be so easily state enforced. Free religion probably gives the right amount of science boost, and it appears at about the right time in the game.

 

[Perfection]

Let's play spot the atheist!

Which ones are atheists, which ones are Christians?

Hint: They're all atheists.

Not the guy on in the orange! He's a poser!

a hippy(a race that I hate by the way

Racist!

Actually, about 72.2% of scientists are atheists, and 20.8% are agnostics (leaving a scant 7% for believers)

Source?

 

[lateralis]

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?

you know, I asked myself this very question when the news hit that there were pharmacists who were not only refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control but also TAKING the prescription so the person couldn't get if filled elsewhere.

the problem here is that, possibly, when that person became a pharmacists, they might not have realized that they would run up against something that would conflict with their morals.

A cosmologist might think "I just like figuring out the stars" and then their research leads them down the road into big bang territory and then, uh-oh, that conflicts with my bible-informed world view so I'm gonna ignore that data.

or geologist who just wants to figure out rocks and discovers the world is far older than she's been lead to believe - what to do then?

My point is simple - the mere position of faith (belief with the absence of evidence, and sometimes in the face of evidence to the contrary) is enough to stifle true scientific endeavors. part of GOOD science is the ability to THROW OUT ANYTHING if new, better information comes along. this is diametrically opposed to religiosity, where some things are just true, period.

Maybe, instead of granting a 10% beaker gain for the civ running free religion, it should work more like emancipation, where once you "get it" everyone who doesn't gets a penalty because they are actively being stifled.


and I jumped back in since it moved to a new venue

 

[Norseman2]

Source?

That would be the first source I gave you in that post.

 

[Leonel]

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)

Nope. The flat earth thinking was proven to be a myth perpetrated by emerging secular humanists during the 19th century. Not to mention that the Medeterrainian ocean is wide enough to have the curveture of the Earth be visible and so people back then could see for themselves that the Earth was round as ships disappeared below the horizon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

As for the earth not being the center of the universe, it might have happened but I don't know enough about the controversy of it.

 

[Perfection]

That would be the first source I gave you in that post.

Then you misconstrued the data, it's for members of the National Academy of Sciences not scientists in general making it hardly a represenate sample.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

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

Not to mention this a region with religious debate veterans

 

[kcbrett5]

Then you misconstrued the data, it's for members of the National Academy of Sciences not scientists in general making it hardly a represenate sample.

Since people here are so fond of wikipedia, try this one then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

 

[garric]

This is a joke, I am an atheist and I do find it monotonous that these liberal atheists just come in here thinking they are smarter than people of faith. It seems every time I see or hear something about atheism, it's about atheists trying to say religion is for blind people, or an atheist trying to remove "God" from the pledge of allegiance, from money, or trying to remove some religious symbol like the Ten Commandments or a crucifix from some cemetery. Or whining about some sort of non-existant discrimination, like this thread. It's getting ridiculous, because it gives ME a really bad name, and I'm not surprised that now in our nation atheism has become a sort of a taboo! Thanks a lot, "brethren". We have freedom of religion for a reason, if we didn't WE wouldn't be atheists.

 

[Perfection]

Since people here are so fond of wikipedia, try this one then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

That one has different statistics for scientists that have a much higher religiousity.

 

[CaptainF]

To the OP:

Your kidding me! This game grants the Atheist the chance to do what he has always dreamed of:

The opportunity to cynically exploit religion to serve his own power hungry goals.

Need I say more?

 

[PennHead]

I'm a religous guy who sees no conflict with science, but I suppose that's rare. The objective observer can find instances in history where religion has both stifled science, and has encouraged and fostered advancement. The science bonus of Free Religion in CIV reflects to me the free exchange of ideas as much as anything.

But at any rate, one of the basic principles of my faith is that I claim the right to worship God as I desire and allow everyone else the same right. They are free to worship whoever, however they like, or to worship nothing at all. So long as they are not harming others in their practices, they're free to do as their conscience dictates.

I think the world would be a better place if there were more tolerance for religous difference, but I can be an idealist at times.

 

[Dionysius]

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 would be interesting to see an atheist mod, low spread rate
and + with library, can make Relatavist Missionary from University
and Laboratory=atheist cathedral [requires no incense for extra happiness].
low spread rate because it isnt a missiory type thing.
requires modern tech for universities and labs because it
is only really prevailing in the modern age.

for the vanilla game; well, religion is the opiate of the people.
not atheism

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I think the degree to which religion stifles science can be a little overrated. People look at the Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe from Rome to the Enlightenment and assums that applies to all religions at all times and places, or look at modern Muslim fundamentalism and assumes that completely describes religion. There have been great scientists in religious societies. The opposite is also true, or have you not heard of Lysenko? And his ideas had consequences far beyond the stifling of Galileo's.

 

[Norseman2]

Then you misconstrued the data, it's for members of the National Academy of Sciences not scientists in general making it hardly a represenate sample.

Then what would you prefer? Read up on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academies_of_Science

"Election to membership is one of the highest honors that can be accorded to a scientist and recognizes scientists who have made distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. There are more than 170 members who have won a Nobel Prize."

It's a safe bet that scientists, and only scientists, are included in that study. Someone who has a Bachelor of science degree in journalism or advertising isn't exactly what I would call a scientist, certainly not the kind of person that would contribute a whole lot to the advancement of a nation (those little ). Doctors tend to be much more religious than researchers, and they get tossed in with the biologists in polls. For the purposes of this discussion, that's a skew in the data because we're getting people who don't research mixed with people who do. If you can find a study of researchers and inventors with a broader representation, then feel free to bring it up.

 

[Norseman2]

To the OP:

Your kidding me! This game grants the Atheist the chance to do what he has always dreamed of:

The opportunity to cynically exploit religion to serve his own power hungry goals.

Need I say more?

I see someone is aware of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy! Disclaimer: There are no black helicopters. We are not monitoring you.