This game discriminates against Atheists!

[brianshapiro]

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

On some level us vs them does exist, even if not on every level, and its stupid to deny it. Yes, you are boxing in a number of people with a description of being 'us vs them' yourself, grouping a number of ways of thinking as being 'different'. You are painting a number of people with the belief that they are right over others as being 'different' and belonging and completely and totally confined to some degraded form of 'us vs them' thinking. People too easily make caricatures of people who believe in religion. Religous people have free thought like everyone else, they aren't brainwashed sheep, and if they believed there was a problem in their religion they would reject it. Which has happened in history, ie. the Reformation. Just because you talk about rejecting what you call some us vs them mentality don't pretend you aren't doing the same kind of divisions. At some level these divisons are meaningful.

Its not just that other ideologies do this---all ideologies do this, including ideologies that seem to want to condemn this. For instance, if you talk to a Taoist they will imply that one person doesn't have truth over another, but at the same time try to push the idea that one person is certainly wiser than another. (As if these are different things.) Of course this is a reduction of what Taoism is, but so are the common interpretations of Western philosophy or Christianity reductions. It doesn't stop millions of people who believe in Taoism from being arrogant and thinking they are wiser. Which is essentially, no different.

My point was about how us vs them thinking exists because of real, practical cultural and political divisions. Like between the West today and Islamic fundamentalists, which has as much to do with politics and economics as religion, though they are connected. I don't think the problems will be solved with either the Western model completely winning, or the fundamentalists winning. I don't think the Cold War was a complete victory for capitalism either (Western Europe and the United States became welfare states). But it doesn't mean things will just be just the same if people stop fighting. Conflicts throughout history have been what have created broader progress, all great social progress has resulted from war. Conflicts happen because they need to occur to reshape social boundaries and resolve real social problems.

There was a 19th century western philosopher who criticized mysticism including Eastern religions, arguing that they prevented social progress, limiting only a few people to be enlightened, while the society just ossified; believing Western philosopy's goal was democratization, and that Christianity as a religion was best aligned with philosophy. With democratization comes revolution, the assertion of force, which is bloody.

And I made a point that the East even with religions like Buddhism hasn't been free from these sort of divisions and conflicts, they've just been focused in different ways; in ancient times, both feudal warfare and conflict with the Mongols, and in modern times, with Communism.

When religions are fundamentalist they work by focusing on one fundamental truth of life---that there are sometimes things more important than material, ephemeral, or temporary matters like death and suffering. When that happens wars become justifiable. But its almost never disconnected from politics or real concerns. The challenge of christianity to the Roman Empire, the 100 years war, the 30 years war, the crusades, the modern war on terrorism all have political, social, and cultural aspects to them.

---The best example of when it started to become disconnected is in the Byzantine Empire, which was so completely dependant on doctrine, both religious and based on Roman law, that there were wars over minor aspects of theology. But even in this case, it was because the society only survived through this mode of bureaucracy, and it was that bureaucracy that kept alive many ancient documents and artifacts---later captured by Muslims, and only later plundered by western Crusaders. Which again, makes it meaningful.

Kosher laws are not the most relevant aspect of Judaism, and would never lead to a war. As much as they are important in Islam, its because Islam historically is making a stand for the concept of fundamentalism, and is holding value to each and every one of its traditions. As much as they are relevant in Judaism they're an extension of Kabbalistic thought. Like doctrine in the Byzantine Empire, their literal nature might not be very important practically, but the meaning behind them may be. There is a lot of theology that is hanging around also, that is not completely relevant. I think its hanging around because there is one aspect of our society which involves a rejection of religion and/or tradition and leads to a lack of understanding of the value or basis of the tradition. This both leads to opponents of religious values, and people who support them stupidly without a complete understanding. Even though prohibitions over eating pork may not seem necessary anymore there are more permanent aspects of the human condition represented in religious thought, like sexuality. This is a large part of the liberal-conservative divide in the world. When that is resolved, I doubt prohibitions against eating pork will stay around.

So my feeling on this, as I've stated, is that it is a misunderstanding of history to say there didn't need to be us vs them thinking, or that traditions that aren't useful in any way at all stay around. Today its of political importance that even otherwise useless traditions stay around. Not only for religions---for ethnic groups--ie take Kwanzaa and the attempt to reinvent black culture; or the preservation of Hawaiian and native American languages

 

[brianshapiro]

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.

And without the Catholic Church who would be there to put in check the behavior of monarchs? Thats part of my primary point. A temporal agency is an important part of Catholic belief; and in a way part of all organized religion. Some people say organized religion is bad; but like I've tried to point out, it has historical purpose. During and after the middle ages, the Church put feudal lords and monarchs in check.

I think the belief that 'we must kill all heathens' is anachronistic to the middle ages, also.

 

[Diamond621]

Discriminatory against atheists? Don't make me laugh.

The "Free Religion" civic nullifies state religion (though allowing cities to practice their religions individually). It is not a coincidence that it is at the bottom of its Civic tier along with Environmentalism, Emancipation and Universal Suffrage - the connotation being that these are the most "enlightened" worldviews according to history and our present societies. By giving a research boost to all cities, the civic accurately portrays the frequent (though this is not ALWAYS the case, so no one leap down my throat for this please) conflict between the worlds of faith and science (Scientists calling the church fools, the church burning scientists alive for questioning their deity, etc. All in good fun). By giving happiness from each religion in a city, it accurately represents the joy religion can bring into the lives of many people. This is not a case of discimination - this is a case of rabid idiocy allowed to run wild in defense of a noble practice (atheism).

Sadly, most conflict in the world (past and present) can be boiled down to "My deity has a bigger penis than your deity." Virtually all major religions teach us that killing is wrong, and yet more people have been killed 'in the name of God' than for all other reasons in history combined. This is where the stereotypical view of religion as a catalyst of conflict emerges from - a rightful one? Perhaps. But a prevalent one nonetheless.

The term 'free religion' is universally recognized as the right to believe and worship as one chooses, or in turn not to believe or worship at all. As an atheist myself, there is absolutely nothing wrong with encouraging people to believe in religion when they are old enough and mature enough to understand the implications and nature of this choice and view of the world. The fact that this is simply not done in modern society is a different point altogether I will not go into, but in short, encouraging people to believe in matters of faith can be terrible, life-altering and destructive to a persons' psyche, or it can envigorate them to seek answers on their own and end up being a positive force. It is a matter of circumstance and varies by individual.

Some of the greatest scientists, philosophers and even artists in the world have been atheists, and some of the greatest scientists, philosophers and artists in the world have been devoutly religious. Atheism frees the mind from religious constraints and allows it to explore broadly the underlying forces in the universe. Religion uses these constraints and boundaries (the "boundary" of the existence of God" being a prime example) as foundations to focus the mind and allow it to delve more deeply into theological and often philosophical disciplines. Both achieve great results that change humanity's way of thinking and revolutionize our world. In the (frequently unsuccessful) attempt to use science to support religion, a theory, idea or concept can often find a wedge to stand under it and reach a community that it could otherwise not see the likes of.

To make a long story short (too late), from anyone with a grasp on the nature of atheism (though it means something different for each person, admittedly), the game is simply not discriminatory. From any reasonable and non-paranoid perspective the game is not discriminatory, since it offers a civic that entices people to remove their societies from religious restrictions. While this implies the choice to worship as you choose, it also indirectly implies the choice not to worship at all.

My $0.02. Your mileage may vary.

-Diamond

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Virtually all major religions teach us that killing is wrong, and yet more people have been killed 'in the name of God' than for all other reasons in history combined

Are you prepared to back up this statement? I have heard it many many times, and there is absolutely no evidence for it. Many people have been killed for greed, or for lust, or for jealousy, and that is just individual murders. Most wars (which also add to body count) are fought over control of resources, and only occasionally have a religious justification.

 

[Diamond621]

Most wars are fought over control of resources, territory or population, this is true and an undeniable fact. However, leaders and generals in history have always used religion as a prop to support their troops and citizens and give them strength over the "other". German infantry in the First World War wore belts emblazened with the phrase "Gott Mit Uns" (literally: 'God is With Us')on them, and this is only one of very many examples. When this happens, the war GAINS religious justification and BECOMES an issue of faith. When you USE faith to support your war, then it inherently becomes a war fought 'in the name of God' against 'heathens'. The fact that wars mean body counts is the backbone of my statement, admittedly. Most individual murders are committed for the reasons you stated, but most wars (and hence the most 'kills', per se) are for religious reasons or with religious justification and backing.

 

[brianshapiro]

Are you prepared to back up this statement? I have heard it many many times, and there is absolutely no evidence for it. Many people have been killed for greed, or for lust, or for jealousy, and that is just individual murders. Most wars (which also add to body count) are fought over control of resources, and only occasionally have a religious justification.

Religions don't universally teach that to kill is wrong, anyway. They generally hold that under certain circumstances its necessary. This is why the most common interpretation of the commandment is thou shalt not murder, not thou shalt not kill. Christianity has generally held that killing is an evil but sometimes necessary to prevent a dominance of greater evils. Buddhism is always thought of as pacifistic but buddhist thinkers have said violence is sometimes necessary.

Very few religions are Pacifistic. The Quakers?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

However, leaders and generals in history have always used religion as a prop to support their troops and citizens and give them strength over the "other". When this happens, the war GAINS religious justification and becomes an issue of faith. When you USE faith to support your war, then it inherently becomes a war fought 'in the name of God'. But most wars (and hence the most 'kills', per se) are for religious reasons or with religious justification and backing.

Okay, so you are saying that if religion is invoked in any way at all in a war then it is fought in God's name. Even if that is technically accurate (which I doubt) it is meaningless. I really don't think that Jupiter was a big part of the motivation for the legions fighting for Roman expansion, and it wasn't for either the Wermacht or the Red Army in any significant way as they were butchering each other. You see, there were a lot more wars throughout history than just those fought in Western Europe since the Middle Ages. So I guess that if, in the course of any war, there is at least one soldier who thinks God supports his cause, then you will say that religion caused the war. That is ridiculous. Without specifically mentioning God (which comes naturally anyways, as most humans are naturally religious) leaders can come up with perfectly good justifications. It was "fight Hun atrocities!", not "smite those wicked Lutherans" that motivated so many Tommies to get mowed down in the mud.

Besides which, can you be sure that more people have died violently in wars than in acts of homicide?

 

[brianshapiro]

Most wars are fought over control of resources, territory or population, this is true and an undeniable fact. However, leaders and generals in history have always used religion as a prop to support their troops and citizens and give them strength over the "other". German infantry in the First World War wore belts emblazened with the phrase "Gott Mit Uns" (literally: 'God is With Us')on them, and this is only one of very many examples. When this happens, the war GAINS religious justification and BECOMES an issue of faith. When you USE faith to support your war, then it inherently becomes a war fought 'in the name of God' against 'heathens'. The fact that wars mean body counts is the backbone of my statement, admittedly. Most individual murders are committed for the reasons you stated, but most wars (and hence the most 'kills', per se) are for religious reasons or with religious justification and backing.

That doesn't mean that the cases in which God are used are arbitrary. What I mean, is, there are certain wars in which the idea of God is more important or less important, and it doesnt fully lie on the political skills of the leaders. Certain wars can be made about God, others can't, some only partially. When they can be made about God, there is generally a reason why [ie the Crusades]. One only gets the impression that wars are about economic control because all goals in life have some material aspect to them, or else they wouldn't matter at all. The same as religious doctrine wouldn't matter if it had no material aspect to it. It doesn't mean the French and American revolutions weren't more about ideas than money, just because you can say the form of government that exists effects people's material well being [this is often taken as some type of revelation].

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And every war has many motivations. Even those wars in which religion was a major factor (the Crusades, and to a degree the wars of Arab expansion) there were plenty of economic or other motivations. And quick, besides the aforementioned, (and the Thirty Years' War) how many other "religious wars" can you name? There aren't all that many.

 

[brianshapiro]

Okay, so you are saying that if religion is invoked in any way at all in a war then it is fought in God's name. Even if that is technically accurate (which I doubt) it is meaningless. I really don't think that Jupiter was a big part of the motivation for the legions fighting for Roman expansion, and it wasn't for either the Wermacht or the Red Army in any significant way as they were butchering each other. You see, there were a lot more wars throughout history than just those fought in Western Europe since the Middle Ages. So I guess that if, in the course of any war, there is at least one soldier who thinks God supports his cause, then you will say that religion caused the war. That is ridiculous. Without specifically mentioning God (which comes naturally anyways, as most humans are naturally religious) leaders can come up with perfectly good justifications. It was "fight Hun atrocities!", not "smite those wicked Lutherans" that motivated so many Tommies to get mowed down in the mud.

Besides which, can you be sure that more people have died violently in wars than in acts of homicide?

Eran, there are libertarians around who try to argue government is responsible for the most deaths in history, pointing to Communism and Fascism, and a century of authoritarian government models. Yet, in the 19th century marxists would have probably been inspired by massacres and exploitation in the Congo by corporations. This is always an issue of perspective. Blaming religion for a disproportionate amount of deaths is similar.

We have that Lennon song, which goes on to suggest if there were no religions or countries or beliefs to die for we would all be in peace. There's a reason why his song is called 'Imagine.' Because such a world doesn't exist. Nations and religions just group people into constituencies and so the violence that occurs between them is seen on a large scale. One can imagine a world that was temporarily without institutional strutures as an anarchy, where violence is more interspersed. The sack of Rome? And domestic violence every day.

 

[Diamond621]

Okay, so you are saying that if religion is invoked in any way at all in a war then it is fought in God's name. Even if that is technically accurate (which I doubt) it is meaningless. I really don't think that Jupiter was a big part of the motivation for the legions fighting for Roman expansion, and it wasn't for either the Wermacht or the Red Army in any significant way as they were butchering each other. You see, there were a lot more wars throughout history than just those fought in Western Europe since the Middle Ages. So I guess that if, in the course of any war, there is at least one soldier who thinks God supports his cause, then you will say that religion caused the war. That is ridiculous.

Besides which, can you be sure that more people have died violently in wars than in acts of homicide?

The actions of the Roman legions which you refer to were to bring more territory under control of the Empire, and in turn to exercise the underlying social principle of 'bringing more souls into the fold,' so to speak, and to bring more people to the Roman way of life. Imperialism was always the Roman way, and so has it been the way of every dominant society throughout history. They who control the resources control the ruthless expansion of their faith and their way of life.

Religion is only a motivator and factor in a war when it is utilized not (just) by the soldiers, but by the leaders and generals to support the soldiers. There is no concrete definition for a war 'fought over religion,' but in the absence of this definition one must use common sense. When my prior example involving the Germans in WW1 was not an isolated incident (an example of an isolated incident would be if all German soldiers who were Christians wore this particular belt, but those who were not didn't) but a UNIVERSAL part of German war attire, then yes, this is a war fought with religious overtones and religious justification.

You are correct that there have been a great deal of wars fought aside from those in Europe since the middle ages, however, it is worth taking into account the fact that as weaponry, technology and organized religion have expanded and flourished (only in the most recent decade or so has the concept of 'accurate force' been brought into play, designed not only to massacre but to specifically target military combatants and not civilians), the body counts and consequences in the scope of human life of wars have gone up, up and up. From a club that can crush a single man's skull, to a mortar round that can kill a dozen, to an atomic warhead that can kill millions.

Your statement that 'if a single soldier believes he is fighting in the name of God then the war is a religious one' (or words to that effect, apologies for any misinterpretation) is not what I am trying to say - and I agree that your statement verbatim is a bit ridiculous. However, when religion is invoked not only by soldiers as the cause of their combat, but utilized by leaders to inspire those soldiers, then more and more wars drift closer and closer to becoming wars of religion.

Throughout history it has always been a fundamental and effective tactic in warfare to de-humanize the enemy. It is arguable whether the ability to kill is inherent in human nature, but it is unarguable that the ability to kill without remorse and emotional consequence is by default not in human nature. The only way to counter this force is to demonize and villiafy the enemy which you fight. Just as humans feel little remorse or sadness for, say, accidentally crushing an ant-hill on a sunny summer day - soldiers are trained to feel this way about those they fight. Throughout history there has also been no better way to de-humanize or villiafy an individual than to imply that they do not worship as you do, that they do not know the 'true path to enlightenment'. The two concepts have gone hand in hand, and thus have sprung the wars inspired by, and carried out in the name of, religion.

There is no doubt about the fact that there is no concrete definition for a war 'fought over religion', as I mentioned earlier, but one must use common sense in the absence of this definition, and common sense tells us that nearly all wars are fought with the help of religion.

 

[brianshapiro]

The actions of the Roman legions which you refer to were to bring more territory under control of the Empire, and in turn to exercise the underlying social principle of 'bringing more souls into the fold,' so to speak, and to bring more people to the Roman way of life. Imperialism was always the Roman way, and so has it been the way of every dominant society throughout history. They who control the resources control the ruthless expansion of their faith and their way of life.

Religion is only a motivator and factor in a war when it is utilized not (just) by the soldiers, but by the leaders and generals to support the soldiers. There is no concrete definition for a war 'fought over religion,' but in the absence of this definition one must use common sense. When my prior example involving the Germans in WW1 was not an isolated incident (an example of an isolated incident would be if all German soldiers who were Christians wore this particular belt, but those who were not didn't) but a UNIVERSAL part of German war attire, then yes, this is a war fought with religious overtones and religious justification.

You are correct that there have been a great deal of wars fought aside from those in Europe since the middle ages, however, it is worth taking into account the fact that as weaponry, technology and organized religion have expanded and flourished (only in the most recent decade or so has the concept of 'accurate force' been brought into play, designed not only to massacre but to specifically target military combatants and not civilians), the body counts and consequences in the scope of human life of wars have gone up, up and up. From a club that can crush a single man's skull, to a mortar round that can kill a dozen, to an atomic warhead that can kill millions.

Your statement that 'if a single soldier believes he is fighting in the name of God then the war is a religious one' (or words to that effect, apologies for any misinterpretation) is not what I am trying to say - and I agree that your statement verbatim is a bit ridiculous. However, when religion is invoked not only by soldiers as the cause of their combat, but utilized by leaders to inspire those soldiers, then more and more wars drift closer and closer to becoming wars of religion.

Throughout history it has always been a fundamental and effective tactic in warfare to de-humanize the enemy. It is arguable whether the ability to kill is inherent in human nature, but it is unarguable that the ability to kill without remorse and emotional consequence is by default not in human nature. The only way to counter this force is to demonize and villiafy the enemy which you fight. Just as humans feel little remorse or sadness for, say, accidentally crushing an ant-hill on a sunny summer day - soldiers are trained to feel this way about those they fight. Throughout history there has also been no better way to de-humanize or villiafy an individual than to imply that they do not worship as you do, that they do not know the 'true path to enlightenment'. The two concepts have gone hand in hand, and thus have sprung the wars inspired by, and carried out in the name of, religion.

There is no doubt about the fact that there is no concrete definition for a war 'fought over religion', as I mentioned earlier, but one must use common sense in the absence of this definition, and common sense tells us that nearly all wars are fought with the help of religion.

And Romans thought they had a mandate to bring order to the world, based on the myth of the founding of Rome. So when they did use the Gods to justify actions, it was seriously a part of the war. But, still, the division between civilized Rome and the uncivilized barbarians still existed, and there was not a good way to reconcile the difference besides the Roman program of making people Roman citizens. For those who remained outside conflict was only inevitable. That the gods were ever invoked, means that they were just a reflection of the ethos of the culture, it doesn't mean anything more.

It is the same thing when God was invoked in any modern war. Bismarck once commented that the reason that German soldiers were better than French soldiers, is because Germans understood that when their superior was away there was someone still watching them (God), while the French soldiers had no reason not to flee. But Bismarck was not especially religious, in fact he waged a Kulturkampf against the social control by religious institutions in Germany and wanted to enforce the supremacy of the state. Also, although Bismarck had a sense of nationalism about being German and opposed Napoleon III's government, he didn't really hate the French--in some ways his thinking in the development of his politics was modeled after theirs. The fact is that this was just a way of speaking of things. The sense at the time was that nations were a great historical force in representing the will of peoples, and history is guided by an ordered process[God].

It is not that much different from 'In God We Trust' first appearing on coins in the USA during the American Civil War. People just had a faith that what they were doing was right, and reflected this in their mottos. It doesn't mean the Civil War was a religious war; it just means that people in that war had some sense of faith about the goodness of their fighting. Religious groups were a major force in ending slavery in the USA also. But ultimately God was just a reflection on the ideals they were fighting for, and not a reason in itself.

Was it a bad thing religious groups fought so hard in ending slavery---and ended up leading to the Civil War with abolitionism? Another war caused by religion! damn them!

 

[Diamond621]

And also, your point about more people dying in wars than in homicides is valid. Offhand I have no numbers to work with so cumulatively you may be correct in this instance. However, you have to take into account that many modern and historical homicides have religious overtones - we have to count not only those that occur in countries like the United States, but in third-world (a subjective and insulting term I object to, but we will tolerate its use for now) countries without legal systems or criminal justice procedures. As much as I hate to drag this example into play, you can look at the events of 9/11/2001 in New York and Washington as religiously motivated (if striking at symbolic structures of American capitalism and imperialism in the name of defeating the 'great Satan' is not religious then I do not know what is). While small fries compared to the annual homicide rate in the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, etc. we can venture southward and find countless examples in the middle East.

Annual Israeli deaths at the hands of Arabs in the Middle East? 31 per million citizens. (U.S. Department of Justice website for this and following stats, in lieu of a better source) For scale, the annual homicide rate in the United States is roughly 54 per million citizens - for every million citizens in the country, 54 are killed each year in homicides.

Annual Israeli deaths at the hands of Arabs during the time which the 'holy land' was occupied? 124 per million!

Israeli-on-Palestinian homicide annually? 261.2 per million!

If you count nearly all of these homicides as having religious justification (not a vast leap of reasoning by any means) then they quickly add up and count against your non-religiously-motivated ones.

 

[Diamond621]

It is not that much different from 'In God We Trust' first appearing on coins in the USA during the American Civil War. People just had a faith that what they were doing was right, and reflected this in their mottos. It doesn't mean the Civil War was a religious war; it just means that people in that war had some sense of faith about the goodness of their fighting. Religious groups were a major force in ending slavery in the USA also. But ultimately God was just a reflection on the ideals they were fighting for, and not a reason in itself.

I agree to an extent - the Civil War is arguably one of the most 'secular' wars fought in the modern (well, relatively modern ) era, being largely fought over political dominance and the perceived expansion of slavery into Northern territories than for any theological reason. I would argue the point on religious groups being a large part of ending slavery in the U.S, but that is not the topic here. We are not talking about judging the outcome of a war in hindsight (Yes, even I'll admit the outcome of the Civil War is looked on very kindly by history, as it always is when history is written by the victors), we are talking about the motivations and support for the war in the context of religion - whether the war was just or has valid support is another issue.

There is certainly nothing wrong with a soldier using God as a reflection on the ideals he is fighting for (well, there is something wrong with the war in the first place most likely, but you get my point). However my point is that it is when the government and military hierarchy ENCOURAGE and ACTIVELY SUPPORT civilians and soldiers alike pursuing this line of reasoning (and in some cases require them to pursue it), then a war really GAINS religious justification and backing (even if it had very little or none to begin with) and 'morphs' into an issue of faith. A soldier who sees God as a reflection of what he is fighting for IS killing, albeit inadvertantly, 'in the name of God'.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Are you seriously saying the Franco-Prussian War had religious overtones? I almost used that one as an example of a non-religious war. It may be true that, once at war, people (being humans, after all) try to understand their conflict in religious terms. But religion itself, and religious factors, have not started very many wars, or contributed to the conflict. Religion is such a part of life that people are going to have it in mind even when in non-religious activities. But your earlier statement, that more people have been killed in the name of God than by all other motives combined, still is not true by any reasonable definition. I am a religious person, and I am thinking of God when I eat, or sleep, or look for a job - that doesn't mean that I only do these things because I am religious, or that I do them "in the name of God".

 

[lateralis]

a couple things:

first off, check out this video linked too from digg last night:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU
5 minutes about great scientific atheists and some other facts about atheism in america. not proof of anything but interesting non-the-less.

secondly, after thinking about it some more in context of the game, I'm reversing my earlier (albeit, somewhat joking) position that the game discriminates against atheists. In terms of overall happiness, when you think about the culture slider coupled with colosseums and theaters there lies the potential for FAR more happiness than with the religious aspects of the game (unless of course you have every single religious building for all religions). I think this accurately allows for the ability to choose your own adventure when it comes to using religion or not.

finally, in terms of "religion causing war" I have to agree that while religion might not be a STATED reason for an invasion, it is a motivator. In the united states, isn't there a motto in the armed forces "unit, corp, god, country"? my (admittedly limited) understanding of this saying is that your loyalties fall to each one in order. your first responsibility is to your unit. barring that, you are to be loyal to the corp (hence, the chain of command). then GOD but before country. what exactly does this mean? not sure I know but interesting none the less.

WWII - I don't think anyone can argue that there were more politically oriented deaths in the camps than there were jews, gypsies and homosexuals (and on this note, I refuse to accept any argument that says the murder of homosexuals can be ANYTHING other than religiously based. if it is an abomination, it must be an abomination against SOMETHING).

American expansion - Most of the colonization of the americas came from either outright missionaryism (is that a word?) or conflict over a fundamental spiritual disagreement over land ownership. American Indians believed that that land could not belong to anyone (as I understand it) while the europeans saw it as a resource to be captured. More people died in this conflict that the camps in world war 2 by almost a factor of 2.

Recent - how can "death to the american infidel" be considered anything other than religiously motivated.

these things don't always take such a specific "we believe this and you don't so you must die" vibe but ideological difference are rarely completely outside these conflicts. whether specifically religious or not, even the american civil war can be cast as an ideological difference about how we treat our fellow man.

 

[dh_epic]

Just as much as there is no reward for stamping out religion... religion is mainly an opiate that stops your people from whining. This isn't just discriminatory towards Atheists, it's more of a It favors a Conservative/Authoritarian/Rightward attitude towards governance (but with a progressive, libertarian attitude towards technology).

This one is even worse than the "Orientals" thread.

The Civilization series is full of TONS of historical inaccuracies.
It's full of TONS of historical BIASES.
This is in order to make it a balanced, managable game.

 

[leftisthominid]

Buddhism is fundamentally atheistic
The Buddha recognized the futility of deities, hence, he kept gods out of the Dhamma

I'm an Atheist and a Theravāda Buddhist
Both equally

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

I do think that one can be against homosexuality on non-religious grounds, and I think the Nazis didn't have religious motivations. Remember, until recently homosexuality was seen as a mental illness, and the Nazis killed plenty of mentally ill people. Also, they wanted to increase the Aryan population and gays weren't helping.

 

[romelus]

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.

only it seems that as science develops further and further, religion gives up more and more ground. i doubt many ppl still belive lightning is from an angry god, earth is flat, or that if you fly straight up you'll find heaven. i think religion is fine as long as it understands its shrinking role in explaining the world, but it is harmful if it tries to pass off as science. i shudder to the thought of kids sitting in science class, learning creationism (or whatever the new name for it is now).