This game discriminates against Atheists!

[Eran of Arcadia]

I don't agree entirely. I think that God controls the weather; He just does so using the meteorological mechanisms we now know of. My faith hasn't ever really given up ground on science; some scientific discoveries or information have affected how I view certain things, but not to the point where I say "God couldn't have been involved."

Creationism, on the other hand, is an unmitigated disaster. But that's another thread.

 

[Chode]

I don't agree entirely. I think that God controls the weather; He just does so using the meteorological mechanisms we now know of. My faith hasn't ever really given up ground on science; some scientific discoveries or information have affected how I view certain things, but not to the point where I say "God couldn't have been involved."

Creationism, on the other hand, is an unmitigated disaster. But that's another thread.

hahahah yeah he sprinkles fairy dust into the air and boom we have a thunderstorm, we just call that fairy dust "science." Did you know that cavemen thought that god/s controlled the weather?

 

[Naastriil]

I think that you are discriminating people because they follow a religion. Why would an atheist have more science then a person who believes in something?
Does Atheism include Worship if science.
The only thing that they could have included in the game would have been + culture and happiness that’s all.

 

[JrK]

Does this thread still exist? Aren't you people too grown up to still be discussing about this?

If so, go have a class of philosophy about this.

 

[Napalm102]

Having benefits from religion is historically accurate. Religion was there to fill in the gaps and provide explanations to things that were unexplainable. Religion in general was also the means of storing and transmitting knowledge from generation to generation. Religion is also responsible for defining and maintaining moral guidelines. Hence an early society with no religion would have been at a disadvantage.

Like it or not, but if you live in the modern society, even if you are atheist, your moral values were defined by the religion. This is true because you distant progenitors absorbed these values over the course of history and applied them to your parents, then your parents passed them on to you, and so you will do the same with your kids.

True atheism is relativelly modern happening and I think it is only now that it is trully possible. And you are never really free of the influence of religion anyway.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

hahahah yeah he sprinkles fairy dust into the air and boom we have a thunderstorm, we just call that fairy dust "science." Did you know that cavemen thought that god/s controlled the weather?

Did you know that there were really no such thing as cavemen? Although some H. sapiens and H. neanderthalis in Europe lived in cave, by and large the earliest humans lived out in the open, and previous hominid ancestors lived on the savannah. As much as I hate the term "Eurocentric", the idea of cavemen is rather Eurocentric. And anyways, I know that no fairy dust is involved in weather. The word "magic" has no meaning in real life, other than "anything related to religous ideas I don't believe". And so what if I am in agreement with earlier humans on something? Just because they lived a long time ago does not ipso facto make them wrong.

Does this thread still exist? Aren't you people too grown up to still be discussing about this?

Hey, in Off Topic (where this thread was briefly) we have this sort of discussion all the time. You should go there, we have great religious discussions.

 

[Kieran]

So what Tech would you have that 'founds' atheism?

 

[Napalm102]

I'm happy how it is now, I just assume that free religion implies that there can also be no religion, i.e. people beleive in what they want.

 

[AfterShafter]

I'm happy how it is now, I just assume that free religion implies that there can also be no religion, i.e. people beleive in what they want.

Well, when you look at it, one element of free religion works whether there is a religion in that civilization or not - specifically, the +10% research per city... And if the civic does something without there being any religion at all, then it obviously has a non-religious element to it. Having religion neither adds to nor detracts from this research element of the civic. So yeah, as far as religious civics go, free religion does have explicit "support" for the non-religious elements of a civilization.

 

[Doomed_UK]

Has anyone said 'its just a game' yet? I can't be bothered to check.

 

[AfterShafter]

Has anyone said 'its just a game' yet? I can't be bothered to check.

http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/danish011.jpg

It's just a comic...

 

[Veritass]

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).

The term I used is that religion and science are both necessary for understanding "the human experience" of the world. People don't believe that lightning is from an angry god, but they will justify or explain whom it strikes in the name of god (lower case intentional).

Science is explaining "the world" more and more, and thus I also shudder at teaching creationism as science. However, religion is still a necessary part of understanding human nature. To take the word "religion" out of it and express it in generic terms, people have conflicting needs (1) to be a part of something and be a part of a group, and (2) to think of themselves as special and to hold themselves apart from some other group. Thus are nations formed, and religions, and sporting teams, and clubs, and even businesses to some degree.

People also have a need to believe that they are more than their earthly existence, which seems so short. Long before there were the organized religions of today, people made up stories and metaphors about how the world came to be, and where people came from, and what happens after we die. It seems to me that the capacity of language comes with it the capacity of abstract wonder, and the desire to name things in order to facilitate understanding. Of course with competition comes the need to prove that my metaphors are "more right" than your metaphors.

I also think that science and religion will eventually converge, but not in my lifetime. But that is a topic for another thread.

 

[Halberd]

I think the point about Free Religion is that it explicitly separates the church from the state. You, as leader, are allowing the populace to choose what they want to believe - the opposite to a theocratic state.

Because of this freedom, the relative lack of doctrine and dogma allows better science. It doesn't matter if the free-thinkers paving the way scientifically think God is a black one legged lesbian called Bertha or that the world is flat ... the point the civic is making is that in the Western liberal capitalist model that Civ promotes, having this ideological freedom is the way to achieving the highest levels of scientific advancement.

 

[dh_epic]

To me, the reason atheism isn't in the game is the same reason that multiple religions help you. Civ 4 simplifies EVERY element of history -- the timeline, the model of labor/land/economy, citizen mood, the origins of a civilization.

According to the developers, "One of the lessons we constantly learn while developing Civilization games is that we want to put fun in the hands of the player by providing simple systems that interact to generate complex results." Religion was new enough that they didn't want to complexify it up with incentives for removing religions.

 

[romelus]

However, religion is still a necessary part of understanding human nature. To take the word "religion" out of it and express it in generic terms, people have conflicting needs (1) to be a part of something and be a part of a group, and (2) to think of themselves as special and to hold themselves apart from some other group. Thus are nations formed, and religions, and sporting teams, and clubs, and even businesses to some degree.

this is very true. humans are pack animals at heart, and are always seeking ways to be part of a group. religion provides comfort for those who need it. i think it is perfect as a mass therapy tool (though many leaders in history also used that tool to brainwash and supress free thought in the populace), and i do know people who are not religious, yet go to church to social network, and to find business opportunities.

I also think that science and religion will eventually converge, but not in my lifetime. But that is a topic for another thread.

it is possible that one day science will find out the all important fact on how we came to be and why we are here. that will truly be a day of reckoning for all religions. as their ultimate survival depends on their explanation of the ultimate puzzle. that is truly the last stand for religion. i think it will be an all or nothing situation, and in the end religion and science wouldn't be meeting 50 50 after all.

 

[Wodan]

it is possible that one day science will find out the all important fact on how we came to be and why we are here.

All important? I disagree... there are many more important questions. Such as, where are we going?

Wodan

 

[AfterShafter]

All important? I disagree... there are many more important questions. Such as, where are we going?

Wodan

To my eye, you place a bit too much value on the second question too. Whenever I worry too much about such things, I remind myself of one of my favorite poems...

Could man be drunk for ever
With liquor, love, or fights,
Lief should I rouse at morning
And lief lie down of nights.

But men at whiles are sober
And think by fits and starts,
And if they think, they fasten
Their hands upon their hearts.


Though it suggests alcoholism as a substitute for religion (see: his poem "Terence, this is Stupid Stuff" where he proclaims "Malt does more than Milton can/To justfiy God's ways to man") I strongly suspect the latter would be a lot less harmful in the long run, drunk drivers and abusive partners accounted for.

 

[leftisthominid]

Did you know that there were really no such thing as cavemen? Although some H. sapiens and H. neanderthalis in Europe lived in cave, by and large the earliest humans lived out in the open, and previous hominid ancestors lived on the savannah. As much as I hate the term "Eurocentric", the idea of cavemen is rather Eurocentric. And anyways, I know that no fairy dust is involved in weather. The word "magic" has no meaning in real life, other than "anything related to religous ideas I don't believe". And so what if I am in agreement with earlier humans on something? Just because they lived a long time ago does not ipso facto make them wrong.



Hey, in Off Topic (where this thread was briefly) we have this sort of discussion all the time. You should go there, we have great religious discussions.

Its H. neanderthalensis or H. sapiens neanderthalensis

no such thing as neandertalis

 

[gdgrimm]

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.

Actually, remaining atheist at a state level has many benefits.

Any religion in a city generates +1 culture. Once you declare a state religion, it's only the state religion that will generate culture.

Any holy city generate +5 culture. Once you declare a state religion, only the holy city of your state religion will generate culture.

You can still build temples for the religions and get happiness benifits.

You won't upset the neighbors who fanatically following some religion.

Honestly, atheism has plenty of benefits in the game.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Its H. neanderthalensis or H. sapiens neanderthalensis

no such thing as neandertalis

Serves me right for posting in a hurry without looking everything up. But my point remains - the title "caveman" is pretty much meaningless, applying to a small group of ancient Europeans, while actual human/hominid ancestry is much different.