This game discriminates against Atheists!

[dh_epic]

A lot of the best games that I've played in SP I've dodged religion completely... and even just kind of went with the AI's religious flow, only to find free religion come the final era. Saying that you have to care about religion from the beginning to the end is not true.

 

[Tristan_C]

Game discriminates against atheists. LoL. So let me guess: You want Scientific Method to be researchable from the beginning. Along with knowlege of Hunting and Agriculture, tribal Elders can pass onto their eager young sons that the secret behind the seasons is the 23.5-degree axial tilt in the Earth's 1% eliptical orbit causing a cyclical interaction of the sun's radiation with the absorbant continents and the reflective oceans. Your morning religious ritual can be to stamp really hard on the ground every sunrise to try and slow down the Earth's rotation and make the day longer. And send brave warriors to the equator periodically so they can synchronously stamp their feet at 12:00 noon, lengthening summer. And don't roast the festival pig too long; it causes global warming. Ancient atheists for the win.

 

[lateralis]

http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=219&article=7

well would you look at that:
"Comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand, author Gregory S Paul quietly demolished the myth that faith strengthens society."

"Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior, come the Japanese. Over eighty percent accept evolution and fewer than ten percent are certain that God exists. Despite its size – over a hundred million people – Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation. "

 

[Wyz_sub10]

As for the perfect being being unable to suffer... that gets into whether the ability to suffer is a flaw and I could easily disagree (or maintain that there were 'flaws' like that taken on in the incarnation)

The condition of suffering means that something is not ideal. If suffering is part of perfection, by your definition, than it isn't suffering at all. Either god is "inconvenienced" (in which case he is not perfect and is subject to something beyond his control), or he is not "inconvenienced" (in which case suffering is meaningless). Take your pick.

As for there being no Sacrifice... You Might be able to argue that if Christ were put to sleep like an animal is at the vet, that might no entail sacrifice [having never died I can't say the existential type sufferring from that, especially to God]. But to argue undergoing a Roman Crucifixion that you don't have to doesn't entail sacrifice is an insult to one of the classic civilizations.

Roman curicifixion is sacrifice and pain...for the individual. But it was no sacrifice for god, as he didn't lose anything. If you maintain that Jesus and god are one in the same, then we are back to the first point - either Jesus as god can suffer, in which case he is not perfect and all-powerful. Or he cannot suffer, in which case the sacrifice is meaningless.

 

[Datian]

Roman curicifixion is sacrifice and pain...for the individual. But it was no sacrifice for god, as he didn't lose anything. If you maintain that Jesus and god are one in the same, then we are back to the first point - either Jesus as god can suffer, in which case he is not perfect and all-powerful. Or he cannot suffer, in which case the sacrifice is meaningless.

Indeed, this has been one of the hottest debates during the first counciles, trying to determine the nature of things like Jesus, trinity, consubstantiality (spelling ?). Different choices have been made, hence most of the schisms, but no answer is satisfying : incoherence strikes again.

 

[DigitalBoy]

What cost? 1 turn of anarchy? Or maybe cost of building relig structures? or maybe cost of religion technologies research? oops, I forgot - that techs are vital even for non-religion player.
Yea yea, really funny.

I would say those are very significant costs. With the exception of Mysticism, I usually neglect the religion branch of the tech tree in favor of the bottom metal working branch and upper writing/mathetmatics branch.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Hence the appearance of Christianity with Theology, (how suffering can be part of perfection, the flawless can take on flaws, etc.)

Religion, especially state religion, can be something you avoid, or something you want to use, like Slavery, Great People, etc. In the later part of the game it delines into uselessness, with the exception of shrines. (probably Saudi Arabia's second greatest source of Wealth=tourist dollars from Mecca.)

You could quite easly have a 'Secular' game where you build no religious buildings, and declare no state religion
No religious buildings means more hammers for secular ones
No state religion means diplomatic maneuverability
You get to consider the religions in your civ's cities as cultural artifacts, quaint ideas.
This would be Very Hard with a Cultural Win (you need to actually build those Cathedrals)
However, It would work well for conquest in that most cities would have a free +1 culture from Some religion (the one real advantage of Paganism), so the first border expansion would be easy (and no Missionaries would be necessary for that first religion, just connections to the holy city)
The 1 or 2 great Prophets you get, you could save for Golden Ages.


For whoever said they did so well using religions, try Not using them... investing 0 of your society's hammers, flasks, governmental/dipolomatic relations into it.
No religious buildings (including shrines), and No State Religion.
Now a number of the techs you need otherwise, but the Abrahamic Faith techs are totally unnecessary to the non religious game. (Versailles, might be useful, but that is something its is often better to have someone else build..then when you conquer it you get the lower expense)
And the hammers you will definitely save.

Monarchy can easily take care of the happiness if you aim for it, or you could try to get your people baubles like Gems+Gold, or just whip them if they are unhappy.

PS as for Japan, Japan is an Religiously Atheistic, Homogeneous society.
Which is interesting because the Atheistic religions are the ones most Accessible for Science+Social Order (and the most acessible religion is Atheistic)

 

[Phyr_Negator]

Significant in what way? You need poly for literature, and priesthood for monarchy, etc but with them you gain valuable structures that can benefit only religion.

 

[romelus]

it wasn't meant so seriously and i wrote 'agnostic' not 'atheist' which is a kind of faith

it's because when you're a true agnostic you have to deal with reality as it is, which is very difficult. Doubting everything leads to situations, when you have to decide among choices lacking information which of will give the best result. Choosing somehow shows what you "believe" in.
A kind of wu-wei erh wu-pu-wei.

Faith is quite natural part of human mind, but it is fine when people limit themselves to their OWN mind. Creating outer institutions of faith usually ends wrong.

i don't think reality is "very difficult" for most people. it's not perfect, but there's no way people would start to kill themselves because they couldn't stand reality without religion. you were probably raised in a religious environment, which makes you doubt how people could exist without religion. i was raised in a non-religious environment, and i have no idea why people could be so attached to religion. you never think about committing suicide because you belive god wants you to live. i never think about commiting suicide because i think this life is awesome and precious because it's the only
one i have, and btw, i love reality and i love being sober.

when presented with problems which don't have sufficient information, i don't hesitate to admit i don't know. i don't understand why some people have the compulsion to make up things in order to explain everything.

faith might be natural to the religious, but humility is natural to agnostics.

 

[Chose]

The condition of suffering means that something is not ideal. If suffering is part of perfection, by your definition, than it isn't suffering at all. Either god is "inconvenienced" (in which case he is not perfect and is subject to something beyond his control), or he is not "inconvenienced" (in which case suffering is meaningless). Take your pick.

The thing that was not ideal was our sin it had nothing to do with Jesus, He was perfect and dying for our sin, The greatest suffering for Jesus was when he took on all our sins, and paid the punishment for us. Jesus took on our sin and that is what he sufferd for

Roman curicifixion is sacrifice and pain...for the individual. But it was no sacrifice for god, as he didn't lose anything. If you maintain that Jesus and god are one in the same, then we are back to the first point - either Jesus as god can suffer, in which case he is not perfect and all-powerful. Or he cannot suffer, in which case the sacrifice is meaningless.

If you were on a cross will nails in your hads and feet, had just been betten, and you knew what was going to happen you new that in 3 days you would be fine, is it now painless? No it still hurts. Just because Jesus did not lose anything does not mean he did not suffer. suffering is being in pain.

 

[Tristan_C]

http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/index.html?id=219&article=7

well would you look at that:
"Comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand, author Gregory S Paul quietly demolished the myth that faith strengthens society."

"Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior, come the Japanese. Over eighty percent accept evolution and fewer than ten percent are certain that God exists. Despite its size – over a hundred million people – Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation. "

Wow. Big logical fallacy. Correlation does not imply causation.

• Argument: Among 18 countries, Japan has the highest rate of atheism and the highest rate of good behavior; therefore, atheism leads to better behavior.

• Analogue: Among 18 students, Molly drops the most acid and gets the highest grades; therefore, dropping acid leads to better grades.

We make a claim here that a certain A causes B without evidence excluding other possible causes besides A.

 

[viz]

DigitalBoy, I disagree with regards to the increased 'costs' of religion. The religious buildings offer cultural and happiness benefits and are a must for all players. The cost of missionaries is only 40 hammers, that 40 hammer investment will (when the missionary does his magic in a city) generate money from that moment until the end of the game, for ONE missionary alone that works out at a lot of income, now imagine a continous stream of them...

 

[dh_epic]

DigitalBoy, I disagree with regards to the increased 'costs' of religion. The religious buildings offer cultural and happiness benefits and are a must for all players. The cost of missionaries is only 40 hammers, that 40 hammer investment will (when the missionary does his magic in a city) generate money from that moment until the end of the game, for ONE missionary alone that works out at a lot of income, now imagine a continous stream of them...

There's lots of non religious things that are pretty profitable. A 40 hammer investment can build a catapult. A few of those can take a city. Taking a ciy will generate money and production for the rest of the game, as well as taking money and production away from your opponent.

I think Civ 4 is pretty fair -- allowing you to win with both religious AND non-religious strategies. In fact, I would argue that the game is a little too pro-secular.

 

[viz]

There's lots of non religious things that are pretty profitable. A 40 hammer investment can build a catapult. A few of those can take a city. Taking a ciy will generate money and production for the rest of the game, as well as taking money and production away from your opponent.

I think Civ 4 is pretty fair -- allowing you to win with both religious AND non-religious strategies. In fact, I would argue that the game is a little too pro-secular.

I totally understand what you're saying, but I think you missed the point. Yes you can win either way, yes you can invest that production elsewhere, but that doesn't change the way religion has plenty of advantages yet no significant dis-advantages. You can only have 3 missionaries at any one time, so cities will still be producing military units and buildings regardless, and the small cost rapidy diminishes over the course of the game as production improves. The game is the same weather you are religious or not. You still need techs, you still need armies, you still need good relations, you still need income, you still need happy citizens and you still need to be able to capture cities.

My point is that being religious makes all of this MUCH easier. You can build a continuous stream of missionaries (keeping 3 always in the field en route to a city) and get continued benefit from every city converted. That money can fund a bigger army, can allow for bigger research investment, pay for resources you otherwise might not have access to... See where I'm heading with this?

 

[dh_epic]

I do see where you're heading. But I think you might want to read a threat like this:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=182768

Pursuing religion aggressively and basically not giving a crap are approximately balanced. In fact, not giving a crap about religion seems to be much more profitable at higher levels. Why? Because religion drags you into all kinds of conflicts, and non-religion eventually gains you significant amounts of science.

 

[Wyz_sub10]

The thing that was not ideal was our sin it had nothing to do with Jesus, He was perfect and dying for our sin, The greatest suffering for Jesus was when he took on all our sins, and paid the punishment for us. Jesus took on our sin and that is what he sufferd for

This gets into a whole different area of discussing that asks why Jesus had to die for our sins, and why, if Jesus paid the punichment for us, does hell still exist, etc. But that's another topic entirely. As is the concept of original sin.

But hey, I'm always up for a chat. Hit me with an email if you want to talk offline. And I do mean talk - I'm not interested in berating or belittling anyone. I love theological discussion with those willing to explore it.

If you were on a cross will nails in your hads and feet, had just been betten, and you knew what was going to happen you new that in 3 days you would be fine, is it now painless? No it still hurts. Just because Jesus did not lose anything does not mean he did not suffer. suffering is being in pain.

I'm not arguing that Jesus didn't suffer, per se. I'm stating that if he did suffer, then he wasn't perfect. The point and purpose of his sufferring is also an issue, but probably one - again - for another discussion.

 

[Kieran]

We can take as fact that JC was crucified on a Roman cross, which would have been unimaginable suffering, and the sacrifice of his earthly life. But I need evidence that he performed these miracles, it was all word of mouth for 60 years until it was written down. I don't think there is any evidence of a resurrection other than the recorded handful of sightings by his close friends. And, yeah, his teachings and actions contradicts most of the OT stuff, its like God decided to reinvent 'him'self. I thinks believing something to be true without evidence is risky as you could be very wrong indeed.

 

[Chose]

This gets into a whole different area of discussing that asks why Jesus had to die for our sins, and why, if Jesus paid the punichment for us, does hell still exist, etc. But that's another topic entirely. As is the concept of original sin.

But hey, I'm always up for a chat. Hit me with an email if you want to talk offline. And I do mean talk - I'm not interested in berating or belittling anyone. I love theological discussion with those willing to explore it.



I'm not arguing that Jesus didn't suffer, per se. I'm stating that if he did suffer, then he wasn't perfect. The point and purpose of his sufferring is also an issue, but probably one - again - for another discussion.

i would love to talk 2 but i cant get your email to work, anyway. When Jesus was on the cross the bible says he took all our sins and God turned his face away (because God wont look at sin). So on the cross Jesus, so to speek, because a murderer, stealer, lyer, ect... Because all of our sins was put on him, and that is what he died and sufferd for.

i do believe there is a hell, In the bible it says Jesus said that you have to believe in him to get eternal life. Hell is what we deserves, Jesus gives us another option.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The evidence of the resurrection is the fact that they have no other explantion for why the body wasn't in the grave, it was never found, and there was way for it to have been stolen. Had the body been found, or actual evidence that they broke in, the movement would never have got off the ground. (by now of course thats an argument on the history as certainty about the body's resting place, etc. are long gone. But back then they would know exactly where he was buried.)
And there were appearances to much larger groups ~500.

As for the other miracles, well there is no other evidence besides those accounts. Those miracles were intended more as evidence for the eyewitnesses than people 2000 years later, and the evidence for those documents is far better than anything else from that time period or before.

And 60 years post is approximately the date of the Last Gospel, the first ones were out ~30-40 years after.

As for God reinventing himself... they are consistent, although more details are revealed in the new. If I told you that America was a country, and then later on told you it was a collection of 50 states, I would not be contradicting myself I would be adding new information to give you a better understanding. Especially as in this case where the a new step in the plan was being carried out, so naturally that step in the Plan was revealed.


However, considering the game. Religion does have costs and benefits, like almost every part of the game. Toward the Early-Middle part of the game religion is probably the best way to go (depending on the circumstances) Toward the Later part of the game, unless you've properly invested in it, religion isn't worth it.

 

[ronnybiggs]

Damn I can see why Firaxis made a big bold disclaimer on how they didn't want to touch religious debates with a ten foot pole. Frankly I think the state's attitude towards religion (Free Religion, Pacifism) adequately handles atheism. Fact is, your state can choose to adopt a religion or it can remain secular. But you can't control whether your people decide to follow a faith (or a bloodline, for that matter).

And it doesn't stop religious buildings from making atheists happy, either.