28% interested in an Atheism option. More than I expected.
Yes, I'd like to have the Atheism option in the game.
No. Atheism should not be an option for the game.
28% interested in an Atheism option. More than I expected.
Atheism shouldn't be an option. Atheism is the lack of religion.
However, an option for enforced atheism like you might have seen in certain totalitarian countries would be both interesting and warranted.
It's not that atheism isn't a 'religion' that makes me not want to see it in the game, it's that its not a unifying belief system. Plenty of atheists believe different things, which is why it's unsuitable as religion, which is meant to act as a unifying force. Atheism doesn't have tenants of belief, so why would you be picking tenants of belief for it in the game?
Tenets... But yes, I'd have to agree with that.
Atheism is not a religion, if you want to be an Atheist, simply dont chose a religion.
You've got secular humanists, new atheists, accomodationists, and others.
For instance, I would like for there to be some way to reflect the aggresive removal of religion from a civilization, as guys like Mao tried to pull off. Now, I'm sure all the pedants want to rush to their keyboard and pontificate about how Communism isn't atheism, but that's just splitting hairs, because they could well be reflected in the game using the same mechanics.
The upshot now is that now that religion has been splintered off from culture, we no longer feel compelled to buidl temples just to keep other civ's from hemming in our borders. I'm not crazy about the bit where Order converts faith into great engineers--it's both OP and nonsensical--but I can live with it.
Last edited by steveg700; 05-06-2012 at 12:57 PM.
Atheists might believe that red wine goes better with beef than white wine.
I joke. Here you go. Keep in mind these are just self embraced stereotypes, they are not formal groups. To my knowledge there are no decoder rings.
The philosophy of Secular Humanism embraces human reason, ethics, and justice while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making."
Accomodationism is a term coined by Austin Dacey to describe those “who either recognize no conflicts between religion and science, or who recognize such conflicts but are disinclined not to discuss them publicly”.
New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of 21st-century atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.
In return can you provide definitions for Jesus freak, fundies, and bible bashers? I wouldn't want to use the wrong term and offend someone.
(I know my jokes are bad, I persist anyway)
New atheists are atheists that band together and take a strong stance against religion. Examples would be Richard Dawkins or PZ MYers.
Accomodationists are atheists that just want everybody to get along. An example would be Stephen Jay Gould. This is probably what I generally identify with the most.
You've also got "cultural Christians," which are atheists that prefer the trappings of Christianity and Western society, and these are usually against non-Western, non-Christian presence. It's probably unfair to other cultural Christians to associate him with them, but the only example that comes to mind at the moment would be Anders Behring Breivik.
You've also got Brights and Freethinkers. Can't remember much about them, though I think James Randi is one.
Rationalists can generally be considered atheists. An example would be Eliezer Yudlowsky.
These are different schools of thought that you probably don't qualify for if you're in any way religious. That's about all that puts them together.
Edit: ninjaed! And of course red wine goes better with beef. What kind of a barbarian drinks a white with meat products?
With the definition for Accomodationism, is it simply anyone who is happy to tolerate the different beliefs, and don't want to discuss them?
Also are there other titles? Brxbrx mentioned "others".
(Sorry, just read Brxbrx's post...Thanx for clarifying Accomodationism, and listing some others too! I would like to know more about the Brights and Freethinkers though.)
The scientist says "Is there a God? Let's figure out some tests that might show His existence".
The atheist says "There is no God, so you're wasting your time testing for something that doesn't exist".
The theist says "Of course there's a God, so you're wasting your time doing your tests".
Which is / are expressing belief and which is / are expressing learning what's real?
"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." - Hebrews 11:1, the Bible.
I have faith in the belief that arguments about religion are a complete waste of time.
I understand this sentiment, and I mostly agree. I'd be terribly surprised if anyone changed their mind based on an internet conversation. But it can be useful to learn about each other and eliminate some of the misconceptions. If it leads to introspection and thoughtful analysis then it is useful even if the results only reinforce what you expected.I have faith in the belief that arguments about religion are a complete waste of time.
Wouldn't that be like wanting to sit in traffic all day? Nothing makes me weep for humanity's intellect like driving.Doesn't it help all the folks who need validation for their deep, abiding desire to believe everyone is stupider than them?
You're right, everybody seeks validation of their beliefs through these arguments. Yet in the end, the only validation they get is from people who agreed with them from the start, and nobody ever changes their mind from such frivolous arguments.You don't think they make people feel good about themselves? Doesn't it help all the folks who need validation for their deep, abiding desire to believe everyone is stupider than them?
Personally I am just non-affiliated with religion completely. I guess that makes me closer to agnosticism or something. I just think there are much more important things to care about....
like video games.
It's clear I've been ignoring some threads for too long. Just a note to everyone:
Tread lightly on the topic of religion. Yes, it's a game topic, but just as nationalism or anti-nationalism is grounds for thread-locking, so is evangelism and anti-evangelism. So long as we remain academic and reasonable, it's all good. If we start insulting each other, then the thread will end.
But .01% of the time, someone will, usually silently, allow a little doubt to creep in. You will never know it happened, THEY may not even know it happened, consciously, but still, it's not insignificant.
Wouldn't have it any other way. Thank you for your tolerance.If we start insulting each other, then the thread will end.
He just said no one does....Originally Posted by Kukulcán
Some of the theists told me that they changed because of noticing the respectful, peaceful and loving behaviour of a certain group of religious people (the one they joined), which is also understandable, because most people do want to improve themselves, and associate with like-minded people. Others were impressed by what the Bible teaches.
There are many reasons why someone could choose either path. (Hopefully knowing this will help people to be more tolerant with each other)
As an atheist: No. Atheism should not appear as a "religion" in the game. Although I do hope that having a religion is not required, and I hope that religious buildings and technologies will be more optional.
From what I have read you do not need to invest in religion, any more than you need to invest in culture now. But it will be there, and it will provide bonuses. You don't need a state religion, but that does not mean religion will not spread to your cities. Fully ignoring it could and should allow your opponents an advantage.
They do. Sometimes with malice. I try to avoid the malice at least.atheists they talk about the negative side to religion - which is perfectly understandable - such as the fact that religion has caused wars and has been associated with crimes
Isn't this usually a reaction? Not usually does it just come out of the blue. When the pope seriously and literally claims to be infallible (when he proclaims something), then is it a surprise when people say "uh, but what about X Y and especially Z?" Is it possible to question such an assertion without bringing up counter examples?
In court, the prosecutor often cant bring your morals into question UNLESS you raise them first. Once you start saying you are innocent because of what a great person you are, then they can bring the skeletons out of your closet to refute your claim.
Also, realize that this goes both ways. It is very common for religious people to speak negatively of athiests as well. Most certainly referencing history, even creatively fictitious history, to declare how terrible *those people* are.
Last edited by Artifex; 05-07-2012 at 05:01 PM.
The Romans did it first. And somewhere along the way, people stopped paying attention to his helmet of invisibility (+2).
In regards to the discussion of Athiesm as a religion; don't you think that those in support of making it a religion are taking the implementation of religion a little to literally. I mean, when you found a Pantheon, you aren't exactly making much of a pantheon. So whose to say the religions you found are anything more than philosophies, without Gods... some of them are.
I hope there is a pantheon bonus to do with Wine. Then I shall begin with Dionysus and found Christianity in his name, and rid the world of Hera-ism - which can be Theodora. Lol, such fun to be had with this.
As for the word "pope", that title in Latin is "papa" and in Greek is "πάππας" ("pappas"), and it means "father" (taken from Wikipedia). Matthew 23:9 has Jesus saying "Moreover, do not call anyone YOUR father on earth, for one is YOUR Father, the heavenly One."
- Just thought that was interesting.
And yes, there is of course prejudice and discrimination going both ways unfortunately. For those who say they follow the Bible and then go and treat others badly, well they are not exactly following the Bible's teachings.