Very disappointed

[Robert]

Any faith that bases it's belief on something that can't be proven/disproven is blind.

That's a very scholastic rational coldhearted way of reasoning.
My life is filled with faith, that car will stop b/c of the red light so that I can drive without crashing into it, when I go home my wife and children are there and we will have dinner, in 29 year I'll be able to pay the debts on my house b/c the stockmarkets will have increased enough, the bank will be a safe place to store my money, when I use the breaks of my car it will stop, the movie I want to watch tonight will start at 8.30pm on the 3rd channel, the food I just ordered in this restaurant won't be poisoned, when I drive in 3 weeks to Denmark the holiday house I ordered and paid for in advance will actually be there, next week I will have that job interview......

edit: most important one: I can live my live the way I want it b/c there won't be any god I have to explain my deeds to when I die so it won't matter anyway.

All blind faith?

[Krill]

Every post from my original post has been OT.

CS, if you really want to fix this site, why are you letting OT discussions exist in the on topic fora?

[Robert]

This is, despite being the most important forum on the site, certainly not the most lively forum. A bit of activity is good.
A bit of OffT debate coming from an OnT startpost won't hurt anybody.

But you're right that we should not lose though with the purpose of this forum.

[Krill]

Considering this is the thread with the most activity in the entire forum, I think you have already lost tte purpose of this forum tbh. So I disagree with your assertion that "A little" offT debate won't hurt anybody.

Unless kicking a corpse is considered a good exercise?

[Nikolai]

OT activity is never good for an OnT forum in the long run.

[Metaliturtle]

So, Mr. original poster.

How would removing religion make Civilization 4 MORE conducive to creating one's own civilization?

[CEO Aaron]

Likening religion to technology is absurd on the face of it. Religion is the opposite of technology. It's the set of false assumptions handed down from our forefathers about the way the world works, constantly deformed by the actual knowledge we gain as our understanding of our world improves. Religion stated that the sun revolved around the earth, until Copernicus discovered it could not. Religion asserted that there were four natural elements, until Jabir ibn Hayyan showed there were far more. Religion justified the oppression of the weak by the strong, until John Locke punctured the underpinnings of the Divine Right of Kings.

Playing the history card to defend the relevance of religion in Civ might be valid, if all the religions in history were represented, but that's not the case. So if your religion doesn't have any worshippers after the year 2000, it doesn't count? Were the beliefs of the Norse less of a religion than those of the Jews? There are over 100,000 practicing Zoroastrians across the world even today, is their religion lacking some critical piece that keeps it from being a factor in the development of a world-spanning empire?

Making Buddhist Vikings is a gas and all, but overall I'm afraid that on the whole, I don't consider the addition of religion mechanics to the game to be positive. Could I have done it better? Maybe. But if I could, I'd probably be selling my own game, instead of fixing Firaxis' poor design decisions.

[slnz]

Playing the history card to defend the relevance of religion in Civ might be valid, if all the religions in history were represented, but that's not the case. So if your religion doesn't have any worshippers after the year 2000, it doesn't count? Were the beliefs of the Norse less of a religion than those of the Jews? There are over 100,000 practicing Zoroastrians across the world even today, is their religion lacking some critical piece that keeps it from being a factor in the development of a world-spanning empire?

I don't quite follow your logic. That sounds like saying "Researching techs might be valid, if they all were represented, where's the tech to discover a cheese grinder? Or a lawn mover?" (Or even, "a game in which you control a civilization might be valid, if all the civilizations were represented"). As even Civilopedia says, the game can only have a limited amount of religions as per game mechanics, and they were chosen based on their historical significance(not, for example, the amount of followers).

And, "history card"? The whole game is based on history. That's like saying "you always defend your eating with the 'being hungry card'!".

In my opinion the very fact that people here are arguing about this back and forth with such strong opinions proves that religion belongs in the game; no-one seems to care about (IMO) much worse illogicalities such as the fact that knights own crossbowmen.

...threads like this would be such pristine entertainment, if I just could refrain from taking part in them.

[sorinache]

Wow.

I'm proud I'm playing the same game as these two guys (CEO Aaron and slnz). I side with slnz on this one but can't deny that CEO Aaron debates like a gentleman (unlike the pre-puber who started the thread).

To prove myself that I'm (almost) as worthy as these two fellows, I'll add my two cents : the fact that religion might be seen from a certain angle as being the opposite of technology does not make its inclusion a poor design decision. What is needed in order to see this is breaking with the concept of "technology" as it existed in Civ I - III. In Civ IV all these "events" (or whatever you want to call them) that lump together religions and technologies but also social advances are a more generic class of "things" that share a central feature : their appearance (whether discovery or invention or whatever) changed the course of history. What might be deplored is that, in keeping with Civ I - III, the designers chose to keep the same class name, "Technologies".

Now I find it really hard to dispute that the founding of Christianism or Islam has changed the history of humanity, although in a different way than, say, the invention of the (practical) steam engine or of heavier-than-the-air flying machines ...

OTOH, I do not think that knights owning crossbowmen is such a terrible thing. I'm more upset about the old "feature" of the phalanx-sinks-battleship from Civ I still not being totally overcome in Civ IV where an Antiquity - Dark Ages unit can still dispatch a fresh, experienced, WWI-era unit (see my example with the war elephant defeating an infantery)

I don't quite follow your logic. That sounds like saying "Researching techs might be valid, if they all were represented, where's the tech to discover a cheese grinder? Or a lawn mover?" (Or even, "a game in which you control a civilization might be valid, if all the civilizations were represented"). As even Civilopedia says, the game can only have a limited amount of religions as per game mechanics, and they were chosen based on their historical significance(not, for example, the amount of followers).

And, "history card"? The whole game is based on history. That's like saying "you always defend your eating with the 'being hungry card'!".

In my opinion the very fact that people here are arguing about this back and forth with such strong opinions proves that religion belongs in the game; no-one seems to care about (IMO) much worse illogicalities such as the fact that knights own crossbowmen.

...threads like this would be such pristine entertainment, if I just could refrain from taking part in them.

[slnz]

OTOH, I do not think that knights owning crossbowmen is such a terrible thing. I'm more upset about the old "feature" of the phalanx-sinks-battleship from Civ I still not being totally overcome in Civ IV where an Antiquity - Dark Ages unit can still dispatch a fresh, experienced, WWI-era unit (see my example with the war elephant defeating an infantery)

I consider classical illogicalities as your example and the obvious illogicality of it taking tens of game-years for an unit to travel from one side of the nation to the other more as pros than cons, they just are so much part of the game series that it's hard to imagine Civilization without them .

Even better example than the knight vs. crossbowman might be the fact that a totally conquered civilization has its cultural influence totally annihilated; this does not reflect history very well (Ancient Rome and Greece being a prime example). It would be awesome if an annihilated civ could "spring back to life" via a revolt if their former cities are ill-treated. Or rather, it would be awesome in theory but a huge pain in the butt in reality (Yeah, I know this feature existed in a way in Civ 1)

[Felch]

To prove myself that I'm (almost) as worthy as these two fellows, I'll add my two cents : the fact that religion might be seen from a certain angle as being the opposite of technology does not make its inclusion a poor design decision. What is needed in order to see this is breaking with the concept of "technology" as it existed in Civ I - III. In Civ IV all these "events" (or whatever you want to call them) that lump together religions and technologies but also social advances are a more generic class of "things" that share a central feature : their appearance (whether discovery or invention or whatever) changed the course of history. What might be deplored is that, in keeping with Civ I - III, the designers chose to keep the same class name, "Technologies".

I think that the link between technology and religion is appropriate, since in game research represents not only physical feats of engineering like the steam engine, but also developments in human thought, like liberalism and such. You're right to say though that they should change the label used to describe them though.

OTOH, I do not think that knights owning crossbowmen is such a terrible thing. I'm more upset about the old "feature" of the phalanx-sinks-battleship from Civ I still not being totally overcome in Civ IV where an Antiquity - Dark Ages unit can still dispatch a fresh, experienced, WWI-era unit (see my example with the war elephant defeating an infantery)

Those instances are frustrating, but a lot less frustrating than if you were a step behind in technology and your entire army was rendered worthless. It's a trade-off between fun and realism. You have to regard a tech lead as an advantage, but not an invincibility bonus.

[Willem]

That's a very scholastic rational coldhearted way of reasoning.
My life is filled with faith, that car will stop b/c of the red light so that I can drive without crashing into it, when I go home my wife and children are there and we will have dinner, in 29 year I'll be able to pay the debts on my house b/c the stockmarkets will have increased enough, the bank will be a safe place to store my money, when I use the breaks of my car it will stop, the movie I want to watch tonight will start at 8.30pm on the 3rd channel, the food I just ordered in this restaurant won't be poisoned, when I drive in 3 weeks to Denmark the holiday house I ordered and paid for in advance will actually be there, next week I will have that job interview......

edit: most important one: I can live my live the way I want it b/c there won't be any god I have to explain my deeds to when I die so it won't matter anyway.

All blind faith?

Of course not, those are all logical assumptions and don't really qualify as faith, blind or otherwise. Well except for maybe that last one, that's kind of treading the line there.

[TriMiro]

Likening religion to technology is absurd on the face of it. Religion is the opposite of technology. It's the set of false assumptions handed down from our forefathers about the way the world works, constantly deformed by the actual knowledge we gain as our understanding of our world improves. Religion stated that the sun revolved around the earth, until Copernicus discovered it could not. Religion asserted that there were four natural elements, until Jabir ibn Hayyan showed there were far more. Religion justified the oppression of the weak by the strong, until John Locke punctured the underpinnings of the Divine Right of Kings.

As Felch pointed out, the Civ concept of Technology is an abstract one. Technology refers to not only the regular Math, Engineering, Physics and others, but to philosophical ideas and concepts as well (Mysticism, Divine Right, Liberalism). So liking religion with this type of Technology is appropriate.

When you say that religion inhibits science, which religion do you mean? Judging by the Apostolic Palace wonder, Civ seems to equate Christianity with Catholicism, and indeed in the Catholic world, there was a suppression of science. However, that is not true even for Christianity in general. The Byzantine Emperor Leo VI had sufficient knowledge of astronomy to predict an eclipse in the 10th century. At the same time, neighboring Orthodox Bulgaria had over 65% literacy (all instigated by the Church).

The idea of the four elements is ancient Greek one, not a Christian one. I was adopted by the Philosophers, not the Church. Read on the history of Galileo Galilei, contrary to popular belief, his conflict was with the Philosophers and not the Church, on fact it was the Philosophers that distorted his words and presented them to the Church as a Heresy.

In the game of Civilization, Firaxis could not have made religions anything but identical since otherwise way too many people would have been offended (as we can see some people still get offended now). The idea of the game is to create your own religious philosophy. That is the religious civic. However, this concept can use a lot of work.

Playing the history card to defend the relevance of religion in Civ might be valid, if all the religions in history were represented, but that's not the case. So if your religion doesn't have any worshipers after the year 2000, it doesn't count? Were the beliefs of the Norse less of a religion than those of the Jews? There are over 100,000 practicing Zoroastrians across the world even today, is their religion lacking some critical piece that keeps it from being a factor in the development of a world-spanning empire?

Including "all" religions in the game is obviously impossible and Firaxis goes with the same logic that they use to add civilizations. Mainly they ask themselves "What would sell?" Obviously religions with fewer or no followers would not sell as well. Furthermore, in the game mechanics, there is no real way to morph one religion into another, i.e. how would the Greek gods be replaced by Christianity in the current game mechanics. I actually think Zoroastrianism is the most popular "neglected" religion, I have seen no less than 10 mod/mod requests about it, I hope it gets included in Civ V.

The biggest problem that I have with religion in civilization is that it is way too positive. There is almost no incentive to keep other player's religion out of your land, you are pretty much always trying to get as much religion as possible as quickly as possible. There should be more religious intolerance and such in the game. Some mods like RFC and even more in RFC:Europe are trying to present that, however, even those are far from "perfect".

[Felch]

When you say that religion inhibits science, which religion do you mean? Judging by the Apostolic Palace wonder, Civ seems to equate Christianity with Catholicism, and indeed in the Catholic world, there was a suppression of science. However, that is not true even for Christianity in general. The Byzantine Emperor Leo VI had sufficient knowledge of astronomy to predict an eclipse in the 10th century. At the same time, neighboring Orthodox Bulgaria had over 65% literacy (all instigated by the Church).

I'd disagree with the implication that the Catholic Church suppressed science. I'd argue that suppression had more to do with politics than dogma. During the Middle Ages, local authorities had much more power to misuse their authority than we would be accustomed to. While some Church leaders were instrumental in preserving and expanding knowledge, others used the institution to attack rivals and enrich themselves in God's name.

Don't forget that a lot of the attitudes in the English speaking world about the Catholic Church have been filtered through centuries of Protestant propaganda. For every dogmatic ******* who tortured free thinkers, there were probably a few humble monks you've never heard of doing their best to keep knowledge intact for future generations.

Basically, I'd caution against making generalizations about religions. I think the designers made a good decision in not ascribing different bonuses to the different faiths.

[TriMiro]

I'd disagree with the implication that the Catholic Church suppressed science. I'd argue that suppression had more to do with politics than dogma. During the Middle Ages, local authorities had much more power to misuse their authority than we would be accustomed to. While some Church leaders were instrumental in preserving and expanding knowledge, others used the institution to attack rivals and enrich themselves in God's name.

Don't forget that a lot of the attitudes in the English speaking world about the Catholic Church have been filtered through centuries of Protestant propaganda. For every dogmatic ******* who tortured free thinkers, there were probably a few humble monks you've never heard of doing their best to keep knowledge intact for future generations.

Basically, I'd caution against making generalizations about religions. I think the designers made a good decision in not ascribing different bonuses to the different faiths.

To correct myself: according to some propaganda, in the Catholic world, there was a suppression of science.

Actually if you read the next paragraph of my post you will see that the Church did not care much about science, others did and sometimes influenced the Church to do bad things.

Also there were prosecutions against people with different ideas in all Medieval Christian countries (I think the Byzantines were the first to actually burn "heretics", we all have heard of the Spanish Inquisition and Catholic/Protestant wars in England and France went both ways). As I said in Civ terms science = general new ideas, so there was some suppression of science.

Then again, Christianity is not the only religion. The Arabs practically invented the scientific method centuries before Galileo and it wasn't until the Ottomans took over when we can speak of suppression of science in the Muslim world.

I am not trying to generalize in terms of all Catholics are such and such or all Muslims are such and such. I believe the number of tolerant people in every religion is dominant, however, sometimes the intolerant ones take over. I want to see some of the bad aspects of religion represented in the game, however, they are not there and probably will not be included.