Very disappointed

[wodan11]

Nah, various religions are in Civ4 to give additional basis for conflict, as it has provided IRL.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was talking about the use of religion and religious text in the Civilopedia (which is where the OP started).

For gameplay, absolutely it is another source for conflict.

In Civ5, I would love for there to be more gameplay, custom for each religion. The biggest objection I heard was that if the religions worked differently then this might cause offense to people. My solution to that is to allow each religion to have custom, non-unique gameplay that is picked when it is chosen. In addition, the religion could have a popup for choice of name and icon. Of the thousands of religions, and even an option for Other (allowing the user to put in literally any name).

That way, the player can choose whether his religion is a real one or a fake one, one that had a lot of influence in history or was pretty obscure, whether the gameplay simulates an authoritative religion or an individualistic religion, the bonus provided by the temples/custom units/etc.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I did notice that the most successful runthrough I had was when I was playing a nation with no state religion whatsoever. All the AIs stayed at peace with me.

[Blaupanzer]

Actually, the friction between religions as a real source of internecine conflict, the economics of religions as drains and sources for gold, and the disruptive power of fanatics on civil discourse and processes hasn't been reflected in the civ system yet. As with corporations and real economic alternative control systems in the post-feudal world, religions are only beginning to be explored.

The "techs" should be called "advances" or some such with the thought that these more or less advance knowledge. I really like the ideas expressed here reflecting economic and religious advances as choice trees where each choice has negatives and positives. More choices open up as new advances are learned. Some choices (e.g., human sacrifice and slavery) become less acceptable due to later advances as well.

As to the obsolete military units hanging around, I just think of those as smaller and smaller logistics protection type unit. One may get lucky, but they are meant for population and transportation control.

[slnz]

There are always some of those holier than thou'ers that believe their religion is the ONLY way, so they try to convert (sometimes by force), or they decide everyone else is going to hell anyway, so let's hurry them on their way. Unfortunately sometimes those some get into positions of power to influence governments and other social factors.

Oh, so you've played against Isabella and Monte recently as well

[Felch]

I guess the scientist in me would be an agnostic

WRONG! THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS AGNOSTIC!

Haven't you read the thread?

There are 2 categories, atheist and theist. Agnostic as a third category is non-existent on every level.

I thought you'd know better, AC

[Alinestra Covelia]

You're going to have to come up with a better authority than some angry Polytubby to convince me there's no such thing as an agnostic, Felch

[Felch]

But he has videos from YouTube that prove it. You've just been brainwashed into thinking that there might be some option other than "fundamentalist retrograde bible thumper" and "enlightened atheist douche".

Videos from YouTube. They're on YouTube so they must be true. It's like a law or something.

[wodan11]

But he has videos from YouTube that prove it. You've just been brainwashed into thinking that there might be some option other than "fundamentalist retrograde bible thumper" and "enlightened atheist douche".

Videos from YouTube. They're on YouTube so they must be true. It's like a law or something.

One of my favorite quotes is
That's not evidence... that's a website.

I don't know who said it.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I will accept the Youtube vids as irrefutable evidence ONLY if they feature an elderly person wearing a cardigan speaking in a British accent. Because those are the only types of experts who really know what they are talking about!

[Hauptman]

Lemme guess Drew, you goto public shcool, probably in California. My god what are they teaching our kids.

If our schools are cranking out kids like this, I expect to see church goers lined up against a wall within 20 years. That is of course, until they decide gassing is much more efficient.

As far as "no such thing as agnostic" goes, i give you me. I do not believe in the actual exsistance of a god, yet I've said to myself countless times, "please god let this work". I dont believe in thier teachings, but i cherish the legacy my christian ancestors gave us. I dont think Islam is any more wrong, but I will side with my Crusader brothers during the Jihad.

If we let this andrew charachter run our country he would end up more despised than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Caligula in the end.

[CEO Aaron]

If our schools are cranking out kids like this, I expect to see church goers lined up against a wall within 20 years. That is of course, until they decide gassing is much more efficient.

It's the kneelers you see committing atrocities on other people in the name of their God, not atheists. You see, for a believer, failure to believe is a sin, a transgression against their deity of choice. But to an atheist, it's really just a somewhat regrettable example of cognitive dissonance. Atheists don't want to exterminate the faithful, they just wish to enlighten them, so that the world is no longer blinkered by superstition and ignorance, and thus the pointless violence and suffering that result.

But would the world really be all that much better without religious institutions to justify people's rotten behavior toward other cultures? Probably not. What we know about human decision making tends to show that rationalization takes place after decisions are made. Which is a fancy way of saying that someone who wants to murder people will find an excuse for why he did it afterward, rather than really think his actions through beforehand.

[Hauptman]

As andrew has been so kind to demonstrate. Here on this lovely intraweb contraption thingy, an awful lot of the new athiest blood is appearing to be more and more like him, completely intollerant of even the mention of God. And that is of course how it all starts. Ban the word from schools, those kids grow up hating the word, and by proxy, the people. The athiests gain power, and finally do away with those hated god followers. But because they are doing it because "We are right, they are wrong" they will feel completely justified, blissfully unaware that they are in fact, just like them.

It's human nature to attack whats different. Our government proclaims to teach the whole melting pot theme, but its looking more and more like they teach athiesismsism as the new religion of choice, for those that want to appear smarter than everyone else. The fact is of course, wether or not you choose to believe in a God has absolutely no effect on ones general intelligence. Something the less intelligent just cant seem to wrap there head around. Hence the ever used argument of "Bible thumpers are morons, because they believe in a sky fairy" that i do recall somone using on this thread.

As far as "kneelers" being the atrocity comiters.... Them evil Nazi's were decidedly NOT kneelers. A jewish family could not save themselves by converting, and they made no distinction between a orthodox, catholic or lutheran slav. It was all race. So dont try n use the "its the kneelers that do it" card crap!

[Hauptman]

Now back on topic of the game... someone stated that there are no ill effects of having multiple religions in a city, oi contrare (sorry cant spell french to save my life) mien fruende (there thats better), Try waging a world war (or any long war to be honest) and just go ahead and add 1 more religion to you capital. 10 will quickly become 20 and you will need to bump up that luxury rate even more.

[Willem]

It's the kneelers you see committing atrocities on other people in the name of their God, not atheists. You see, for a believer, failure to believe is a sin, a transgression against their deity of choice. But to an atheist, it's really just a somewhat regrettable example of cognitive dissonance. Atheists don't want to exterminate the faithful, they just wish to enlighten them, so that the world is no longer blinkered by superstition and ignorance, and thus the pointless violence and suffering that result.

Tell that to the thousands of people in Soviet Russia who ended up dying in concentration camps simply because they wanted to hang on to their beliefs. If you think that Athiests aren't capable of atrocities just as much as believers, then you have a very simplistic view of the world.

[Felch]

He'll tell you that's different, that the Soviet Union wasn't killing them because it was atheist, but because it was a totalitarian dictatorship. And he's right. But in the same way, the Inquisition didn't kill people because it was Christian, but rather in spite of being Christian.

Humans don't need any excuse to be horrible to each other. Blaming religion for problems is in error because you're essentially taking a murderers word for it. That is to say, if they claim they kill for Islam or Christianity, you believe them. If someone killed someone over a game of Monopoly, would you blame Monopoly, or would you say, "That guy is a crazy psycho murderer." Obviously Monopoly isn't the reason he murdered someone, it's just the excuse.

The sad state is that too many people are just looking for an excuse to cause havoc. Religion doesn't cause problems. The dark side of human nature does.