Islam is represented in Civ, sort of...

[tomcat ha]

An Muslim Fanataism was good to the world those days why?
Cuz they believed that science and stufff are very important
also then they woud treat peapole well of other religons
today`s muslim fanatics are no true muslims
How i know that i`m muslim my self
Osama is no true muslim he says so but he ain`t

[Kramerman]

Fanatics and Fanatisicm cause nothing but grief. I mean, you have the obvious Islamic Fanatics and the terrorism that comes to mind, but there is also Christian fanatics who are at the base of such organizations as the KKK. And then soccer fanatics and the insuing riots over victory or defeat, in the US there are Basketball fanatics, who have rioted after LA Lakers won the championship in the past and the same happened in Houston after the Rockets won. Then there are fanatics like Timothy McVay(sp?) who was paranoid and convinced the gov was taking over everybodies life. And those Columbine high school kids, Im not sure what they were fanatical about, but Im sure there was something. Dont get me started on all those religious cults, like that one in California, I believe, that comitted mass suicide so their souls could be carried away to heaven on the Hail-Bop comet.

The point I think Im trying to make is you rarely ever see people with nice, decent, average views on the world blowing themselves up or what not. The world would be a much better place without fanatics of most any kind.

[SlowwHand]

Yes, Persia=Iran.

As far as Atheism as an advance, that would be fine.
Negating all Temples and other religious improvements.
Would have to be an Optional advance. I surely wouldn't want it on my agenda.

[Kramerman]

Atheism should negate all religeous buildings effects (except culture), but all scientific buildings should make people happy instead (but not quite as many as religious buildings did) and also give a bonus to scientific research. I agree it should be optional, but with the advantages described abve, I would definately research it.

Kman

[yellfromhell]

[Krammerman said]:
"The point I think Im trying to make is you rarely ever see people with nice, decent, average views on the world blowing themselves up or what not. The world would be a much better place without fanatics of most any kind".

Anti-fanatic fanatism is fanatism.

[yellfromhell]

Hi,
Every religion has fanatics and that doesnt make any of them a 'fanatics religion'. Some of us are Civ fanatics, or we can be Katchup fanatics, etc. Fanatism is generally bad (because it privates people of seeing other things and so comunicating) but its also natural (there has always been fanatism). Therefore, I wouldnt tie fanatism to religion or nationalities. I think Fanatism should be a 'maximizer' discovery in Civ. After you research Fanatism you should be asked where to deposit your 'fanatic potential' (f.e. in science, in military, in religion, in trade, ...). Even if you believe Fanatism and religion are strongly related, you could try to concibe every exageratedly powered preference as a religion. Atheism does not really exists. Atheos put the properties of a god to another thing. For example: 19th century scientist Laplace believed so strongly in science potential that you could say his god was 'science': for him science was inmortal, absolutly powerfull, eternal, the essence of nature, etc... all of them 'god-like' properties. Atheos have a god but dont call him a god. Or maybe the same 'Atheism' is their god, as well as for Agnostism for the Agnostics.

[Fresno]

From dictionary.com:

fanaticism:

1. Excessive, irrational zeal.

2. Excessive enthusiasm, unreasoning zeal, or wild and extravagant notions, on any subject, especially religion; religious frenzy.

3. Excessive intolerance of opposing views.

All the descriptions of the word start with "excessive." IMO, it is hard to define when to call any radical opinion excessive and when not. A perfect example is my own country. Half a year ago, it was politically incorrect to say that "the Netherlands are too crowded." Anyone who said it was accused of being extreme right. Now, it's nearly politically incorrect to say that the Netherlands are NOT to crowded. Many people think being "left" means being a terrorist. Our prime minister Wim Kok (a very, very moderated social-democrat) was accused of being responsible for the murder on Pim Fortuyn, the leader of a new hard right party. You could say it's politically incorrect to be leftist at the moment.
In my opinion, Pim Fortuyn HAD extremist ideas. A few years ago everyone agreed with me. Now Pim Fortuyn seems to be nearly canonized....

What I mean is this: what used to be considered "fanatic" is "normal" now, and vice versa.

[yellfromhell]

Fresno,
That`s another problem. It has (as I see) little relation with fanatism. You cant call someone 'fanatic' for defending his own views, even if they are radical. I bet you would never call 'fanatic' to a man that defends the mainstream views. The case you are presenting seems clear to me (maybe because I see it from far outside). In Europe its happening the same thing it happened before WWII in Germany: there are a lot of extremelly cheap foreigner workers in the highly developed countries. They come from South America (my home), Eastern Europe, Ex-Yugoslavia, Middle East and North Africa. Even if you are not racist, if you had a good job and you were fired in your own country because a foreigner does your work for less money, you`ll have many bad feeling against foreigners (or at least for some of them). That can lead you to a fanatic point of view, but not necesary. You wont be a fanatic for establishing the facts: there`s too many people in here.
You will be if you are unable to see the other side´s view. That`s what I said in the last message.

[Kramerman]

I agree that fanatacism is largely a relative term, much like good and evil. However, I think that anyone who is willing to harm another or their property for whatever reason, no matter how "good" or "noble", than they are fanatical to some degree. In other words, a man who beats his wife befcause he saw her talking to another man is fanatical about his wife, The US who battled the North-Vietnamese to halt communist expansion were fanatical about stopping the spread of communism, the soccer fans who riot whether their team wins or loses is fanatical about soccer. As you can see you can try and justify these and a million other examples as being right or wrong, but I think the fact that they are fanatical to some degree is undeniable.

Kman

P.S.

"The point I think Im trying to make is you rarely ever see people with nice, decent, average views on the world blowing themselves up or what not. The world would be a much better place without fanatics of most any kind".
Anti-fanatic fanatism is fanatism.

I am not an anti-fanatic fanatic, especially by my above improptu definition. I am however a fanatic about many things, all which I am willing to display violence over which I think is immature of myself. But.... what are you going to do? Almost everybody is fanatical about something .

[Iron Chancellor]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Not bad.
Maybe that could tie in with that Religion concept that should have been in Civ 3.

Then, with Atheism, libraries, like temples, would start creating happy faces....!

Then, we could create techs like "Social Darwinism" which reduces the chance of cultural assimilation to .01%. What's stopping us? Fascism could make X many unhappy people content OR cause them to dissapear. With "The Enlightenment" all religious buildings stop working and only libraries make unhappy people content, except for those who feel dispair over having no apparent purpose in life. They would commit suicide. With communism, the unhappy and the happy (rich capitalists) would be sent to prison colonies in the your deserts and tundra, and religious building wouldn't work. On the plus side, population control through liver diseases caused by alcoholism.

I'm sorry. Am I being just a little too sarcastic?

[Hagbart]

The Babylonians were not Muslim. That civ disapeared long before Islam rised.

The Persians or Egyptians should not be considered Islamic, most of the time in history they have not been Islamic. They were first conquered by the Arabs in ~700AD, and after that became Islamic.

[QBrick]

The thing is that the Islamic world wasn't flourishing at all, when European kings and emperors took the cross as has been assumed a few post earlier, while Europe drowned in religious fanaticism, what is exaggerated, too.
The Arab world was divided politically, even fighting Dschihad against their Islamic neighbours. No cultural progression being made, just holding the books of the early "liberal" Muslims in their hands, who were fighting against the "Fique" orthodoxy, which took over the Islamic world in the end.
Those books, containing Arabian translations of the old Greek, sparked European renaissance and lead to European superiority in science, society and military.
Ironically the transfer of ideas started with the crusades against a at that time slightly more developed but already stagnating Islamic culture.

# First post.
# Sorry, just wanted to check out my Avatar.
# Edit feature works great.

[ranskaldan]

Well, by the time the crusades came around, the first peak of Islamic culture was already over.

However, why doesn't anyone ever ask if Christianity is overrepresented? If Christianity is not overrepresented, then Islam is very very underrepresented. Very.

[gsmoove23]

Whoa, that is not true Qbrick. The first Crusades were in the 11th century, and arabic culture was not stagnating and to say all arabs did was to preserve and translate older masterpieces is ridiculous. Advances in mathematics, medicine and so much more were being made and many europeans made use of writings of Islamic authors for centuries to come. Of course there was plenty of in-fighting and religious controversy much like in christianity but the culture continued to thrive and outdistance Europe for a long time though its golden age might have passed.

[Beren]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Well, by the time the crusades came around, the first peak of Islamic culture was already over.

However, why doesn't anyone ever ask if Christianity is overrepresented? If Christianity is not overrepresented, then Islam is very very underrepresented. Very.

I agree: that's why I say choose Turkey over Armenia, Mali over Ethiopia and Arabia over Israel.