RELIGION 2.1 (Hosted by Stefu)

[Maniac]

Raingoon, I have also read the Religion thread and I have a good and simple way to spread religion.
Here two extracts from my Culture post.

"2)If a neighbour civ has a lower culture rate, his cities become slowly and automatically converted to your culture. Cities converted to your culture get your city stile. If two civs already have the same city stile, I don't know yet what should represent the conversion. If the capital is converted you get a higher Diplomacy rate. If that civ attacks you, the citizens of the converted city become unhappier = lower happiness rate."

So, I think my Culture SE factor can also be used to simulate the spread of religions. A high Culture rate would mean you have a strong religion and as a consequence the closest cities of other civs become converted.

"5) Your culture rate determines how long it takes for conquered cities to assimilate to your culture and cause less happiness.
In SMAC it was 50 turns. For every +Culture you have more than the city of the previous owner, the city needs 10 less turns to assimilate.
If you have a lower Culture rate, the city doesn't adapt. Means more unhappiness and increases the likelyness of revolting and forming a new civ."

So, if you have a high Culture (=strong religion), the citizens of the conquered city assimilate faster.
But if you have a low Culture, they never assimilate (= they keep their own religion).

BTW, just rename my Religion names to the way the civ interacts with a religion, and religion can still be SE.

Animism stays the same.
Loose Monotheism -> Evangelism
Strict Polytheism -> Worshiping/State Religion
Strict Monotheism -> Fundamentalism
Multitheism -> Religious Freedom
Atheism -> Prosecution

I forgot to mention the penalty of Strict Polytheism/Worshiping/State Religion. It's -2 Culture.

[MBrazier]

Raingoon:

"Don't wanna bore you, but, uh... agreed. Again, simpler's better. Just have a rule that a state religion can be declared at any time, so long as that religion is repped. Holy Cities as capitals, etc."

But that was what I _disagreed_ with! I don't want the "state religion" option to be linked up with the "Holy City" idea. Just consider, for instance, that linking them deprives the player of the opportunity to find a religion without such a city, declare is his state religion, and then _give_ it a central authority himself.

More fundamentally, you're confusing two rather different concepts here. The Holy City of a religion is meant for something like the Vatican for Catholics; it's where the head of the church resides, the center of church government, a "capital" for the religion. Now the whole point of such an institution, for a religion, is to maintain a spokesperson for the religion, and permit its members to make their opinions heard on the international stage. IOW it exists to conduct diplomacy -- so we say that a religion without a Holy City cannot conduct diplomacy.

But these religious "capitals" have nothing whatever to do with religious establishments. During the Protestant Reformation, several European states made Lutheranism or Calvinism their state religion, at a time when Lutherans and Calvinists didn't have any central authority of their own. (In fact not having a Holy City was half the point of being a Protestant...)

"Pretty soon it'll be a good idea to go back and revise the original post to show the model in its revised state."

I'd rather you put the revision in a new post, just to preserve the history of the discussion. But if you prefer revising in place, go right ahead; it's your posting.

M@ni@c:

Two problems with your "Culture SE" idea as you've stated it here --

1) It looks like "one religion for each civilization", which is just plain _too_ simple. There are such things as stateless religions, after all.

2) More basically, it's only half the story. A high Culture stat seems to represent how attractive your civilization is to outsiders; but where is the obvious counterpart, the stat representing resistance to another civilization's blandishments? The modern United States has an extremely powerful culture, intensely attractive to people all over the world -- and is itself attracted to all things foreign, more so than any other country in the world. Would the USA have a high Culture stat, or a low one?

"If a neighbour civ has a lower culture rate, his cities become slowly and automatically converted to your culture."

One part of our current system implements that, in effect: each unit tries to pass its religion on to any other unit it meets. ("Unit" here means both the units you build and the city populations.) I happen to think it's neater to have cities converting their trade partners, not their geographical neighbors -- and certainly less trouble to implement.

Incidentally, if I kept your Culture stat, I'd implement its effects by adjusting the religious "attack" rating for units in your civilization; a positive Culture makes your people more convincing, a negative Culture makes them less so.

[raingoon]

Mbrazier

1. To clarify: in my mind, Holy Cities appear on their own, when certain requirements have been met, and are the sole means for opening up diplomatic relations with that religion. No Holy City, no diplomatic relations.

2. Please explain, what is the game benefit of being a religion's "central authority?"

3. When two civs declare the same state religion, who would be the "central authority?" Am I reading more into your word choice than you intended?

Re the Post, yes, I actually meant that I will write a revised post for the religion model some time next week and re-post as the latest post down here.

For the version 2 model, tell me what you think:

4. "Prophets are random events. A prophet signals the emergence or re-emergence of a religion. One may appear anywhere and at any time, except...

"a. one prophet may not be followed by another in that religion for 1000 years, and unless that religion is totally irradicated.

"b. A non-aligned city where a prophet emerges is immediately 100% a believer in that religion.

"c. Any city that already has at least one religion represented, and a prophet emerges there, immediately alots 33% of its population to that religion. The remaining religions shrink in size, proportionate to their previous percentages.

"5. Unit to Unit Conversion. Units that 'rub shoulders' via occupying adjacent squares _for whatever reason_ automatically resolve ONE religious conflict. This includes military engagement.

"a. In combat, religious conflict happens first, performed by the AI.

"b. Though a unit wins a military combat, it may still have lost the religious conflict and leave the battle converted.

"c. The player cannot tell what religion a unit subscribes to until it reaches a city, and the resultant change in the city's beliefs, if any, is duly recorded in the city graph.

"d. A unit cannot be converted more than one time per turn.

"5A. Unit to City Conversion. As with Unit to Unit, a unit simply occupying a square adjacent to a city square enters into a religious conflict.

"a. A unit may not enter more than one religious conflict with a city while it maintains that belief, and not more than once per turn.

"6. City to City Conversion. A city can seek to convert another city by producing a Cleric unit.

"a. A cleric unit spreads religion from its origin city to its destination city.

"b. Like a trade caravan in Civ II, it must enter its destination city, and is lost after affecting one city.

"c. A cleric unit has an extremely high evangelist/conviction rating, and folows unit to city rules when resolving conflicts. Hence, city conversion is not guaranteed.

"d. Due to its high religious attack, a cleric unit cannot convert units it passes in the field."

6. Question -- How are unit stacks treated in this model?


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited August 06, 1999).]</font>

[raingoon]

M@ni@c

I think we have a fork in the road. Some time ago you stated that religion, as a game play issue, is something to be chosen by a government to control the population, and this belief is evident in your model.

I fundamentally disagree. As in the real world, religions in Civ III should in effect BE the population. This would make controlling your population more challenging, interesting, and fun.

I do support other SE modifiers, like the SMAC model you're suggesting, but they should be part of the player's arsenal for controlling and guiding his civ's religious growth. What you may not realize is that by giving each population the ability to have its own religious belief -- YOU will have more ways of seeing your SE modifiers in action. The culture suggestion Mbrazier made above being just one.

[Maniac]

First let's post my _entire_ Culture post here.

6) Culture

Some threads ago, I said culture would determine population happiness. I've made that a separate SE factor.

1)Culture determines how much it costs for you to bribe a unit or a city.

2)If a neighbour civ has a lower culture rate, his cities become slowly and automatically converted to your culture. Cities converted to your culture get your city stile. If two civs already have the same city stile, I don't know yet what should represent the conversion. If the capital is converted you get a higher Diplomacy rate. If that civ attacks you, the citizens of the converted city become unhappier = lower happiness rate.

3)A civ with a high culture rate has more population immigration from other countries.
Immigration : citizens from other civs migrating to your civ. Immigration/emigration has been suggested in the 'City Growth' thread in Civ3-General/suggestions.
Im- and emigration should depend on your culture rate and the happiness of the concerning city.

4) A high Nationalism(=Probe) rate lowers emigration. This is to simulate the Iron Curtain( or whatever it's called in English).

5) Your culture rate determines how long it takes for conquered cities to assimilate to your culture and cause less happiness.
In SMAC it was 50 turns. For every +Culture you have more than the city of the previous owner, the city needs 10 less turns to assimilate.
If you have a lower Culture rate, the city doesn't adapt. Means more unhappiness and increases the likelyness of revolting and forming a new civ.

6) Can't say numbers. Testplaying needed.

maximum+6
+? : less money needed for bribing; immigrating people from lower cultures; conversion if higher culture; fast assimilation

-? : possible emigration and conversion if lower culture; no assimilation if lower culture
minimum-5

As you can see Culture doesn't affect only religion but primarily im/emigration.
So USA has a high culture(many immigrants).

Culture represents both your attraction and your resistance to other civs. So the human player can also get converted or take over.

"1) It looks like "one religion for each civilization", which is just plain _too_ simple. There are such things as stateless religions, after all."

How about this. In the beginning of the game all your citizens are Animist. When you discover Polytheism, somewhere in your empire an Animist becomes a Turywenzist. That city becomes a Holy City. Then that religion automatically begins spreading through your empire.

It could also spread to other civs by trade routes. There should also be CTP Cleric type units. Perhaps they can only be built under Government - Theocracy or Religion - Evangelism.

Animist citizens could be converted easily (perhaps they should have no defense in religious combat. Religious combat is a suggestion of Raingoon in his post of August 2 ), even if you have a low or the other civ a high Culture.
That way in the early game there could be formed civs with the same religion if one of them discovered Polytheism much earlier than the other.

Converting citizens that already have a belief should be much more difficult.
MBrazier suggested it would affect your religious combat strenght. Good idea. A bit like SMAC Morale.
+2 Cult = +25 % attack and defense in religious combat
+1 = +12%, 0 = normal, -1 = -12%...
The base defense and attack rate would be 1.
Who looses gets the religion of the winner.

The happiness of the citizen should also affect his combat strenght. eg Unhappy citizens should be converted more easily than content or happy ones.
Perhaps this.
Animist = -100%
Revolutionaries = -50% (Read other posts to know more about them)
Unhappy = -25%
Content = normal
Happy = +25%.

About my SE Religion category.
It can still exist with your religion ideas.
The SE choices would be :
Animism
That choice automatically disappears when you discover Polytheism.
Evangelism
You try to spread your religion to other civs. Means increased Culture rate.
Worshiping/Paganism/State Religion
You are not trying to spread your religion. Decreased Culture rate.
Fundamentalism
Increased military.
Religious Freedom
All religions may exist.
Prosecution
You are trying to eliminate a religion.

Perhaps your Religion SE choice should have affect on the religion that has the most followers/citizens in your country.
Or perhaps you could choose a setting for every religion that exists in your civ. Then the number of religions would have to be limited off course.
I prefer the first option = it affects the biggest religion.

[MBrazier]

"1. To clarify: in my mind, Holy Cities appear on their own, when certain requirements have been met, and are the sole means for opening up diplomatic relations with that religion. No Holy City, no diplomatic relations."

Exactly right.

"2. Please explain, what is the game benefit of being a religion's "central authority?"
3. When two civs declare the same state religion, who would be the 'central authority?' Am I reading more into your word choice than you intended?"

Whichever civ did the right things first would have the honor, I suppose. (I was writing off the cuff when I said that...) As for the benefit of having a Holy City in your civ: better diplomatic relations would be the main thing; the religion's head is a little more solicitous towards the country he lives in. You'd also have the Theocracy option for that religion, if you really wanted it.

On prophets:

"A non-aligned city where a prophet emerges is immediately 100% a believer in that religion.
"Any city that already has at least one religion represented, and a prophet emerges there, immediately alots 33% of its population to that religion. The remaining religions shrink in size, proportionate to their previous percentages."

Is this really necessary? In my own mental model each citizen in a city acts as a "unit" for religious purposes. That is, a city with 10 citizens works exactly like a stack of 10 units on one square. I would represent a prophet simply by converting one citizen at random and inflating his religious stats for five years or so; the ordinary conversion logic would insure that that citizen converted several others. This would also mean that any game parameters affecting the conversion logic still work on prophets, which only makes sense.

"The player cannot tell what religion a unit subscribes to until it reaches a city..."

Ick. I think the player _should_ be able to tell the religion of his own units at all times. Knowing what religion other civs' units follow is another thing entirely... put that on the list of Stuff Your Embassies Tell You. Or have spies go out and discover it.

"A city can seek to convert another city by producing a Cleric unit..."

Yes, I like the missionary trick too. However... first, a Cleric unit should (when first built, haha) preach your civ's state religion, not the religion predominant where it was made. Which of course means that if you have no state religion you can't build Clerics. And second, why prevent a Cleric from trying to convert units in the field?

"6. Question -- How are unit stacks treated in this model?"

Now there's a good question. We need something that works quickly... how about letting co-religionists in the same tile add both their ratings, and try conversion as a single unit? Example: a stack of 5, where 3 are Bigendian and 2 Littleendian. The computer runs one conversion attempt, pitting the sum of the Bs' Evangelism against the sum of the Ls' Conviction; if the Bs win one L will convert. Then the computer has the Ls try to convert a B in the same way. (The main use for this is intra-city religious disputes, since cities are permanent stacks in this model.)

And now to M@ni@c:

Now that I've skimmed through the SE thread, it looks to me as if Culture's opposite stat is Nationalism. Since you liked my idea that your Culture affects your units' Evangelism, I suggest that your Nationalism affects your units' Conviction in just the same way. (BTW, SMAC's Morale stat was just the thing I had in mind here -- but we've got to find a better term for this than "religious combat"! Yes, it's resolved the same way as real combat, but the similarity ends there.)

"The happiness of the citizen should also affect his combat strenght. eg Unhappy citizens should be converted more easily than content or happy ones."

Um. The point of the religion system is to _make_ your citizens happy; having happiness affect the conversion logic would put a messy feedback loop into the system.

"About my SE Religion category. It can still exist with your religion ideas. The SE choices would be: Animism..."

My "state religion" idea pretty much replaces this, I feel -- in fact, I'd make "Establish Religion" one of the SE stats, with values of "None" and all the religions your civ has contacted. And since I would far rather give the religions _different_ base values for the conversion stats, I'd make Animism into a "default" religion that just has poor basic ratings. Then the game's first prophet would naturally have a spectacular success, without any special code.

It strikes me, looking back at this, that it's better to establish than not. For the sake of game balance, perhaps we should give "no state religion" a Culture bonus -- your civ is more attractive if you're tolerant. What do you say?

[raingoon]

So you didn't mean to imply any game benefit to laying claim to being the central authority for any religion, by declaring it your state religion. It's just a badge of honor to be the first.

I could use a primer on your concept of "State Religion" as it's evolved since you first posted it. It would help me in writing up the new version for the religion model.

"Ick. I think the player _should_ be able to tell the religion of his own units at all times."

Okay. That was in my original post. I wanted to test this out on others.

"Knowing what religion other civs' units follow is another thing entirely... put that on the list of Stuff Your Embassies Tell You. Or have spies go out and discover it.

Good.

"A city can seek to convert another city by producing a Cleric unit..."

"First, a Cleric unit should... preach your civ's state religion, not the religion predominant where it was made. Which of course means that if you have no state religion you can't build Clerics. "

Nice.

"And second, why prevent a Cleric from trying to convert units in the field?"

Too powerful. I suppose you could argue he'd be like a diplomat, essentially bribing units he came across to his religion. But I have to point out, in this case it costs me nothing to have my cleric go out and convert units. And I haven't figured out what it would do to the balance of the normal unit to unit interaction. This cleric would seem more like a prophet.

"We need something that works quickly... how about letting co-religionists in the same tile add both their ratings, and try conversion as a single unit?"

My question gets down to, Can units still fight together with different beliefs? Some will complain that that doesn't seem real in certain government/social settings.

"The main use for this is intra-city religious disputes, since cities are permanent stacks in this model."

The question of stack behavior has to be considered some more. Perhaps what you suggested would work, perhaps it all depends on the government/SE status of your civ. Maybe M@ni@c's culture model comes in here.

It might be that only a Holy City can declare "Religion X an enemy of all religion Ys" and then you've got real trouble if you're cohabitating those two types in your stacks on the battlefield. You have to be able to enact some SE modifier, or change governments/build a wonder, etc. to counter that. Alternatively, you have to homogenize one or the other.

But the normal state of affairs for a "stack," be it a population acting like a stack in a city, or a real stack on its way into battle, religion is a laizes faire (sp?) proposition. Let the troops/people work it out amongst themselves. If no Holy City has emerged to lead one religion, you don't have anything to worry about.

Or if it has, then sufficient establishing certain freedoms in your civ to protect free expression and belief, could help to counter it.

"we've got to find a better term for this than 'religious combat'!"

I suggest, "religious debate." Avoid any reference to conflict, combat, etc.

[Maniac]

I have adapted Culture to make it a better Religion factor. Why? The im/emigration doesn't fit into the same factor with religion.
eg Religious Freedom should have increased immigration, but a lower religious debate strenght.
So impossible to represent with culture. That's why immigration has nothing to do anymore with culture. Now it's only determined by the happiness of cities/world. This should also make making an immigration model easier.
I will post this on the SE thread.

6) Culture

1)Culture determines how easy it for a Clerics to convert population (and units?) to your faith.

2)If a civ has a lower culture rate, his cities become automatically converted to your religion, if he has a trade route with one of your cities (or simply by geographical location?). If the capital is converted you get a higher Diplomacy rate. If that civ attacks you, the citizens of the converted city become unhappier = lower happiness rate...

3) Your culture rate determines how long it takes for conquered cities to assimilate to your culture and cause less happiness.
In SMAC it was 50 turns. For every +Culture you have more than the city of the previous owner, the city needs 10 less turns to assimilate.
If you have a lower Culture rate, the city doesn't adapt. Means more unhappiness and increases the likelyness of revolting and forming a new civ.

4) Culture affects your attack strenght(=evangelism) in religious debate/combat. Per +Culture you get +12.5% in combat. Per -Culture -12.5%.
The happiness of the population also affects the strenght.
Aristocratian : +25%
Worker : normal
Proletarian : -25%
Revolutianary : -50%
Animist : -100%
Animists are citizens without an advanced religion.

5)Your religious defense(=conviction) is determined by Nationalism.

6) Can't say numbers. Religious debate still busy on the Religion thread.

7) Numbers are relative. Means the effects are also determined by the other civ's Culture rate.

+? : Conversion easier; faster than normal assimilation

-? : Your population gets converted; no assimilation if lower culture

MBrazier :

Good idea about Nationalism/conviction.
I will edit my nationalist post.

It seems that you and Raingoon are discussing already quite a while about what makes something a Holy City.
Simple, where the religion arose, is the holy city.

"The happiness of the citizen should also affect his combat strenght. eg Unhappy citizens should be converted more easily than content or happy ones."

Um. The point of the religion system is to _make_ your citizens happy; having happiness affect the conversion logic would put a messy feedback loop into the system.

I don't know if I understand you well or if you understand me well.
Isn't it logic that unhappy citizens are much willing to accept a new religion?
Isn't it logic that an unhappy citizen/city is easier to convert?

"My "state religion" idea pretty much replaces this, I feel -- in fact, I'd make "Establish Religion" one of the SE stats, with values of "None" and all the religions your civ has contacted. And since I would far rather give the religions _different_ base values for the conversion stats, I'd make Animism into a "default" religion that just has poor basic ratings. Then the game's first prophet would naturally have a spectacular success, without any special code."

So if I get it right, you want to create a SE category like Government, Market, Value... and give it as SE choices the religions of the civs you met.
Sounds OK to me, except this.
Will that SE choices be real-life religions? I have no problem with that, but others do.
Will that SE choices be fake religions like Turywenzism? I am against that. I find the name OK to represent _a_ religion in this discussion thread, but I wouldn't want to see it in a historical game.
And you want to give them SE factors(is it that what you mean with values?).
Sure, but what will they be? Religions evolve during time. That's in my eyes the most important roadblock for using real-life religions.
So unless you find a solution for this, I would stick with my SE choices.

"It strikes me, looking back at this, that it's better to establish than not. For the sake of game balance, perhaps we should give "no state religion" a Culture bonus -- your civ is more attractive if you're tolerant. What do you say?"

Do you describe 'no state religion' as Religious Freedom? Then it should have a culture penalty for the reasons I described in the beginning of this post.

[raingoon]

M@ni@c

I am going to be reposting the religion model based on our discussions here. From the previous posts, I now think that your culture model should be the main SE factor in player contol of his/her civ's religions, and will reference those different ways accordingly. I'll go back and try to summarize, but look for more question and discussion as I get closer to actually writing it out.

Regarding names -- I think you're right about historical names being better. The only hope of suggesting this to Firaxis is if each "set religion" under SE (as Mbrazier mentioned) has a zero base value. Obviously Firaxis will decide, but I think a sensible solution to the naming problem will help our case.

[Maniac]

Wow, quick response Raingoon!

When making your model, don't forget that Culture(should we rename it to Evangelism?) determines your religious 'attack' rate and Nationalism your religious 'defense' rate.

Regarding names, so you agree with MBrazier about the SE choices being the civ's religions?
What do you mean with 'zero base value'? Do you mean 'no positive or negative factors'?

If not so, I almost completed my Religion category.

Animism : -2 Res
->with the invention of Polytheism the Research penalty disappears, resulting in 'no pos or neg'.
Worshiping : +2 Urb, +2 Nat, -2 Cult
Evangelism : +2 Cult, +1 ?, -2 Dipl
Fundamentalism : +2 Mor, +2 Sup, -2 Dipl
Religious Freedom : +2 Hap, +1 Dipl, -2 Nat, -1 Cult
Prosecution : +2 Pol, +2 Cult, -2 Hap

That's my temporary idea. Comments? I will explain the factors on request.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>

[Harel]

Hey maniac, followed you up
Just a few questions:

First, I hope you don't mean a state religoun is a paganic religoun, right?
Secondly, why should evanglism get a research bonus?
Third, what excatly is prosecution? A religounless state?
Four, whath happened to Athiesm? It IS the most spreaded religoun today. And no, it shouldn't get a happiness minus. I am not less happier cause I am a declared Athiest.

Riddle me this

[Maniac]

To Harel, but also contains useful information for Raingoon's model.

1) Woops, slight mistake about Paganism.

2) I know it sucks. I just gave it because I know no other benefit of Evangelism than a increased culture rate. Suggestions would be very welcome.

3) Under Prosecution your civ is trying to eliminate a certain religion in your cities and install another one. That's why the increased culture. No atheism at all.

Raingoon, MBrazier : Makes me think that there is need of a State Religion category where all the available religions can be chosen, just as MBrazier said. Your choice would have no effect(no pos or neg) except that that religion is the one you try to spread with your culture.

4) I had heavy Atheism opposition by Snowfire and Jon Miller, and you weren't there to help me!! Even atheism seemed to provoke religious wars and arguements under the people. That's why I (the original idea was from Jon) came up with other SE choices that can't cause racial wars. And the State Religion category can contain real-life religions cause they don't get any SE effects.

No, Religious Freedom is the most spreaded religion today. There is no state in the world that has Atheism as it's State Religion. The USSR I would count under prosecution.

BTW Raingoon and MBrazier, make sure there is an Atheist State Religion option in your category.

The State Religion category appears after the discovery of Polytheism.
Atheism
Islam
Christianity
Hinduism
Buddhism

Sorry Harel no Judaism, you can't really call that a world religion.

M@ni@c
Happy Atheist.

[Harel]

I didn't mean any nation support Atheism: I ment the more people are Athiest then any stream of a specific religoun.
For example, Christinaty, Islam, Budahism, Hindoism, all have several streams and cult inside them.
All atheist posses the same world view-point: therefor it's the most powerful religous stream today.
And you HAVE to include Atheism.
Even more so if you want your model to be "no-attachment", meaning no real names to cause feuds. Atheism is as "no-attachment" as you can get, it just float above everyone.

And I care not for jewdism, so you can scrap it for all I car maniac

How about +Urb for evanglist? Isn't breeding with zeal the hallmark of any good religoun? Which, btw, the reason why I support -2 Urb against -2 Hap to Atheism.

BTW, you point out Jon and I will aim. No one should even doubt that Atheism have room in religoun, more then any other type.

[Maniac]

I know Atheism is very important and I know it is 'no-attachment', but for some reason my(our) atheist minds don't get, most people(MBrazier, Jon Miller, Snowfire) DO see it as attached and don't want it.

Worshiping already has +2 Urb. Perhaps I should melt the 2 choices together.
? : +2 Urb, +2 Cult, -?

Just want to say something I already said in SE thread (so Raingoon reads it).
Perhaps Clerics should only be built under Evangelism and don't give it a second bonus.

[Harel]

Maniac, I allready posted this on the SE thread, but I will also replay here.
SnowFire and Mbrazier have problems with Atheisim?
Well... I am going to be very rude. SCREW THEM. I know, I know. Bad langauge. But I am annoyed. Atheism rules a big portion of the world today: it's a major belief, just like christianty and Budahism. And, I may add, it's the only belief no portion of here ( cult, seperate stream, or etc ) that has no bloodshed in it's history. No silly praises, worshiping, etc.
The SE options are not here to please people: I don't like dictatorship. So, we won't have Despotism as an option? No, ofcourse we will. Because we had Despotism in history.
And Atehaism? More then 60% of the people in europe stated "they fill no real attraction to religoun", and more then 20% "they don't belive in the existance of god". Well?
SE are not about what people like here. It's about society, past, present and future.
Atheism exist as a major power, and therefor must be presented.

Here is my suggestion:

First off, -2 dipl isn't a real threat.
Secondly, I think I covered just any thing we had along history... Not extreamly sure about the SE thought. About nations which oppose religoun: well, just pick police state and religous freedom ( cause their is no national selected religoun ). They should negate each-other bonuses.

* Animism: no pos, no neg
->Polythaism: +1 cult ( Budahism )
* Loose monotheism: +2 Hap, +2 Urb, -2 Cult
* Strict monotheism: +2 Morale, +2 Pol, -2 Hap
* Religous Freedom: +2 Cult, +2 Dipl, -2 Pol
* Atheism: +2 Res, -2 Urb