RELIGION 2.1 (Hosted by Stefu)

[Maniac]

Harel, you can't just screw people . You have to be more polite. Your idea may be good, but if it is not accepted by certain people, it won't come in the summary.

If it depended on me alone I would recall Strict Polytheism to Hinduism and recall Fundamentalism Islam.

But that is impossible cause then the ****ing Firaxis gets problems with ****ing laws.

You don't have to convince me of the importance of Atheism, but the inbelievers.

-2 Dipl not a real thread? Then it's the job of Firaxis to make Diplomacy better.

BTW, you forget to screw Jon Miller. He irritates me most with his stupid who and method.
BTW, don't screw Snowfire and MBrazier. They have also good ideas.

[Harel]

Double post
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>

[Harel]

Maniac, I don't want to "screw" anyone. Just got a little mad. Beside, I don't plan to screw Jon or any one else alone: if anything, i'll do a global screw.
joke. Kidding. Onwards.

I really do understand why people want to keep real religons off civ III. You know what? I accept that opinion. I really do. I too don't want names like Islam and budahism inside civ III.
First, if upset people. Secondly, civ is about making new histories, with new cultures. India can just as well develop the Islam in an alternative world. ( Gee, and I just saw a "slider" re-run ).

The point is, if you want to keep the religon types in the game "off-limits", you HAVE to include Atheism. I mean, Atheism is the only global religon possible!

We have thousands of different religon and under-currents in the world. All with a different code of honor, protocols, beliefs... in a different world, i guess every religon would be slightly different then our own. No other way.

The only truly global religon is Athiesm: the lack of any religon. I mean, a zero is always a zero, regardlss of what world you are.

So don't say Islam, say Strict monothaism. All I said it, that starting to even denounce monothaism is just plain silly: are we, in the name of politicly correct, going to cut religon into: "worship, evenglist, proseuction?!" huh? Comeon people. Can't we even use religon catagories?!

But hey, even in sub-typing, you still need to have Athiesm. Ok, you got worship, religous freedom, etc. You still need to have an option of "no religon". You know, some people prefer to go without the bloodshed and primitive thinking that go hand in hand with all religous beliefs ( that's why the +2 res ). No matter how far you want to analyze religon structre, no matter how far you take it. Why not just cut to it: belief, strong belief? But wait, no, strong belief leads to islam again. Can't have that. So, let's just have on value: belief. Yeah, that's right! That's the most politicly correct thing! No naming, no catagorizing peole and history. They belive. Thats all.

Maniac, I declare a formal remake to religon section:

Religon options

* Belief: no pos, no neg

End of religon options

But wait! You have belief... what about lack of any belief?
You see guys? No matter how far you go, how much you go forward in the name of politcly correctness until you refine all of the human beliefs into one pure conecpt, you still need Athiesm. Hand in hand.

Annoying heretic, aren't I?
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>

[Jon Miller]

Hi all

I love you too, Harel and M@ni@c

I hate to spoil this whole greatness of atheism party but..

Harel, Atheism no bloodshed? please, Every single state in history that was atheistic was as bad as the spanish inquisition

The French right after there religion, the USSR, and others

Ok so Europe has 40% agnostics and 20% atheists

that is only 20% atheists and it is by far the most atheistic area on earth

and how does europe being so atheist make it the future of the world?

you a far to eurocentric now

the world of importance has grown beyond europe in the past hundred years, in case you had not checked

M@ni@c what bugs you so much about my who/method system? I tell you what I don't like about your system (by the way, there never will be one set system for bell to put down and I don't think that bell should post one down when ppeople do not agree on one)

by the way, in the interest of civ3 (which should be the reason why we are all here) we need to put aside any antagonism we might fill towards eachother (I don't feel any towards you but apparently you feel some towards me) so that the most ideas as possible can come about

Jon Miller

[raingoon]

Harel, some comments from you --

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

"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."

This is so lame, I now have to think about this ***T, instead of the substance of what anybody is saying.

First, anti-semitic sentiments do not belong in any all-inclusive threads and I don't care who is in charge of this one, I am telling you they do not belong here. If you can't handle it, than you do not belong here.

Also, saying "screw somebody" is not offensive merely because of "bad" language. It is offensive to find such bad thinking in our midst.

And M@ni@c:

"BTW, you forget to screw Jon Miller. He irritates me most with his stupid who and method. BTW, don't screw Snowfire and MBrazier. They have also good ideas."

M@ni@c, the same now goes for you. Think about what you are saying. Both of you usually seem intelligent. I'm going to leave this thread for awhile, and if you want to trash people or anything else, just do it on an off-topic board. But unless the level of discussion stays at the level of dilligence it was at, I'm outta here.



<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>

[Harel]

Oh pls Raingoon! Do bother to read the posts before you comment!

Maniac noted all the major religns and didn't note jewdism. He also add, BECAUSE I AM JEWISH that "don't takeo offesnse, Harel, but I don't belive jewdism has enough spread to be a global religon".

Since I only born a jew, and don't approve of any religon, I replied as as JOKE ( mark the , the UBB note it quite nicely ) that I don't care about it either and he could scrap it for all i care.

But then again, you could have just read one post earlier.

[raingoon]

Harel

I do read the posts, and did read them.

What difference does it make if you were born Jewish? Did you stop to think there may be other believers in Judaeism here who do not share your beliefs?

I love how some people never want to be attacked personally, but will defend themselves with the most personal of facts. It doesn't matter what religion you are, Harel, or how many ways you "wink", it was an imprudent comment.

But the thrust of my criticism, again, which you have not addressed, was not your words or insults, but the quality of thinking you were displaying in using them. And, I would add, in defending them subsequently.

Look, I support your right to say whatever you want, as long as you believe it's the truth. Including a joke at a religion's expense (you needn't claim birthright). But if we want to be persuasive with our ideas here, that is, if you want BR and Firaxis to actually implement what we're suggesting into Civ3 (that is, after all, the point) then we can't degenerate into "SCREW YOU" epitaths and busting on certain relgions with a wink. It's lame. And a waste of everybody's time.

So do I really need to say again that it _might_ not be such a good idea to speak dismissively of a specific religion on the Civ3 religion board, in the context of a debate on what religions to include or exlude and what their value is?

Which is all to say why I have not been convinced one iota to assign values to religion in the game.

<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by raingoon (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>

[Harel]

Sorry guys, I have to respond but this doesn't have any information beside to Raingoon.

What does it matter I am jewish Raingoon?

I used the phrase "screw them", after certain took dis-respect toward a belief system that I, and millions other, hold dear. They claim it's not a belief: in my view point, it's just one step away from saying it has no values at all.

You however, in my eyes atleast, made a much bigger offense. You accused me of anti-semite feelings, of RACISM. Now, I don't know where you come from or what you belive in, but in my country Racism is the worst sin possible. And you blurbed it out, sent it hurtling to the air...

Do you know me? Do you know what you accuse? "Screw" might be a brainless, childish curse-word. True. But Racism is a crime, a sin. How DARE you simply accuse someone of this? What? Beacause I said "scrap jewism?" Because I am not fond of religons? I think that it's clear from my posts that i hold nothing special jewdism, just against religon as general.

One should be careful with charged words. Some people can find it amusing that you accuse a jew of anti-semite feelings. Hey, even Sienfield did an episode with it ( Jerry strange uncle, Leo which accued everyone, even a Rabi in being an anti-semtie ). But i am not amused. My Grandfather was a partizne and fought the nazi's. I KNOW what anti-semite feelings are. I fight everyday to protect my people: i don't know if you know this, but I am an officer in Israel army. I love my people because they are a part of this country: I care not for thier religon, or mine.

Heed me well: dis-approvel is not like hate. I dispprove of religon of any sort, I mock those who still search for god in the last stages of the second millenium. I think they are lost souls, alienated by technology and harsh world to seek comfort in something that isn't there.
But I don't HATE them. I don't hate Islamics, i don't hate christians, i don't hate jews. I hold my own view point and pity does who don't. All of us do the same. I have no hate for any people on this world. I only hate does who hates other simply because of who they are.
This is how I was brought. That naziasm, and any sort of racism, is an illness on this world.

My only regret that people today tend to accuse of Racism far far too swiftly. I deminish the crime, the cruelity of the hatred.

We are all humans. I apoligze again if anyone took offense with my cursing. I will mad, I am intitled too. Everyone are. And you Raingoon, must learned what the smily symbol means. Trust me, it's very clear when I am joking and when I am not.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>

[Theben]

I must agree with raingoon(sp?). I got into an argument with Scooter months ago when I tried to suggest SE modifiers with "real-name" religions. I couldn't get much support, and he pointed out the problems that could be incurred by Firaxis if they made assumptions about religions. I tried watering it down; I even suggested RANDOM values that occurred with RANDOMLY assigned names for religions. Still it was a no-go. So I gave up. I still think real name religions could be used, but without any SE effects assigned to them.

Anyway my ideas for religion are both SE based & diplomacy based. The SE choices are generic; they apply to all religions, and it stands opposed to secularism (read: atheism). If slider bars are used then a civ can have a religious pop AND a secular one. Your SE choice will include their combined effects. The diplomacy ones are in diplomacy & are too long to write here.

[Harel]

Hmmm.
I am a blunt person Raingoon. Always have been. In face of stupidty and hard-mindness I maddned quickly.
I was angry. I used a words that I shouldn't have. I apoligized. Twice. I said i ered. Still, you say that I don't

...criticism, again, which you have not addressed, was not your words or insults, but the quality of thinking you were displaying in using them.

Do you know what? I wasn't wrong. I shouldn't have talked so harshly, yes. But I wasn't wrong.
Because, in all of this debate Raingoon YOU ignored the reason I got mad. I did not "bust" on any religon.
Snowfire, MBrazier and Jon miller, all took an insulting episode to cancel a belief I and many more belive in. Atheism is not a belief acording to our schoolars. But, if it's not a belief, it has no values. And then, I donth have values.
I don't belive in Monotheism. Yet, I don't deny it's right to exist in civ III. Many of us don't approve of some of the paganic ceremons. Yet we have no problem that it shell join this new game.

But why, raingoon, you who jumps to quickly to defend a religon from a joke ( which, and I don't care what you say I am more then intitled to make, birth right of no birth right ) don't stop people who want to cancel a major religon in the current world simply because they don't belive in it?
People wanted to add multiathism, the "new-age" religon. It's newer and got less members then Athiesm. Yet no one complained it was suggested.

Atheism is a unique religon which defer then any other religon. It has a long historical chain, many great philoshopers were atheists and many people are today. So, when people attack Atheism ( and not other "new and unpopuler" religons such as multiathism ) the only reasoning is that they simply don't belive in it, that's why. I can't think of a single religon model without Atheism: it's required to mentain equa-liberium.

I don't regret I lashed out. I should have. I would not agree that people would simply suggest to cancel a religon for the basical reason that they don't belive in it.
Did I ever sugest to cancel jewism? No. I was kidding. Did I sugest to cancel the entire mono-atheist religons, or just ANY religon on the face of the earth for the simply reason that I don't belive in it? No.

Why didn't you stand up THEN, Raingoon, and told them that Atheist should be included too, like any other religon? Maybe because you don't belive in it too?
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>

[will I]

I'd like to jump into the end of the religion debate, but as it pertains to the game, rather than the individual commenters' views. I think many of the ideas I've read will make the game more interesting. I'd like to suggest a few additional ideas.

1. Holy City: It seems like most of the commenters are treating the holy city as something that a government can proclaim when, in reality, the most prominent holy cities in our world -- Mecca, Jerusalem, Medina, Rome -- exist because of events in the life in the history of the religion unrelated to government action. I would suggest, therefore, that the holy city be the starting point of a particular religion.

2. Effect of a holy city: I would propose that the civilization that encompasses a holy city would be more susceptible to conversion by that religion. This benefit would increase if the civilization proclaimed that religion to be the state religion. If a civilization attacked or destroyed the Turywenzist holy city, Turywenzists in that civ would instantly become unhappy.

3. Diplomatic interaction: I think that requiring a holy city for players to engage in diplomatic interactaction with a religion both decreases realism and lessens the fun. True, protestantism never had a "holy city," but governments could interact with protestant churches at first by approaching influential leaders and later by dealing with the heads of particular denominations. My proposal that each religion get a holy city would eliminate this problem.

4. Atheism: It doesn't seem terribly unrealistic to make atheism a religious choice. Of course, religious improvements would have no effect on atheistic citizens.

5. Religious improvements: I suggest that each religious improvement have a particular faith attached and have two effects: Increasing the rate of conversion for that city and increasing the happiness for people of that religion. However, to avoid pointless tearing down of buildings when religions change, I also propose that a civ have the option to reconsecrate a religious improvement to another religion upon payment of a certain amount of gold.

6. Conversion: I think that the conversion proposals are somewhat flawed. I may not be able to hit all of it right now, as my time at work is drawing to a close. However, here goes:

6.1. General concept. Someone has stated that under the current proposal, religion is a virus that your civilization gets. I think a better way to look at it is that religion is a virus that your CITIZENS get. The question, then, is how citizens get the virus and under what conditions they succumb.

6.2. Conversion of tiles. I don't think this is a good idea. Civ has traditionally been a game of cities. In addition, it seems like doing a religion check on every tile every turn would take a tremendous amount of time.

6.3. Basic conversion of cities. Each religion would get a basic proselytization factor. This factor could be increased by a player (whether or not it had proclaimed a state religion) paying for missionary work. Each turn, there would be a calculation (similar to the one described for tiles) in which citizens in one city could potentially convert citizens in nearby cities. A similar factor would govern defense against conversion.

6.4. Conversion of military units. I do not like the idea of there being a religion check each time two units pass. First, this is unrealistic -- opposing armies seldom converted each other. Second, this feature would too readily result in flip-flop conversions of units. I suggest insead that unit conversion work similar to the city conversion described above -- that units be susceptible to conversion if in the vicinity of a city with citizens of another religion. Of course, their proximity to cities with citizens of their religion would be a defensive factor.

6.5. Conversion of cities by military units. I would scrap this as unrealistic. I can't think of many occasions when military units hovering outside of hostile cities achieved a religious conversion. However, if military units conquered a city, I would suggest that they have an opportunity to proselytize for each turn that they stayed in the city.

6.6. Clerics. I would suggest replacing the "missionary" unit with a "cleric." The cleric could be used to convert one or more citizens in a city, to stir up rebellion among citizens that share its religion, or, if stacked with military units, defend them against conversion by a city.

That's all for now. I'll think some more and be back tomorrow. Thanks for an interesting debate.

[raingoon]

Will

I have wondered if anyone had problems with the virus model as I had first laid it out.

1. Your point about military units not being able to win (what we've short-handed to) a "religious debate" is well taken.

I suggest insead that... units be susceptible to conversion if in the vicinity of a city with citizens of another religion.

Could you elaborate on how that would work?

2. Yes, currently the thinking is that each individual population unit would have its own religious affiliation, as I think you suggest.

3.Each religion would get a basic proselytization factor.

If you mean that factor is the same for each religion, then I agree. If not, than not. Please explain?

I think in general the concept of unit conversion and city conversion needs to be simpler (than I had it, anyway). I'll think about this too. I think your city conquer idea is on to something...

Harel

If Firaxis ultimately chooses to put religions in the game (as I think we all sincerely hope! ) then I would agree that atheism should be one of them. Was it you who pointed out that in fact atheism could have an equalizing effect? I agree it would, to an extent. I also recognize there are some who would be offended by its inclusion, and so I ultimately fall back to the need to come up with a viable alternative to labeling religions.

But I remain convinced that giving bonuses or penalties to different religions, even if they are as generic as "animism", is a non-starter.

In the current model, as I understand it, bonuses and penalties are culture factors set in SE. This needs some more clarification.

[raingoon]

Harel

A personal note -- _I_ am capable of making the same types of joking comments for which I criticized you. So if yours makes you racist, which as you've stated you are quite obviously not, then I must be that too. So let us go in peace, I meant no offense to you.

Also, sorry to hear you felt your belief in atheism attacked earlier. I did not read the posts that specifically prompted you to get angry. I only addressed the one that made me angry.

Really, I just love this idea of religion in Civ3, and I want to keep the discussion open and friendly.

In fact, what do you think of my religion virus model? (posted earlier).

raingoon

[MBrazier]

Harel:

You appear to be mixing together two things that really ought to be kept separate: the active denial that God exists, and an attitude of indifference to the question. I personally reserve the term "atheism" to the former; the latter I call "indifference" (logically enough) or "worldliness". When you remark that "atheism" has never brought people to shed blood, and when you ask for an "atheist" choice for state religion, you really mean indifference.

Well, our tentative system already has a choice signifying indifference. It's "None of the Above" -- the choice not to establish a state religion at all. You can't get more indifferent than that. Now if a player takes that choice he can't build Clerics and gets no benefit from Temples, but that's only sensible. Can you imagine anyone standing on a street corner and preaching, with great fervor, that whether God exists is a question of no importance?

And it's true that indifference has inspired no wars -- because it has inspired nothing. It is indeed the zero of religious positions; it is an emptiness, a vacuum, a nothingness. And from nothing comes nothing. All that has ever been achieved in human history, has been achieved because somebody was _not_ indifferent.

Everyone:

On this argument about whether real religions ought to be in the game: the best feature of the system Raingoon and I are working on is that you can call the game religions anything you like. The names attached to game religions have exactly the same significance as the names attached to civilizations do -- namely, little more than convenient labels.

And now, back to the serious work of this thread. M@ni@c (BTW, do you mind if I call you Bruce?), I do agree that unhappy people are more receptive to new doctrines in the real world. But the way you've got it set up, a few aristocrats will be able to convert a large mob of the discontented. And still worse, the same aristocrats can twist an equal number of your "revolutionaries" around their little fingers. Worst of all, the conversions would raise some of those discontented and revolutionary citizens up to contentment, making it much more difficult to convert them back. Did you intend that?

My suggestion that not having a state religion give a Culture bonus makes sense only if Culture affects migration and assimilation, as you had it doing originally. As you intelligently observe, the most realistic effect of "religious freedom" is to attract immigrants and weaken religious convictions -- which can be simulated exactly in your former SE terms as a Culture bonus and Nationalism penalty. I left off the Nationalism penalty for reasons of game balance, not realism.

About the Cleric, Raingoon: Yes, I see the difficulty. Setting the Cleric's religious stats high enough that he has a shot at converting a city also makes converting a lone unit into a nearly sure thing, and we don't really want it to be that easy. How about this? Leave the Cleric's stats at their normal levels, but rule that Clerics cannot themselves be converted except by other Clerics. Then add a special "city conversion" attack, which lets the Cleric attempt conversion once on each citizen (rather than taking the whole stack at once) but which also disbands the Cleric at turn's end.

[Maniac]

Shew, am I glad this ended. I feared this would become a religious war.

BTW Raingoon, do you recognize atheism as a worthy and full belief?
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited August 09, 1999).]</font>