New Religion Ideas - Well if its still possible to make suggestions.

[beyowulf]

Been going over the religion ideas. About the ideas for a one true religion, perhaps one of the ways of identifying it would be a higher than normal conviction level. Also, a religion's 'stats' would be unknown to the player unless investigated, or maybe they would be gradually become known over time.

Also as for atheism. I could see as an advantage, double or maybe triple research, but at a loss of not happiness, but efficiency, as the citizens no longer care about the long-term consequences of their actions, and thus there is more graft and corruption. This might make subverting the city easier as well.

[C0ckney]

Hmmm,
not sure if I like the idea of the one true religion (Think how un-pc that would be),

Also I think that the religion should be a city based thing rather than nation based,
mabey the state could encourge a particular religion but the city could have its own religion
Also I think that there should be religios minorities in large cities and that this could be a possible cause of strife

Any thoughs on this?

------------------
Cockney used to be schizophereic but we'er ok now

[beyowulf]

>>
Hmmm,
not sure if I like the idea of the one true religion (Think how un-pc that would be),
>>

Well I suppose it could be an toggleable option.

>>
Also I think that the religion should be a city based thing rather than nation based,
mabey the state could encourge a particular religion but the city could have its own religion
>>

Well I think it could start in a city, but perhaps also with the chance to spread nationally, or even globally, independent of national borders.

>>
Also I think that there should be religios minorities in large cities and that this could be a possible cause of strife
>>

Well the possiblity to have more than one religion in a city should be distinct possibility.

Also one thing I forgot to add earlier. Also one thing to add, if a nation tries to tamper with a religion(i.e.change it attributes, like change a religion that encourages militarism, into one that favors pacifism(sp?) than if successful changed, the religions evangelism and conviction stats are lowered, thus making it less likely to spread, and make it adherents easier to be converted.


------------------

[Maniac]

Hey, I'm one of the makers of the religion model and I don't recall us ever talking about a 'one true religion' you should discover. Where have you found this idea in the List v2? Or is it an idea discussed somewhere else?

And why would atheists not think about the long-term consequences of their actions?? You're on the edge of personally offending me.
[This message has been edited by M@ni@c (edited May 06, 2000).]

I think that Religion should influence how much a Civ likes your reign. Example: If a city is 90% Islamic and it's under a dominatingly Christian society it may feel very strongly about joining a Civ that is majority Islamic. Maybe it can lessen the money needed to subvert a city.

Along with this, new unit - "missionary". A priest that visits other cities and converts a certain percent of the pop. to the religion you choose. (Constrain: doesn't work on a civ under a fundy gov.) Any thoughts on this?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[DanM]

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 04-29-2000 01:21 PM Also as for atheism. I could see as an advantage, double or maybe triple research, but at a loss of not happiness, but efficiency, as the citizens no longer care about the long-term consequences of their actions

This puzzles me.Just because someone is an atheist they dont care about how what they do affects the future???
They all live from day to day and dont care about how their actions affect their family or friends or others???
I'm sure if you think about that statement,it's not what you really meant...right?

[DanM]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-06-2000 02:19 PM I think that Religion should influence how much a Civ likes your reign. Example: If a city is 90% Islamic and it's under a dominatingly Christian society it may feel very strongly about joining a Civ that is majority Islamic.

Maybe if your civ is democratic or something similar,the city might also make a peaceful petition to you as the leader stating that they wish to become independent or join another civ,and if you refuse,maybe tensions might rise and their would be the threat of a revolt.
As far as the missionary unit goes,it could be interesting.But I think certain types of governments would consider it a threat to their national security if someone was to send a missionary onto their territory to try and "convert" their citizens.(Imagine christian missionaries going into communist China during the reign of Mao).

[beyowulf]

Hey, I'm one of the makers of the religion model and I don't recall us ever talking
>>
about a 'one true religion' you should discover. Where have you found this idea in the List v2? Or is it an idea discussed somewhere else?
>>

Was on one of the lists, forget which.

>>
And why would atheists not think about the long-term consequences of their actions?? You're on the edge of personally offending me.
>>

Okay, let me rephase. I think there would be less incentive to, say, -not- take a bribe, or be corrupt. If your not caught at it, the damage will be to society, not you, and in another few decades you'll be dead, and it won't be your problem anymore, anyway. A religious person would probably think more about how his religion views his actions, and the long-term consequence, how it would affect society.

Better?

DanM ~ They have been since before 1800s. :-) (Replying to Christian Missionaries to China)

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited May 06, 2000).]

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-06-2000 11:10 PM Better?

No. Not really. You're treading quite a fine line there.

- MKL

[DanM]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-06-2000 11:11 PM DanM ~ They have been since before 1800s. :-)

I realize that maybe I should re-phrase.
Christian missionaries going to a place like China can be a very dicy proposition,given the fact that 99.99999% of the population isn't christian or maybe even never heard of the christian faith.The people and maybe even the government may not take kindly to foreigners coming to their country and telling them that what they have believed for the last who knows how many thousand years is wrong.(my grandmother happens to know christian missionaries who went there).
I personally think they have no business going there,but that's just my opinion.


[This message has been edited by DanM (edited May 09, 2000).]

[beyowulf]

quote:

Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-06-2000 11:10 PM
Better?



No. Not really. You're treading quite a fine line there.

Okay, do you not like the phrasing, or am I wrong, and why. Can you give me a good strong reason why an atheist to keep integrity? Now mind you, I am not saying its impossible, just harder.

By the way, on a separate note, how do you get those lines that in which only the previously posted material is encapsulated. You know, the material your replying to is in blue, but the material your posting is in black?

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-07-2000 06:21 PM quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-06-2000 11:10 PM Better? No. Not really. You're treading quite a fine line there. Okay, do you not like the phrasing, or am I wrong, and why. Can you give me a good strong reason why an atheist to keep integrity? Now mind you, I am not saying its impossible, just harder. By the way, on a separate note, how do you get those lines that in which only the previously posted material is encapsulated. You know, the material your replying to is in blue, but the material your posting is in black?

You mean like this Beyowulf? It's called "reply with quote" (upper right side of the original post). I don't think that athiests have no morals and I feel that is what he is getting at. Athiests aren't always the hellraising devil worshipers that religious propoganda makes them out to be. They are more likely than not people who simply wish not to associate with one particular religion. It may be against their personal beliefs and such...



------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

My opinion as well. But it has been an intrical part of history. The Christian's "showed the light of the one true God" to the New world and the far east. All though it wasn't overy liked by government it was a big part of the spread of religion and ideas.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[MidKnight Lament]

First of all, consider me agnostic (as far as I understand the meaning of the word), rather than an atheist.

Yes, you've pretty much guessed why I think your statement is a bit dodgy. Saying that aethiests are more succeptable to corruption is a huge over-generalisation based on little more than an assumption.

It's probably as bad as if I suggested that religious citizens in Civ should be more likely to be invloved in suicide cults like the one in Africa that recently locked 300 odd people in a building and set it ablaze without half of their consent.

Both statements would be very dodgy. You wouldn't like me assuming that you might join a suicide cult because you are (I assume) religious (not that I'm assuming you're about to join a cult), just the same as I don't like you assuming that I might be more open to corruption than you because I'm not religious.

If we get right down to it, perhaps there would be a very minor swing towards religious people in the first example, and a very minor swing towards aethiests in the second, but it is (if anything) minor, and not worth representing in Civ. Far too easy to offend people.

- MKL
[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited May 08, 2000).]

[raingoon]

If I can jump in here, I was also one of the authors (along with others, including M@ni@c above) of the religion model sent to Firaxis in both The List 2 and the EC3.

Months of discussion and debate proved, to us anyway, that the point of religion in Civ 3 is not to model different religions, but to model religion in general as a socio/economic/political force. THis is a very important distinction. Because if you're talking about what qualities make one brand of religion affect people vs. another brand, then you're talking not about a Civilization game but a "Religion" game.

One of the strengths of the Religion Model -- and there are many -- is its doctrine that religion in Civ 3 is to population what trade in Civ 2 is to resources. And btw, it should be about the same size as the trade element was in the older version -- making different religions have different qualities necessarily creates a greater need to focus on religions. This, we all agreed in the end, would throw off the balance of the game we're hoping for.

Last point -- we also agreed that if you wanted to call a religion Christian, Atheist, Turywensist, Yahoo, or simply "Blue," you could just edit the files yourself. But there are no "base differences" between religion brands in The Religion Model sent to Firaxis. Each is equal to the next in its inherent abilities, which we called "evangelism" and "conviction." To the degree that a religion becomes more powerful in either of those two categories is up to the strategy of the player.

I hope that helps the discussion, and I highly recommend a look at the Religion Model, which can be found easily enough in The List forum. Just check out the thread with the links...

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-07-2000 08:33 PM You mean like this Beyowulf? It's called "reply with quote" (upper right side of the original post). I don't think that athiests have no morals and I feel that is what he is getting at. Athiests aren't always the hellraising devil worshipers that religious propoganda makes them out to be. They are more likely than not people who simply wish not to associate with one particular religion. It may be against their personal beliefs and such...

Ah, so that how the quote is done. Thanks. And no, I never said atheists were hellraising devil worshippers, nor did I imply that, or anything like that. Nor did I say that atheists, were by nature, evil, or morally loose. If you read that into my post, well than I am sorry, but such was not my intent.

But, would you agree that a person wearing a seat belt would have a better chance of surviving an auto wreck? The seat belt is a protection, just like religion is protection(admittedly, some religions are a better protection than others, and some aren't at all) That is what I am saying, and that is all I am saying.

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 05-08-2000 02:54 AM Last point -- we also agreed that if you wanted to call a religion Christian, Atheist, Turywensist, Yahoo, or simply "Blue," you could just edit the files yourself. But there are no "base differences" between religion brands in The Religion Model sent to Firaxis. Each is equal to the next in its inherent abilities, which we called "evangelism" and "conviction." To the degree that a religion becomes more powerful in either of those two categories is up to the strategy of the player. I hope that helps the discussion, and I highly recommend a look at the Religion Model, which can be found easily enough in The List forum. Just check out the thread with the links...

Well, I did look at the list, which was what I was originally commenting on. Don't know if anyone else here has. Now, am I reading you correctly in asuming that every religion that pops up is going to be the same in 'conviction' and 'evangelism' and depending on the players choices, these two stats could increase or decrease. Now as I suggested in an earlier post, it seems to me that if a government tried to tamper with a religion.(i.e.make a religion that advocated peace, more militaristic), and if the government succeeded, than the 'conviction' an 'evangelism' stat of that religion should decrease, because the religion has been compromised. Also, I think, that religions should start with random stats, and 'conviction' and 'evangelism' should change on their own semi-randomly, based on trends. Evangelism might shoot up, while conviction might decrease, or vica versa, or they might both steadily increase or decrease. Also I think the stats of religions appearing in a players nation shouldn't be automatically know, but the player should have to take some action to find them out. Perhaps send some of spy to investigate it. Also I think the religions should be fictional with the chance for the player to change the name perhaps by altering certain files.

[raingoon]

Yes, you are correct in assuming that all new religions pop up with the same stats. Having discussed all this once before, I don't have much more to add. But I do believe the simplicity of having the same base stats is a strength not a weakness.

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-08-2000 02:54 PM And no, I never said atheists were hellraising devil worshippers, nor did I imply that, or anything like that. Nor did I say that atheists, were by nature, evil, or morally loose.

Where did I imply that you said anything like that? All I said was that you were equating athiests to higher corruption, and although I'm not athiest, I can still find offense in that. It basically means that your preconcevied impression of me (knowing that I'm not religious) is that I'm more open to corruption than you. I don't think I'm being unreasonable if that gets my nose out of joint.

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-08-2000 02:54 PM But, would you agree that a person wearing a seat belt would have a better chance of surviving an auto wreck? The seat belt is a protection, just like religion is protection(admittedly, some religions are a better protection than others, and some aren't at all)

I dispute that you are any more protected against corruption than I am, just because you are religious. That's what it comes down to in my mind. If there is a slight trend in the direction that you're pointing, then I would say it's only slight, and definitely not worth representing in Civ3.

- MKL

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by MidKnight Lament on 05-08-2000 08:34 PM I dispute that you are any more protected against corruption than I am, just because you are religious. That's what it comes down to in my mind. If there is a slight trend in the direction that you're pointing, then I would say it's only slight, and definitely not worth representing in Civ3.

Okay, but still, I have yet to see anyone come up with a reason why atheist would not be protected against corruption. If they do, I'll shut up.

[raingoon]

It's wrong that atheists would have more corruption for want of religion, because this assumes that atheists must necessarily BELIEVE in religion as a moral guide which they have done without.

It's like saying: "You've got a town, and you've got the people who believe in stoplights, and the people who don't, and the people who don't are more likely to get run over." When only an idiot would walk out in the street with traffic coming.

You're are negating the deeper social contract. Thus, if Civ 3 puts up atheism as a corruption enhancer, it would be a falacy based on those who subscribe (incorrectly) to religion as the ONLY moral arbiter.

Although raingoon's analogy seems quite crude, it is actually exactly right. Just because you're athiest doesn't mean that you will be more easily corrupted. It's that simple.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[DanM]

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-09-2000 01:07 PM Okay, but still, I have yet to see anyone come up with a reason why atheist would not be protected against corruption. If they do, I'll shut up.

Let me put it this way...
Religious people can be just as corrupt as anyone who isn't religious.The only difference is;
1.Some religions allow you to sin all week and then be forgiven on Sunday.
2.Other religions let you drive a truckload of explosives into a crowd of innocent people(who don't believe what they do)and their religious leaders tell them this act will guarantee them a place beside the almighty himself in heaven.
3.And still others will spew their drivel on t.v.,promising to spend your hard-earned money on worthy causes;only to secretly spend that money on expanding their mansion,swimming pool,and building a dog house with a central heating system.
I'm sure many Americans know who Jim and Tammy Baker are,As well as Oral Roberts etc.
4.How about those nutcase murderers who claim god told them to kill.I guess we should consider them religious as well,no matter what their warped mind has concocted from what they have read.

I guess I am supposed to think the people who fit these examples are "protected" from corruption because they are religious.
Now,I wouldn't say religious people are more easily corrupted than those who are not religious,all I am saying is that they can be just as easily corrupted,except they hide behind their religious beliefs.
Lets face it.A HUGE amount of people who go to church go more for the social atmosphere and think they will buy their way into heaven.That sounds pretty corrupt to me...

[Par4]

That's mean I'm atheist and I'm certainly not corrupt. Also here in the states many atheists have to keep morals high because one arguement against us is without the Bible(not to imply anything about Christians but they're the majority here) we are going to be sinful and morally corrupt. But to say because we don't believe in an omnipotent god and follow religious dogmas that preach a moral life and 'good' living doesn't mean we are going to be the opposite. As for being easily swayed to corruption I know many religious people who are easily swayed and sin a lot wheter it's lying or kissing/cheating on girl/boy friends(its high school) and I wouldn't doubt they would become corrupt if given the chance. There are 2 other atheists in my school, everyone else is religious and we are some of the most honest, moral, intelligent students in our school and that's not my ego talking

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

quote: Originally posted by Par4 on 05-09-2000 11:00 PM That's mean I'm atheist and I'm certainly not corrupt. Also here in the states many atheists have to keep morals high because one arguement against us is without the Bible(not to imply anything about Christians but they're the majority here) we are going to be sinful and morally corrupt. But to say because we don't believe in an omnipotent god and follow religious dogmas that preach a moral life and 'good' living doesn't mean we are going to be the opposite. As for being easily swayed to corruption I know many religious people who are easily swayed and sin a lot wheter it's lying or kissing/cheating on girl/boy friends(its high school) and I wouldn't doubt they would become corrupt if given the chance. There are 2 other atheists in my school, everyone else is religious and we are some of the most honest, moral, intelligent students in our school and that's not my ego talking

quote: Originally posted by Par4 on 05-09-2000 11:00 PM"Here in the states"

I thought you were from the Land o Golf Hehe, jk. Glad to see the loyal Apolyton posters up this late (well, late where I'm from). I think this is just another good example of why Athiests are not "corrupt". I never responded to beyowulfs comment about me misunderstanding him when I made comments about athiests not being "devil worshipers". But actually, from what he posted, I think I understood exactly what he meant. You've been proved wrong, so will the issue drop now?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited May 09, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited May 09, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited May 09, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited May 09, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited May 09, 2000).]

[Grier]

On the point of religion and its effect on corruption, you might want to take a look at history, where you can see that religion was often one of the main forms of corruption.

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 05-09-2000 03:15 PM It's wrong that atheists would have more corruption for want of religion, because this assumes that atheists must necessarily BELIEVE in religion as a moral guide which they have done without.

They don't have to believe in a religion, they could just as simply have a code of honor. But those who actually practice their religion, or a code of honor, develop what I suppose could be called a moral muscle, they get used to saying 'No' to certain things and finding alternatives. Would an atheist necessary have this moral muscle? Maybe, maybe not.

quote: It's like saying: "You've got a town, and you've got the people who believe in stoplights, and the people who don't, and the people who don't are more likely to get run over." When only an idiot would walk out in the street with traffic coming.

Well then, the people who don't believe in stoplights, will shortly believe in stoplights, or they won't last long. No? Or they may think they're smart enough, or quick enough, to dodge traffic. If they retain their view, then there will certainly be more traffic accidents among those who don't believe in stop lights.

quote: You're are negating the deeper social contract. Thus, if Civ 3 puts up atheism as a corruption enhancer, it would be a falacy based on those who subscribe (incorrectly) to religion as the ONLY moral arbiter.

So what else would you suggest as a negative to atheism? If you aren't going to put a negative to atheism, then don't put it in at all.

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by Par4 on 05-09-2000 11:00 PM That's mean I'm atheist and I'm certainly not corrupt. Also here in the states many atheists have to keep morals high because one arguement against us is without the Bible(not to imply anything about Christians but they're the majority here) we are going to be sinful and morally corrupt. But to say because we don't believe in an omnipotent god and follow religious dogmas that preach a moral life and 'good' living doesn't mean we are going to be the opposite. As for being easily swayed to corruption I know many religious people who are easily swayed and sin a lot wheter it's lying or kissing/cheating on girl/boy friends(its high school) and I wouldn't doubt they would become corrupt if given the chance. There are 2 other atheists in my school, everyone else is religious and we are some of the most honest, moral, intelligent students in our school and that's not my ego talking

I salute you and your high moral standards then. But what if everyone was an atheist? Would the motivation remain? And these religious people who lie and cheat and whatnot are they really religious, or is it just in name only? If you are part of religion, but do everything it condemns, are you really religious? It'd be like a Marxist advocating capitalism. Or a Nazi advocating communism. And you can tell those 'religious' people in your school I said so.

[Ubergeek]

Man, this is pretty messed up. Listen, beyowulf, corruption happens in every group, and religion does absolutely nothing to stop or even slow it -- in many cases it actually accelerates or facilitates it.

1. The Frech Revolution was in large part a reaction to the astonishing corrupt excesses of the French clergy who rode roughshod over the peasants on their extensive holdings, draining them for every sou they could get and then telling them it was God's will. There are more than a few priests who took tumbrel rides to guillotines.
2. A catalogue of Middle Ages Popes reads like a Post Office wall. We have drunkards, adulterers, thieves, murderers, pedophiles, regicides, the list goes on and on. For much of the Middle Ages the Church was seen less as a moral force and more as a way to get ahead in this world under a cloak of moral inevitability.
3. Closer to home, let's list a few names: Jimmy Swaggart. Oral Roberts. Bob Jones. Jim and Tammy Faye Baker. Our happy friends in the Aryan Identity Movement. Need I go on?
4. The Ayatollah Khomenei. 'Nuf said.

I could go on at some length, but what's the point? beyowulf is, I fear, beyond convincing. He asks for proof that atheists are less prone to corruption than are religious people. I ask him from proof that religious people are less prone to corruption. And cite some examples, pal, not vague feelings about what ought to be true in your worldview or odd analogies that won't stand up to logic.

And if this is the sort of thing that having religion in a game brings out, I say put the whole idea in a cardboard box, douse it with gasoline, drop a match and stand well away while the thing burns to ashes, 'cos, man, we don't need it.

------------------
Better living through tyranny