Ignoring the fact that the universities were sponsored and supported by the Church; there needs to be more with medieval universities IMO. The growth of Universities is something that I hope gets some more love.
- 34
Atheism
- Thread starter Nox the Invicible
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Ignoring the fact that the universities were sponsored and supported by the Church; there needs to be more with medieval universities IMO. The growth of Universities is something that I hope gets some more love.
Atheism wasn't a political force during the game's time period.
- 11
- 2
I know some folks really love their atheism, but talking about adding it to something like CK2....It's just stupid.
We are playing in a time period when religion (the Abrahamic faiths) were starting to bring people together. Paganism didn't work if you wanted to unify a large group of people, like a kingdom. There were many gods, compared to Christianity's ONE god. One god, and through that god kings were given the power to rule over everyone else, or so they said. I'm sure many monarchs and people from all sorts of walks of life would roll their eyes during sermons or while having to deal with the clergy, but that's probably as far as it went. As a king, the church establishment was part of what gave you your power as a king.
I remember learning of how Scotland wanted to be anointed with a particular Holy Oil so badly, the mark of truly being recognized as a king. They were denied more than once by the Pope, but did eventually get it. Scotland had a king, but it's like he wasn't REALLY seen as a king. A country needed that centralization that a king and kingdom brought. With atheism, that wouldn't have worked in those times. It would have been more like paganism, the grand unity would be lost. French, English, German, whoever, you were all Christians, and all part of something bigger than your kingdoms.
Imagine telling people about your ideas of atheism.... You'd in a sense be saying that you wanted no part in this grand operation that was Christian Europe, because you knew better and there was certainly no god so everyone should just stop the charade. You'd get no where. If you were trying to establish some sort of Atheistic movement, you'd be stopped immediately. They would try to convince you to stop talking that way, or to just keep it to yourself or anything to get you to keep you from getting yourself killed.
I'm an atheist myself I suppose, but I can see the purpose of religion and what it did for medieval times. I think it's extremely outdated and should be discarded NOW, but back then it was almost essential. I'm speaking of Christianity here, I don't really know how deeply the Islamic establishment and their secular powers mixed.
"By the 13th century it was expected that a king would become king by being crowned and anointed. As well as being placed on a throne, he would also be anointed with holy oil by an archbishop and have a crown placed on his head. The holy oil was believed to make the king sacred by making him into a new person through the grace of God. The kings of England and France had used this ceremony for centuries. By the 13th century, however, if a kingdom did not already use coronation and anointment, it had to ask the pope to allow its kings to be crowned and anointed. The king of Norway was given permission in 1247. Requests to the pope for Scottish kings to be crowned and anointed were made in 1221, 1233 and 1251, but were rejected due to English protests that this would go against the king of England‟s claim to be overlord. The pope finally gave permission for coronation and anointment in 1329."
We are playing in a time period when religion (the Abrahamic faiths) were starting to bring people together. Paganism didn't work if you wanted to unify a large group of people, like a kingdom. There were many gods, compared to Christianity's ONE god. One god, and through that god kings were given the power to rule over everyone else, or so they said. I'm sure many monarchs and people from all sorts of walks of life would roll their eyes during sermons or while having to deal with the clergy, but that's probably as far as it went. As a king, the church establishment was part of what gave you your power as a king.
I remember learning of how Scotland wanted to be anointed with a particular Holy Oil so badly, the mark of truly being recognized as a king. They were denied more than once by the Pope, but did eventually get it. Scotland had a king, but it's like he wasn't REALLY seen as a king. A country needed that centralization that a king and kingdom brought. With atheism, that wouldn't have worked in those times. It would have been more like paganism, the grand unity would be lost. French, English, German, whoever, you were all Christians, and all part of something bigger than your kingdoms.
Imagine telling people about your ideas of atheism.... You'd in a sense be saying that you wanted no part in this grand operation that was Christian Europe, because you knew better and there was certainly no god so everyone should just stop the charade. You'd get no where. If you were trying to establish some sort of Atheistic movement, you'd be stopped immediately. They would try to convince you to stop talking that way, or to just keep it to yourself or anything to get you to keep you from getting yourself killed.
I'm an atheist myself I suppose, but I can see the purpose of religion and what it did for medieval times. I think it's extremely outdated and should be discarded NOW, but back then it was almost essential. I'm speaking of Christianity here, I don't really know how deeply the Islamic establishment and their secular powers mixed.
"By the 13th century it was expected that a king would become king by being crowned and anointed. As well as being placed on a throne, he would also be anointed with holy oil by an archbishop and have a crown placed on his head. The holy oil was believed to make the king sacred by making him into a new person through the grace of God. The kings of England and France had used this ceremony for centuries. By the 13th century, however, if a kingdom did not already use coronation and anointment, it had to ask the pope to allow its kings to be crowned and anointed. The king of Norway was given permission in 1247. Requests to the pope for Scottish kings to be crowned and anointed were made in 1221, 1233 and 1251, but were rejected due to English protests that this would go against the king of England‟s claim to be overlord. The pope finally gave permission for coronation and anointment in 1329."
- 13
- 3
- 1
None of that follows. Western universities were created by monastic orders, and the Imperial University of Constantinople is centuries old when the game starts. Thoroughly Christian Byzantium was also the inventor of civilian hospitals and the leader in medicine.
- 23
- 1
- 1
But if God wills it, why does it not happen?
Also, why would God will it?
Also, why are you carrying around a skeleton puppet? That is not normal.
- 8
- 5
Isn't there that event too where you can work out the earth moves round the sun and publish your findings then everyone hates you? I feel like theres some text there about you questioning God
- 2
Having an atheist trait would be highly anachronistic imo. The cynical trait is good enough to represent religious pragmatism, as many people stated in this thread, and more historically accurate.
Tho I'm pretty sure you can mod something out if you really want an "Atheism religion".
Tho I'm pretty sure you can mod something out if you really want an "Atheism religion".
- 6
Yes there are, when you build an observatory (you can basically turn like Galileo or Copernic, facing excommunication if you publish your work and keep your views, or be safe if you hide your work)
I think we all know that the game sucks in the aspect of rulers converting entire realms to some random religion, especially now when the AI can't handle heritage focus, causing children to randomly convert. So that really shouldn't be ok, just like declaring that God is dead wouldn't be ok. And remember that religion doesn't necessarily mean that the character personally believes, but rather it's a part of their culture and traditions.
Also, remember that universities, technological advance, and healthcare were all handled by the Church in the Middle Ages. I know that some neckbeard atheists like to blame religion for preventing the advancement of human civilisation during the Middle Ages, but frankly, that's just wrong.
- 20
- 1
It war barely impossible to be an atheist in the Middle Ages mostly becaus atheism usually (not alway) looks for its cause of existance in sicience. Back in that period at least in Christian Europe science was religious whith a couple of exceptions with Aristotelism (which its 'less religious' points were condemned by the Catholic Chruch) or later Nominalism (which wasn't anti-religious but had some problems with the Church and Scholasticism). Still none of the 'scientists' or thinkers of the Medieval Period were reported to not believe in God.
Nicholas Copernicus had its detractors but it was not condemned by the Catholic Church. Galileus, on the other hand, had bad luck. It was mostly condemned by the Inquisition because in the middle of the Reformation period he tried to teach the Chruch how to interprete the Scriptures (which smelled a bit like heresy).
Last edited:
- 4
- 3
Given that atheism literally means a lack of belief saying that it is a faith is tautologist. Yes we all have faith that the world as we experience it is real, that red is red, that we do actually exist... but past these few very basic assumptions atheism doesn't take anything on 'faith alone' and the only reason many atheists have faith that reality is real is that to believe otherwise would make living in the reality that we may or may not actually be experiencing impossible
- 9
- 5
- 1
You know when I think of Highly religious time of humanity the first thing I think of is Atheist...
- 5
- 1
I don't understand why everyone says atheism is a lack of faith; wouldn't that be rather agnosticism? Atheism seems like an explicit refusal of a god, which implies faith that God does not exist.
- 15
- 3
No, 'theism' means belief in something, 'a' 'theism' means a lack of belief in something
'Gnosticism' means knowledge of something 'a' 'gnosticism' means a lack of knowledge in something
I am an agnostic atheist: I don't think it is possible to know one way or another if there is a God but I also chose to live my life with the default position of not believing something that hasnt been proven to me.
Whilst these terms are used almost exclusively in relation to God they can also be applied to anything.
I am an agnostic atheist towards the flying spagettii monster, unicorns, bigfoot, etc etc etc; I don't claim to KNOW if any of these things are real but I live my life based on the belief that they don't.
With regards to belief in God it is possible to believe in God (theism), to not believe in god (atheism) and to believe God doesn't exist (technically theism again). The vast majority of atheists I know are agnostic atheists. We acknowledge that it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty but we take a default position of disbelief towards any claim made.
If you told me the sky was blue (and i had never been outside) my default position would be to disbelieve you, if I then went outside and saw for myself that the sky was blue I would see that as sufficient evidence that the sky is in fact blue. If you told me the sky was red and I went into a glass room and there was a big red filter over the roof I would believe that the sky was red. However at no point would I claim to KNOW what colour the sky is.
PS- if you are going to disagree tell me which statement you disagree with...
Last edited:
- 11
- 10
As has been said, including Atheism in the main game makes little sense. Historically, militant atheism didn't start rising until the XIXth Century and while atheism did exist in antiquity and the middle age, it was extremly marginal.
That being said, I do remember seing a mod on Steam that adds Atheism in the game.
Plus, Buddhism is a religion and I think he means Atheism in the modern sense, which is used as much for "Does not believe in God(s)" as "Doesn't have a religion".
That being said, I do remember seing a mod on Steam that adds Atheism in the game.
Whether or not Buddhism is atheistic is actually debatable. Some forms of buddhism do acknowledge the existence of one or more gods. It's just that Buddhism doesn't focus on worshiping gods that much.kerannimy said:
Plus, Buddhism is a religion and I think he means Atheism in the modern sense, which is used as much for "Does not believe in God(s)" as "Doesn't have a religion".
Sorry for not telling you which statement I disagree with.
I do see the point that some people use it to mean "lack of faith", but that is such a stupid use of the word. The formation of the word implies something completely else.
Agnostic atheist makes sense, the way you said; you have a default position, the way I, as an agnostic theist, have the default position that God does exist even though I don't think it is possible to know one way or another.
Again, it's a weird use of the terms, and I'll never understand why people force the term to be so general when there are adequate terms. It's not rational.
And again, I think you are colluding disbelief with belief in the contrary. Let's take the classic teapot. It would equally be disbelief if you didn't believe me if I said that there is or that there isn't a teapot orbiting Mars. It is as irrational to believe me without proof as it would be to believe that there is no teapot without proof. You can make assertions such as "a teapot orbiting Mars is improbable", but (excluding a magical scanning device that can identify any such object in any possible orbit around Mars with 100% probability) you have no definite proof either way.
Anyways, I think we're going a bit off topic.
Anyways, you got the formation of atheism completely wrong. Theism comes from greek "Theos" - literally God. Also found in formations such as Theotokos (mother of God, i.e. Mary), theology (study of God).
I do see the point that some people use it to mean "lack of faith", but that is such a stupid use of the word. The formation of the word implies something completely else.
Agnostic atheist makes sense, the way you said; you have a default position, the way I, as an agnostic theist, have the default position that God does exist even though I don't think it is possible to know one way or another.
Again, it's a weird use of the terms, and I'll never understand why people force the term to be so general when there are adequate terms. It's not rational.
And again, I think you are colluding disbelief with belief in the contrary. Let's take the classic teapot. It would equally be disbelief if you didn't believe me if I said that there is or that there isn't a teapot orbiting Mars. It is as irrational to believe me without proof as it would be to believe that there is no teapot without proof. You can make assertions such as "a teapot orbiting Mars is improbable", but (excluding a magical scanning device that can identify any such object in any possible orbit around Mars with 100% probability) you have no definite proof either way.
Anyways, I think we're going a bit off topic.
- 6
- 1
Maybe I am using the term atheist slightly incorrectly. However, I think that it is unfair to say it takes an equal amount of faith to have belief in the existence of something as the default position of disbelief. Think about how you interpret the rest of the universe, is there ANYTHING else where the default position is to believe something exists? ANY other claim such as the claim for intelligent life, the claim the the earth is round, or anything else takes the default position of disbelief followed by the testing of that belief.
I would argue that for the existence of anything you first assume the null hypothesis, that it does not exist and then you seek to disprove the null hypothesis.
- 10
- 5
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheism
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
English isn't my native speaker, but i know. Atheism = null skepticism. 100% convinced that their faith is based on the truth (rational, empirical, sensual, etc.). All others are based on superstitions. Sorry, but rationalism works in religions. Thoma de Aquino or William of Occam in west world. Occam's razor is a very rational principle. Problem is that rationality is not objective - brain work based on biochemia and electricity; "Ratio" work based on experiences in the past etc. Rational thought for a representative of the leisure class it could be something completely different than the representative of the working class. For someone who was born in New York, the idea of X (for the New Yorker rational) can be for resident Tokyo irrational. Whose "rational principles" are better and why?
Sorry, but "truth" and "ratio" is relative. "Rational principle" is nothing. The ancient skeptics or eleatics who did not give faith to anything (even the existence of time, movement, humans, society or change), they have like you "Rational principle". Why do they disbelief in the movement is worse than your faith in the movement?
- 7
- 2
- 1