Atheism is not a religion. I think I know what you mean though, perhaps POPs with "none" where religion would otherwise be.
Religion
- Thread starter Sovereign
- 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.
Atheism is not a religion. I think I know what you mean though, perhaps POPs with "none" where religion would otherwise be.
Atheism is not a religion. I think I know what you mean though, perhaps POPs with "none" where religion would otherwise be.
Atheism is not a lack of religion; that is agnosticism. So in a way it actually is.
I wasnt saying that people would call themselves catholic atheists but the concepts what what the terms of God or Religion mean are structured by the form of Christianity in the society they grew up in, the atheist still has a religious background, especially during the time covered by the game. Atheism should not be religion but a stance.
As to Darwinism, during the period covered by the game Darwinism wasnt irreligious, to believe in evolution AND to believe in God and the Christian churches are not incompatible beliefs until quite recently, most of the early dawinists were deeply religious which is why their works are full of concern over the conflict between their findings and their faith. Even today most Christians have no issue with Darwinism its only a minority that object but its an extremely vocal and media favoured minority so it gives the false image that it is either evolution or creation whereas for the majority of Christians the truth of belief is in both and a great many of the worlds leading minds in the field of evolutionary science are Christian. There is no reason to be forcing darwinism to lead to a secular society as its not what did but rather the rise of Industrial liberalism and secular science.
Do not forget that we are speaking of a century ago, forcing the attitudes of the last fifty years of the pot-war americanism is not going to help the game out.
Atheism is a belief but it is not a religion. Liberalism is a belief, Darwinism and Socialism are all beliefs but none of them are regions, Atheism is a philosophy at best but has never been and will never be a religion even false as the term is it is something higher and wider than that, it is a single narrowing belief not then ten thousand separate beliefs in communion. It is not on par with the cross.
In my mind it should be dealt with as it was in the first, no need is required and a great many of those suggested would make the game either ridiculous or offensive.
As to Darwinism, during the period covered by the game Darwinism wasnt irreligious, to believe in evolution AND to believe in God and the Christian churches are not incompatible beliefs until quite recently, most of the early dawinists were deeply religious which is why their works are full of concern over the conflict between their findings and their faith. Even today most Christians have no issue with Darwinism its only a minority that object but its an extremely vocal and media favoured minority so it gives the false image that it is either evolution or creation whereas for the majority of Christians the truth of belief is in both and a great many of the worlds leading minds in the field of evolutionary science are Christian. There is no reason to be forcing darwinism to lead to a secular society as its not what did but rather the rise of Industrial liberalism and secular science.
Do not forget that we are speaking of a century ago, forcing the attitudes of the last fifty years of the pot-war americanism is not going to help the game out.
Atheism is a belief but it is not a religion. Liberalism is a belief, Darwinism and Socialism are all beliefs but none of them are regions, Atheism is a philosophy at best but has never been and will never be a religion even false as the term is it is something higher and wider than that, it is a single narrowing belief not then ten thousand separate beliefs in communion. It is not on par with the cross.
In my mind it should be dealt with as it was in the first, no need is required and a great many of those suggested would make the game either ridiculous or offensive.
The definition of atheism is "lack of a belief in a god". Hence the "a". While it's possible for an atheist to actively believe there is no god, that's not a necessity, and is rarer than most would think. Someone who thinks there is no god, or does not think there is one, is an atheist, and most would not say they know or believe that there is no god. I think most would say they don't strictly know, and acknowledge that, but they find one side more convincing than the other.
Agnosticism is the lack of a clear position on the subject, and/or the idea that we cannot take a clear position on the subject.
Agnosticism is the lack of a clear position on the subject, and/or the idea that we cannot take a clear position on the subject.
That has never been my understanding of the terms. The definition according to dictionary.com:
...would lend credence to my version I think.
Atheism should be an issue, not a religion. Why? Because religion is about more than just belief in god (I'm talking about religion in Vicky here). It is about traditions and culture and that sort of thing. There is no atheist tradition, atheists generally maintain to some degree the traditions of whatever religion they belong(ed) to. For example, I'm an atheist, but I still celebrate christmas, easter, if i marry it would most probably be in a lutheran church (alternative being a non-religious marriage), etc. So in a sense I am a protestant atheist.
It's impossible to model the complexities of the human condiition fully. However, as the atheism debate points out, the system should be able to model the fact that both religious ideas and cultural affinity effect a person's core identity.
As has been said, you have Jewish Atheist and Jewish believers, who are more or less not at each other's throats. However, unlike some, I don't think that's a particuarly unique situation.
I think pretty much every culture has it.
What could and should be done is to assign each pop a primary identification. More 'philosophical' pops (and probably fewer at this time) might have their religious beliefs, which included Atheism, be ranked as their #1 concern. The majority of pops will probably have their ethno-cultural identity ranked as their #1 concern.
So, whereas a Jew in Europe, or a African slave in America might both be an Atheist. You don't have the odd situation of either being more concerned with the religious debates and writing each other letters and bringing down the Pope than the fact that say Progrom is comming for one, and slave catchers are comming for the other. (If they are more conserned with their cultural identity than their religious.) Even if all things being equal, they are both Atheist.
As has been said, you have Jewish Atheist and Jewish believers, who are more or less not at each other's throats. However, unlike some, I don't think that's a particuarly unique situation.
I think pretty much every culture has it.
What could and should be done is to assign each pop a primary identification. More 'philosophical' pops (and probably fewer at this time) might have their religious beliefs, which included Atheism, be ranked as their #1 concern. The majority of pops will probably have their ethno-cultural identity ranked as their #1 concern.
So, whereas a Jew in Europe, or a African slave in America might both be an Atheist. You don't have the odd situation of either being more concerned with the religious debates and writing each other letters and bringing down the Pope than the fact that say Progrom is comming for one, and slave catchers are comming for the other. (If they are more conserned with their cultural identity than their religious.) Even if all things being equal, they are both Atheist.
I would disagree, traditions and cultures are best simulated by making someone a Yankee or a Sephardic.
Yeah I feel like Secularism should be an issue, which atheist pops tend to strongly favor (but some religious pops would as well). Then you've got religious people with moralism (conservatives or extremists), without a religious related issue (moderates), or with secularism (either closeted nonbelievers or very tolerant believers), and atheists with secularism (ardent anti-religious or pro-multiplicity types), no religious issue (nonbelievers who aren't too concerned about religion), and maybe even with moralism (perhaps strict believers in some form of secular rule system, like Communist virtues or following the Great Leader's whims).
whatever is decided, since the format of the files will be the same as EU3 and HoI3, one should most likely be able to mod in more religions if the ones of interest are not included in the base game.
Personally I would be against including atheism as a full "religion" in game, it was not a mass category of identity in the Victoria game time period. IIRC even the Soviet Union did not officially proclaim itself to be an "atheist" state until well after World War II (church and state were of course separated after the Bolsheviks won the Civil War, and during the 1920s religious institutions did lose their landholdings and many churches, synagogues and mosques were closed, but unless I'm mistaken it wasn't until the late 60s that the state was officially declared "atheist"), and in fact during WWII gave some support to the Russian Orthodox Church as part of the war effort against the Axis invasion. Nowhere in Western Europe or North America (never mind the Non-Western World) pre-World War II would you have found even a small minority of the population openly proclaim itself atheist.
So I think it would be best if atheism be something that someone could be modded into a game, but should not be part of the base game, as it really does not fit in with the time period in question.
Personally I would be against including atheism as a full "religion" in game, it was not a mass category of identity in the Victoria game time period. IIRC even the Soviet Union did not officially proclaim itself to be an "atheist" state until well after World War II (church and state were of course separated after the Bolsheviks won the Civil War, and during the 1920s religious institutions did lose their landholdings and many churches, synagogues and mosques were closed, but unless I'm mistaken it wasn't until the late 60s that the state was officially declared "atheist"), and in fact during WWII gave some support to the Russian Orthodox Church as part of the war effort against the Axis invasion. Nowhere in Western Europe or North America (never mind the Non-Western World) pre-World War II would you have found even a small minority of the population openly proclaim itself atheist.
So I think it would be best if atheism be something that someone could be modded into a game, but should not be part of the base game, as it really does not fit in with the time period in question.
Which should not lead to the exclusion of anti-clerical movements or the mass 'dechristianisation' of many segments of European society that so marked the 19th C
It shouldn't, and it didn't in V1, as you had religious issues such as secularization vs moralism, which I'd argue better depicts the nature of the question of the role of religion, and religious hierarchies, in society at that time than assigning the title "atheist" to large numbers of people in game.
If you look at attendance figures for the main Church holy days in most of Europe right up to the eve of WWII, they do not show that much of a decrease, compared to post-1945 where there is a huge nosedive starting in the 1950s and accelerating after 1964. Not everyone was a devot during this time period to be sure, but most would have bristled at the idea that they were "atheists". "Nominal" Christians, ones who attend church only on the high holy days or for important family rituals such as marriage and funerals was becoming the norm (and likely was the norm among lower class urban males), however to most of those people, they still counted themselves as Christians, not atheists.
The cult of reason was around about 40 years before Victoria starts, and France was in serious jeopardy of becoming an openly atheist state, some extremists even wanting to criminalise religion. Also nearly all communist/authoritarian left-wing regimes were atheist, and the prospect of one of them getting in charge of a nation as they did in Russia isn't that improbable.
Perhaps agnosticism and atheism could just be combined into a "none" religion.
Perhaps agnosticism and atheism could just be combined into a "none" religion.
Not to derail, but I'm pretty sure it was late 20's the SU became officially athiest.
No, the article supports Ryke's view. The definition of atheism as a lack of belief in god(s), includes those who deny the existence of god(s), since if you deny something you obviously don't believe it.
Either way, atheism is not a religion:
dictionary.com said:
Very true. I do like that pops have religion, and that it affects their happiness with the ruling government.
It doesn't say "lack of belief", it says "disbelief". Disbelief is an active mentality, such as telling someone "I don't believe you", meaning you think he's lying, not that you're not judging either way. "Lack of belief" is, as it implies, simply an absence of belief, a passive mindset.
Or that you find the arguments unconvincing, which does not necessarily imply that the claim is a lie.
If you disbelieve something you don't have belief in it, you lack belief.
If you want to discuss this further, PM me. I'm not commenting on it more here.