Winner

Religious Factions help

39 posts in this topic

*biting tongue to avoid another argument about Islam*

 

Actually I would say a lot of modern Asian Buddhist beliefs are reflected in the :yang: quotes. So you effectively have a Buddhist faction already, albeit an Asian one, not a "Western Buddhist" one. (I think the idea that Buddhists all just get along and don't eat animals etc. comes from looking at Western Buddhists, not the Asian majority.) But since there has never been a "Western Buddhist" society, nobody really knows whether such a society could even work/exist.

 

Aren't all these religions already reflected in various editions of Civ? Why put them into SMAC anyway? If you're looking for a battle of religions I would think one of the Civs would be better (and not require any work).

Share this post


Link to post

@Winner.

You may consider something "a fact" (a phenomenon) when it can be repeatedly proven by experiment (if you disagree, please give your definition of fact). Gravity can, evolution from fishes to reptiles cannot be repeated. I already said we find more and more evidence that support macro-evolution, but it remains a theory because it may be amended (it is being amended every few years). It could be called a paradigm (paradigma), because it is an aggregate theory for many phenomena. Still, it's very far from being a fact.

 

Bible is a collection of separate texts, many of which were added at different times. Other parts were removed from it centuries later.

This is simply not true. Could you name a few passages removed? When it happened?

 

- The text of old testament manuscript (Codex of Leningrad) was considered untouchable (saint), so that even the previous spelling mistakes of scribes were never corrected in it. No passage could possibly be removed.

- New testament has been translated with a usage of hundreds version of texts, dated from 1st to 5th century. Every possible difference with original is noted in modern translations.

 

Buddhism... I was definitely wrong with shaping it more the western way.

Edited by kyrub

Share this post


Link to post
Would Draz' excellent point perhaps be best adressed with two Muslim factions?

Shi'a and Sunni ?

I think the Sunnis are more expansionist while the Shi'as would tend to hold their land and be more...cunning (probe bonus?).

Maybe a dichotomy attack/defence bonus like we have with the Progenitors.

Share this post


Link to post
*biting tongue to avoid another argument about Islam*

 

:D

 

Actually I would say a lot of modern Asian Buddhist beliefs are reflected in the :yang: quotes. So you effectively have a Buddhist faction already, albeit an Asian one, not a "Western Buddhist" one. (I think the idea that Buddhists all just get along and don't eat animals etc. comes from looking at Western Buddhists, not the Asian majority.) But since there has never been a "Western Buddhist" society, nobody really knows whether such a society could even work/exist.

 

Yang always struck me as a more Confucian figure. But you're right that I am looking at Buddhism from a Western perspective.

 

Aren't all these religions already reflected in various editions of Civ? Why put them into SMAC anyway? If you're looking for a battle of religions I would think one of the Civs would be better (and not require any work).

 

I didn't really play anything beyond Civ3 (because the whole series went downhill from there). From the little experience I have with Civ4, religions were treated in a disgustingly politically correct manner and didn't really offer much fun. Because objectively, religion has been a major source of conflict throughout history. Alpha Centauri is focused on ideological conflict, which I think reflects the nature of religion.

 

@Winner.

You may consider something "a fact" (a phenomenon) when it can be repeatedly proven by experiment (if you disagree, please give your definition of fact). Gravity can, evolution from fishes to reptiles cannot be repeated. I already said we find more and more evidence that support macro-evolution, but it remains a theory because it may be amended (it is being amended every few years). It could be called a paradigm (paradigma), because it is an aggregate theory for many phenomena. Still, it's very far from being a fact.

 

That's not correct. You don't have to 'prove' every scientific concept or theory in the laboratory. Many concepts and theories are inherently impossible to be proven that way - for example, we now have a pretty good idea about how stars form, develop, and die; obviously, we can't make an experiment to prove it. Fortunately, we have trillions of stars in various stages of their stellar lives that we can observe and use to verify our theoretical predictions.

 

The same goes to evolution. We don't have to make grand experiments, trying to evolve amphibians from the fish. We have millions of species, existing and extinct, which we can observe and probe. We have genetics which provides us with molecular evidence of evolution. We have fossils on which we can demonstrate how evolution progressed during life's history on Earth. If all these things are not enough for you, you can google research papers describing small-scale experiments with evolutionary mechanisms (like when you create some selective pressure and observe how your population of fruit flies adapts to them). In fact, we can see evolution in action all around us - the bacteria continue to evolve better and better resistance to our antibiotics, for example - although this is not "natural" selection per se, it clearly demonstrate that the theoretical basis of evolution is sound. You can hear it from the dear leader himself:

or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRDsNjhZn34

 

This is simply not true. Could you name a few passages removed? When it happened?

 

Not just passages, but whole books. I thought everybody knew about how the Bible was put together: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_biblical_canons

 

Shi'a and Sunni ?

I think the Sunnis are more expansionist while the Shi'as would tend to hold their land and be more...cunning (probe bonus?).

Maybe a dichotomy attack/defence bonus like we have with the Progenitors.

 

Mm, too much work, not enough difference. To me the differences between the two sects aren't really that deep (no matter what the Sunnis and the Shia think themselves - religions have a habit of causing people to kill each other for the tiniest of ideological differences) and could hardly be reflected properly in game.

 

I split the Christians because I see a profound difference in their organization - the decentralized Protestants vs the unified Catholic Church. You can't go any further, because then you'd have to make thousands of other factions, each for every crackpot sect that's out there.

Edited by Winner

Share this post


Link to post

@Winner

Facts: To know the difference between facts (phenomens we perceive with our senses) and theories (conclusions we draw from our perceptions) is the basic of any scientific work. Even your personal guru would admit it. But I don't want drag this discussion on.

 

Not just passages, but whole books. I thought everybody knew about how the Bible was put together: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_biblical_canons

Well, it was you who claimed that "Church has removed" books from Bible "centuries later" (as if with intention to fool the believers). This opinion is hard to hold, as I tried to show. As for canon (1st-2nd century after JC), I hope you don't contest the right of the believing community to state which books represent the beliefs of the community and which do not. (BTW, the non-canonic books (apart from Thomas' gospel) hold no credible historical information about the figure of Jesus from Nazareth and his words, according to modern science.)

 

Mm, too much work, not enough difference.

Fundamentalists: nuances in evolution theory? Mm, too much work, not enough difference.

 

....

Last word: Winner, don't get me wrong. I love nature sciences and I am fond of macro-evolution theory and I am a religious man. This combination is easily possible, I actually know a lot of people who share it.

[/offtopic]

Edited by kyrub

Share this post


Link to post
@Winner

Facts: To know the difference between facts (phenomens we perceive with our senses) and theories (conclusions we draw from our perceptions) is the basic of any scientific work. Even your personal guru would admit it. But I don't want drag this discussion on.

 

Well, that's just it. Evolution is a fact, because we perceive it, we can study it as it unfolds, we have overwhelming evidence for it and there is no reasonable alternative to it - literally, there is no alternative that would explain the diversity of life on Earth. It's the same with, for example, the "heliocentric theory" (=its modern incarnation). You could say "well, it's just a theory", but in reality, it's a fact. Whoever claims otherwise is welcome to send a probe to Saturn using his alternate theoretical model ;)

 

Well, it was you who claimed that "Church has removed" books from Bible "centuries later" (as if with intention to fool the believers). This is nonsense, as I showed. As for canon (1st-2nd century after JC), I hope you don't contest the right of the believing community to state which books represent the beliefs of the community and which do not. (BTW, the non-canonic books (apart from Thomas' gospel) hold no credible historical information about the figure of Jesus from Nazareth and his words, according to modern science.)

 

You showed nothing, you just said that wasn't the case, which is wrong. I don't contest the right of the believing community to assemble their scripture as they see fit (they can add passages from from the Lord of the Rings for all I care), I am simply saying - and that was why I started about this - that the Bible wasn't made at one time and then "fossilized" in that form; unlike for example the Koran.

 

Last word: Winner, don't get me wrong. I love nature sciences and I am fond of macro-evolution theory and I am a religious man. This combination is easily possible, I actually know a lot of people who share it.

 

Of course it is possible, but then you have to ask yourself why you still insist on the faith. Once you know the scientific explanations, it becomes completely unnecessary; doesn't explain anything, serves no reasonable purpose. You'll do just as fine without it.

 

(ok, I am done with proselytizing now :devil: )

 

 

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

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

 

OKAY, for the rest of you guys: I'd really appreciate if you could suggest names of bases for the factions I proposed. It's pretty difficult to come up with dozens and dozens of names that fit, so if you have any good proposals, by all means, share :)

Share this post


Link to post

I notice you have two branches of Christianity: Protistants and Catholics. While skimming for custom factions I did see a Catholic faction already. It was lead by a pope, and it's home base was the New Vatican, or something similiar. If you haven't seen it, perhap sI can find it again and send a link your way. You may also be able to contact the creator.

 

They're distict, but if you could smush them together into one Christian faction then you'd have room to go in another direction. Like Shinto or Hinduism.

 

A suggestion for names, without actually giving you a list just yet, would be to looking up historical cities relevant to the religion. If that seems agreeable to you, I can help look up some names.

Share this post


Link to post

I say go for it. More information is always to the good.

 

I still don't see the Christian division as more profound than that in Islam, but Winner does have to please himself first.

 

We should try to come up with some base name lists. Those are actually sorta fujn once you get into it. A little googling is great for insiration; the Wikipedia on Buddism ought to suggest all sorts of applicable terms, for instance.

 

 

 

-And welcome to the Playground, sakuro. It's great to have you here. :b:

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the welcome Buster's Uncle.

 

I sense the Muslum, Jewish, and Christian factions are going to be fighting over some city names. They have a long interlocking history.

 

 

Cities for New Zion/the Jews:

- Mount Zion and Sinia both seem worth tagging into city names.Minus the "mount".

- Jericho

- David's Citadel/Tower.

- Joppa Bay

- Kidron Valley

- Fort Masada. Masada meaning "stronghold".

 

There is also a list of cities towards the bottum of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hebrew_Bible_cities

 

 

Cities for the Christians:

- Might want to consider the Vatican as the starting HQ for the Catholics.

- Gadara, which is where Jesus excorsised Legion.

 

Here is a link with a lot of biblical locations. Each is linked to a description for further inspiration: http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/places.htm

 

Another link with some good inspirational places with descriptions: http://atheism.about.com/od/bibleplacescities/Places_Cities_of_the_Bible_Profiles_of_Places_Cities_in_the_Bible.htm

 

While I'm linking things, here is the page with "the Catholic Church" faction I was talking about. It is towards the bottum: http://apolyton.net/local_links/links/c-faction-175

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe a difference in spelling can let all three use all? That would be pretty characteristic.

 

Good name resources you linked.

 

 

 

I checked Winner's profile and sent him a PM with a link and a heads-up; the notification email might at least reach him. I also pointed Kilkakon at this thread while you were still just browsing, 'cause it reminded me it was here, and this is right up his alley.

 

 

The interests you've demonstrated make me think you might like to have a look at various community faction projects in Skunkworks that have stalled; I'd like to wrap a few up, so please feel free to necro like a madman. You've got a good eye for the creative end of these things, though I really need a stats guy, but still - activity might catch one's eye...

Share this post


Link to post

Spelling changes for the same city names: Lazy, yet creative. I support this.You could also swap in different titles to go along with city names. An example would be the Believer's "New Jerusalem" and a tweaked "Jerusalem Reborn"

 

 

I think I will take a look in the Skunkworks. Numbers and modding isn't something I'm that good at, but I can certainly help people brainstorm some ideas. Just need to fetch my skull capped staff ...

Share this post


Link to post

:D

 

Not actual laziness, though I'm all for that, too. I imagine there might be profound differences in how the spellings might be legimately transliterated from the Arabic and Hebrew alphabets if the standardizations were left off - one of the owners is a SMACer and Jewish, (and too lazy to help, but I'll prod him with a link, anyway. No harm in trying). Some accents on the appropriate letters would help, and the additional words you suggest, too.

 

I wonder how hard it would be to find an online translator that keeps the Latin alphabet for such languages - there would be some call for that, and might make this effortless...

 

...Kilkakon is looking for basenames for a Christian faction, too, ISTR, so none of this will tend to go to waste...

Share this post


Link to post

I normally avoid these "religon-wars" threads, but in this case I can shed some light - I'm a biology prof, and teach lectures on the evolution of the immune system, so I literally live this stuff...

 

You may consider something "a fact" (a phenomenon) when it can be repeatedly proven by experiment (if you disagree, please give your definition of fact).

I, and all of science, disagree with this. Scientific facts are established by numerous evidentiary routes, including:

1) Experimentation,

2) Observation of the natural world,

3) Inference from the above

 

Gravity can, evolution from fishes to reptiles cannot be repeated.

First, you got your facts wrong. Fish did not evolve into reptiles; they evolved into early tetrapods. The closest existent organisms to these being amphibians. Reptiles came along much, much later, and evolved from labyrinthodonts, which in turn evolved from amphibians.

 

Regardless, while an experimental replication from fish to tetrapods cannot be preformed, the fact that fish evolved into amphibians (and therefore, eventually, into reptiles and all other tetrapods) has been established through multiple independent observations, notably:

1) The fossil record,

2) Comparative physiology,

3) Antigenic analysis,

4) Genetic analysis,

5) Cladistics

 

Each of these lines of evidence consist of thousands of independent observations, all supporting an evolutionary link from lobe-finned fish and amphibians. Ergo, this is a fact.

 

I already said we find more and more evidence that support macro-evolution, but it remains a theory because it may be amended (it is being amended every few years). It could be called a paradigm (paradigma), because it is an aggregate theory for many phenomena. Still, it's very far from being a fact.

First and foremost, you need to understand that the term "theory" is used in a very different fashion by scientists than by lay people. A scientific theory is not simply an idea, but rather is a system or model which is explanatory, predictive and falsifiable. In plain speak, a theory must meet four criteria:

1) Is based on, and explains, all known facts/observations made to date about the phenomena the theory describes,

2) Is testable - i.e. based on the theory you can design experiments/observations which, in turn, test the validity of the theory,

3) Is predictive - not only can you generate experiments to test the theory, but it must also accurately predict the results of those experiments, and

4) Is falsifiable, meaning if the theory is wrong, it is possible to demonstrate it is wrong.

 

Secondly, and most relevant to this part of your post, macroevolution is an observed phenomena - i.e. it is a fact. By definition, macroevolution is evolution above the species level (i.e. evolution that creates a new species, genera, family, etc). The first observed case of macroevoltion (speciation) was made in 1905 by Hugo de Vries, when he observed the formation of a new species of Oenothera lamarckiana. Since that initial observation, speciation (i.e. macroevoltuion) has been observed in nature, and driven artificially in the lab, at least 200 times. So when you say "it's very far from being a fact", you're only out of date by 107 years.

 

Lastly, the term macroevolution is misleading, and has fallen out of use by scientists in most cases. The reason is simple - macroevoltuion is not a separate process from microevotuion; rather, they are arbitrary divisions about amounts of evolution. When you consider how poorly the concept of species accurately reflects the real world, the terms become completely meaningless; an arbitrary division within a singular process, with the division set by an immeasurable quantity. in modern biology (i.e. since 1958) we generally refer to amounts of evolution using cladistics.

 

This is simply not true. Could you name a few passages removed? When it happened?

While OT from the rest of my post, removal and editing of biblical verses occurred many, many times. Keep in mind, an "official" bible did not exist for ~300 years AD, with some decisions about canon [specifically the validity of certain sects such as the arians & myceans] being made at Nicaea (325AD). Before then there was a proliferation of sects who had different texts as part of their holy books. Lists of canon from before Niceae include many of the so-called apocrypha; books such as the gospel of thomas and the gospel of judas. The modern canon wasn't officially nailed down until the 1500's (for catholosism), and the 1600's (for calvonism and greek orthodoxy), although aside from revelations, canon was pretty much accepted by those churches for centuries prior. We know, from recovered works, that the modern versions of the canonical texts are vastly different from the early texts, and many of the apocryptha were so successfully repressed (once decided that they were heretical) that only fragments exist today.

 

In terms of the project mentioned by the OP, all I can say is "good luck". Nearly every major faith is divided into numerous sects (including islam), with the variants in nearly all cases running the gamut from crazy/violent/anti-science/fundamentalist groups, to quite modest/modernist/OK with science sects. You may have better luck modeling a specific sect, rather than a broad group like "christians". The buddhist examples brought up earlier being a great example.

 

Bryan

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now