Religions in Gods and Kings: Should Atheism be included?

[Kukulcán]

To answer the topic, no. It's a lack of belief - the true reflection of atheism in the game is to not select a religion. If you're that desperate, just name your religion 'Atheism'. I, personally, am going to name every religion I found 'Batmanism'. He was awesome for your sins.



No. Neither were religious, and Darwin did not convert to Christianity on his deathbed.



Some fun facts that most people don't know about Newton:

He was crazy.
He found his scientific experiments with gravity 'tedious'.
He was mostly focused on alchemy.
Even more crazily, he studied the Bible to see if he could find hidden messages left by God.

Note: I don't think because he believed in religion he was crazy. Certainly not. It's just that Newton devoted his life to alchemy and studying the Bible for hidden messages, and believed that it was his 'real work'. For a man that worked out gravity and discovered calculus, it's a little nuts.

Gotta love my Newton haha.
=========

Oh, really. Do you think there has been a net synergy or conflict between these two?
Come now, cherry picking a single situation out of all of history where there was relative tolerance is merely an exception that proves the rule.

They are polar opposites.
Science is the process of questioning everything, and assuming nothing.
Religious faith says we know the answer, so why question.

But that does not mean atheism is scientific. It is not anything, it is simply the lack of something else.

And for the above post. This is another discussion which has gone on many times in these forums. Its an interesting discussion but again I argue the point that religion and science go together historically often. It depends too much on the situation, religion, and era to say whole-heartedly that religion is antithetical to science. I am also on the side as RideASpaceCowboy who has said that this theory that it is anthitecial is a recent and novel development.

By no means is there just a single situation. Of course our vision of the world often outweighs the historical vision of the world over millenia. But to say religious patronage in the Arabic Caliphates, Western Europe, South East Asia are again contradictions to this perceived modern belief. And these are just more well known examples. The Maya for example believed that advances "In the works and knowledge of Man" were driven by the gods and a form of worship to some of them. The ceremonial and religious purposes of our calender led to the growth of new styles of quarrying and studying of our solar system.

[istry555]

Oh, really. Do you think there has been a net synergy or conflict between these two?
Come now, cherry picking a single situation out of all of history where there was relative tolerance is merely an exception that proves the rule.

They are polar opposites.
Science is the process of questioning everything, and assuming nothing.
Religious faith says we know the answer, so why question.

But that does not mean atheism is scientific. It is not anything, it is simply the lack of something else.

They've co-existed in synergy much longer than they have in conflict. The perception that they are polar opposites is primarily an early-modern invention (which came about for a variety of reasons). And there's no need to cherry pick a single situation, you can look at science and religion in the medieval Arabic world, astronomy and mathematics in India and the earlier Vedic people as well as the civilizations of ancient Mesopotamia, philosophy in Judaism and Greece, Daoism & medicine in ancient China, and even, yes, a good deal of the European Renaissance when looking at subjects such as alchemy and naturalia, as well as figures such as Paracelsus, Newton, Fludd, Dee, Bacon, not to mention earlier monastic schools and Church sponsored universities, etc. just to "cherry pick a few examples".

Actually, if you were to look at the whole history of mankind and not just the modern era, science in conflict with religion would be the exception not the rule.

[Kukulcán]

Or you could look at Gobekli Tepe. Gobekli Tepe has suggested a cultural revolution was the key step to transforming mankind froma hunter-gatherer people to massive importance of transition to the neolithic revolution. The temple shows how this early pre-civ became more and more centralized under religion until this organization led to the neolithic revolution and then widespread settling and growth of the Middle East.

This has led to the theory that some cultural movement, in this case religion, allowed for human society to first advance in many regions. And this is just in the Middle East. This theory has/is being studied in other regions such as in Peru with extremely ancient temples and comparison with the appearance of the first argiculture in the region.

[stethnorun]

They are polar opposites.
Science is the process of questioning everything, and assuming nothing.
Religious faith says we know the answer, so why question.

Yup, faith, by its very definition, is the enemy, ENEMY, of science. Not sure I could make it much clearer than that, just to shorten Artifex's statement.

But that does not mean atheism is scientific. It is not anything, it is simply the lack of something else.

Yeah as I've previously posted (but won't cite examples for fear of more derailing), plenty of atheists are VERY religious-minded in other, non-theism related areas. I would venture that over 50% of atheists use some form of faith when it comes to economics, politics, environmentalism, etc. Just because you don't buy into the god delusion, doesn't automatically make you a skeptic.

[Homero]

Areas without an accepted reconstructed proto-language (or where one is not possible) or when dealing only with purely hypothetical macrofamilies which can't be reconstructed or may have never existed (like Nostratic), then, yes, people start jumping to conclusions based only on archeological findings which, as the article points out, are easily misinterpreted.

A very good post, istry555.

[tempshemps]

Interesting idea with atheism being a religion that you can choose, however like some have said, I think by either naming a religion "Atheist" or by not choosing any religion should pretty much do.

This would make sense if there are certain COSTS to choosing a religion as well (i.e., maybe you can't take certain policies in the rationalism tree, or you accrue science a bit slower, or something along these lines). That's a bit obvious anyway, but deserving of mention. It wouldn't make any sense for you to be able to choose the "Secularism" policy from Rationalism policy category if you are a highly religious nation.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Oh, really. Do you think there has been a net synergy or conflict between these two?
Come now, cherry picking a single situation out of all of history where there was relative tolerance is merely an exception that proves the rule.

They are polar opposites.
Science is the process of questioning everything, and assuming nothing.
Religious faith says we know the answer, so why question.

But that does not mean atheism is scientific. It is not anything, it is simply the lack of something else.

I do not believe that science and religion are the same thing - of course they aren't. But science has worked with religion before. The Islamic Golden Age (Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates) and pre-medieval Europe both worked with science quite a lot. Baghdad was, at one point, the cultural centre of the world. It's disappointing how people dismiss the Islamic and Chinese advances between 600-1400 just because they didn't happen in Europe. Islamic scientists were working with Allah in mind - some of them even believed that science could prove god's existence.

Science and religion have quite happily existed for the past six thousand years. It's only a few times when they've contradicted each other.

[Taciturn Scot]

I don't see a need for Athiesm to be included as a Religion.

[Vlynor]

Atheism should not be included as a religion. It's a belief there isn't a higher power, but there are no places of worship/private celebrations, prophets, or deities that a formal religion would follow.

Edited.

[FeddyPoap]

You can never teach an entire population to not believe in god/gods. No one founded Atheism, and the Science bonus you grant to Atheism is a bit.. odd. Charles Darwin and Albert Einstien both believed in a god. Plus Socrates and Aristotle where great thinkers and scientists and they where Polytheistic. Religion doesn't hinder scientific progress, unless this progress is out to prove it wrong.

"If Science proves something in Buddhism is wrong, then Buddhism will change" -Dalai Lama.

Here is a list of Scientists who believed in God
Albert Einstien
Nicholas Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon
Johannes Kepler
Galileo Galilei
Rene Descartes
Blaise Pascal
Max Planck
William Thomson Kelvin
Gregor Mendel
Michael Faraday
Robert Boyle
Isaac Newton

So Religion doesn't make people stupid. Religion sometimes has wrong views, but that doesn't mean before Atheism we were all banging rocks together singing Templar Chants. [I'm sure some where, rocks make a good beat].

Another thing that I don't like [I am not saying anyone said this, but now is a good time when I am on a role] is when people either don't respect, get angry when you mention, or just plain out hate Religion. It bugs me, I don't know why it just does. And then the Science book told Noah to follow his heart, and so he did. He built a boat and saved his family because no one at that time could build a boat strong enough or powerful enough to hold 2 of each kind of animal. Hail Darwin. Now if you turn to page Evolution 2:19 we will discuss some of Darwin's famous quotes.

Well I give this forum a lot of credit - its much more mature and tolerant than other boards are. Pretty much everywhere else, you don't get the fair minded view of religion that is given here. Go to the Bioware forums and you won't get off the first page of a discussion on the Mass Effect character Ashley Williams, who professes a belief in god in the first Mass Effect game, without an ignorant remark. It's worth pointing out that there are plenty of people who believe in god who don't like religion, either. What the word represents, like something you do for reasons you don't know.

And I believe it was Isaac Newton who said something like "I don't believe the god who granted us logic and wisdom has intended for us to forgo their use". I don't get why the notion that science and evolution and the belief in a god are mutually exclusive is so prevalent. Just because a lot of people think something, doesn't make it true. Like the whole 'we only use ten percent of our brain' thing. It's simply not true.

[haterx732]

Being an atheist myself, I don't think it should be a religion because it actually isn't one. We don't practice a set of commandment's, have a set moral code or claim anything that can't be explained was made by god. Buddhism is considered a religion, but they do not believe in a god as some seem to mistaken what it means to actually be "religious".

[Black Gate of Mordor]

[Atheism] is a belief there is higher power...

I'm sorry, what? Do you actually understand what atheism means?

NO belief in a supernatural being or higher power. You're confusing atheist and deist.

[steveg700]

And I believe it was Isaac Newton who said something like "I don't believe the god who granted us logic and wisdom has intended for us to forgo their use". I don't get why the notion that science and evolution and the belief in a god are mutually exclusive is so prevalent. Just because a lot of people think something, doesn't make it true.

Well, look at things like bans of human cloning and stem cell research. What drives such acts of cowardice and ignorance? Who is so dead-set against these important new fields of study?

Personally, I believe it's a sign of human idiocy that we don't devote vast amounts of effort to life-extension research. Hell, we're not even taking a good stab at Alzheimer's, and that's waiting out there for many of us in this thread.

[haterx732]

Well believe it or not.. if you actually do a bit of a research, we are more focused on "how can we reduce world population" and perhaps by extension, life-reduction.

[Balthazaar]

Atheism may not be a religion but its certainly a belief system like any religion.
To name a few similarities, Its has followers, converts, preachers, advocates, holds mass gatherings for "believers", believes in one truth (science), believes everyone else is wrong and has had their own form of inquisition (cultural revolution).
But it just wouldnt make any sense as a religion in Civ.
One, if founded it would have to discount all previous pantheon benefits.
Two, all the religious options are based on different gods/god related things.
And three, you have to gain faith, and as far as i know atheists dont have faith that atheisms true.
So yea, it would be nonsense as a religion.

[stethnorun]

Atheism may not be a religion but its certainly a belief system like any religion.
To name a few similarities, Its has followers, converts, preachers, advocates, holds mass gatherings for "believers", believes in one truth (science), believes everyone else is wrong and has had their own form of inquisition (cultural revolution).

All of this relies on the fact that theists are pushing in the opposite direction. If everyone started from a default of "no god until evidence is provided" then there would be no "atheist movement", no need to preach the virtues of atheism, etc.

Think of it this way, everyone needs to eat to survive. It's a default. We don't, therefor, have foodists and afoodists. We all experience gravity, we don't have gravitists and agravitists. The reasons we don't have those is that there is tangible proof of/reasons for those phenomena. The problem with theism is that, despite the lack of evidence, people still refuse to let the idea go. Thus, atheists aren't preaching or gathering followers in the religious sense. Atheists are simply realists, battling a (usually harmful) fantasy.

If theism vanished off the face of the Earth, tomorrow, so would athiesm. They wouldn't continue to preach or extol the value of atheism because reality would be the new default, and you don't need to convince people of reality when they haven't been taught to believe in a fantasy. The same would NOT be true of theists if tomorrow atheism vanished. Theists would preach and recruit followers regardless, because people do not inherently believe fantasies without someone indoctrinating them.

[twersx]

My ingame Judaism will involve belief in multiple gods and the ability to purchase warriors with faith and "Mosques." I will raze any city not of my faith and refound it, to ensure no religious conflict can arise. Not very jewish, is it?

As others have stated, you're making your own religion with a preset name and symbol

[Balthazaar]

All of this relies on the fact that theists are pushing in the opposite direction.

Yes, because that is the real world and not a what if world like the one you suggest

"despite the lack of evidence, people still refuse to let the idea go"

Why should they ? People believe in multi universes, with what evidence ? none. Some believe that the universe was created out of nothing, with what evidence ? none.
An atheist will readily believe in infinity even though infinity can not exist in a finite universe. Would anyone believe these "fantasies" if someone hadnt indoctrinated them ?
If the human mind thought of everything like "no (whatever) until evidence is provided" We would still be swinging from the trees, if even.
Your comparison to food and gravity is just laughable when we are talking about something that expands mans understanding of the universes and his place in it.

[Luciela]

Yes, because that is the real world and not a what if world like the one you suggest


Why should they ? People believe in multi universes, with what evidence ? none. Some believe that the universe was created out of nothing, with what evidence ? none.
An atheist will readily believe in infinity even though infinity can not exist in a finite universe. Would anyone believe these "fantasies" if someone hadnt indoctrinated them ?
If the human mind thought of everything like "no (whatever) until evidence is provided" We would still be swinging from the trees, if even.
Your comparison to food and gravity is just laughable when we are talking about something that expands mans understanding of the universes and his place in it.

Amen. (sorry for the pun)

[Artifex]

If you are saying athiesm is a belief, because they "believe" that you are wrong, then you are stretching.
There are countless other things they also believe are not real, unicorns, big foot, etc. Refusing to believe something without evidence is not the same as faith. Each of those do not constitute a "belief system"

If you think a scientist believes in evolution, you are incorrect, or at least imprecise. They "have evidence" for evolution. Which is not the same thing at all. Mathematics think they have evidence that suggests multiple universes, but they are always seeking to learn more even (and especially) if it contradicts what they think to this point.

Think about this. If tomorrow we woke up with no memories, and everything taken away from us what would happen?

People would start religions, but they would be completely new. The themes would repeat but the old religions would be gone.

People would also restart down the path of science from scratch. Similar mistakes would be made, similar discoveries would be made, but the end result and conclusions would be the same! Some things would take longer, some things would happen faster, but science isn't something we invent (pun) it is something we discover around us.

[PachaMinnie]

There are countless other things they also believe are not real, unicorns, big foot, etc.

Bigfoot is very real. Very real indeed.

[Artifex]

I know that came off heavy handed. To be clear, I do not think faith is not a bad thing. It can even be a very positive thing.

Definitions are important though, and I can be argumentative when people assign bad labels. Please don't feel disrespected, I would do that by ignoring you!

Now Back to being an @$$
Science can fly you to the moon; religion can fly you into buildings!

[istry555]

People in this thread are confusing a few things. First, faith does not equal the totality of religion or religious experience. Faith is certainly a part of many (not all) religious systems, but it does not include everything that is meant when speaking of "religion". Secondly, religion does not only equal organized religion. These are two very different things, and while organized religion is one possible expression of religion as a whole, it, again, does not express the totality of what is meant by "religion" nor is it useful to generalize regarding what is meant by religion. Thirdly, modern religion is also not the totality of religion. It's just that, a modern expression of religion; not religion as a whole.

Now, why certainly some elements that are included in the term "religion" can be seen as counter science/rationalism and some expressions of religion (especially in the modern era and especially in regards to political off-shoots of religion) have very heavily followed that trend, it does not mean that all aspects that constitute the term religion are anti-science. Many in fact are completely unrelated to scientific progress or lack thereof and many can work hand in hand with science.

Finally, religion does not mean "we know the answer, so why question". Certainly this has been expressed in some forms of (especially modern) organized religions but is easily disproven by the fact that almost every religion in existence has countless schools of mysticism and philosophical speculation regarding precisely not knowing the answer. The rise of early modern views of religion vs. science also saw the rise of many new religious movements that tried to blend and reconcile these new contradictions between religion and science.

There are also many scientists today that do, in fact, believe in God. I'm sure they don't go, oh there's no point researching/studying things because, herp derp God. No, they place God as some form of ultimate unknowable cause perhaps who set up the laws of the universe, perhaps who is expressed by them, perhaps whatever. It doesn't matter because, in cases like this, their belief in and existence of God is moot when related to scientific progress.

Honestly, some people on this board seem to think that fundamentalists who take whatever holy book literally is somehow a good representation of religion. Fundamentalism actually arose in response to modern religion and theology, which means religion as a whole is moving away from what is represented and stereotyped by fundamentalism.

It's absolutely retarded to not respect religion, when religion as a whole has been one of the single most important factors in shaping human culture and society. Also, the argument that if we all woke up tomorrow without memory science will prevail by reaching the same conclusions is a faulty one. Science grew out of religion, period. Religion at its most basic component is an attempt to explain the world. Greek philosophy--what the Western world holds as a paragon of rational thought--Greek philosophy was a direct reformulation of Indo-European sacrificial ideology and Mesopotamian temple rites. For most of human history before the early modern era, religion and science were not seen as two separate subjects. Astronomy grew out of religion. The Scientific Revolution came about partly due to the re-introduction of Neoplatonic mysticism into Europe during the Renaissance. Modern medicine grew out of religion. Heck, modern psychology is even a direct descendant and reformulation of 19th century ceremonial magic and Hassidic Kabbalah. Saying if we all woke up tomorrow without memory will "prove" science is pointless as it ignores the simple historical fact that modern science is built on the foundations laid by religion.

Religion is not some evil thing that's somehow destroying science and human progress.

[Artifex]

Religion can be hostile, it can be neutral, hell you could have a religion based on inquiry and it could actually help.

I reality however I think you are highly revisionist. Particulary in western culture each new thing came DESPITE the religions. Often with active condemnation from the religious authorities.

You are right religion and faith can be examined individually.
Faith however says I believe X, no matter what. That is the opposite of modern science. Many people even say they would continue to believe even if someone could prove to them that there was no god. There can be no progress when people are so dead set in their ways.

I'm sure you have heard it said "There is a single light of science, to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere" Muslims invented algebra, but there is not Muslim algebra and Christian algebra. If there are aliens I guarantee their algebra is exactly the same as ours. It is not dependent our our beliefs, it is testable, verifiable.

If we had to start from scratch 2+2 would still be four. No god required.

[PachaMinnie]

Religion can be hostile, it can be neutral, hell you could have a religion based on inquiry and it could actually help.

I reality however I think you are highly revisionist. Particulary in western culture each new thing came DESPITE the religions. Often with active condemnation from the religious authorities.

You are right religion and faith can be examined individually.
Faith however says I believe X, no matter what. That is the opposite of modern science. Many people even say they would continue to believe even if someone could prove to them that there was no god. There can be no progress when people are so dead set in their ways.

I'm sure you have heard it said "There is a single light of science, to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere" Muslims invented algebra, but there is not Muslim algebra and Christian algebra. If there are aliens I guarantee their algebra is exactly the same as ours. It is not dependent our our beliefs, it is testable, verifiable.

If we had to start from scratch 2+2 would still be four. No god required.

I think that eventually Religion will evolve with science, however there will still be holdouts here and there. When we start exploring the universe and have space travel to the max, people will look all over the galaxy for a image of god/gods.

Religion is only bad in the wrong hands. If you give a man religion, he will either die praying for the fish or fight for the fish much like anyone else. It depends on the Person. Religion doesn't make someone stupid or violent, the person makes those choices.

[istry555]

I reality however I think you are highly revisionist. Particulary in western culture each new thing came DESPITE the religions. Often with active condemnation from the religious authorities.

I'm sure you have heard it said "There is a single light of science, to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere" Muslims invented algebra, but there is not Muslim algebra and Christian algebra. If there are aliens I guarantee their algebra is exactly the same as ours. It is not dependent our our beliefs, it is testable, verifiable.

If we had to start from scratch 2+2 would still be four. No god required.

But in your first statement you are making one of the mistakes I pointed out, confusing organized religion (religious authorities) as being an expression of religion as a whole. And actually, I'm not really being revisionist at all in terms of the impact of religion (again religion, not organized religion or a political entity representing religion, but it's just too long an argument and I'm unsure it would be heard).

And you're missing my point. It doesn't matter in the end that 2+2 will always be 4. Religion was a part of the evolution of modern science. It doesn't matter if in the end we would get 4. Religion was a fundamental step in the development of science in human culture. To disclaim it is the same as saying modern man just appeared and didn't evolve through a series of intermediate species. It's also being revisionist to use modern religious (and mostly fundamentalist) views as a complete expression of religion before the early modern period (especially as this thread is ultimately about a game that starts in 4000 BCE).

[SlickSlicer]

I know that came off heavy handed. To be clear, I do not think faith is not a bad thing. It can even be a very positive thing.

Definitions are important though, and I can be argumentative when people assign bad labels. Please don't feel disrespected, I would do that by ignoring you!

Now Back to being an @$$
Science can fly you to the moon; religion can fly you into buildings!

lol'd at the end quote.

(this entire argument is still pointless since atheism is already in the game, due to religions being mere templates that you can rename and customize however you want)

[Joketa]

@Istry555, you're last couple of posts were very well put. I completely agree with you.

[JFD]

The problem with theism is that, despite the lack of evidence, people still refuse to let the idea go. Thus, atheists aren't preaching or gathering followers in the religious sense. Atheists are simply realists, battling a (usually harmful) fantasy.

Evidence of any claim made by a theism is very subjective. Psychology is among the same vein, at least with regard to mental illness.

[chrisjwmartin]

Yeah, the rise of atheism is documented in the game in Religion's lack of weight on late game diplomacy. Since it's such a modern invention, it doesn't fit. And being able to invent Atheism with a Great Prophet sounds ridiculous.

As an agnostic, THIS.

[Balthazaar]

@Istry555, you're last couple of posts were very well put. I completely agree with you.

Indeed, Istry555 hit the nail on the head.

[Homero]

Modern medicine grew out of religion

A very good post, but I have to disagree on this issue. Indeed, medicine grew out of religion, from religious and empiric healing methods- but Modern medicine grew out of the Greek secular, rational medicine.
Medieval medicine relied more heavily on the intercession of saints. The growing significance of superstition/mysticism and magic in medieval europe is frequently attributed to the fall of the western empire, but in fact this antirationalism was strongest after the year 1300, even in Constantinople and the East. In fact, the anti-hellenism of the Christian Church led to the loss of much of the Greek and Roman writings that were the base of the western civilization. We should keep in mind that in the 12th, 13th centuries the control of hospitals was tranferred from the church to municipalities, and monastic medicine declined, because people´s growing interest in receiving earthly rather than heavenly rewards; from this time date the origins of some great hospitals in Europe.

--

Religion was a fundamental step in the development of science in human culture

Sometimes it was a fundamental "stop".
---

religion and faith can be examined individually

It's not even religion without faith.

you could have a religion based on inquiry

A paradox, an inquiring mind is a skeptical mind.

[istry555]

A very good post, but I have to disagree on this issue. Indeed, medicine grew out of religion, from religious and empiric healing methods- but Modern medicine grew out of the Greek secular, rational medicine.
Medieval medicine relied more heavily on the intercession of saints. The growing significance of superstition/mysticism and magic in medieval europe is frequently attributed to the fall of the western empire, but in fact this antirationalism was strongest after the year 1300, even in Constantinople and the East. In fact, the anti-hellenism of the Christian Church led to the loss of much of the Greek and Roman writings that were the base of the western civilization. We should keep in mind that in the 12th, 13th centuries the control of hospitals was tranferred from the church to municipalities, and monastic medicine declined, because people´s growing interest in receiving earthly rather than heavenly rewards; from this time date the origins of some great hospitals in Europe.

I admit, I probably gave the impression of religion as the sole cause as opposed to a significant contributor to the rise of so-and-so. My statement in regards to medicine was a combination of the stuff you listed but also a reflection of the huge impact alchemy, Hermeticism, Neoplatonic mysticism, and astrology had on figures such as Paracelsus (who, in my opinion, was one of the most significant figures in the rise of modern medicine by attacking established views of illness [following the line of Hippocrates and Galen and internal imbalances, e.g. humours], helped break down the barrier of surgery being the realm of barbers, et al. instead of doctors, as well as the use of the vernacular in the medical field).

It's not even religion without faith.

There are some examples of religion without faith, although this starts to get into the murky territory of what constitutes a religion and where does religion end and, say, philosophy or pre-modern science begins. There's a really obvious example that slips my mind at the moment--and ignoring a discussion concerning the classification of some philosophical Eastern religions--but I can at least point to a great deal of the Spiritualism movement of the 19th century/Victorian Era. Many sects and groups of the movement "scientifically proved" the existence of spirits and ghosts. Granted, from a 21st century perspective we can see that their science was faulty, but for them they were working with what was considered modern and accepted scientific techniques and even had a deal of scientific support from academic communities (and the fact that a current scientific theory can later be proven false doesn't somehow discredit it's acceptance at the time--of course this then goes into topics such as science as a religion, "belief" in an academic authority, etc.). Now, because they had "proven" an afterlife does that stop it from being a religion. Certainly, from the perspective of today we would call them a religion and they engaged in a lot of activities than are classified as religious. However, this also has precedents back into the Renaissance and Medieval periods where naturalia and the Occult Sciences where by many authorities accepted as scientific fact and not "magic" or a matter of "faith" (and things like gravity and magnetism were considered part of the Occult Sciences alongside astral influences and sympathy). Which is why it's not always fruitful to try and draw a hard distinction between religion and science, faith and fact before the modern period.

[Vlynor]

I'm sorry, what? Do you actually understand what atheism means?

NO belief in a supernatural being or higher power. You're confusing atheist and deist.

I apologize for that, I meant isn't. I guess I typed it a bit too fast and forgot to look over it.

The original post should make more sense now.

[Shark2346]

You can have the option to not use religion at all. Get over it already. I am an Atheist I don't care. Religion played a major role in the world, whereas atheism wouldn't play a role in world politics.

[Homero]

There are some examples of religion without faith,

Hmm, sorry,no. Philosophies, not religions. Religion is based on faith; depending on the religion, faith is belief in a single god or multiple gods and in the doctrines or teachings of the religion.

I probably gave the impression of religion as the sole cause..

Well, you said that "Modern medicine grew out of religion".

the huge impact alchemy, Hermeticism, Neoplatonic mysticism, and astrology had on figures such as Paracelsus (who, in my opinion, was one of the most significant figures in the rise of modern medicine

In fact the earliest medical humanists has also an interest in magic and astrology.

following the line of Hippocrates..

Hmm, not exactly. With a reverence for Hippocrates, his system was itself un-Hippocratic. To him the physician was a mage who could direct astral forces to heal. In fact Paracelsus,"the father of pharmacology", had a limited pharmaceutical arsenal and earned this title form himself because he applied alchemy to the treatment of disease.

...and Galen

Well,no. Paracelsus concluded that the human body was a machine and popularized the use of minerals; in contrast the Galenic school relied primarly on plant medicines.
The most notable influence of Paracelsus was on chemistry on medicine, and this school ( chemical medicine) was to compete with teh Galenic school for the next 200 years.

[istry555]

Hmm, sorry,no. Philosophies, not religions. Religion is based on faith; depending on the religion, faith is belief in a single god or multiple gods

But again, what about some sects Spiritualism (particularly in Europe) that had multiple spirits, many very specific (John King). Meanwhile, the scientific and academic milieu of the day proved their existence, so belief in them and communion with them was a matter of science not faith. Many of the sects in the movement actually fell apart once scientific theories advanced and no longer supported the evidence (so the communion, quasi-worship of these beings wasn't a matter of faith). It's not exactly the easiest thing to classify from a contemporaneous perspective. It's sort of the question, if hypothetically modern science proved the existence of "God" tomorrow. Would belief/acknowledgement in him stop being religious just because it's no longer dependent on faith?

and in the doctrines or teachings of the religion.

Well, again, that's true for organized religion, not religion as a whole. There are important differences, and of course a good deal of overlap and mix-and-match between the two.

Hmm, not exactly. With a reverence for Hippocrates... in contrast the Galenic school.

No, I meant that Paracelsus attacked established views which followed the line established by Hippocrates and Galen (not that he continued that line himself). In this regard he championed the idea that illness was the result of outside agents attacking the body instead of the contemporaneous view that illness was caused by an imbalance of humors and was primarily treated through specific diets and blood-letting.

[Homero]

But again, what about Spiritualism that had multiple spirits...

Sorry, spiritualism is not a religion, and is not a matter of science.

Meanwhile, the scientific and academic milieu of the day proved their existence, so belief in them and communion with them was a matter of science not faith

Spiritism/spiritualism was a matter of belief (or charlatanism) not a matter of science.
Link

if hypothetically modern science proved the existence of "God" tomorrow

That would be the end of all religions.Religion rests on faith, and faith does not mix well with science. In fact, sadly, sometimes ( many times in fact) religion discourages science (eg genetic research)

In this regard he championed the idea that illness was the result of outside agents attacking the body instead of the contemporaneous view that illness was caused by an imbalance of humors

As I said before, the outside agents of Paracelsus were the stars and the astral forces.

Talking about external agents, in the same period, (mid 16th century) I take my hat off to Jean Fernel, Fernel was the first that clearly states in "De Contagione" the modern theory of infection by invisible germs.
In the same period, I also take my hat off to Vesalius,a true champion of modern science. He wrote one of the greatest books in the history of the world. (De Humana corporis fabrica)

[Joketa]

That would be the end of all religions.Religion rests on faith,[/I]

Religion rests on humans trying to do what they believe is God's work. How would the proof of God's existence end religion? That makes no sense to me at all. Care to explain?

[Hawk]

Religion is also a way of life...For example teachings that train people to be peaceable and not kill each other, among other things - certainly there are teachings that help us to be better people if we follow them. I will point out that people don't need to follow a religion to be peaceable or to strive to be better, but it's always nice when that is what a religion teaches, and teachings like that do encourage more people to be peaceable, and to improve themselves.

Just one example...


Romans 12:17-21 "Return evil for evil to no one. Provide fine things in the sight of all men. If possible, as far as it depends upon YOU, be peaceable with all men. Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says Jehovah.” But, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals upon his head.” Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good."


You can see the positive effect this would have on our planet if everyone followed these words.