Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
USSR was mostly atheist. It had problems but they hardly have anything to do with irreligion (it's not like highly religious countries never had these problems).
China is atheist. And its economic/overpopulation problems are again not really connected to irreligion.
Scandinavian countries that are doing really well also slowly move in this direction.
If anything, a country guided by science/atheism has the highest potential for people's well-being, because only it can be a place with no irrational beliefs, no irrational hatreds, place where people don't commit crimes just to go and pray away their sins later (but don't commit crimes because they understand how everyone, including them, benefit from a functional society built on trust), place where people help each other sincerely, not because a reward was promised to them in the afterlife etc.
In rl people stop thinking about religion when they no longer need this irrational need, when they're well-educated, when they're doing well (it's often poverty or serious health issues that drive people towards believing in miracles because it helps them find sense/hope in life or justify their miserable existence) and are not shoved religion down their throats through propaganda.
In previous versions I could ensure good education for people, high well-being (wages, healthcare, low crime rate etc.), I could run discrediting campaigns against the religious faction and their leaders and propaganda campaigns in favor of their opponents, it's just none of it had a long-term effect. The religious party would always "recover" really fast and remain one of, if not the biggest faction.
That "faith happiness" is perhaps the only unnecessary need that Tropico has. Like everyone without exception needs/wants good nutrition, healthcare, safety, home, entertainment of one kind or another, but not everyone in rl needs this "faith happiness".
It's absurd that in Tropico (prev. versions) this need is everyone's need, it can't be removed and religious faction can't also be reduced to like 1-2% of population, no matter what.
And, moreover, faith in Tropico was (is?) only represented by Christian faith. That's also pretty lame design. For all other kinds of buildings (factories, houses, entertainment sphere etc.) there was great variety, but religion was (is?) strictly Christian.
even with the official atheist policy the USSR there were still many religious people so they still kept ortodox churches and mosques open but under the surveillance from the security agencies.
same with china, not even the cultural revolution could outroot all religion or spiritualism in china (specially folk beliefs), so they too conformed to keeping the organized churches and temples under the party and state oversight.
scandinavians however, aren't that hostile to religion, but their society emphasizes more in tolerant spirtuality and less in fundamentalist worship. if something the czechs are way more irreligious than scandinavians.
but anyways, people is irrational and they have irrational needs and tropicans aren't that different, so religious venues are unavoidable for their common psychological wellbeing.
i do guess that game-wise having an official atheism reduces the church-need of tropicans, but it could be possible that tropicans go to churches for other needs, like gossiping or socializing in general.
For members of the religious party (or for people in a religious state) it would be fulfilled by churches and faith, for others - by libraries, interest groups, markets/fairs and the like?
This "every single Tropican is Christian and wants a church, period" is rather annoying...
Name at least one country which is 100% Christian and not just Christian, but ritualistically Christian (i.e. all people not only believe in Christian god, but also consider the institute of church and its buildings important for their faith). I'm not sure even Vatican would fit these criteria.
So far this whole faith happiness thing is perhaps the most UNrealistic aspect of Tropico.
> oNcE peOpLE geT eDuCaTeD AnD tHeiR nEeDs aRE fuLfiLlEd tHeY aBaNdOn reliGiON
> rElIgIOn iS tHe oPpOsIte oF sCiEnCe
> rELigIoN iS INHerENtlY iRRatiOnal
> DURR HURR HURRRRR
Some of the greatest scientists on the earth practiced religion: Gallileo was a monk whose heliocentrism was equally a Biblical argument AND a scientific one, Isaac Newton was a Christian fundamentalist and, IIRC, Albert Einstein was a practicing Jew.
The man behind SQL-Lite is a fundamentalist Christian whose corporate code of conduct is literally from a monastic order.
The man known for saying "I have become death, destroyer of worlds" converted to Hinduism after the bomb was tested.
The Bible says that God reveals Himself through the natural world; science is the evidence of God and math is His language.
Also it's hard not to be (at least openly) a devout Christian in Europe during Middle Ages + couple more centuries because it's associated with certain health risks (or respect/career risks later).
The historically pretty notable involvement of church into scientific discoveries is merely a matter of circumstances.
Also not every field of education/science makes you understand the world better. You can a be brilliant linguist (or a programmer) but your extensive knowledge of man-made languages doesn't make you any wiser when it comes to understanding how your brain functions or what physicists discovered or any other things related to the existential question.
Early scientific discoveries also weren't enough to seriously undermine the Bible, hence people like Newton or Maxwell didn't see much conflict. It's the last couple of centuries - all the geological findings, neural research, quantum mechanics and astrophysics studies - that make that book look like a collection of fairy tales.
Natural sciences and religion weren't particularly in conflict during Middle Ages, but they're now. You cannot act consistently and accept both the Bible and modern natural sciences because they give contradicting explanations/evidence regarding many questions. Unless, of course, you decide re-interpret the Bible once again and cross out some of its paragraphs as metaphorical or the like, like was done many times before.
Finally, a few examples are by no means a counterargument to the fact that percentage of atheist/agnostic people is much higher in groups of people with higher education (school=>college=>university=>doctorate). Sure, this doesn't say much about cause-effect but it's pretty hard to stay religious when you learn how practically applicable science is and how useless religion is, like when you find out what effect prayers have on heart conditions and what effect medicine has, or which explanation works better: "Tourette syndrome" or "possessed by a demon" for the sake of proper&effective treatment.
And, btw, no matter how religious you are, you're only 1 religion/interpretation less atheist than me, since your belief in a particular teaching implies that you find every other interpretation (and millions of its followers) wrong.
If you ban people from praying if they want too, that seems irrational to me.
Because to me Abrahamic religions aren't particularly different from them. They all promote pseudoscientific&irrational&immoral attitudes to different groups of people, be it black people, Jews, women, gays, certain kinds of doctors (e.g. abortionists) or adepts of other religions.
Just like most countries do not tolerate nazism, I do not tolerate Christianity or Islam and wouldn't want any of them in my little Tropican country. Religion in practice is almost never about silently believing in something, it's usually about actively propagating it and lobbying its interests: trying to turn passages from a holy book into official laws, raising your kids according to your faith (including not vaccinating them, restricting them from certain important nutrition, shaming them for some perfectly normal activities etc. which results in harm done to their health - which isn't any different from, say, a criminal beating this kid on a street).
Zero upkeep churches are just the first step. It's kinda like when you stop sponsoring organized crime (whose bosses used to secretly help you - some political tyrant - keep your position) but still condone their activities.
Honestly, I don't mind people believing in some higher power. And I keep the possibility of its existence "open" for myself too. I just really can't stand when people dare to speak on behalf of this higher power claiming they know what it wants (without providing any proofs and evidence of their words) and try to force other people to perform activities that have been proven to be harmful (or restrain from activities that have been proven to be safe/healthy).
You can't get rid of Religion, some people will always have Religious ideals, you can crush it and have state sponsored atheism, but people will still have their thoughts.
You may not like it, you clearly have some weird personal thing against Religion, but it's a realistic feature. Just like how there will always be Communists and Liberals and Hippy's and so on.
People get ideas when they're taught these ideas.
So if you never tell kids about organized religions in the first place, they will never know about them and never feel the need to learn more. You can't want something you don't know about.
Sure, even with the best education, some people will still have some spiritualistic views and all these "why am I here?", "who created all that?" etc. questions, but without "guidance" from organized religions they won't ask for churches, they will rather try to find answers in books or their own studies.
And like I said before, my biggest objection is not against religions in general, but against the fact that all tropicans are strictly Christian (or at least used to be in prev. versions) and none of them can possibly be converted into other religions or atheism.
I wouldn't mind that much if I could build a buddhist temple where people would go to do yoga and meditation (which, unlike Christian practices, have proven beneficial effects on health), but no, it's just Christian churches.
You do not understand the formal logic of my words correctly and make a fallacy in your own.
Some people having religious/spiritual views is realistic.
A few of them being Christian is realistic.
Every single tropican being 100% devoted Christian (what we see in the game) is not realism, it's nonsense.
And it is the only absurd need the prev. versions had. We all like and need good food, wages, safety, housing, entertainment etc., but definitely not all people need christian churches.