What would it take for you to change your stance on religion?

[Turkafinwë]

To be honest, it will have to be some pretty convincing stuff. Like for the god-creature to come down and appear before me after which he will probably have to convince me why I should worship him as a God, which is an entirely different discussion. The nature of this "God" then would be something I would be very interested in finding out.

I was raised as a Catholic, went to Catholic school and to church when I was young, up until I was 14 or so. For me it always was more of a cultural thing than a strictly religious thing. I was baptized at birth and followed catechesis and underwent Confirmation but I can't say I really believed in the Catholic dogma, or any other for that matter. It was, as I say, more of a cultural and societal thing to do, everyone did it when I went to school. As for the belief if there is something out there, like a god-creature which created the universe and humans (because that is what the theology of the Abrahamic faiths is all about), I can only say that I don't know. There might be something, there might not be and if there is something greater than us, which is entirely plausible, would we consider it (a) God or just a more powerful alien species? (The Aesir were a people humans considered gods but they were not gods to themselves, they were just the Aesir just like you had the Älves and Jötunns. The only reason we see them as gods is because they can do things we can't. Where would be draw the line between powerful alien or God?) The way I look at religion is that it is comforting to think there is a greater purpose to human life than just, the purpose we ourselves give to life, and that is what religion provides for many.

It would be comforting for some and horrifying for others (or perhaps a bit of both), I think, to find proof that we were created by some being for their purposes. It would give us, as a species, a whole other perspective on life.

[TheLeft]

Atheist here. It would require complete and unequivocal mathematical proof of God's existence. It's always been my position...

[Prodromos]

As an aside, has anyone noticed that the vast majority of atheists/agnostics on this forum were raised Catholic?

[Aexodus]

Well I was raised a Prod

[Himster]

As an aside, has anyone noticed that the vast majority of atheists/agnostics on this forum were raised Catholic?

The majority of westerners are Catholic and the majority of vocal atheists and the majority of TWC users are westerners, so no, it's not surprising.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

As an aside, has anyone noticed that the vast majority of atheists/agnostics on this forum were raised Catholic?

Per above, the sample of the Total War Center community and dare I say, the Total War community save for games appealing far Eastern regions doesn't exactly lend itself to terribly much diversity for this in the first place.

[Sar1n]

As an aside, has anyone noticed that the vast majority of atheists/agnostics on this forum were raised Catholic?

I was raised irreligious.

[Love Mountain]

I was raised Eastern Orthodox by my grandma. My parents were total atheists though. Most of America is protestant imo, catholics are a minority in USA I think.

[Akar]

Globally speaking though Catholics are the majority christian sect.

[Prodromos]

But most of the American atheists on here seem to have been raised Catholic too, even though Catholics make up a minority of the US population. Obviously in real life 75% of atheists aren't former Catholics, but that seems to be the case online for some reason.

I think some Catholic doctrines or aspects of Catholic culture/history are just so messed up, that Catholicism produces a disproportionate number of the most fervent and outspoken atheists.

I mean, every time I argue with a vehemently anti-Christian atheist online, their understanding of Christianity pretty much always turns out to be a Catholic one (high ecclesiology, crusades, transubstantiation, Inquisition, integralism, etc.)

[z3n]

The Crusades? Ignoring the Orthodox, the first real large scale interaction between the Muslim world and the Christian world was an invasion (along with raping, pillaging and other fun stuff) into Europe itself. France was invaded and nearly conquered, if not for the Battle of Tours in 732. So to expect European societies to refrain from any offensive action against a powerful enemy which continued to pose a threat for millennia is just silly and nonsensical.

[Calypze]

As an aside, has anyone noticed that the vast majority of atheists/agnostics on this forum were raised Catholic?

I was not raised within any particular religion. My parents are not religious, but not really anti-religious either. Religion was rarely a topic when I grew up.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

It's not a great sample for random people to say 'well not me' when the claim is blanket (but then, non-statistic observation without a proper polling method isn't terribly credible either, so that's all we have...), but while we're posting to the contrary, I was actually raised in a mixed household with a super low religious focus, and have come out pretty agnostic. Bless their souls, my parents ultimately raised me towards an open mind and seeking personal belief in this regard than pressing weekly Sunday preaching business, with an infrequently referred to, but always present belief in God fundamental to their actions and whenever religion is brought up. My father in fact had a moment he chalks down to revelation that permanently solidified his belief in a near-fatal case of electrocution. Both were at slightly opposing sides of Christianity, but they found common ground in God and never fussed on the matter, and so that didn't mean much. I turned out weird when I started spending too much time thinking about logic. It took a while yet to settle on where I am as an acceptable interim that fits logically and accounts for possibility, while refusing to take potential coincidence as evidence.

I mean, every time I argue with a vehemently anti-Christian atheist online, their understanding of Christianity pretty much always turns out to be a Catholic one (high ecclesiology, crusades, transubstantiation, Inquisition, integralism, etc.)

I have a feeling this had less to do with them being raised to that end so much as them attempting to use those factors in a historical context to oppose the religion (which is a fairly narrow way to approach it, and the historical argument in general isn't a good opposition unless the matter of history itself is the subject). For people who are simply putting down Christianity for its unlikable historical elements, the most juicy material is in Catholic-dominated history, with little to compare from other sects or sects to come after (which again makes it unfair to blanket judge in its entirety as I would say other religions shouldn't be universally denounced for their most extreme elements, save for cases those elements are fundamental to their modern practice - no, I'm not loopholing for Islam here). I don't think this contributes well to an impression of the general TWC population's upbringing.

[Sir Adrian]

The majority of westerners are Catholic and the majority of vocal atheists and the majority of TWC users are westerners, so no, it's not surprising.

I find it extremely surprising that the majority of atheists hail from western Europe and the Americas even though atheism was aggressively, and sometimes violently, pushed in the other half of Europe and almost all Asia for the better part of the last century.

[MaximiIian]

the most juicy material is in Catholic-dominated history

Well, yeah, for about a thousand years Catholicism (and Orthodoxy, which were unified until the 1050s) was the predominant, if not sole, form of Christianity in the West. It has the juciest material because it just has the most screen time. That said, I find Protestantism has more than its fair share of violence, colonialism, imperialism, and oppression to answer for.

On a completely personal level, I get along better with Catholics than I do Protestants. In my experience, at least, Catholics and Pagans (such as I) share an emphasis on ritual, and most Catholics I meet are pretty laid-back (being able to absolve your sins once a week makes it pretty easy to cut loose). By contrast, most Protestants I know are really uptight.

[Prodromos]

The Crusades? Ignoring the Orthodox, the first real large scale interaction between the Muslim world and the Christian world was an invasion (along with raping, pillaging and other fun stuff) into Europe itself. France was invaded and nearly conquered, if not for the Battle of Tours in 732. So to expect European societies to refrain from any offensive action against a powerful enemy which continued to pose a threat for millennia is just silly and nonsensical.

The problem is that in addition to the military battles, the crusaders deliberately targeted and killed innocent non-combatants, including women and children, often in gruesome ways. The crusades weren't only against Muslims/pagans either, but also against European Jews, Cathars, and proto-Protestant Christians like the Hussites and Waldensians, most of whom posed no military threat to the Catholics.

I have a feeling this had less to do with them being raised to that end so much as them attempting to use those factors in a historical context to oppose the religion (which is a fairly narrow way to approach it, and the historical argument in general isn't a good opposition unless the matter of history itself is the subject). For people who are simply putting down Christianity for its unlikable historical elements, the most juicy material is in Catholic-dominated history, with little to compare from other sects or sects to come after (which again makes it unfair to blanket judge in its entirety as I would say other religions shouldn't be universally denounced for their most extreme elements, save for cases those elements are fundamental to their modern practice - no, I'm not loopholing for Islam here). I don't think this contributes well to an impression of the general TWC population's upbringing.

Makes sense.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Well, yeah, for about a thousand years Catholicism (and Orthodoxy, which were unified until the 1050s) was the predominant, if not sole, form of Christianity in the West. It has the juciest material because it just has the most screen time. That said, I find Protestantism has more than its fair share of violence, colonialism, imperialism, and oppression to answer for.

On a completely personal level, I get along better with Catholics than I do Protestants. In my experience, at least, Catholics and Pagans (such as I) share an emphasis on ritual, and most Catholics I meet are pretty laid-back (being able to absolve your sins once a week makes it pretty easy to cut loose). By contrast, most Protestants I know are really uptight.

They all have something to answer for, but really, people will remember the uniquely (or just plain distinctive to bring up) cases in the bulk of Catholicism over almost 'normal' cases as one might view Protestantism's reach to have in comparison. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't cases from Protestant nations basically boil down to national ethos (with some cases, an incredibly flimsy front maybe) as compared to things pushed purely in the name of religion?

[z3n]

The problem is that in addition to the military battles, the crusaders deliberately targeted and killed innocent non-combatants, including women and children, often in gruesome ways. The crusades weren't only against Muslims/pagans either, but also against European Jews, Cathars, and proto-Protestant Christians like the Hussites and Waldensians, most of whom posed no military threat to the Catholics.



Makes sense.

I am not catholic and whenever the Pope excommunicated me I would exterminate his city. However, those actions were condemned by the leaders of the Catholic church (see the response to the Rhineland massacres for example). It is disingenuous of them in my opinion to pretend no edicts and literature spelled out that the Jews were to be treated humanely and allowed to worship and live without fear of violence. There were many letters and tons of literature from back then supporting that. Regardless, killing people in gruesome ways or just simply killing people in general is to be expected of any military from back then. Even now we have gruesome things happening in our present day and age, it would be nice if we could create a utopian military but nobody has managed that yet. I would love to see them try but I doubt they realize the difficulty there is in restraining a mob that is taking on a mentality different than your own, as often happens when a group of angry men are invited to violence.


A closer and more honest reading of the events will find mundane details like terms being offered during a largely political effort to strengthen the throne and borders (Cathars) but the terms were refused by Catholics in the city who decided they would fight. This in turn resulted in a natural reaction, just as Alexander the great completely exterminated some cities which did not submit so too was the natural course of events. Even in world war 2, fellow western powers exterminated Dresden via our relentless bombing despite separation of church and state. It is really just an expected outcome unfortunately. Mercy is always a surprise for a reason.

[Prodromos]

I am not catholic and whenever the Pope excommunicated me I would exterminate his city. However, those actions were condemned by the leaders of the Catholic church (see the response to the Rhineland massacres for example). It is disingenuous of them in my opinion to pretend no edicts and literature spelled out that the Jews were to be treated humanely and allowed to worship and live without fear of violence. There were many letters and tons of literature from back then supporting that. Regardless, killing people in gruesome ways or just simply killing people in general is to be expected of any military from back then. Even now we have gruesome things happening in our present day and age, it would be nice if we could create a utopian military but nobody has managed that yet. I would love to see them try but I doubt they realize the difficulty there is in restraining a mob that is taking on a mentality different than your own, as often happens when a group of angry men are invited to violence.

A closer and more honest reading of the events will find mundane details like terms being offered during a largely political effort to strengthen the throne and borders (Cathars) but the terms were refused by Catholics in the city who decided they would fight. This in turn resulted in a natural reaction, just as Alexander the great completely exterminated some cities which did not submit so too was the natural course of events. Even in world war 2, fellow western powers exterminated Dresden via our relentless bombing despite separation of church and state. It is really just an expected outcome unfortunately. Mercy is always a surprise for a reason.

That doesn't detract from the fact that Catholic crusaders targeted European Jews and Christians, not only foreign Muslims. You can find instances of prelates intervening to stem unsanctioned violence against Jews (e.g., the Rhineland massacre or blood libel accusations), though I'm fairly sure that most of the worst abuses of pre-modern Catholicism -- demonization and second-class status of Jews; imprisonment and execution of heretics; crusades against independent Christian communities like the Hussites and Waldensians; and so on -- were sanctioned at the highest levels of the church, and it's not difficult to find papal bulls explicitly endorsing them. They weren't the actions of rogue political or military leaders, they were supported and actively urged on by the Catholic church as part of its effort to maintain its dominant status in society and to suppress evangelical Christianity.

[z3n]

Yes, we established no army in the entirety of history has had utopian qualities, atheists included, who killed millions during the Communist era. But I know of no papal bills endorsing violence against the Jews, that would be counterproductive as the main divide is the belief in Jesus between the Jews and Christians, hurting the potential new (absurdly weahlthy, which is important) members of the church. Granted I care very little about the Catholic church in general aside from recognizing that it is a power structure which has had some beneficial effects while being a natural magnet for power hungry individuals and predators.

About the Hussites, etc. Let's be honest, the real motivations were the restoration of political and social stability rather than anything else. Religion being so closely tied to the state at that time was simply an extension of the states will and a way to make it happen. Generally these sorts of things were in fact political covered with a thin veneer of religion simply due to the tight integration in society.