The Last Civilization - OOC/Signups

[Akksum]

Hey, hark how long would I take 10 ships to go from Akksum, up towards the next city on the coast 2-3 years?

[Akksum]

Every 28 minutes, and 40 seconds is 1 year.

[Vedria]

Also, what's the terrain in the south-east like?

East of tundra is Mountains. Much like Switzerland and the Himalayas.
South east is desert.

Well, I'll stay in yhe tundra.

It would have some proper land for farming, yes?

[Seno Zhou Varada]

clap clap for Cuprum keep on making those amazing posts!

[Akksum]

Anyone play Europa universalis IV?

[The Almighty Bob]

I do.

[Akksum]

I do.

I always play Tuscany, and make Italy so easily. XD

[Levis Avara]

So hark do you think I could conquer that little city-state below me?

[Seno Zhou Varada]

Ahh just played Alter Ego... intensely satisfying... also the time passes quickly.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 1500,d.aWw

[Seno Zhou Varada]

Trade? Where? North East, Straight east, south east (me New Zyras)

[Akksum]

Trade? Where? North East, Straight east, south east (me New Zyras)

I'm about to conquer a state on the western side of the desert, hes on the ocean. Than I'm on both sides of the ocean. Thus allowing us more stuffs.

[Levis Avara]

Trade? Where? North East, Straight east, south east (me New Zyras)

Oh I'm trading straight east to siochana but I will send a fleet towards you I'm thinking of conquering that inactive civ below me too to have a gateway to the mainland

[Akksum]

Trade? Where? North East, Straight east, south east (me New Zyras)

Oh I'm trading straight east to siochana but I will send a fleet towards you I'm thinking of conquering that inactive civ below me too to have a gateway to the mainland

The guy on the west cost of the desert is inactive, the guy to the north of me is Egypt, and is very active. I have a 4 navy, so very good navies!

[Harkback Union]

Hey, hark how long would I take 10 ships to go from Akksum, up towards the next city on the coast 2-3 years?

2-3 Months max. This landmass aint so big.

[Akksum]

Hey, hark how long would I take 10 ships to go from Akksum, up towards the next city on the coast 2-3 years?

2-3 Months max. This landmass aint so big.

Alright so my ships would get there in about 15 minutes RL time. XD

[Akksum]

LOGIC, EUIV ally Poland, Poland is at war with France, france likes me again. WELL

[Graknopia]

so... have I been accepted?

[Jute]

I disagree entirely and also ask you to prove your claims, but it's too late for me to discuss. Religion laid the foundation for the sciences, and I never heard of it "hindering the advance of science for millennia". Again, please prove that.
Also, religion still doesn't have "burning heretics/scientists" alive inherently. In fact, not even Galileo was burned, and if I remember correctly, the burnings originated because of public pressure and the church eventually gave in. And that was only Christianity. There are other religions, too, which didn't have that. Think Buddhism (They have extremists now, too, but that's not limited to religion, it's universal to bigger groups of people)

I would also like you to prove your claims: How did religion lay the foundation for the sciences?
I already explained how Science layed the foundation to religion. You should tell me where I'm wrong here:
The Scientific Method:
People make observations and ask questions.
People make theories to explain observations and answer questions.
People test theories to see if they are right.

Religion is formed out of theories that Can't be (yet) tested. Religious people dismiss theories that go against the set of theories they accepted as true. Religious organizations see new theories that contradict their own as a threat to their power and will often seek to exterminate their source (see: Jesus, "Witches", Giordano Bruno). This hinders the advance of science greatly. The Scientific method is the basis of technological advance. Theories are needed for new inventions. Mathematics and Mechanical science for instance were lightyears ahead of Medicine, Chemistry and Psychology in medieval times. This wasn't because religion helped those sciences develop. It was because the people who worked on them didn't contradict Religious doctrines. In other areas, religion answered fundamental questions with unproven theories and segregated or killed those who dared to provide different answers for said questions.

Again, Extremism throughout history is very, very common. It is only in the enlightened societies of our times that we can (more or less) live together with people of different faith in peace.

How can science have laid the foundation for religion, if religion was the first to exist and science only started to appear much later? Religion has been with humans almost since the dawn of history, science only started with the first civilizations. The scientific method was only invented much later, in the 18th century I think, by religious people. And again, tolerance is no invention of recent "enlightened" leaders:

"Religious tolerance was already known to Islam in the Middle Age. The US had freedom of religion in their constitution from the beginning on. I can provide you with sources, too. And most importantly, like I said: "The Catholic Church and the Islamic World kept the records of ancient philosophers, who else would've gotten lost in the attacks of Barbarians after the Fall of Rome, making the Renaissance possible in the first place. They were not the reason the Dark Ages came to be, they were one of the lights in the dark age." There would be no modern science, or at least none as advanced as today's were it not for Catholicism and the Islam."

While the Christian churches did at times fight what goes against their doctrine, this was for political reasons, to conserve their power and prevent unrest and instability, just like any monarch at the time. And this is not necessarily true for other religions, and definitely not inherent to religion. A lot of religions don't even have doctrines or any authorities like the pope. Some don't even have a creating god.
Like I said, the majority religions don't actually fight against "unbelievers", and don't even seek converters. Only Christians and Muslims seek to convert, and even then of course not necessarily by force. Most religions are actually peaceful and non-extremist.
Extremism did exist in Christianity and Islam, but it also existed in non-religious ideologies. (Think for example the "enlightened" terror regime during the French Revolution) It exists in almost every large group of people. Will some of those ideologies give an science penalty, too, then?
It would be a bit unfair too say that extremism, which probably was common (but definitely not everywhere) was solely caused by religion. Extremism and violence were in no way inherent to Islam and Christianity (nowhere in the Bible does it say for example to burn scientists, as far as I know, instead it says "love your enemies" and "but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."), it's not the fault of Mohammed or Jesus when someone turns violent in their name, is it?
Also, game mechanics wise, let's say I invent a religion that not only promotes peace and getting along non-violently (like to my knowledge, most religions do), but also promotes science in every aspect and doesn't have any authoritarian structures. I believe you mean to criticize organized religion anyway. Personal religion doesn't have to hinder interest in science, in fact, it has often inspired people to start doing research in the first place. Historically, this is for example how linguistics started. And then there the natural scientists (for example, Georges Lemaitre, the Jesuit priest who invented the Big Bang theory)

Please, let's just find a compromise. I don't actually like arguing, I just signed up for this to have some fun, but let's have a, if not very historically accurate, at least a non-judgmental game. Religion is just a set of beliefs, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is what humans make out of them.

[Jute]

Um, religious societies kind of invented everything until the 20th century. Because there was no society without religion. And freedom for science is exactly what some religious people achieved (Francis Bacon, for example) but in general, there's no clear-cut conflict between them. Galileo and Darwin were two times where they clashed, but in general they nourish each other. (“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” ― Albert Einstein )
Religious tolerance was already known to Islam in the Middle Age. I can provide you with sources, too. And most importantly, like I said: "The Catholic Church and the Islamic World kept the records of ancient philosophers, who else would've gotten lost in the attacks of Barbarians after the Fall of Rome, making the Renaissance possible in the first place. They were not the reason the Dark Ages came to be, they were one of the lights in the dark age." There would be no modern science, or at least none as advanced as today's were it not for Catholicism and the Islam.

You said it yourself:
"Um, religious societies kind of invented everything until the 20th 18th century. Because there was no society without religion."
Compare rate of technological advance in Religious times and Post-Religious times. I see sharp difference. With each step we take towards science, we get one step further from religious dogmas. It was always the least religious societies who made the most advance in technology (see United Kingdom). Imagine if we still believed that the world is flat. Where would humanity be then? Scientific progress in religious societies are achieved by those who dare to fight the religious theories and prove that they make no sense...

The Renaissance people didn't care much about ancient philosophers (in fact, Humanity still fails to profit from the achievements of philosophy, political and sociological sciences thanks to Ideological dogmas) and it was teeming with non-religiousness. The whole thing wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the Wealthy Traders and Aristocrats who decided to stop wasting their money on salvation tickets and instead financed artists and scientist. It was then in the Baroque era that Religion Reclaimed europe, leading to much bloodshed and slowing down of scientific advance, but eventually Science won as people found way to prove that the church is wrong.

Religious tolerance in the Muslim world was poorly enforced. People of different faith still hated each other and you can imagine what happened to those who claimed that "woman are equal to man" or that "The earth rotates around the sun".

Alright, a final reply before (promise!) I let it be: We don't live in a post-religious time, we live in a time where churches have less to no political power, at least in the Western countries. Secular time. I think this is a good thing actually, I'm not advocating theocracies or anything. But comparing the rate of technological advance and blaming religion (Christianity) is a form of "correlation does not imply causation". It was more because every invention and scientific discovery fueled more research and more inventing, it's like a snowball that started running.
And there is no necessary conflict between religion and science, maybe between dogmas and free science. But did you miss the part about non-dogmatic religions existing? And even then, the Catholic Church actually accepts Galileo's findings and evolution now. And regarding the relationship between science and religion in general:

Many theologians, philosophers and scientists in history have found no conflict between their faith and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould, other scientists, and some contemporary theologians hold that religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria, addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Scientists Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller and Francis Collins see no necessary conflict between religion and science. Some theologians or historians of science, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme and Ken Wilber propose an interconnection between them.

Source

And regarding the renaissance: Do you know what "Renaissance" means? It means "Rebirth"."Rebirth" of the ancient culture, science, art, philosophy and literature. Not only did the renaissance thinkers care greatly for the ancient thinkers, writers and scientists, they admired them and thought that no one was above them. Based on them, they advanced science and continued to do so, often even in the name of god (but of course there were atheists, too). One of them coined the term "Dark Ages" to distinguish the glorious ancient, "classical" times from the darker times following them. Like I said, these weren't caused by the church, though, but by invading barbarians, huns and mongols. The Church (both Christianity and Islam) saved the ancient records and were the ones, like I said, who thus made the Renaissance possible and by that, modern science as well. You can easily read this up in a history book or Wikipedia.
I'm not saying there have never been any terrible crimes and deeds in the name of Christianity or the like, but let's not disregard what good things they did for humanity, too.

As for woman being equal in Islam and people claiming the earth is round: Both was actually the case in the Middle Ages. It's not correct that people believed the earth was flat until Columbus proved the opposite, people have known that the earth was round since ancient times (the ancient Greeks even managed to calculate the perimeter of the earth pretty accurately) and woman were and are much more than just housewives in Islam:

[W]omen made important contributions to science, philosophy and society throughout Islamic history — a role that has been under-researched but is eliciting more interest today. They even ran empires, albeit discreetly.

Most importantly, Islam’s attitudes to women have varied according to local culture. Iraqi and especially Syrian women have been on a long road towards emancipation, and even the faithful among them see no contradiction between their religion and gender equality.

Source, which has sources itself.

Not the first time we go way off topic... and I already deleted the option to sacrifice science for relegion so that should fix things.

Well, that's nice of you. I have nothing against having the option of sacrificing science for religion. I just wanted to criticize that religion no matter what lead to a science penalty.

Sorry everyone for clogging the thread, didn't mean to, but at least everyone learned a bit about history now, huh?

[Chiata]

Akkrum, friendly reminder. Your happiness is at -2. You can easily counter it by using both of your points on culture which will make your happiness neutral.

[Seno Zhou Varada]

Trade? Where? North East, Straight east, south east (me New Zyras)

Oh I'm trading straight east to siochana but I will send a fleet towards you I'm thinking of conquering that inactive civ below me too to have a gateway to the mainland

The white one that has no name? I call it soon to be mine. Very nice name.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Since we're in the classical era, what tech should I be getting onagers at?

[Akksum]

Akkrum, friendly reminder. Your happiness is at -2. You can easily counter it by using both of your points on culture which will make your happiness neutral.

Today is my culture day.

[Akksum]

Akkrum, friendly reminder. Your happiness is at -2. You can easily counter it by using both of your points on culture which will make your happiness neutral.

Also its 0, 2 culture
3+2+2+4=11, 5=1 culture. So I am at 0.

[Levis Avara]

Oh I'm trading straight east to siochana but I will send a fleet towards you I'm thinking of conquering that inactive civ below me too to have a gateway to the mainland

The white one that has no name? I call it soon to be mine. Very nice name.

Aha but im closer so MINE!!!!