What is the point of that civic choice? I can't get it, can someone please offer a simple explanation?

The benefit is that you can no longer be subjected to religious grievances from other players, taking away a path to agitate for war and improving your relations with civs that follow other religions.

MauiPlays wrote:

The benefit is that you can no longer be subjected to religious grievances from other players, taking away a path to agitate for war and improving your relations with civs that follow other religions.

Thanks for a reply! I guess there is nothing more to it. I thought is is kinda weird that it blocks you from your current state religion and all the tenets. I initially thought it blocks you just from the opportunity to pick new ones.

That particular Civics choice is more for when you're losing/already lost religion game. An opt-out option, with Atheism being more of a rage-quit - beware of Atheistic Indians in Contemporary, you need to build your religion real strong for it to be able to withstand them.

DNLH wrote:

That particular Civics choice is more for when you're losing/already lost religion game. An opt-out option, with Atheism being more of a rage-quit - beware of Atheistic Indians in Contemporary, you need to build your religion real strong for it to be able to withstand them.

Thank you for the explanation! I've never really picked atheism in any of my playthroughs because I always win the religion game. Is negating the enemy religion bonuses the sole purpose of atheism ? Or does it grant some bonuses to your empire as well?

There's no direct benefit, but as it spreads faster there's a good chance of depriving your opponent of their religion bonuses, yeah.

To be honest, I like that there are civics for which 'neither' is a viable, third option, but HK needs to be more clear about that being the case, because dropping your religion altogether is a bit weird 'finisher' for faith civics tree.

Atheism is what you pick instead of securalism, when your Influence is high.