The Crusades and the question of Radical Islam (All Islam?)

[Jedi Knight]

One of the poorest forms of radical leftist (liberal) thought oozing out of American universities is the comparison used putting the "Crusades" in the same ballpark as radical Islam (all Islam).

Liberals had to find a way to put modern Christianity in the same ballpark as radical Islam (all Islam). So what they did was say: "Radical Islam is in response to the Crusades, or is the same thing as the Crusades."

When President Bush said that US forces would be going to engage Iraq, the world response was: "Golly, it is another," you guessed it, "Crusade."

To defeat this new radical leftist (liberal) lie, it is important to understand some key facts about the "Crusades" so the lazy-minded comparison can be defeated handily.

When a leftist brings up the Crusades when you accurately talk about radical Islam (all Islam), the first questions you should ask them are these:

1) When were the Crusades?

The leftist who brought up the Crusades will generally look into the sky and babble an unknowing response (like a mystic) because they were basically conditioned to bring up the "Crusades" as a method to defend radical Islam without being required to actually understand it. This is standard leftist-university groupthink activity. Keep asking them when the Crusades took place and after they trip all over themselves tell them how can the comparison be credible if they do not understand the very term in history they use to defend radical Islam?

2) How many "Crusades" were there?

That is the next question you should ask the leftist apologist who defends Islam (radical Islam). 99.9 out of 100 leftists will not know the answer to this question.

Then educate them. There were eight Crusades:

The First Crusade was in 1095-1101.

The Second Crusade was in 1145-1147.

The Third Crusade was in 1188-1192.

The Fourth Crusade was in 1204.

The Fifth Crusade was in 1217.

The Sixth Crusade was in 1228-29. In 1239 there was another detachment of the 1228-1229 campaign.

The Seventh Crusade was in 1249-1252.

The Eighth Crusade (the last) was in 1270.

So we have 25 years of pre-enlightenment military activity known as the "Crusades" that ended in 1270 and now in 2003 the US is on another "Crusade"?

They will reply "Yes"! because that is how leftist non-thinkers are taught to reply. Don't beat your head about it with them.

After you teach them the facts about the Crusades and smoke them in debate, briefly mention that you hope that if it is a leftist-defined "Crusade" you hope it works. :D

JK

[Gem]

Bull, the argument, to me, is that Christianity was as bad as Islam during the middle ages. That Christianity and Islam back then were about the same, with fundies yabbing everywhere.

The difference between the two religions (and with Judism) is that Christianity and Judism actually had some sort of revolution of thinkers (Voltaire, etc) and of Deism (the analogy of God as the "clock maker"), as well as an Industrial Revolution.

I don't think "Christianity" got any better, there are still a few fundies in US (who has some good lobbying power, listen to why they want to support Isreal, it isn't pink) and those christian terrorists (remember that guy who bombed abortion clinics? can't remember his name). Nor is Islam any better, it's about the same.

The DIFFERENCE is that in the US, you aren't ruled by a fundie or dictator. While in the middle east most are ruled by dictator/fundie.

and Islam is not the same thing as radical Islam. Why not ask your fellow Muslim/Arab Americans?

Gem

P.S.: War on Iraq wasn't a crusade, not in my opinion.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
Bull, the argument, to me, is that Christianity was as bad as Islam during the middle ages. That Christianity and Islam back then were about the same, with fundies yabbing everywhere.

The difference between the two religions (and with Judism) is that Christianity and Judism actually had some sort of revolution of thinkers (Voltaire, etc) and of Deism (the analogy of God as the "clock maker"), as well as an Industrial Revolution.

I don't think "Christianity" got any better, there are still a few fundies in US (who has some good lobbying power, listen to why they want to support Isreal, it isn't pink) and those christian terrorists (remember that guy who bombed abortion clinics? can't remember his name). Nor is Islam any better, it's about the same.

The DIFFERENCE is that in the US, you aren't ruled by a fundie or dictator. While in the middle east most are ruled by dictator/fundie.

and Islam is not the same thing as radical Islam. Why not ask your fellow Muslim/Arab Americans?

Gem

P.S.: War on Iraq wasn't a crusade, not in my opinion.

Hi Gem ;) lol.

Hey, you know I like you Gem. I think you are pretty smart. Now let's compare some notes.

The point of my post is that the military operations conducted by the United States are not "Crusades". They are military operations dealing with a cult (Islam) and a cult-system that is clearly fascist.

All I want is some intellectual honesty. How on earth can anyone say that US action is a "Crusade" when our own school children can't even whisper the name of the Christian God in their classrooms?

How can US military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere be a "Crusade" when our own courts of law can't use the Christian teachings as a foundation of moral law?

It is a laughable example of leftist perversion in the United States and especially Europe that seeks to label US military action as a "Crusade".

There hasn't been a Christian force in power in the United States since William Penn took the State of Pennsylvania from the King of England in exchange for a debt.

The left talks about this mystical thing called "vast right-wing conspiracy". I think it is a psychic thing that has no basis in reality because I simply haven't been able to, for the last 10 years, figured out who was in the right-wing conspiracy. Can you help me out and explain to me who is in the vast, vast, super vast, endless, without end, infinite, universe-sized vast right-wing conspiracy? I can't figure out one single name in it.

The same thing goes with the "Crusade" thing. The last Crusade was 1270. That was over 733 years ago! Now, I am supposed to believe that Christianity is running the USA and Christian knights are marching through Iraq and Afghanistan?

The new EU Constitution doesn't even mention God or Christianity.

I conclude that the "Crusade" propaganda was created by godless leftists just to stir up trouble and perpetuated by useless idiots as fact. Islamic states like France haven't been attacked with nuclear weapons, right?

There is no crusade.

Then you said:

Bull, the argument, to me, is that Christianity was as bad as Islam during the middle ages. That Christianity and Islam back then were about the same, with fundies yabbing everywhere.

Hey, I agree. But that was hundreds of years ago. I know you are too smart to think that Christianity has marched in a religious war in 2003, right?

The difference between the two religions (and with Judism) is that Christianity and Judism actually had some sort of revolution of thinkers (Voltaire, etc) and of Deism (the analogy of God as the "clock maker"), as well as an Industrial Revolution.

Yes, over hundreds of years, one (Christianity) stepped into the future while the other (Islam) remained barbaric.

I don't think "Christianity" got any better, there are still a few fundies in US (who has some good lobbying power, listen to why they want to support Isreal, it isn't pink) and those christian terrorists (remember that guy who bombed abortion clinics? can't remember his name). Nor is Islam any better, it's about the same.

One guy that bombed an abortion clinic is the venue to attack all of Christianity? Come on Gem, you are thinking like a leftist. That guy didn't even believe in traditional Christianity. He believed in a recognized extremist form of Christianity known as Christian Identity.

The DIFFERENCE is that in the US, you aren't ruled by a fundie or dictator. While in the middle east most are ruled by dictator/fundie.

That is because we don't tolerate them as a people. Just because Islamic states do is not reason to blame us.

and Islam is not the same thing as radical Islam. Why not ask your fellow Muslim/Arab Americans?

It is the same. Where are the conservative Islamic leaders? Where are their voices? There are none because they are either dead (killed by radical adherents) or too fearful to speak up in the midst of their perversionist cult.

P.S.: War on Iraq wasn't a crusade, not in my opinion.

It is good that you understand that. ;)

JK

[Gem]

The left talks about this mystical thing called "vast right-wing conspiracy". I think it is a psychic thing that has no basis in reality because I simply haven't been able to, for the last 10 years, figured out who was in the right-wing conspiracy. Can you help me out and explain to me who is in the vast, vast, super vast, endless, without end, infinite, universe-sized vast right-wing conspiracy? I can't figure out one single name in it.

It's simple. Think of everything wrong there is in the world. Blame it on conservatives, you have right wing conspiracy. Blame it on liberals, you have left wing conspiracy.

I know you are too smart to think that Christianity has marched in a religious war in 2003, right?

War, no. But I heard on this forum that on the radio, they "support" Isreal, because int he Bible it says the chain of events is going to lead to the "destruction of Isreal" and hte coming of the second Messiah. The Jews (and other non-believers) will either be killed or converted. Such good foundations of friendship.;)

One guy that bombed an abortion clinic is the venue to attack all of Christianity? Come on Gem, you are thinking like a leftist. That guy didn't even believe in traditional Christianity. He believed in a recognized extremist form of Christianity known as Christian Identity.

I wasn't saying he represented all of Christinaity. What I was saying is that there are radicals on both sides. My opinion is that in the Middle East there are forces (government, radicals) who promote this kind of violence. "Islam" is in it's dark ages, and is awaiting its rennaissance. The arab world under Islam contributed greatly to the sciences before the crusades (while Europe was in it's dark ages).

It is the same. Where are the conservative Islamic leaders? Where are their voices?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20030615/wl_nm/iran_protests_dc

I don't want to sound politicly correct, but it is usually assumed that "conservative" is in support of the status quo, or wants to return to what they beleive is better. But that's beside the point.


There are none because they are either dead (killed by radical adherents) or too fearful to speak up in the midst of their perversionist cult.

Apperently you underestimate the courage of the Iranians brainwashed students. Apperently they have something in common with us: like our college counter parts, they like to complain about their politicians.:D

Gem

[JAR]

It's also noteworthy that the object of the Crusades was to put the Holy Land, where Jesus had lived, under Christian rule. What were doing in Iraq and against the Islamic terrorists is quite different. They're trying to put Israel under Islamic rule and were trying to stop them and were not trying to put Israel under Christian rule.

But it is true that Israel does have an appeal to Christians, thus the term "Crusade" is applied to the fight against Islamic terrorists and governments. I remember that my mother use to tell me when I was a kid that for the end of the world to occur and for Christians to be received into heaven, some type of building had to be built by Jews at some location in the Holy Land. She said the Moslems were the reason that it hadn't been built. I don't buy into that stuff anymore.

My father says the U.S. government supports Israel because it's a democracy, which is rare in the Middle East.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight



The left talks about this mystical thing called "vast right-wing conspiracy". I think it is a psychic thing that has no basis in reality because I simply haven't been able to, for the last 10 years, figured out who was in the right-wing conspiracy. Can you help me out and explain to me who is in the vast, vast, super vast, endless, without end, infinite, universe-sized vast right-wing conspiracy? I can't figure out one single name in it.


Lol...this has got to be one of the funniest things you have said for a long time. As our resident kookie conspiracy theorist I am amazed you pass up the chance to add another vast conspiracy to the already lengthy list of conspiracies that you fear.

Let me see, there's your vast leftist conspiracy, your vast feminist conspiracy, your vast Homosexual conspiracy, your vast Islamic conspiracy, your vast immigration conspiracy...hmmm, have I left any out.....oh, yes, I nearly forgot your vast atheist conspiracy.

The main reason that this right wing conspiracy cannot exist is that there are no secret hideouts left unoccupied. They are all fully booked out by your other conspiracies....Mate, you are one funny guy :D

[athon]

Originally posted by The Fool

Lol...this has got to be one of the funniest things you have said for a long time. As our resident kookie conspiracy theorist I am amazed you pass up the chance to add another vast conspiracy to the already lengthy list of conspiracies that you fear.

Let me see, there's your vast leftist conspiracy, your vast feminist conspiracy, your vast Homosexual conspiracy, your vast Islamic conspiracy, your vast immigration conspiracy...hmmm, have I left any out.....oh, yes, I nearly forgot your vast atheist conspiracy.

The main reason that this right wing conspiracy cannot exist is that there are no secret hideouts left unoccupied. They are all fully booked out by your other conspiracies....Mate, you are one funny guy :D

I'm still waiting to see where Dr. Dee, Cagliostro and the Rosicrucians fit into it all...

Athon

[athon]

Like any attempt to creat analogies and comparisons, the 'Crusader = Modern Islam' analogy will have its holes. That's because they are too different things, essentially (duh!).

However there are similarities.

The Crusades were political movements that used religious fanaticism to justify a cause. That cause on one level was to suppress the movement of a rival faith, regain 'rightful land', and to defeat a culture that threatened their own way of life. The first, second and third crusades (while there were more crusades after these three, from four onward it was definately political, with little religious fervour exhibited) were inspired Christian campaigns aimed to encourage the 'common knight' (oxymoron, I know) to fight for a just cause of their place in heaven. Herein lay several justifications used by modern extremist Muslims.

The crusades differ to modern extremist Islamic movements on the following: The Key political powers during the initial crusades, chiefly several popes, emporers and monarchs, desired to increase their seat of influence to include Outremer. It was mostly a political powerplay on this level, with little to do religion.

So the analogy has its place, although it is limited.

Athon

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by athon
I'm still waiting to see where Dr. Dee, Cagliostro and the Rosicrucians fit into it all...

They're plotting with the freemasons on a UFO piloted by Elvis...

[Jon_in_london]

Well, while we are talking about crusades, lets look at their motivation.

Sure, there was the whole thing about bringing he holy land under christian rule (and slaughtering jews along the way), but there were alterior motives as well.

Bascally it came down to the pope saying "why dont you go beat up some infidels instead of knocking each other about the whole time? And, while you are at it, take all those violent louts and hooligans with you (hopefully most of them wont come back"

The world of islam was far more cultured, sophisticated and civillized than christendom back then. However, as has been mentioned before 'christendom' has moved on a bit since then wheres the Islamic world has basically remained the same. Now they are ones who are a primitive largely illiterate bloodthirsty, fundmentalist rabble.

IMCH&HO

[athon]

History doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Just like modern Christianity is a diverse mumber of sub-cults, belief systems and variations of a theme, Islam is also diverse. And is different in many ways.

Modern Islamic Extremism (several groups within, at least) wish for mankind to return to simpler days, when Theocracy was the order of the day and the world was 'simpler'. A case of rose coloured glasses, I guess. But a few of these groups see the western world as a threat. The west equals progress - moving forward instead of backward.

Unfortunately ignorance in the west is in full flow. 'Extremist Terrorists', for them, means all of Islam.

Athon

[Genghis Pwn]

I applaud this thread. Liberals will do anything to apologize for and defend the atrocities and dangers of Islam. I blame these people, in part, for our failure to screen young arab men more carefully at airports and our utter failure to secure the nation against them in terms of illegal immigration.

And JK, you are dead-on correct about how these people respond if you ask them the facts about history related to whatever issue is being debated. They are clueless.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn

And JK, you are dead-on correct about how these people respond if you ask them the facts about history related to whatever issue is being debated. They are clueless.

Is the Army of God a terrorist group?

[Crossbow]

Actually, it was President Bush that started the talk about a "crusade" which he retracted when it was made clear to him just what a negative term that is in the Middle East.

While the actual Crusades were many centuries ago and are considered by most Americans to be ancient history (and thus of no real consequence), in the Middle East they still have quite a few issues about this topic. For many of them, the stories about Saladin and Berbers still hold a great deal of relevance to them and stories about how they fought (and eventually defeated) the Crusaders (thereby preserving their religion) are still told and re-told in this region.

As to the comments that Bush made about a new "Crusade", consider the below submission.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html

September 16, 2001

We need to go back to work tomorrow and we will. But we need to be alert to the fact that these evil-doers still exist. We haven't seen this kind of barbarism in a long period of time. No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly their aircraft - fly U.S. aircraft into buildings full of innocent people - and show no remorse. This is a new kind of -- a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient.

[Mike B.]

There was actually an attempt right before the crusades to abolish Xianity in Palestine. One of the Caliphs destroyed the Church of the Holy Seplechure...

Anyway,

I kind of agree that the Crusades are brought up a lot in trying to explain Al Queda.

Yes the Crusades were horrible...

But they were a long time ago, and Europe today is a whole hell of a lot different than it was in the Middle Ages.

To keep harping on the crusades seems like special pleading...

[Jedi Knight]

Why are my threads always given a 1 star rating? They should all be 5 stars because of the genius-level topics and information I present. Giving my threads 1 star is a hate crime--hate against brilliance.

But hey, if you all want Star Wars, no problem. I can 1 star my ass off too with my Jedi light-saber-mouse.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by NightG1
Is the Army of God a terrorist group?

The Army of God could have been a terrorist group but it is important to understand what their deal was.

1) They are Christian Identity (a status condemned as Nazi ideology is condemned--very unpopular and not Christian mainstream so it is dishonest to label them as Christians).

2) They had one militant member (that we know of) who was captured (Eric Rudolf).

3) It is unknown how many other members there are or if they are really terrorists. I think law enforcement (specifically the FBI) went after them early as a group so they did not have time to bloom into a full-pledged terrorist organization. That is a good thing.

4) The thousands of FBI agents that scoured the hills in North Carolina was the example needed to shut the Army of God down.

5) There are other groups that call themselves The Army of God, so it is important to make sure they are not lumped together with the handful of extremists that followed the ideology of Rudolf.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Mike B.
To keep harping on the crusades seems like special pleading...

Sort of like a Special Olympics for leftist intellectuals? :D

JK

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Why are my threads always given a 1 star rating? They should all be 5 stars because of the genius-level topics and information I present. Giving my threads 1 star is a hate crime--hate against brilliance.

But hey, if you all want Star Wars, no problem. I can 1 star my ass off too with my Jedi light-saber-mouse.

JK

JK

To avoid this sort of thing in the future, I suggest that from time to time you start some really dumb threads that even you would consider to be one-star material. Then quickly go back to your usual five-star material.

This will help to motivate people to rate your good stuff much higher than your bad stuff.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow


JK

To avoid this sort of thing in the future, I suggest that from time to time you start some really dumb threads that even you would consider to be one-star material. Then quickly go back to your usual five-star material.

This will help to motivate people to rate your good stuff much higher than your bad stuff.

Save your breath, storm-trooper. Every thread I make gets a 1 star. Some nasty leftist just doesn't like me, or it is a concerted effort by a leftist hate-group collectively on the forum to do it to my threads. I have posted threads and they get 1 stars without replies. People are doing it just to be nasty Stalinists.

It isn't a problem though. If that is the way you brats want to do business on the forum, no problem.

The Jedi made Star Wars popular. :D

JK

[Crossbow]

Excuse me.

Star Wars made the Jedi popular.

The public never even heard of 'Jedi' until the movie was released.

;)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Excuse me.

Star Wars made the Jedi popular.

The public never even heard of 'Jedi' until the movie was released.

;)

From now on Crossbow, I am going to do like you leftists do. I am going to rate threads the way you brats do it. 1 star for leftist threads, regardless of topic. 5 stars for non-leftist threads regardless of topic. All based on the political ideology of the poster from their history of posting.

Hey, fair is fair.

JK

[Crossbow]

Gee whiz man I do not why you get so worked up about this thread rating business. After all, it is not like you are getting paid for creating threads with lots of stars or getting fired for starting threads that have very few stars.

I did some quick checking and found that only about 30% of the threads in P & CE have any rating at all because no votes have been cast.

And of those 30% do have some kind of rating, most of them were rated on the basis of just one to five votes. Very few had more than ten votes.

In other words, so what if some of the threads you start have a low rating? If this is the case, then that means that most of the time you will be getting upset at the efforts of about one to five people. Heck, I do not even bother to look at the ratings unless someone wants to call my attention to matter, and I expect that most feel about the same way.

[headscratcher4]

Oddly enough, I find myself ALMOST in agreement with JK in this particular instance. I do not ascribe to his revisionist history of Islam, for the most part, nor do I buy many of the reasons trumpeted for the war in Iraq -- the link between Saddam and radical Islamacists, in particular, seeming very dubious.

And, of course, calling US efforts in the Middle East a "crusade" of any stripe is foolish from a public relations point of view -- as it conjures up images of forced religious conversion.

However, the real crusades -- as has been pointed out -- were 800 years ago. They were infamous for their brutality and questionable ethical justification. Yet, in many respects, they were also completely reactive. It must be kept in mind that only 100 to 200 years earlier, the Arabs had swept out of the desert on their own "crusade" of conquest and conversion. While the leadership of the Christian crusades were often hypocrites, brigands and murderers, they were also looking to retake lands that had, only recently, been counted as "Christian" lands.

What I wonder about is the intellectual double standard -- being neither a Christian nor a Moslem -- why are the Arab conquests and efforts at conversion (softer, in some ways though they were) somehow ignored in this context, while the Christian crusades are always held up as a model of cultural imperialism?

The Arabs imposed their religion, their system of government, their forms of slavery, and they murdered and tortured too in their conquests just as surely as the European Christian Crusaders. The peoples of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, the Trans-Jordan, etc. were, in many respects, Christian peoples before the Arab conquest -- thought as Byzantine/Orthodox Christians, it is difficult to argue that the Crusaders had any real interest in restoring their rights in the Crusaders conquests.

My point isn't that the Crusades were justified. My point is that the forced conversions and mayhem and evil of the crusades were part of its period. The forced conversions and imperialism of Islamic states at the time should be viewed in exactly the same way…in other words, why do we in the west somehow believe that Islam, once established is fixed, whereas Christianity can be disestablished (not being either, the question for me is really one of spiritual choice).

Why, when looking at the Crusades, does the argument against the Crusaders so often come down to: They were evil because they were going to impose Christianity on the local populations, steal their land, their wealth, etc (i.e. cultural imperialists). Yet, the same standard does not seem to apply to events 200 years before the Crusades to Arab Moslems who imposed through their own brand of imperialism their religion, their values, their government, their culture, etc?

Why, in the west do we look at the Arab invasion and the destruction of the Byzantine Empire as somehow less, shall we say, imperialistic and more, possibly, politically correct? In other words, the Arab invaders can impose Islam on otherwise non-islamic nations, but Christian invaders doing the same thing are evil (is it because, in the west it is the Devil we know?)

In the end, both Arabs and Crusaders were imperialists, chauvinistic, racist and xenophobic. Yes, in some respects, the imposition of Moslem culture was more gentle, but those who did not become Moslems were as surely excluded from politics and economic power as were Moslems under Christian rule.

Why do we somehow view the Crusades as inherently worse than the Islamic crusade the both preceeded it and followed it?

It seems to me that they are both part of the same kind of evil. If the Crusades were ultimately wrong than, too, it seems to me, the imposition of Islam by Arab invaders is also a wrong of the same sort. And, to be trite, while two wrongs do not make a right, ignoring the first "wrong" doesn't lend itself to understanding the second.

In the end, I am not sure I buy the logic behind JK's post, but the overall point does contain some merit and is deserving of some thoughtful discussion…(jebus, I never thought I'd write that about a JK proposition).

[Gem]

headscratcher4, it's simple. They lost. If they had won and kept the land for longer periods of time, it would have been hailed has a very well justified crusade.

Also, I think it's pointless to compare ancient civilizations and their religions to today's versions. I mean, they all had pretty bad human rights records.

Gem

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Oddly enough, I find myself ALMOST in agreement with JK in this particular instance. I do not ascribe to his revisionist history of Islam, for the most part, nor do I buy many of the reasons trumpeted for the war in Iraq -- the link between Saddam and radical Islamacists, in particular, seeming very dubious.

And, of course, calling US efforts in the Middle East a "crusade" of any stripe is foolish from a public relations point of view -- as it conjures up images of forced religious conversion.

However, the real crusades -- as has been pointed out -- were 800 years ago. They were infamous for their brutality and questionable ethical justification. Yet, in many respects, they were also completely reactive. It must be kept in mind that only 100 to 200 years earlier, the Arabs had swept out of the desert on their own "crusade" of conquest and conversion. While the leadership of the Christian crusades were often hypocrites, brigands and murderers, they were also looking to retake lands that had, only recently, been counted as "Christian" lands.

What I wonder about is the intellectual double standard -- being neither a Christian nor a Moslem -- why are the Arab conquests and efforts at conversion (softer, in some ways though they were) somehow ignored in this context, while the Christian crusades are always held up as a model of cultural imperialism?

The Arabs imposed their religion, their system of government, their forms of slavery, and they murdered and tortured too in their conquests just as surely as the European Christian Crusaders. The peoples of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, the Trans-Jordan, etc. were, in many respects, Christian peoples before the Arab conquest -- thought as Byzantine/Orthodox Christians, it is difficult to argue that the Crusaders had any real interest in restoring their rights in the Crusaders conquests.

My point isn't that the Crusades were justified. My point is that the forced conversions and mayhem and evil of the crusades were part of its period. The forced conversions and imperialism of Islamic states at the time should be viewed in exactly the same way…in other words, why do we in the west somehow believe that Islam, once established is fixed, whereas Christianity can be disestablished (not being either, the question for me is really one of spiritual choice).

Why, when looking at the Crusades, does the argument against the Crusaders so often come down to: They were evil because they were going to impose Christianity on the local populations, steal their land, their wealth, etc (i.e. cultural imperialists). Yet, the same standard does not seem to apply to events 200 years before the Crusades to Arab Moslems who imposed through their own brand of imperialism their religion, their values, their government, their culture, etc?

Why, in the west do we look at the Arab invasion and the destruction of the Byzantine Empire as somehow less, shall we say, imperialistic and more, possibly, politically correct? In other words, the Arab invaders can impose Islam on otherwise non-islamic nations, but Christian invaders doing the same thing are evil (is it because, in the west it is the Devil we know?)

In the end, both Arabs and Crusaders were imperialists, chauvinistic, racist and xenophobic. Yes, in some respects, the imposition of Moslem culture was more gentle, but those who did not become Moslems were as surely excluded from politics and economic power as were Moslems under Christian rule.

Why do we somehow view the Crusades as inherently worse than the Islamic crusade the both preceeded it and followed it?

It seems to me that they are both part of the same kind of evil. If the Crusades were ultimately wrong than, too, it seems to me, the imposition of Islam by Arab invaders is also a wrong of the same sort. And, to be trite, while two wrongs do not make a right, ignoring the first "wrong" doesn't lend itself to understanding the second.

In the end, I am not sure I buy the logic behind JK's post, but the overall point does contain some merit and is deserving of some thoughtful discussion…(jebus, I never thought I'd write that about a JK proposition).

As usual great post HS...

I wish I said it so well...:)

[Genghis Pwn]

JK, the same exact thing happens to me. Every time I make a thread somebody hits me with a drive-by 1 star-ing. :rolleyes:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Gee whiz man I do not why you get so worked up about this thread rating business. After all, it is not like you are getting paid for creating threads with lots of stars or getting fired for starting threads that have very few stars.

I did some quick checking and found that only about 30% of the threads in P & CE have any rating at all because no votes have been cast.

And of those 30% do have some kind of rating, most of them were rated on the basis of just one to five votes. Very few had more than ten votes.

In other words, so what if some of the threads you start have a low rating? If this is the case, then that means that most of the time you will be getting upset at the efforts of about one to five people. Heck, I do not even bother to look at the ratings unless someone wants to call my attention to matter, and I expect that most feel about the same way.

If my threads get rated, I am rating all the threads.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
JK, the same exact thing happens to me. Every time I make a thread somebody hits me with a drive-by 1 star-ing. :rolleyes:

That is the leftist method of trying to tune you out--to censor you. Look at what the biggest non-contributor on the forum says to explain it away:

Originally posted by Crossbow

Heck, I do not even bother to look at the ratings unless someone wants to call my attention to matter, and I expect that most feel about the same way.

If that were the case, why do leftists hammer all conservative threads with 1 star ratings? It is because the leftists aren't reading the material--they are 1 starring threads by checking the person posting only.

JK

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
If that were the case, why do leftists hammer all conservative threads with 1 star ratings? It is because the leftists aren't reading the material--they are 1 starring threads by checking the person posting only.

I don't usually rate threads at all, but as it annoys you so much, I think I'll start doing so. One out of five...

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


I don't usually rate threads at all, but as it annoys you so much, I think I'll start doing so. One out of five...

You might as well. That is what I am giving all the non right-wing threads. Fair is fair.

JK

[DavidJames]

I haven't rated many threads, but when I do, it's a function of the depth and sophistication of the topic. The level to which the topic is articulated. The ability of the author to analyze the data and draw a conclusion and finally, the ability to present the conclusion in a deliberate and concise way. I weight each area, apply a score and summarize the results logarithmically. I then subtract one star for each use of the words leftist, femminazi, and matriarchal terrorism.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You might as well. That is what I am giving all the non right-wing threads. Fair is fair.

JK

Boy, has this turned into an interesting and valuable conversation or what? I am learning so much....:rolleyes:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I haven't rated many threads, but when I do, it's a function of the depth and sophistication of the topic. The level to which the topic is articulated. The ability of the author to analyze the data and draw a conclusion and finally, the ability to present the conclusion in a deliberate and concise way. I weight each area, apply a score and summarize the results logarithmically. I then subtract one star for each use of the words leftist, femminazi, and matriarchal terrorism.

I am 1 starring any thread that even hints to anything left of center. Fair is fair.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Boy, has this turned into an interesting and valuable conversation or what? I am learning so much....:rolleyes:

It was great until marginal leftists showed up--as usual. Why don't you ever talk about that?

Where is your comment to Crossbow for his non-contribution to the thread?

Or David James?

Or Ian Osborne?

Could you just be a hypocrite? Go look in the mirror and think about it.

JK

[Gem]

It was great until marginal leftists showed up--as usual.

I'm afraid not. You started the topic about star ratings first, then people answered to that.

I don't bother with ratings, it's one vote, one waste of time.

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


I'm afraid not. You started the topic about star ratings first, then people answered to that.

I don't bother with ratings, it's one vote, one waste of time.

Gem

Damn right I brought it up because no matter what post I make, the leftists are giving it one star. I never rated threads...but I am starting to today from now on. I have a right to bring it up because it is underhanded--typical of the left.

Fair is fair.

JK

[Gem]

But that thread rating thing was completly irrevelelant to the topic.

And also, your retaliary efforts are what you consider leftist, and what I consider childish.

Gem

[Genghis Pwn]

Lol, JK, you crack me up so much, dude!

By the way, sometimes on Banter I will make a post and it will get slapped with a 1-star rating within like 20 seconds, so I know the culprit didn't read it.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Genghis Pwn
Lol, JK, you crack me up so much, dude!

By the way, sometimes on Banter I will make a post and it will get slapped with a 1-star rating within like 20 seconds, so I know the culprit didn't read it.

That is what happens in this side of the house too. Not one single thread in the politics section had any ratings whatsoever, except my two. They both had 1 star ratings too.

All I am saying is that every thread will be rated from now on. Every single one.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
But that thread rating thing was completly irrevelelant to the topic.

And also, your retaliary efforts are what you consider leftist, and what I consider childish.

Gem

How so? This thread was a cool subject. Yet it was the only one with a 1 star rating because I authored it and it had conservative ideas in it.

You may think rating all the threads from now on is childish--and? I call it "democracy".

JK

[Gem]

You may think rating all the threads from now on is childish

No, I think that you rating every thread 1s and 5s is childish.

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


No, I think that you rating every thread 1s and 5s is childish.

Gem

No, it is a mirror reflection of what the underhanded, sinister left does on the forum.

JK

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by athon
Like any attempt to creat analogies and comparisons, the 'Crusader = Modern Islam' analogy will have its holes. That's because they are too different things, essentially (duh!).

However there are similarities.

The Crusades were political movements that used religious fanaticism to justify a cause. That cause on one level was to suppress the movement of a rival faith, regain 'rightful land', and to defeat a culture that threatened their own way of life. The first, second and third crusades (while there were more crusades after these three, from four onward it was definately political, with little religious fervour exhibited) were inspired Christian campaigns aimed to encourage the 'common knight' (oxymoron, I know) to fight for a just cause of their place in heaven. Herein lay several justifications used by modern extremist Muslims.

The crusades differ to modern extremist Islamic movements on the following: The Key political powers during the initial crusades, chiefly several popes, emporers and monarchs, desired to increase their seat of influence to include Outremer. It was mostly a political powerplay on this level, with little to do religion.

So the analogy has its place, although it is limited.

Athon

Yes, finally some one who actually did some research. Thanks, Athon. Very informative information. One time when someone found out I was a Christian then went off on me about the evils of Christianity, the Crusades, blah, blah, blah...All I could say was, "DUDE, are you for real?!!":rolleyes:

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by JAR

My father says the U.S. government supports Israel because it's a democracy, which is rare in the Middle East.

I believe Israel is the ONLY democarcy in the Middle East. The problem is that Islam and democarcy are incompatible. There is no concept of separation of church and state in Islam.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Why are my threads always given a 1 star rating? They should all be 5 stars because of the genius-level topics and information I present. Giving my threads 1 star is a hate crime--hate against brilliance.

But hey, if you all want Star Wars, no problem. I can 1 star my ass off too with my Jedi light-saber-mouse.

JK

No, JK don't leave! You are 'da man"!!!! Some people just don't recognize pure genius if it bit them on the ass! But don't let those fools sway you. Continue with the great threads...

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Oddly enough, I find myself ALMOST in agreement with JK in this particular instance. I do not ascribe to his revisionist history of Islam, for the most part, nor do I buy many of the reasons trumpeted for the war in Iraq -- the link between Saddam and radical Islamacists, in particular, seeming very dubious.

And, of course, calling US efforts in the Middle East a "crusade" of any stripe is foolish from a public relations point of view -- as it conjures up images of forced religious conversion.

However, the real crusades -- as has been pointed out -- were 800 years ago. They were infamous for their brutality and questionable ethical justification. Yet, in many respects, they were also completely reactive. It must be kept in mind that only 100 to 200 years earlier, the Arabs had swept out of the desert on their own "crusade" of conquest and conversion. While the leadership of the Christian crusades were often hypocrites, brigands and murderers, they were also looking to retake lands that had, only recently, been counted as "Christian" lands.

What I wonder about is the intellectual double standard -- being neither a Christian nor a Moslem -- why are the Arab conquests and efforts at conversion (softer, in some ways though they were) somehow ignored in this context, while the Christian crusades are always held up as a model of cultural imperialism?

The Arabs imposed their religion, their system of government, their forms of slavery, and they murdered and tortured too in their conquests just as surely as the European Christian Crusaders. The peoples of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, the Trans-Jordan, etc. were, in many respects, Christian peoples before the Arab conquest -- thought as Byzantine/Orthodox Christians, it is difficult to argue that the Crusaders had any real interest in restoring their rights in the Crusaders conquests.

My point isn't that the Crusades were justified. My point is that the forced conversions and mayhem and evil of the crusades were part of its period. The forced conversions and imperialism of Islamic states at the time should be viewed in exactly the same way…in other words, why do we in the west somehow believe that Islam, once established is fixed, whereas Christianity can be disestablished (not being either, the question for me is really one of spiritual choice).

Why, when looking at the Crusades, does the argument against the Crusaders so often come down to: They were evil because they were going to impose Christianity on the local populations, steal their land, their wealth, etc (i.e. cultural imperialists). Yet, the same standard does not seem to apply to events 200 years before the Crusades to Arab Moslems who imposed through their own brand of imperialism their religion, their values, their government, their culture, etc?

Why, in the west do we look at the Arab invasion and the destruction of the Byzantine Empire as somehow less, shall we say, imperialistic and more, possibly, politically correct? In other words, the Arab invaders can impose Islam on otherwise non-islamic nations, but Christian invaders doing the same thing are evil (is it because, in the west it is the Devil we know?)

In the end, both Arabs and Crusaders were imperialists, chauvinistic, racist and xenophobic. Yes, in some respects, the imposition of Moslem culture was more gentle, but those who did not become Moslems were as surely excluded from politics and economic power as were Moslems under Christian rule.

Why do we somehow view the Crusades as inherently worse than the Islamic crusade the both preceeded it and followed it?

It seems to me that they are both part of the same kind of evil. If the Crusades were ultimately wrong than, too, it seems to me, the imposition of Islam by Arab invaders is also a wrong of the same sort. And, to be trite, while two wrongs do not make a right, ignoring the first "wrong" doesn't lend itself to understanding the second.

In the end, I am not sure I buy the logic behind JK's post, but the overall point does contain some merit and is deserving of some thoughtful discussion…(jebus, I never thought I'd write that about a JK proposition).

headscratcher4,

Great post. You make a lot of valid points about the hypocrisy of political correctness. It is not PC to challenge Islam in the US. The problem is that most people do not know anything about Islamic history, from it's origins to the politcal and military conquest. Islam seems to have followed a similar "conquest" period like Christianity. Once Constantine became a "Christian", Christianity went into the tank for centuries, spiritually speaking. Christianity was more concerned with gaining political power, wealth, land, etc. instead of focusing on the original meaning of Christianity. Many many people died in the name of Christianity. Islam didn't learn anything from history and has followed the same path as Christianity.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by LCBOY


headscratcher4,

Great post. You make a lot of valid points about the hypocrisy of political correctness. It is not PC to challenge Islam in the US. The problem is that most people do not know anything about Islamic history, from it's origins to the politcal and military conquest. Islam seems to have followed a similar "conquest" period like Christianity. Once Constantine became a "Christian", Christianity went into the tank for centuries, spiritually speaking. Christianity was more concerned with gaining political power, wealth, land, etc. instead of focusing on the original meaning of Christianity. Many many people died in the name of Christianity. Islam didn't learn anything from history and has followed the same path as Christianity.

Thank you for your kind words, and your valid points. However, I will not respond again on this thread ...even though, as stated above, I almost agree with JK on this topic, and a discussion of the historical context of the crusades interests me. Why? Because this has become a crying and petty insult fest not a debate or discussion.

If anyone wants to conduct a serious discussion of the historical context of the crusades, I will happilly join in...just start another thread.

It was great until marginal leftists showed up--as usual. Why don't you ever talk about that?

Where is your comment to Crossbow for his non-contribution to the thread?

Or David James?

Or Ian Osborne?

Could you just be a hypocrite? Go look in the mirror and think about it.



...Sorry, JK, if you thought I was singling you out, I should have been clearer...my second comment was intended for all who seem more interested in arguing and tossing insults about over the "star system" than continuing the dissucssion you started...however, it was your original post, so in my mind you had the choice to stick to the topic or promote the degeneration of the topic. You selected the latter.

You could have ignored small, petty slights (for that is all they were, doing nothing to otherwise undercut an interesting proposition) and stick with the topic. Your history, however, is to typically propose a volitile topic and than focus on dealing with the insults and brick-bats, rather than with the content of the topic you selected...I note again, in this instance, I even supported the core of your porposition (and am one of those you would call a "leftists...").

BTW, IMO, if someone is to blame for it getting off track, it is you, JK, because you would rather play the insult game over the minutia and inconsequential. You could have ignored Crossbow and the other off-topic comments...you selected not to. I fear, that exposes your real agenda, and I feel stupid for having played into it...

I usually ignore threads like this and will again attempt to do so in the future...I thought, wrongly, that most people would try to stick to the topic. My bad....I didn't realize the topic was the star system, etc.:o

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No, it is a mirror reflection of what the underhanded, sinister left does on the forum.

JK

Seesh! I guess you include me in that sinster left catergory.

Well anyway, I just wanted to let you, and everyone else, know that I just rated your five most recent threads with five star ratings and this is the first time I have ever done any thread rating.

I hope this helps!

[athon]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Yes, finally some one who actually did some research. Thanks, Athon. Very informative information. One time when someone found out I was a Christian then went off on me about the evils of Christianity, the Crusades, blah, blah, blah...All I could say was, "DUDE, are you for real?!!":rolleyes:

Thanks, LCBOY.

I've studied a fair bit on the crusades. I was in a crusader reenactment group once, and have researched it for a few stories I've written.

I'm actually amused how this discussion started, and has now degraded into a self-congratulatory JK monologue. Not surprised - just amused.

Athon

[Thumper]

Originally posted by LCBOY
I believe Israel is the ONLY democarcy in the Middle East. The problem is that Islam and democarcy are incompatible. There is no concept of separation of church and state in Islam.

Ok, just to set the record straight,...

Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East (depending on your definition of democracy).

Cyprus is a democracy (10)
Iran is a democracy (3)
Israel is a democracy (10)
Pakistan was until 1998 (7)
Turkey is a democracy (7)

All numbers come from The Polity IV website and are (except for Pakistan) for the year 2000 (latest I have available to me). The POLITY variable measures the degree of democracy and autocracy in a country (both on 10-point scales). The POLITY score is the AUTOC score subtracted from the DEMOC score. Positive-numbered countries are more democratic than otherwise.

For comparison, the US and UK are both 10. Somalia is a 0 (mainly for lack of government). Saudi Arabia is a -10. Russia is a 7 (2000).

As to the second assertion, there is no agreement among the scholars. Except for Calvinism (to some extent), no religion is compatable with democracy (in certain definitions). However, in non-extremist views, any religion is compatable with democracy.

[Thumper]

Oops, missed the Separation of Church and State tag.

A belief in the separation of Church and State is quite new in the history of man. IIRC, the first country to espouse the idea was the US, followed quickly by France (well, France was more anti-clerical than separation during their revolution).

Furthermore, the UK still does not have a separation of Church and State -- the monarch (head of state) is the head of the church (Church of England). Note the distinction between Head of State and Head of Government... those in the US will have a hard time with that concept, as the head of state is also the head of government (t)here.

[Thumper]

oops, that sounded rather obnoxious... sorry :(... let me rephrase that to:

...many in the US will have trouble with that concept...

>>Peace out<< ;)

[CapelDodger]

From Thumper:

A belief in the separation of Church and State is quite new in the history of man. IIRC, the first country to espouse the idea was the US, followed quickly by France (well, France was more anti-clerical than separation during their revolution).
The US may have been the first state to express the idea, the concept was not that new. It was principally French and British philosophy that first articulated the principle. And the history of Europe has been hugely influenced by the political conflict between Popes and Emperors - the spiritual and the temporal. This may not have included the idea of separation, but it did include the setting of specific boundaries. (The temporal won, of course - "how many divisions does the Vatican have?".) An equivalent struggle has never occurred in the Arab world, which is one reason it's in the state it is.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
(The temporal won, of course - "how many divisions does the Vatican have?".)

The Vatican has divisions in every country in the world (with few exceptions). But your point is well taken.

[CapelDodger]

how many divisions does the Vatican have?
I think it's attributed to Hitler. But I also see your point. I actually have a very deep and visceral loathing of the Catholic Church - there, I've said it. Therefore my opinion is a little suspect. But they don't go away, they've been at this game for a long time and they're absolutely focused. Be afraid.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

I think it's attributed to Hitler. But I also see your point. I actually have a very deep and visceral loathing of the Catholic Church - there, I've said it. Therefore my opinion is a little suspect. But they don't go away, they've been at this game for a long time and they're absolutely focused. Be afraid.

I think it was Stalin who said it actually.

It is amazing how much power the Pope had at one time.

IN the Investeture (sp?) controversy he made the Holy Roman Emperor stand barefoot in the snow for three days before he would allow him to get the sacrements again.

[CapelDodger]

I think it was Stalin who said it actually.
Thank you. Stalin would know, of course, having trained at a seminary. Maybe he went into politics so that he would have divisions to play with.

IN the Investeture (sp?) controversy he made the Holy Roman Emperor stand barefoot in the snow for three days before he would allow him to get the sacrements again.
It is also reported that, after a suitable payment, the duty could be delegated. It's good to be king.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Jedi Knight
So what they did was say: "Radical Islam is in response to the Crusades, or is the same thing as the Crusades."

I've been waiting for over six months now for you to justify other claims that you made. I'm still waiting. When will you do so? or are you still running away Jelli Fright? Oops sorry an ad hominen attack just slipped out there.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong


I've been waiting for over six months now for you to justify other claims that you made. I'm still waiting. When will you do so? or are you still running away Jelli Fright? Oops sorry an ad hominen attack just slipped out there.

Well you are a Christian so maybe your religious beliefs are making you hostile.

JK

[Genghis Pwn]

Iran is no democracy. It is run with an iron dictatorial fist by the Ayatollah and his deluded muslim clerics.

[thaiboxerken]

Hold on a sec, the comparison to the Crusades is just an analogy used to put the real issues in perspective. The religion of Islam is dangerous, but not any more or less than christianity. It's because Islam hasn't been secularized, like christianity has, that many middle-eastern muslims are violent. Christians were just as bad, if not worse, than the muslims of today.

Get a clue, it's not christianity that brought peace to the "free world", but secularization.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Christians were just as bad, if not worse, than the muslims of today.

Really? How so?

JK

[thaiboxerken]

Really? How so?

Killing women and children that happened to be in the path. Gutting people to ensure no valuables had been swallowed. Razing towns and pillaging villages. Destroying all those that disagreed with them. All common things that happen in a war of opposing ideologies.

The muslims are trying to spread their religion at the end of a sword, not unlike the christians did.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Really? How so?

Killing women and children that happened to be in the path. Gutting people to ensure no valuables had been swallowed. Razing towns and pillaging villages. Destroying all those that disagreed with them. All common things that happen in a war of opposing ideologies.

The muslims are trying to spread their religion at the end of a sword, not unlike the christians did.

Wait a minute. We aren't talking about something that happened 800 years ago. We are talking about the year 2003.

What Christian War has occured in the last 100 years? 200 years? 300 years? 400 years? 500 years? 600 years? 700 years?

Was there one?

JK

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Wait a minute. We aren't talking about something that happened 800 years ago. We are talking about the year 2003.

What Christian War has occured in the last 100 years? 200 years? 300 years? 400 years? 500 years? 600 years? 700 years?

Was there one?

JK

You miss the point. The problem with Islam is not the religion itself, but the lack of secularization in their government and people.

History is a good place to find solutions for many of today's problems.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Get a clue, it's not christianity that brought peace to the "free world", but secularization.
Sorry, this made me laugh! Wasn't the USSR a secular nation? Isn't modern day China a secular nation. This is no difference in killing in the name of God and killing in the name of atheism...Killing is killing.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Jasper Knicker
Well you are a Christian so maybe your religious beliefs are making you hostile.
Still running away I see and getting faster as well. What is it the military men sing when the run away from their own claims. Has it got a really fast 16/4 beat? Does it go something like this?

What's ma name? Whats ma shame?
I can't stand by ma claim.
Get these boots upon my feet. They get me fast up that street.

I call that the Jerked Krappy fast retreat.

[athon]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Hold on a sec, the comparison to the Crusades is just an analogy used to put the real issues in perspective. The religion of Islam is dangerous, but not any more or less than christianity. It's because Islam hasn't been secularized, like christianity has, that many middle-eastern muslims are violent. Christians were just as bad, if not worse, than the muslims of today.

Get a clue, it's not christianity that brought peace to the "free world", but secularization.

Exactly what I was saying earlier. They are not synonymous, but rather modern Islam echoes similar concepts expressed in the crusades.

JK isn't interested in the semantics, though, unless they fit his conspiracies. Don't bother him with such trivial details.

Athon

[CapelDodger]

From Jedi Knight:
What Christian War has occured in the last 100 years? 200 years? 300 years? 400 years? 500 years? 600 years? 700 years?
The 30 Years War in Europe is a good example. Also the various struggles of the Vatican and its stooges against the Republicans in Italy during the 19th CE. The Catholic Fascist states of the 1920's to 1940's campaigned against non-Catholics, which is a quite recent example.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Jedi Knight:

The 30 Years War in Europe is a good example.

Well, actually the Thirty-Years War was not a religious war. To set the record straight, it was a struggle to keep the Austrian Hapsburgs from being the dominant power on the continent. Check your history books.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Thumper


Well, actually the Thirty-Years War was not a religious war. To set the record straight, it was a struggle to keep the Austrian Hapsburgs from being the dominant power on the continent. Check your history books.

Hey Thumper, that is why I brought the point up. People think that every war involving countries with 'white' leaders was some form of Christian war. I say that Christian religious wars ended with the Crusades, but with the sheer amount of revisionist history in the world today, maybe every war had the Pope as the commanding general and we were all deceived. :rolleyes:

JK

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hey Thumper, that is why I brought the point up. People think that every war involving countries with 'white' leaders was some form of Christian war. I say that Christian religious wars ended with the Crusades, but with the sheer amount of revisionist history in the world today, maybe every war had the Pope as the commanding general and we were all deceived. :rolleyes:

JK

Danng! I'm on the same side as JK? :)
lol

[Crossbow]

The Crusades happened such a long time ago that most Westerners tend to forget about them, however in the Middle East they do think about them. In fact, when I saw George W talking about a "Crusade" I was shouting at my TV saying "You stupid idiot! DO NOT USE THAT WORD! Crusade does not mean the same thing to them as it does to us."

Anyway, just as it took many centuries for Christian anger to die down concerning the Jews killing Christ, it will take many centuries for Muslim anger to die down about the Christian Crusades.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow
The Crusades happened such a long time ago that most Westerners tend to forget about them, however in the Middle East they do think about them. In fact, when I saw George W talking about a "Crusade" I was shouting at my TV saying "You stupid idiot! DO NOT USE THAT WORD! Crusade does not mean the same thing to them as it does to us."

Anyway, just as it took many centuries for Christian anger to die down concerning the Jews killing Christ, it will take many centuries for Muslim anger to die down about the Christian Crusades.

The Crusades ended 733 years ago. Isn't it time for the Islamofascists (all Islam) to get over it?

JK

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The Crusades ended 733 years ago. Isn't it time for the Islamofascists (all Islam) to get over it?

JK

Yes! You are most correct, it has been long enough and they should get over it.

However, it has taken over 1900 years for Christians to unshoulder the cross they have been carrying regarding how the Jews killied Christ (and one can still hear this term being used).

[CapelDodger]

From Thumper:
Well, actually the Thirty-Years War was not a religious war. To set the record straight, it was a struggle to keep the Austrian Hapsburgs from being the dominant power on the continent. Check your history books.
Don't do that. It's like a red rag, but I'm mellow tonight.

The Thirty Years War cannot be characterised simply as a Hapsburg affair. The Papacy wasn't identified with the Hapsburg interest for no reason, nor was the Papacy a powerless PR gimmick with no objectives of its own. The time at which it occurred - like so many other times - was a time of flux when many shifts in potential power were only just being recognised. Objectives and alliances changed with changing circumstances and learnt lessons. But for the Papacy, and the conservative interests it favoured, the objective was always the destruction of Protestantism. The Hapsburgs rode on that, sure enough, but what they offered the Papacy was what the Papacy demanded.

And in detail (there is far too much detail to this war) warlike passions - aka murderous ravaging - were more often provoked by religious than by nationalist rabble-rousing.

This is all about Christian on Christian activity, but let us not forget how often they were called Crusades by Rome.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Jedi Knight
People think that every war involving countries with 'white' leaders was some form of Christian war.


Interestingly the following can be found in a paper from Marine Corps Command and Staff College
Marine Corps Development and Education Command
Quantico, Virginia 22134


The now famous Reverend Ian Paisley had

organized the Protestant counter-action to a scheduled NICRA

march. As his "gentle congregation" arrived for their

"christian observance" the police moved in and confiscated

"two revolvers and 220 other weapons such as billhooks,

pipes hammered into sharp points and scythes. Other

demonstrators were seen to be armed with cudgels, some of

which were studded with nails." A white 'preacher' leading a white 'christian' sectarian body ready to fight a war against basic civil rights.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by LCBOY

Sorry, this made me laugh! Wasn't the USSR a secular nation? Isn't modern day China a secular nation. This is no difference in killing in the name of God and killing in the name of atheism...Killing is killing.

Did the USSR and China kill in the name of atheism? No they did not. They did not have religious agenda, but political agendas and they killed in the name of communism/socialism.

The reality is, the major religions have it in their "holy books" that they should kill those of other religions, that they should not tolerate the non-beleivers. The belief that people should have freedom of religion is a secular belief.

[Thumper]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Did the USSR and China kill in the name of atheism? No they did not. They did not have religious agenda, but political agendas and they killed in the name of communism/socialism.

O jeez.

Can you explain, then, why the communists tried to eliminate the religions in the lands they conquered?

[Thumper]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Thumper:

Don't do that. It's like a red rag, but I'm mellow tonight.

The Thirty Years War cannot be characterised simply as a Hapsburg affair. The Papacy wasn't identified with the Hapsburg interest for no reason, nor was the Papacy a powerless PR gimmick with no objectives of its own. The time at which it occurred - like so many other times - was a time of flux when many shifts in potential power were only just being recognised. Objectives and alliances changed with changing circumstances and learnt lessons. But for the Papacy, and the conservative interests it favoured, the objective was always the destruction of Protestantism. The Hapsburgs rode on that, sure enough, but what they offered the Papacy was what the Papacy demanded.

And in detail (there is far too much detail to this war) warlike passions - aka murderous ravaging - were more often provoked by religious than by nationalist rabble-rousing.

This is all about Christian on Christian activity, but let us not forget how often they were called Crusades by Rome.

And Catholic France uniting with Protestant Sweden against Catholic Hapsburgs is a religious war? This was the first European war that put the state above all else. Raison d'etat.

[thaiboxerken]

Can you explain, then, why the communists tried to eliminate the religions in the lands they conquered?

Can you show me that they did try to eliminate religions in the lands they conquered?

[Thumper]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Can you show me that they did try to eliminate religions in the lands they conquered?

Quote:
"The Chinese and Russian Communists, as Marxist-Leninists, are fundamentally hostile towards religion, and are committed to its ultimate eradication."

Source: General Aspects of Chinese Communist Religious Policy, with Soviet Comparisons, by Rensselaer W. Lee III
China Quarterly, No. 19. (Jul. - Sep., 1964), pp. 161-173.

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0305-7410%28196407%2F09%290%3A19%3C161%3AGAOCCR%3E2.0.C O%3B2-%23

Quote:
"With the resumption of full-scale anti-religious effort,..."

Source: Soviet Sociology of Religion: An Appraisal, by William C. Fletcher, Russian Review, Vol. 35, No. 2. (Apr., 1976), pp. 173-191.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-0341%28197604%2935%3A2%3C173%3ASSORAA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

Quote:
"A basic doctrine of communism is its militant atheism."

Source: The Church in the Soviet Union 1917 - 1941, by N. S. Timasheff, Russian Review, Vol. 1, No. 1. (Nov., 1941), pp. 20-30.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0036-0341%28194111%291%3A1%3C20%3ATCITSU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J



See also:
The Task of Creating the New Soviet Man: 'Atheistic Propaganda' in the Soviet Muslim Areas
Yaacov Ro'i
Soviet Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1. (Jan., 1984), pp. 26-44.
Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-5859%28198401%2936%3A1%3C26%3ATTOCTN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5

Any other questions?

[thaiboxerken]

Well, I guess you got me there. This also defeats your claim that secularism caused such nastiness in china and russia. Killing in the name of atheism is not a secular belief.

Secular beliefs are ones that are come to regardless of religion, beliefs come about through reason and critical thought. The killing of people in the name of atheism is not reasonable.

Also, atheism does not teach killing, loving, helping or hurting. It is simply a state of being, not a belief system. Russia and China's atrocities are all politically motivated, not "atheistically" motivated. There is no atheist dogma or bible.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Did the USSR and China kill in the name of atheism? No they did not. They did not have religious agenda, but political agendas and they killed in the name of communism/socialism.

The reality is, the major religions have it in their "holy books" that they should kill those of other religions, that they should not tolerate the non-beleivers. The belief that people should have freedom of religion is a secular belief.

Oh let's see now. Communsion and Nazism are based in atheism. Last time I checked, the creator of communism, Karl Marx, was an atheist. If I remember correctly, Marx depised religion as a tool to control the masses. But I will go check out some of Marx's writings...

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Well, I guess you got me there. This also defeats your claim that secularism caused such nastiness in china and russia. Killing in the name of atheism is not a secular belief.

Secular beliefs are ones that are come to regardless of religion, beliefs come about through reason and critical thought. The killing of people in the name of atheism is not reasonable.

Also, atheism does not teach killing, loving, helping or hurting. It is simply a state of being, not a belief system. Russia and China's atrocities are all politically motivated, not "atheistically" motivated. There is no atheist dogma or bible.

According to Webster's:

atheism: the belief that there is not God or denial that God or gods exist.

I'm sure the communists and nazis killing the millions based on what they believed was reason and critical thought. To them them the "other" people were a drain on resources and not even human because they believed some of the "other" people were not as evolved as them. Nazi Germany had a eugenics program to improve the "master race". The communists believed that God does not exist thus what they did, all the murders, was NOT evil but only the natural order of things...

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by LCBOY


Oh let's see now. Communsion and Nazism are based in atheism. Last time I checked, the creator of communism, Karl Marx, was an atheist. If I remember correctly, Marx depised religion as a tool to control the masses. But I will go check out some of Marx's writings...

Communism is not based on atheism, actually Jesus was a communist. Did jesus not say to share your belongings with the poor?

The Nazi's were christian, this is historic fact. Proclamation of being god's soldiers were even on the Nazi uniforms.

Marx did not create communism, he just made it famous.

Marx did not like religion, this is true.

According to Webster's:
atheism: the belief that there is not God or denial that God or gods exist.

I don't accept webster's dictionary, as it is written from a theist point of view. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

I'm sure the communists and nazis killing the millions based on what they believed was reason and critical thought.

Communists wage war to bring their own peace to the world. On paper, communism would be a very utopian society if people could stand being equal to each other. Communism itself is not evil. Do you even know what communism is? Atheism is not a requirement of being communist.

The Nazi's were christian, led by Hitler who invoked Jesus and God in his speeches. The Nazi's thought they were doing god's work. Admittedly, I think Hitler was more polically motivated to take over the world. His and the Nazi hatred for Jews, however, came from religious background.

The communists believed that God does not exist thus what they did, all the murders, was NOT evil but only the natural order of things...

This is more speculation based on absolutely no critical thought.



You can't seem to get it through your thick skull that atheism is simply a state of being, it's not a philosophy or religion. There is no atheist doctrine. Atheism is not created by one founder, or leader, it is simply a position of doubt. It's the skeptical position about god or gods. Simply being atheist does not incline a person to be communist, facist, murderous or anything like that.

Contrast that to christianity, where there is a bible that condones the killing of non-believers and people of other religions. It says in your bible to kill atheists, why don't you? It's because christians have become secular, they've come to tolerate people of other religions and even atheists.

Why do you try to equate secularism with evil, when it's clearly the opposite?

[Thumper]

The bold is originally posted by thaiboxerken, the normal is my writings.


Communism is not based on atheism, actually Jesus was a communist. Did jesus not say to share your belongings with the poor?

Absolutely true. The doctrine of "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" is straight from ACTS. :)

The Nazi's were christian, this is historic fact. Proclamation of being god's soldiers were even on the Nazi uniforms.

Again, absolutely true. Why do you think they used the swastika? It's a cross.

Marx did not create communism, he just made it famous.

Along with Engels and a slew of others. It was Lenin and Stalin that made it infamous. :)

Marx did not like religion, this is true.

Religion is the opiate of the masses.


According to Webster's:
atheism: the belief that there is not God or denial that God or gods exist.

I don't accept webster's dictionary, as it is written from a theist point of view. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

I disagree with you here. Atheism states there is no gods. It is a belief. The belief that there is or isn't gods is agnosticism.


I'm sure the communists and nazis killing the millions based on what they believed was reason and critical thought.

Communists wage war to bring their own peace to the world. On paper, communism would be a very utopian society if people could stand being equal to each other. Communism itself is not evil. Do you even know what communism is? Atheism is not a requirement of being communist.


Yes, I do know what communism is. I also know what Communism is, and communalism, and a host of other c- words. :)
Ok, I guess that was directed at someone else.

The Nazi's were christian, led by Hitler who invoked Jesus and God in his speeches. The Nazi's thought they were doing god's work. Admittedly, I think Hitler was more polically motivated to take over the world. His and the Nazi hatred for Jews, however, came from religious background.

It's interesting that Hitler invoked the Arian ideal of blonde-haired, blue-eyed perfection when the Aryans were originally from India. :)

The communists believed that God does not exist thus what they did, all the murders, was NOT evil but only the natural order of things...

This is more speculation based on absolutely no critical thought.

Again, i agree. The facts seem to be that the 'religion' of Communism was used to keep the rulers in charge. Thus, it reduced to nothing more than yet another style of totalitarianism.


You can't seem to get it through your thick skull that atheism is simply a state of being, it's not a philosophy or religion. There is no atheist doctrine. Atheism is not created by one founder, or leader, it is simply a position of doubt. It's the skeptical position about god or gods. Simply being atheist does not incline a person to be communist, facist, murderous or anything like that.


Let's not lose our temper, k? And let's leave my thick skull out of it. :)

There is no founder of atheism, yet there are leaders of it. And see my notes prior as to why it is a belief. Agnosticism is a position of doubt, not atheism.

And the contention that atheists are no more likely to be murderers or communists or fascists has no support. I believe you meant to say that there is no evidence that atheism predisposes one to be a murderer, a communist, or a fascist. There's a subtle difference, but the difference is very important.


Contrast that to christianity, where there is a bible that condones the killing of non-believers and people of other religions. It says in your bible to kill atheists, why don't you? It's because christians have become secular, they've come to tolerate people of other religions and even atheists.

I must have missed the place in my bible where I was told to kill atheists. Care to enlighten me? You see, you just made a positive claim and now you must back it up with evidence like I had to earlier.


Why do you try to equate secularism with evil, when it's clearly the opposite?

I'm not exactly sure I would classify it as the opposite of evil, just as I would not classify any religion as the opposite of evil. Evil is an act. (to me) Religion is not an act, it is a belief system. (I'm sure I just over-simplified it a lot. :))


edited to fix bold tags

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

The Nazi's were christian, this is historic fact. Proclamation of being god's soldiers were even on the Nazi uniforms.


The Nazi's were christian, led by Hitler who invoked Jesus and God in his speeches. The Nazi's thought they were doing god's work. Admittedly, I think Hitler was more polically motivated to take over the world. His and the Nazi hatred for Jews, however, came from religious background.


Sorry, thaiboxerken, you are simply stated falsehoods here. Here are just a few quotes from Hitler about his take on religion and Christianity.

"When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours. In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. … No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. But in that case we must not replace the Church with something equivalent…The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. [Hitler's Table Talk, p. 6-7]"

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. [p. 51]

So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.

Originally, religion was merely a prop for human communities. It was a means, not an end in itself. It's only gradually that it became transformed in this direction, with the object of maintaining the rule of the priests, who can love only to the detriment of society collectively....

Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.

[Hitler's Table Talk, pp 58-62]


Does this sound like Hitler was a Christian? I can so you many more quotes if you wish. It seems that he thought Christianity was a sickness and a blythe on mankind that should be allowed to die out.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

According to Webster's:
atheism: the belief that there is not God or denial that God or gods exist.

I don't accept webster's dictionary, as it is written from a theist point of view. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods.

How convenient. When you are presented with evidence and definitions that refute your assertions you claim the evidence and definitions are wrong and your are right. How convenient!
You can't seem to get it through your thick skull that atheism is simply a state of being, it's not a philosophy or religion. ?
I guess my skull is thick enough to repell you rants. Does this comment add anything to this thread? Atheism a state of being? I don't know where you got that one from. I wonder what Voltaire, Nietsche, Russell, etc. would have to say about your definition...

[athon]

Hang on, it looks like this is yet another debate based on semantics and semiotics than real systems of understanding.

I think this boils down religion and dogma. Atheism is not a philosophy in itself, insofar as it offers no canon, dogma or religious theosophy. It gives no message as to how to exist, or give a sense of direction by way of a rule system. Therefore, by some definitions of religion atheism is not a philosophy or religion.

If your define a religious belief as simply one of esotericism, or even more basic, any belief in a higher order, than I guess atheism is a form of religion.

So the argument has nothing to do with the definition of atheism as it does with the definition of religion.

Athon

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by athon
So the argument has nothing to do with the definition of atheism as it does with the definition of religion.

Athon

Atheism is a religion.

JK

[CapelDodger]

From Thumper:
And Catholic France uniting with Protestant Sweden against Catholic Hapsburgs is a religious war?
The French were also allied with the Ottomans, but they'd been at that for a long time. You can't use French behaviour of evidence of anything. I'll just point out that victories were followed by executions not only of rebels but of heretics. The Protestant League were arrayed against the Catholic League. And to cap off that piece of sophistry, how was a war with two King Christians, a Christian of Brunswick and a Christian of Brandenburg not religious?;)

[CapelDodger]

From thaiboxerken:
Can you explain, then, why the communists tried to eliminate the religions in the lands they conquered?
They didn't want any alternative power-bases in their societies. They mostly eliminated opposition parties as well.

From Jedi Knight:
Atheism is a religion.
I have no religion. Therefore I am not an atheist? Gods are the mental constructs of parochial human minds, with no objective existence. Recognising that obvious fact no more constitutes a religious faith than laughing at alien-abduction stories.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Jedi Knight:

I have no religion. Therefore I am not an atheist? Gods are the mental constructs of parochial human minds, with no objective existence. Recognising that obvious fact no more constitutes a religious faith than laughing at alien-abduction stories.

You may have no God, but you will always have a religion. I explained this in genius-level examples some time ago. If you want, we can reopen this topic.

JK

[thaiboxerken]

I have no religion. I believe in no gods.

Hitler may or maynot have been a christian, but the Nazi's were. The public speeches are evidence of this, one does not motivate a people by invoking gods and heroes they do not believe in.

Islam is merely a religion that hasn't quite secularized as much as christianity has.

Christianity has taught to kill the non-believers. The bible condones the behavior. The reason that christians don't do this as much is because they have secularized their beliefs. The parts of the bible that say to kill the non-believer are no longer believed in, and they are apologized away.

Dt.13:6 "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."
2 Chr.15:13 "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
Mk.16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."



The arguement about atheism being a religion or not is just a red-herring.

[Tormac]

JK wrote
You may have no God, but you will always have a religion. I explained this in genius-level examples some time ago. If you want, we can reopen this topic.

Ok JK, I may be opening up a can of worms, but I'm pretty new here so forgive me. (This thread has set itself adrift long ago anyways)

I'd like to know how a denial in the existence of god/God/gods equates to a religion.

Just to set a base line here this is what dictionary.com said about religion

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

[CapelDodger]

From thaiboxerken:
Christianity has taught to kill the non-believers. The bible condones the behavior. The reason that christians don't do this as much is because they have secularized their beliefs. The parts of the bible that say to kill the non-believer are no longer believed in, and they are apologized away.
What the mainstream churches have done is drop the Old Testament, which is effectively what Paul preached in the first place. The New Testament has far fewer problems; for instance, the "damning" in Mark is done by the god, so Xians shouldn't feel obliged to harm the unbelievers.

For those who find me unclear, I repeat : I have no religion. Nor do I have a womb or gills, and nobody's insistence otherwise will change that.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
JK wrote


Ok JK, I may be opening up a can of worms, but I'm pretty new here so forgive me. (This thread has set itself adrift long ago anyways)

I'd like to know how a denial in the existence of god/God/gods equates to a religion.

Just to set a base line here this is what dictionary.com said about religion

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

A religion is a 'system of worship'. It does not require an omnipotent being.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I have no religion. I believe in no gods.

Hitler may or maynot have been a christian, but the Nazi's were. The public speeches are evidence of this, one does not motivate a people by invoking gods and heroes they do not believe in.

Islam is merely a religion that hasn't quite secularized as much as christianity has.

Christianity has taught to kill the non-believers. The bible condones the behavior. The reason that christians don't do this as much is because they have secularized their beliefs. The parts of the bible that say to kill the non-believer are no longer believed in, and they are apologized away.

Dt.13:6 "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."
2 Chr.15:13 "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
Mk.16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."



The arguement about atheism being a religion or not is just a red-herring.

Atheism is an attractive tool to tyrants in power because it removes competing venues of authority, especially religious authority. Once that occurs the populations find themselves detached from moral oversight by religious institutions and then are able to complete immoral acts like the Holocaust more efficiently and with no resistence in the general population. The general population may even begin to support such atheist actions, as the populations of Nazi Germany proved.

JK

[thaiboxerken]

JK totally ignores facts, like Nazi Germany being a catholic country.

I'll just ignore you now, JK, since you are a liar and a fool.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
JK totally ignores facts, like Nazi Germany being a catholic country.

I'll just ignore you now, JK, since you are a liar and a fool.

Nazi Germany abandoned Catholicism centuries before Hitler even appeared.

JK

[CapelDodger]

Nazi Germany abandoned Catholicism centuries before Hitler even appeared.
Usual ahistorical simplistic cartoon history. There was no "Germany" centuries before Hitler. Southern Germany is still mainly Catholic. Hitler was, of course, from Austria - a Catholic country - and after the Anschluss the Reich was even more Catholic. (Half the names in Simon Wiessenthal's files are Austrian, I understand. The Austrians sort of took over Germany rather like the Texans have taken over the US..:confused: )
Atheism is an attractive tool to tyrants in power because it removes competing venues of authority, especially religious authority
Whereas religious authority removes competing power-bases (particularly other religions and humanism), and removes the need of people to form moral judgements by dictating morality to them, including the rightness of holy war. And tithes. And, in the more imaginative religions, rights of defloration. It's good to be High Priest

[Thumper]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Thumper:

The French were also allied with the Ottomans, but they'd been at that for a long time. You can't use French behaviour of evidence of anything. I'll just point out that victories were followed by executions not only of rebels but of heretics. The Protestant League were arrayed against the Catholic League. And to cap off that piece of sophistry, how was a war with two King Christians, a Christian of Brunswick and a Christian of Brandenburg not religious?;)

Your contention: The Thirty Years War was a war of religion.

Your evidence: It was Catholics against the Protestants.

My counter-evidence: France (Catholic) allied with Sweden (Lutheran) and others, which shows it was definitely not Catholic vs. Protestant.

Your reply: France doesn't count.

My response: :confused:

As for the two King Christians... huh? Name implies... what?

The facts say it was a war between the Hapsburgs who wanted control of Europe and the rest who wanted to avoid that.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Nazi Germany abandoned Catholicism centuries before Hitler even appeared.

JK


Why do I bother?

Precision in language is not your friend…and imprecision suggests muddy thinking.

Nazi Germany was established in 1933. Therefore, Nazi Germany did not abandon Catholism centuries before Hitler.

Various "German" states abandoned State Catholicism or established Protestantism...as did many countries in the West...As was pointed out, the Catholic church was the principal faith not only in Barvaria (where it still dominates), but it was the offical church in the Hapsburg Empire (until 1918).

And, as has been pointed out, there was no one, single Germany until the 1870s ("Germany" as we think of it today being something of a construct, not unlike Italy, or United Kingdom, etc.).

[Thumper]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Christianity has taught to kill the non-believers. The bible condones the behavior. The reason that christians don't do this as much is because they have secularized their beliefs. The parts of the bible that say to kill the non-believer are no longer believed in, and they are apologized away.

Dt.13:6 "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die."
2 Chr.15:13 "Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman."
Both from the Jewish bible. :)


Mk.16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Damned = I should kill you? Give me a break.

MT 5:1 - 12 if we want to represent the other side. :)

The arguement about atheism being a religion or not is just a red-herring.

Wait, what was the original purpose of this thread? :)

[Thumper]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
JK totally ignores facts, like Nazi Germany being a catholic country.

I'll just ignore you now, JK, since you are a liar and a fool.

Oy vey! :rolleyes:

[Tormac]

JK wrote You may have no God, but you will always have a religion. I explained this in genius-level examples some time ago. If you want, we can reopen this topic.

Latter I assume as an example of how Atheism is a religon he wrote
A religion is a 'system of worship'. It does not require an omnipotent being.

I'm sorry it took me a while to respond JK. I don't see the example where atheism is a religion yet.

I'm willing to agree with you about an omnipotent being JK, in fact I've had some people who express to be Buddhist explain to me how their religion can be "atheistic" (note I know there is disagreement over this, I'm not making a definitive statement about Buddhism). Most pagan religions do not have omnipotent gods, but gods with limited spheres of influence.

What does a religion with a non-omnipotent god or a mortal object or worship have to do with the denial of an existence of a god/God/gods?

[Tormac]

JK wrote
Atheism is an attractive tool to tyrants in power because it removes competing venues of authority, especially religious authority. Once that occurs the populations find themselves detached from moral oversight by religious institutions and then are able to complete immoral acts like the Holocaust more efficiently and with no resistence in the general population. The general population may even begin to support such atheist actions, as the populations of Nazi Germany proved.

You claim that Atheism is an attractive tool to tyrants. Well I think that you can show that many secular governments have tried to limit the secular power of religious institutions. But if you are implying that a belief in atheism makes a population more susceptible to control by a tyrant you are going to have to come up with a better example.

Can you prove that the German population was atheist when Hitler came to power?

You claim that it was atheism that led Nazi Germany to commit the Holocaust, since "the populations find themselves detached from moral oversight by religious institutions and then are able to complete immoral acts like the Holocaust".


I find it very hard to swallow that it was a sudden conversion to atheism that lead to German population assault the Jewish people. Rather it is more likely that it was tension and hatred built up for centuries around religious divisions that lead to the holocaust.

The animosity of Christians towards Jews in Europe goes back centuries into medieval times. I've never heard of a tradition of atheists conducting pogroms against the Jews. Can you give me a tradition atheist Europe using the Jews as scapegoats?

Isn't it more honest to say that the Nazi government used a tradition of religious hatred and bigotry to control German society, than to claim it was caused by an upwelling of atheism?

[Thumper]

Ummmmm... can I ask the obvious question...?

Actually, I'm repeating thaiboxerken's question:

What does the status of atheism as a religion (or not) have to do with the thread topic?

[LCBOY]

Jedi Knight,

I think you need to bring this thread back to it's original topic: Islam. Can you espouse some of your intellectual insights and guide as back. Please!

[thaiboxerken]

It looks like JK and the other fundies do not realize that christianity has been just as bad as Islam. I'm pointing this out right now. Yes, it's history, but if we don't learn from history, we don't gain wisdom. The militant Islamists are merely people with more conviction, belief and faith in their religion than the rest of Islam. They take the Q'uran as being the literal truth, something to be lived by, this is why they kill. Miltant christians, of the past, and the isolated people of the present, are simply christians that have more faith in the bible than the mainstream christian.

Peaceful apologists of both Islam and Christianity will find excuses not to follow the more violent parts of their holy books. The reality is that their belief in tolerance and freedom of religion is secular, this is why they find ways to justify ignoring the hatred in their books.

I used to be a christian, until i read the bible. I simply couldn't not convince myself to be a pickNchoose christian. I realized that my values come from secular sources, else I'd be killing homosexuals as commanded by the bible.

[Tormac]

Ahhh shucks! No more topic drift?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Why do I bother?

You know why you bother. You bother because this is a topic that describes the empowerment of totalitarian institutions that were responsible for 200,000,000 deaths last century. You would think after debating this issue with me before in threads numbering thousands of posts that you would admit it.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
JK wrote

Latter I assume as an example of how Atheism is a religon he wrote


I'm sorry it took me a while to respond JK. I don't see the example where atheism is a religion yet.

I'm willing to agree with you about an omnipotent being JK, in fact I've had some people who express to be Buddhist explain to me how their religion can be "atheistic" (note I know there is disagreement over this, I'm not making a definitive statement about Buddhism). Most pagan religions do not have omnipotent gods, but gods with limited spheres of influence.

What does a religion with a non-omnipotent god or a mortal object or worship have to do with the denial of an existence of a god/God/gods?

If you claim to be an atheist you are taking a religious position. You are declaring that you are either a God (that you have special knowledge regarding the status of the omnipotent being) or you are declaring that TLOP is God (the laws of physics).

I like to joke around on the forum a lot and have fun with issues, but this issue is one where I will take the time and dispense my genius (which is vast).

JK

[Tormac]

My apologies for the anti-drift crowd.

Ok JK from dictionary.com

a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.

I will agree that if you are an atheist you are taking a position on religion. It seems to me you are really stretching the language to claim that atheists are taking a religious position though.

I do appreciate your good nature JK. It is obvious to me that you are not "mean spirited", if you are worried about that. <shrugs>

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
Can you prove that the German population was atheist when Hitler came to power?

Absolutely. I simply need to draw from history. The German populations stepped away from religion when Luther returned from the Vatican dismayed at how his faith was deceived.

The periods that followed spawned the writings of Nietzche and Hegel and other critical German philosophes, men who thought about "the Superman" (which later led to the Nazi SS and German Master Race ideologies) and "God is dead", which led to German populations questioning the omnipotent being.

You see, taking the step to declare yourself an atheist is pretty dangerous, especially when entire populations get involved. The reason I say that is because in atheist nation-states the laws of man are derived from the state, not the theory of a 'nature's God' or what can be best understood as 'natural rights'.

As God was removed from German populations, those populations began to seek out a new prince. They found him in Hitler and gave themselves to him willingly. Hitler espoused "God" when he preached to his populations, but his populations saw him as God and the 'state' as God. There was no Christian authority in Nazi Germany. If there was, why was the Vatican forced to sign a surrender treaty?

Only Hitler knew what God was by definition in the German nation-state and that fascist nation-state operated based on the assumptions of Hitler's defined God. No Christian assisted Hitler nor the 3rd Reich in governance or via institutions. A fascist nation-state cannot tolerate external forms of power, especially religious ones where the true moral authority rests in the mystique of a state-defined omnipotent being.

The same can be said for communist Russia--even moreso. Religious institutions were completely dominated and controlled by the 'state'. No external religious authority would ever be allowed to operate in the Kremlin. As with fascist Germany, this is done so the 'state' becomes the moral authority and the 'giver' of rights, especially the declared 'natural rights'. If there is no God, then 'humans' must be God and the 'state' the vehicle for omnipotence.

When Hitler talked about the 1,000-year Reich, he wasn't talking about Christian authority. He was talking about atheist state authority. Hitler was too arrogant and narcissistic to allow any competing authority in the Reich--never religious authority.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
My apologies for the anti-drift crowd.

Ok JK from dictionary.com

a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.

I will agree that if you are an atheist you are taking a position on religion. It seems to me you are really stretching the language to claim that atheists are taking a religious position though.

I do appreciate your good nature JK. It is obvious to me that you are not "mean spirited", if you are worried about that. <shrugs>

I am one of the smartest people on the planet. I don't have to be mean-spirited. I give facts--people accept them or deny them. That is up to them.

Atheism is a religious position because it thinks about God. To 'dismiss' the omnipotent being you must first think carefully about it, right? As a human, if you say there is no omnipotent being, you are claiming 'special knowledge'. You are, indeed, thinking of yourself as possessing a level of omnipotence, for the atheist declaration of no omnipotent being must be followed with an origin of the universe, also declared by a human. That is a pretty big sandwhich to claim authority over. That is also why it is a religious position.

That is why the true skeptic is the person who doubts, the agnostic, because there is no proof either way and agnosticism is the only honest, logical skeptical position. This by no means forces the agnostic to declare allegiance to any 'human defined' omnipotent being that is separate of Earth, only that since the universe exists, then the possibility of an omnipotent being of some type exists.

That is why the Jedi believe in The Force.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It looks like JK and the other fundies do not realize that christianity has been just as bad as Islam.

Really? Enlighten me. You aren't referring to the blip in time called "The Crusades", are you?

JK

[Tormac]

JK, when you sayYou are, indeed, thinking of yourself as possessing a level of omnipotence, for the atheist declaration of no omnipotent being must be followed with an origin of the universe, also declared by a human.

you are making an argument based on a construct that I think you will have a real hard time proving. Take a look at the definition of religion again, then atheism. There may be a reason why atheism is a religion in there, but you have not found an objective one yet.

Try to identify the underlying constructs that your argument relies on. Once you do that you may be closer to a reason, or you may give up on the idea.

I think you are correct though about agnosticism being the best skeptical position, but I don't see how that helps your argument.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
JK, when you say

you are making an argument based on a construct that I think you will have a real hard time proving. Take a look at the definition of religion again, then atheism. There may be a reason why atheism is a religion in there, but you have not found an objective one yet.

Try to identify the underlying constructs that your argument relies on. Once you do that you may be closer to a reason, or you may give up on the idea.

I think you are correct though about agnosticism being the best skeptical position, but I don't see how that helps your argument.

Really? Then define the construct and explain why it can't be proven. Don't just say it can't.

JK

[Tormac]

Back to the German people all being atheists when you wroteThe periods that followed spawned the writings of Nietzche and Hegel and other critical German philosophes, men who thought about "the Superman" (which later led to the Nazi SS and German Master Race ideologies) and "God is dead", which led to German populations questioning the omnipotent being.

Are you suggesting that Nietzsche was an accurate representation of the common German citizen? Just out of curiosity do you have any hard evidence that a large percentage of the German population had embraced atheism during the 30's and 40's?

Hitler certainly used religion to his advantage, but what he co-opted had a long Christian tradition. That he wanted the state to control religion is true, but once again he did not destroy religion, but tried to harness it to his own state. Are you denying the medieval programs against the Jews JK? You seemed to imply that the citizens of Nazi Germany would have been repelled by the idea of attacking the Jews before Hitler rose to power, but there is clearly a long tradition of hared that was directed towards the Jews from Christian Europe.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
Back to the German people all being atheists when you wrote

Are you suggesting that Nietzsche was an accurate representation of the common German citizen? Just out of curiosity do you have any hard evidence that a large percentage of the German population had embraced atheism during the 30's and 40's?

6,000,000 Jews put inside ovens? Where was the religious moral authority in the nation-state to reject that atrocity? That is but one of thousands of examples.

Insofar as Nietzche is concerned, Nietzche simply provided the political theory to the Nazi institutions to act on. It is a logic fallacy to claim "all Germans are atheists". It is not logic fallacy to say: "The German state was immoral because of the lack of religious authority that deteriorated internally in history."

Hitler certainly used religion to his advantage, but what he co-opted had a long Christian tradition. That he wanted the state to control religion is true, but once again he did not destroy religion, but tried to harness it to his own state. Are you denying the medieval programs against the Jews JK? You seemed to imply that the citizens of Nazi Germany would have been repelled by the idea of attacking the Jews before Hitler rose to power, but there is clearly a long tradition of hared that was directed towards the Jews from Christian Europe.

If that were true, the other European states would have all collectively joined Hitler's objectives. They did not. Christian nations like Great Britain and the United States led the way into destroying the German atheist nation-state.

The Jews were just a convenient internal population within Germany to blame for Germany's ills. Replace them with "blacks", "Poles", "Southern Americans", etc and the result would have been the same given the circumstances. Hitler needed a population to blame and to redirect the anger of his populations.

The same can be said for Israel. The hatred of the Jews in Israel by arabs isn't a Jewish manifestation. You take the state of Rhode Island and plant it where Israel is right now and the Palestinians would be suicide bombing the citizens of Rhode Island just as they are the Jews.

Hitler had no Christian objective liquidating the Jews. If he did, he would have had Christian allies and he had none. The reason? Christian leaders would have found such and act a moral outrage and compelled popualtions everywhere to resist and demand an immediate invasion into Germany to stop it.

JK

[Tormac]

Back to the quote JK.
You are, indeed, thinking of yourself as possessing a level of omnipotence, for the atheist declaration of no omnipotent being must be followed with an origin of the universe, also declared by a human.

Why does an atheist need construct an origin? The notion of an origin is not a given. Also you constantly refer to omnipotence. Why is omnipotence a given? While both an origin of the universe and an omnipotent level of power are both accepted givens in many cosmologies, they are not in others. Nor are they objectively proven.

[Bjorn]

By Jedi Knight
Every time Hitler signed an order to send a V2 rocket loaded with 800 KG of high-explosive into London to vaporize emasculated brits, Hitler dated the order in the name of Jesus Christ. Every time Hitler wrote a date down on an order to bomb British civilians with white phospherous over British cities, he was worshipping Jesus too. In other words ... :confused:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
Back to the quote JK.


Why does an atheist need construct an origin? The notion of an origin is not a given. Also you constantly refer to omnipotence. Why is omnipotence a given? While both an origin of the universe and an omnipotent level of power are both accepted givens in many cosmologies, they are not in others. Nor are they objectively proven.

I am only concerned with the cosmology that the universe exists. I know it exists because as a human I am governed by TLOP (I have no free will and neither does any other human). Since 'man' cannot determine with proof how the universe was created, there is a potential that it was by an omnipotent being. That is where agnosticism plays the most important role, given the level of human knowledge that we currently possess.

Now an atheist will declare, and it is a declaration, that there is no omnipotent being. That must include special knowledge by the atheist and requires the atheist to define the origin of the universe without error.

So tell me, are there any credible atheists?

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
By Jedi Knight
In other words ... :confused:

That was a discussion of the calendar. Don't throw the topic off Bjorn. :)

JK

[Tormac]

JK wrote
,000,000 Jews put inside ovens? Where was the religious moral authority in the nation-state to reject that atrocity? That is but one of thousands of examples.

You've lost me here JK, your statement seems to be based on the supposition that if the people were religious they could not commit atrocities, but since they committed atrocities they must not be religious. There is a long history of religious groups committing atrocities, from killing all the infidels, to human sacrifice, to burning witches. Christians are certainly among both the abusers and the abused.

Further on JK wrote
If that were true, the other European states would have all collectively joined Hitler's objectives. They did not. Christian nations like Great Britain and the United States led the way into destroying the German atheist nation-state.

Why would any other European state willingly submit to Hitler's rule? That was the reason why the WWII happened. It was a fight for physical control. GB was fighting for its life, it was not fighting to defend Christian ideals. Oh to be sure the allies told their troops that God was on their side. Did the Japanese feel any differently?

JK does have a point when he saidThe Jews were just a convenient internal population within Germany to blame for Germany's ills. Replace them with "blacks", "Poles", "Southern Americans", etc and the result would have been the same given the circumstances. Hitler needed a population to blame and to redirect the anger of his populations.

Except of course that there was no pent up animosity toward the "Southern Americans, etc". Do you deny that even when Godly Christian Kings and Lords ruled Europe the Jews often suffered religious persecution at the hands of the Christian majority JK? Are the medieval pogroms the work of historical revisionists?

[Tormac]

JK wrote
am only concerned with the cosmology that the universe exists. I know it exists because as a human I am governed by TLOP (I have no free will and neither does any other human). Since 'man' cannot determine with proof how the universe was created, there is a potential that it was by an omnipotent being. That is where agnosticism plays the most important role, given the level of human knowledge that we currently possess.

I don't know JK, you've not convinced me, nor stepped out of the construct of an origin. <shrug>

I think we've reached the limit of you're examples. I can only see you leading me around and around until you can let go of the construct, or prove the validity of it to me (which I think you just said you could not do in the quote above). You have taken one step away from the omnipotence requirement though. Maybe you can give it another shot.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That was a discussion of the calendar. Don't throw the topic off Bjorn. :)

JK Ahem? You wrote exactly what I qouted, but maybe you felt it it was true in a special context only? :rolleyes:

Further, this has been debated in a thread already:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12191&highlight=was+hitler+an+atheist

... And you couldn't defend your viewpoints.

[thaiboxerken]

There is no point in argueing with JK about the religious beliefs of germany during WWII.

This has been discussed and argued with JK before and we've come to find out that JK's big arguement is that christians cannot perform massacres. You see, JK believes that if a person murders another person that there is no way that the murderer can be christian.

Have you noticed that JK has brought up no historical facts in his assertion of the Nazi's being atheist? Have you noticed how he completely ignores the fact that Hitler invoked jesus and god in his speeches to motivate the german people? Maybe JK is trying to convince us that the germans were merely atheists that prayed to jesus?

[Tormac]

thaiboxerken wrote
This has been discussed and argued with JK before and we've come to find out that JK's big arguement is that christians cannot perform massacres. You see, JK believes that if a person murders another person that there is no way that the murderer can be christian.

I have noticed that thaiboxerken.

Sometimes I'm not sure if the language is tripping up JK, or if he literally means what he says, and since I'm new here I figure I owe everybody the benefit of the doubt.

I do think that the argument about atheism being a religion is important to the topic of this thread. It seems to be an underlying construct that JK has that supports his thinking that it is obvious that Christians are incapable of performing moral outrage while everyone else is one step removed from savagery.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
JK wrote


I don't know JK, you've not convinced me, nor stepped out of the construct of an origin. <shrug>

I think we've reached the limit of you're examples. I can only see you leading me around and around until you can let go of the construct, or prove the validity of it to me (which I think you just said you could not do in the quote above). You have taken one step away from the omnipotence requirement though. Maybe you can give it another shot.

No, my "limits of examples" (as you say) are endless. I know that it can be difficult for you to grasp accurate critique of your religious beliefs. Just admit it and agree to disagree. You don't have to selectively ignore the facts.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
thaiboxerken wrote


I have noticed that thaiboxerken.

Sometimes I'm not sure if the language is tripping up JK, or if he literally means what he says, and since I'm new here I figure I owe everybody the benefit of the doubt.

I do think that the argument about atheism being a religion is important to the topic of this thread. It seems to be an underlying construct that JK has that supports his thinking that it is obvious that Christians are incapable of performing moral outrage while everyone else is one step removed from savagery.

Huh?

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
There is no point in argueing with JK about the religious beliefs of germany during WWII.

This has been discussed and argued with JK before and we've come to find out that JK's big arguement is that christians cannot perform massacres. You see, JK believes that if a person murders another person that there is no way that the murderer can be christian.

Have you noticed that JK has brought up no historical facts in his assertion of the Nazi's being atheist? Have you noticed how he completely ignores the fact that Hitler invoked jesus and god in his speeches to motivate the german people? Maybe JK is trying to convince us that the germans were merely atheists that prayed to jesus?

The Nazi regime wasn't a Christian regime.

JK

[Tormac]

JK wrote
No, my "limits of examples" (as you say) are endless. I know that it can be difficult for you to grasp accurate critique of your religious beliefs. Just admit it and agree to disagree. You don't have to selectively ignore the facts.

Ok JK. You still have not demonstrated the need for there to be an origin of the universe, which was where I think we left off.

I think your above statement is an example of what I meant when I said that I sometimes think that the language was tripping you up. Your examples of why atheism is a religion so far are only supported by your assumption that it is a religion.

In the previous post JK said
The Nazi regime wasn't a Christian regime.

But the long history of the persecution of the Jews in Europe had previously occurred under Christian regimes. In your effort to prove that the popularization of atheism lead to the holocaust you have not shown that the population of Nazi Germany were largely atheist. Nor have you dealt with the fact that the tradition of bigotry and oppression of the European Jews has a long tradition stretching back to times long before the rise of the National Socialist Party.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
There is no point in argueing with JK about the religious beliefs of germany during WWII.

This has been discussed and argued with JK before and we've come to find out that JK's big arguement is that christians cannot perform massacres. You see, JK believes that if a person murders another person that there is no way that the murderer can be christian.

Have you noticed that JK has brought up no historical facts in his assertion of the Nazi's being atheist? Have you noticed how he completely ignores the fact that Hitler invoked jesus and god in his speeches to motivate the german people? Maybe JK is trying to convince us that the germans were merely atheists that prayed to jesus?

And of course, thaiboxerken, you have provided a litany of facts to show that Hitler was a follower of Christ. RIIIIIIGGGHHTTT! I guess you ignored one of my prior posts of Hitler denouncing Christianity through many of his speeches. The question isn't whether the German people were atheist or not. I am sure some were and some were not. That's not the point. The question is whether Hitler's Nazi beliefs are based in Christianity or atheism. And it is obvious that his beliefs were based in ATHEISM. Since Hitler was a materialist, rationalist, and devout evolutionist, he saw no evil in killing some many people. He killed roughly 16,000,000 people of which 6,000,000 were Jews. He saw these people as sub-human, not as evolved as the "master race", no defferent than killing an animal.

Was Hitler a strict atheist? From my reseach I would say no, he was not a strict atheist. He was definitely a rationalist and materialist. THe problem is that Hilter, the public speaker, was very different form Hitler the private man. His speeches were propaganda. He would whatever it took to get his people to follow him. If that meant invoking the name of God, then he would do it. That doesn't prove he was a Christian, though.

Here are some links to ponder:

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html

http://kevin.davnet.org/hitler.html

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
Ok JK. You still have not demonstrated the need for there to be an origin of the universe, which was where I think we left off.

To deny the existence of the universe is to deny reality and step into the darkness of mysticism.

I think your above statement is an example of what I meant when I said that I sometimes think that the language was tripping you up. Your examples of why atheism is a religion so far are only supported by your assumption that it is a religion.

No way. The language is tripping you up. You know what I mean. If you don't understand, I don't think I can break it down any easier for you.

JK

[Tormac]

JK wrote
To deny the existence of the universe is to deny reality and step into the darkness of mysticism.

I agree with you if you are confirming the acceptance of the existence of an objective reality. What does that have to do with the discussion JK?

Latter JK wrote
No way. The language is tripping you up. You know what I mean. If you don't understand, I don't think I can break it down any easier for you.

Sometimes I think I know what you mean, sometimes I'm not sure. For example you have made the statement

The reason I say that is because in atheist nation-states the laws of man are derived from the state, not the theory of a 'nature's God' or what can be best understood as 'natural rights'.

I think what you mean is

"The reason I say that is because in Fascist states the laws of man are derived from the state, not the theory of a 'nature's God or what can best be understood as 'natural rights"

and you hold the construct that Fascism=Authoritarianism=Marxism=Atheism.

I will accept that the National Socialist government was a fascist state. That atheism was the popularly held view of the common German is something that you seem to espouse, but you have not demonstrated it yet. You also seem to assume that it was this wellspring of atheism that facilitated the oppression of the German Jews, and yet you have not dealt with the long history of Jewish oppression by Christian governments long before the rise of National Socialism, or demonstrated how or why atheism will lead to the people abdicating individual moral responsibility to a central secular body such as a fascist state.

Or maybe you do hold that the National Socialist Party was not fascist, and I do not know what you mean. <shrugs>

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
I agree with you if you are confirming the acceptance of the existence of an objective reality. What does that have to do with the discussion JK?

It has everything to do with the conversation but you need to be a real critical thinker to see it.

If an atheists says: "There is no God." and I ask :"Really? Then you must have special knowledge about how the universe formed. Since I am a skeptic and I am very interested in learning about the origin of the universe, if it wasn't formed by an omnipotent being, then how did something come from nothing?"

The atheist naturally cannot answer the question honestly so is atheism really a valid religious belief?

JK

[Tormac]

Once again JK we get the construct you hold, but do not bother to acknowledge.

You dropped the omnipotent part, but still cling to the origin. I have to ask you what proof do you have that there is an origin of the universe? Why does an atheist have to supply this to you?

The explanation of origin is one function of religion. You have not demonstrated why atheism has to perform religious tasks. It seems you want to force atheism into the explanatory role of a religion, then use that as proof that it is a religion.

If I "know what you mean" I would characterize you attempt to prove that atheism is a religion thusly

1) Atheism is a religion because I hold that atheism has to have the explanatory nature of most religions.

2) Once atheism has this explanatory nature it is acting like a religion therefore it is a religion.

You cannot jump to #2 without demonstrating #1.

[CapelDodger]

I assume Jedi Knight has the right to send a thread he started careening all over the place, so :
You are declaring that you are either a God (that you have special knowledge regarding the status of the omnipotent being) or you are declaring that TLOP is God (the laws of physics).
What tosh. The laws of physics aren't a supernatural being. They're a description of the way things work. We don't, as a culture, yet know exactly what they are, and may never do, but that is what they are by definition. They cannot be suddenly redefined except by Humpty Dumpty, who has a special dispensation from Lewis Carroll.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
Once again JK we get the construct you hold, but do not bother to acknowledge.

You dropped the omnipotent part, but still cling to the origin. I have to ask you what proof do you have that there is an origin of the universe? Why does an atheist have to supply this to you?

The explanation of origin is one function of religion. You have not demonstrated why atheism has to perform religious tasks. It seems you want to force atheism into the explanatory role of a religion, then use that as proof that it is a religion.

If I "know what you mean" I would characterize you attempt to prove that atheism is a religion thusly

1) Atheism is a religion because I hold that atheism has to have the explanatory nature of most religions.

2) Once atheism has this explanatory nature it is acting like a religion therefore it is a religion.

You cannot jump to #2 without demonstrating #1.

Atheism at its foundations declares: "There is no God."

Well, if there is no omnipotent being, all I ask is for atheists to prove the origin of the universe. The universe is a reality, yet humans do not know how something came from nothing to create it. When an atheist can answer that, then their religious beliefs are credible. Until then, they are relegated to mysticism, pseudo-science and the occult.

JK

[Tormac]

JK wrote

all I ask is for atheists to prove the origin of the universe


LOL JK you don't ask for much!

But you have not addressed the need for the universe to have an origin, or your demand that atheists take over the explanatory role of religion. Can you understand why I object to the demands of your argument JK? It is not meaningful to demand that atheism take on the role of religion, and then use this subjective demand to prove that they are taking on the role of religion. If forced my cat to eat lettuce can I use that as proof that cats are vegetarians?

I think that you are stuck on this point JK. You need atheism to take on an explanatory role, because that is the only argument that you have.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
JK wrote




LOL JK you don't ask for much!

But you have not addressed the need for the universe to have an origin, or your demand that atheists take over the explanatory role of religion. Can you understand why I object to the demands of your argument JK? It is not meaningful to demand that atheism take on the role of religion, and then use this subjective demand to prove that they are taking on the role of religion. If forced my cat to eat lettuce can I use that as proof that cats are vegetarians?

I think that you are stuck on this point JK. You need atheism to take on an explanatory role, because that is the only argument that you have.

I don't need any other argument to disprove the validity of atheism. Since the universe exists, it must have an origin.

JK

[Tormac]

So can you prove that everything that exists has a finite origin JK?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
So can you prove that everything that exists has a finite origin JK?

Everything has a finite origin. The question is who created it.

JK

[Tormac]

Astounding JK!

You really do believe that if you declare something to be true it is so!

All you have to do to confirm one of your subjective views is to repeat it a couple times and it becomes reality!


Either that or you've not written anything substantial in a long time. <shrugs>

[CapelDodger]

From Thumper:
As for the two King Christians... huh? Name implies... what?
I was being whimsical. Note the previous mention of sophistry. I was trying to ease out of this. But, if you want to play the scary-eyed guy at the bar ...

The term "Thirty Years War" covers a multitude of sins, and the problem we have is that I can't reduce it to a Hapsburg/Others explanation. If we take the consensus start-date as 1618 what we have is a continuation, after a period of exhaustion and regrouping, of the Wars of Religion. While the French (Catholic) establishment were involved in the Huguenot wars they were allied with the Muslim Turks against the Hapsburg Encirclement; does that mean the Huguenot wars weren't religious?

Now, one can argue that the Wars of Religion were actually political wars, in that the differences of religion coincided with class or ethnic division, the real dricing force. Changes in technology and economic geography (remember, 1492: the discovery of the New World and the rounding of Africa were still going off like a slow bomb in Europe) were creating a rift between economic power and political power. The established religion inevitably backed the established power and political (economic) conflict became representable as religious conflict.

In which case the conflict is not about the Hapsburgs, but about the very nature of a society that can end up ruled by a bunch of very capable chancers. A kind of society that the Valois kept immune from the merchant/industrial Protestant cultures until it imploded. The "Thirty Years War" was only marginally influenced by the French, and that was during a French-Spanish conflict which was going to happen anyway. From the French point of view a Protestant/Catholic war in central Europe was a fine game; when it hit a pause they declared war on Spain and made a tidy profit.

Does the fact that political interests are served by a war make it non-religious? In that case , the Crusades (yay for me!) weren't religious. The Crusades were an expression of the Norman cultural ethos of getting ahead. That's done, from their point of view, by carving out territory somewhere that hasn't already got some hairy-arsed Norman running it. If getting it also earns you absolution for your sins and a personal note from the Pope, well, that'll please your Mam.

All religious wars are political wars, they're all about power and opportunity. Sometimes religion is the vehicle , sometimes nationalism, sometimes the threat that unseen others hate you, sometimes blatant self-interest, all can be used by those that want conflict. And the human species is very susceptible to such agitation.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
Astounding JK!

You really do believe that if you declare something to be true it is so!

All you have to do to confirm one of your subjective views is to repeat it a couple times and it becomes reality!


Either that or you've not written anything substantial in a long time. <shrugs>

Well hero, give me the evidence of the origin of the universe and I will be the first to tell you that your atheist religious beliefs are valid.

Until then they are mysticism.

JK

[thaiboxerken]

And of course, thaiboxerken, you have provided a litany of facts to show that Hitler was a follower of Christ.

I am not argueing, right now, that Hitler was. I'm telling the facts that the people Hitler ruled over were. The Nazi's were christians.

RIIIIIIGGGHHTTT! I guess you ignored one of my prior posts of Hitler denouncing Christianity through many of his speeches.

I could care less, as I'm talking about the Nazi's.

The question isn't whether the German people were atheist or not. I am sure some were and some were not. That's not the point. The question is whether Hitler's Nazi beliefs are based in Christianity or atheism.

No, this is about Nazi's and christianity, not Hitler's specific beliefs. The demonization of the jewish people was built upon the distrust of the jewish people that the catholic church started.

And it is obvious that his beliefs were based in ATHEISM. Since Hitler was a materialist, rationalist, and devout evolutionist, he saw no evil in killing some many people.

The arguement of morality is a fallacy. Simply because Hitler did bad deeds doesn't mean he is atheist.


He killed roughly 16,000,000 people of which 6,000,000 were Jews. He saw these people as sub-human, not as evolved as the "master race", no defferent than killing an animal.

Agreed.

Was Hitler a strict atheist? From my reseach I would say no, he was not a strict atheist. He was definitely a rationalist and materialist. THe problem is that Hilter, the public speaker, was very different form Hitler the private man. His speeches were propaganda. He would whatever it took to get his people to follow him. If that meant invoking the name of God, then he would do it. That doesn't prove he was a Christian, though.

Nope, but it proves that the people he led into killing so many were.

[thaiboxerken]

Well hero, give me the evidence of the origin of the universe and I will be the first to tell you that your atheist religious beliefs are valid.


This arguement of ignorance is obvious. Because no one knows the "origin of the universe", doesn't mean that atheism is a religion. Atheism is simply a state of not believing in a god or gods.



I don't know the origin of the universe, I don't know if there is a god or not. I just don't believe in gods. I am atheist, I have no religion.

Bald is not a hair color.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Well hero, give me the evidence of the origin of the universe and I will be the first to tell you that your atheist religious beliefs are valid.


This arguement of ignorance is obvious. Because no one knows the "origin of the universe", doesn't mean that atheism is a religion. Atheism is simply a state of not believing in a god or gods.



I don't know the origin of the universe, I don't know if there is a god or not. I just don't believe in gods. I am atheist, I have no religion.

Bald is not a hair color.

Kenny, to not believe in God, minus having proof of the orgin of the universe, is religious belief.

JK

[thaiboxerken]

Kenny, to not believe in God, minus having proof of the orgin of the universe, is religious belief.

And what is beliving in a god and believing in origins of the universe, without having evidence?

Your logic is absent. Because you say atheism is a religion, does not make it so. You will now go into my ignore list, you hateful Nazi.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You will now go into my ignore list, you hateful Nazi.

Gosh, I guess you don't like talking about your religion. :rolleyes:

JK

[athon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


A religion is a 'system of worship'. It does not require an omnipotent being.

JK

By my definition (you're not very good at seeing beyond such narrow definitions, JK) atheism is not a 'system'. It carries no dogma, canon, or system of belief (I'm repeating myself).

You say it is a religion - fine. I can't argue with that if your understanding of religion is an expression of a view of the belief in a higher order. But if you say it is a system, than atheism is no more a religion than the failure to believe in Santa Claus.

Athon

[Tormac]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Well hero, give me the evidence of the origin of the universe and I will be the first to tell you that your atheist religious beliefs are valid.

Until then they are mysticism.

JK

JK your statement is built on a foundation of sand.

You have still not explained why the universe has to have an origin. If we live in a closed universe (i.e. one where there is enough mass to cause a gravitational collapse and then another big bang and expansion, and then another collapse and so on) maybe the universe just is. The universe may not have a single point of origin. Can you prove that we live in an open universe where there is a single point of origin? This seems to be your assumption.

You have not explained why atheism needs to take on the explanatory role of religion. I agree that religion does not need an omnipotent being. I bet that most religions do not have omnipotent deities. However you have not demonstrated why atheism needs to explain the origin of the universe (assuming that it has an origin, which is not a given).

You also have had nothing to say on the persecution of the European Jews by Christian governments before the rise and fall of National Socialism.

JK, you continue to use your beliefs as givens without producing any evidence why your constructs are accurate models of an objective reality. I do not mean to exclude anyone else from this discussion. If anyone else has evidence to support JK’s claims please jump in.

I certainly do not expect you to tell me my "atheist religious beliefs are valid." At no point have I expressed a systematic set of religious beliefs based on atheism that I hold to be valid. I've not been seeking converts for the cult of Tormac. I have been asking you to explain why the universe needs a point of origin, why atheism needs to take on the explanatory role of religion to prove that it is not a religion, prove that the populace of Nazi Germany embraced atheism, and finally why it follows that the supposed embrace of atheism by Germany lead to the holocaust.

I promise you JK I am not trying to trick you into embracing the secret cult of Tormac (said with an ironic tone of voice and the giggle of entranced slave girls in the background). I just ask you to give some objective evidence for the views that you have expressed on this thread.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by athon


By my definition (you're not very good at seeing beyond such narrow definitions, JK) atheism is not a 'system'. It carries no dogma, canon, or system of belief (I'm repeating myself).

You say it is a religion - fine. I can't argue with that if your understanding of religion is an expression of a view of the belief in a higher order. But if you say it is a system, than atheism is no more a religion than the failure to believe in Santa Claus.

Athon

You aren't being very bright. If you 'believe' there is no God, you 'believe'. It is a system of worship. It does not require an omipotent being.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac


JK your statement is built on a foundation of sand.

You have still not explained why the universe has to have an origin. If we live in a closed universe (i.e. one where there is enough mass to cause a gravitational collapse and then another big bang and expansion, and then another collapse and so on) maybe the universe just is. The universe may not have a single point of origin. Can you prove that we live in an open universe where there is a single point of origin? This seems to be your assumption.

You have not explained why atheism needs to take on the explanatory role of religion. I agree that religion does not need an omnipotent being. I bet that most religions do not have omnipotent deities. However you have not demonstrated why atheism needs to explain the origin of the universe (assuming that it has an origin, which is not a given).

You also have had nothing to say on the persecution of the European Jews by Christian governments before the rise and fall of National Socialism.

JK, you continue to use your beliefs as givens without producing any evidence why your constructs are accurate models of an objective reality. I do not mean to exclude anyone else from this discussion. If anyone else has evidence to support JK’s claims please jump in.

I certainly do not expect you to tell me my "atheist religious beliefs are valid." At no point have I expressed a systematic set of religious beliefs based on atheism that I hold to be valid. I've not been seeking converts for the cult of Tormac. I have been asking you to explain why the universe needs a point of origin, why atheism needs to take on the explanatory role of religion to prove that it is not a religion, prove that the populace of Nazi Germany embraced atheism, and finally why it follows that the supposed embrace of atheism by Germany lead to the holocaust.

I promise you JK I am not trying to trick you into embracing the secret cult of Tormac (said with an ironic tone of voice and the giggle of entranced slave girls in the background). I just ask you to give some objective evidence for the views that you have expressed on this thread.

That is the point--there is no evidence for either viewpoint. An Atheist says there is no God, but cannot define the origin of the universe. The universe just didn't 'appear', did it? If it did it was 'created'.

But to hold that belief, then you have to believe that the universe wasn't 'created' and always was. But that can't be true because it had to have a point of origin where 'something came from nothing'.

So as an atheist you can claim there is no God, but that is flawed because the origin of the universe has not been proven. That is why the agnostic position is the most honest one, intellectually.

So my views are naturally based on skepticism based upon the lack of evidence, where yours are based on self-defined declarations where there is no evidence. ;)

JK

[Tormac]

JK wrote
But to hold that belief, then you have to believe that the universe wasn't 'created' and always was. But that can't be true because it had to have a point of origin where 'something came from nothing'.

This is one of the constructs that you have treated as a given JK. I have to ask why the universe cannot be an eternal phenomenon, constantly expanding and contracting? You have repeatedly claimed that there has to be an origin for the universe, but never demonstrate that.

When you say "that [the universe wasn't 'created' and always was] can't be true because it had to have a point of origin" do you not see how you try to use the construct to prove the construct? It is tantamount to saying A is true because A is true.

It may be that there is a finite origin for the universe. The open model of the universe implies this. But to my knowledge this is one of the things astrophysicist and cosmologists are still working on.

But this argument is not relevant to the statements that you had made earlier JK that atheism was the popular world view held by the German populace during the time of the National Socialists, and that is was this acceptance of atheism that lead Nazi Germany to commit the holocaust.

It is not relevant to the proposal that atheism is a religion, as you have yet to demonstrate why atheism needs to take on the explanatory functions of religion to prove that it is not a religion.

When you wrote So my views are naturally based on skepticism based upon the lack of evidence, where yours are based on self-defined declarations where there is no evidence.

I can only conclude that either you do not know what I mean, I do not know what you mean, or both. I do not think that you can show that atheism is a religion. I also do not think that you can demonstrate that atheism was a popularly held view of the common German during National Socialists rule. I think that you can demonstrate that this alleged popular role that atheism held in the National Socialist state of Germany was the root of the Holocaust.

I never claimed that I could prove that there was no god/God/gods, or that the atheist is intellectually superior to the agnostic. I posted earlier in this thread agreeing that the agnostic view was more compatible for the true skeptic.

I am not sure if you are not reading my posts JK, and just ascribe whatever meaning to them that you wish, or if my posts are too pedantic for you. Maybe you do not have a strong argument for why you claim that the German people embraced atheism during the National Socialist rule, or any objective evidence why this supposed embrace of atheism would lead to the holocaust, and so you try to change the subject by claiming that my doubt of your positions is "based on self-defined declarations where there is no evidence".

If I am bending definitions, I'm willing to bow to dictionary.com, or any other major English dictionary. I think it is rather silly for you to assume that I am going to accept your definitions when they seem to differ greatly from orthodox usage.

[athon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You aren't being very bright. If you 'believe' there is no God, you 'believe'. It is a system of worship. It does not require an omipotent being.

JK

Haha, I love your ignorant attitude. You have such a singular view of everything, and if something doesn't fit it, you discard the notion. Pseudoscience on a plate, really.

I'm willing to concede that atheism is a religion, if you can provide for me a 'system' - in that it has doctrine, tradition, rules of living, and a relatively cohesive structure that binds the beliefs of atheists together. One single belief is not a system, any more than a government is a single person with a single rule.

I'm sorry if these pesky 'words' and 'definitions' don't fit into your schema, JK. It must be hard living in a world that doesn't fit your rationale.

Athon

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
This is one of the constructs that you have treated as a given JK. I have to ask why the universe cannot be an eternal phenomenon, constantly expanding and contracting? You have repeatedly claimed that there has to be an origin for the universe, but never demonstrate that.

We know that in the universe things die, right? Someday we will all die. Well, if the universe 'always was' then nothing would die.

That means nothing is permanent and never was. The universe didn't always exist. It had a point of origin--something from nothing. To say the universe always existed infinitely in time is serious religious belief as it is.

When you say "that [the universe wasn't 'created' and always was] can't be true because it had to have a point of origin" do you not see how you try to use the construct to prove the construct? It is tantamount to saying A is true because A is true.

Saying the universe 'always was' is like saying the earth is flat.

It may be that there is a finite origin for the universe. The open model of the universe implies this. But to my knowledge this is one of the things astrophysicist and cosmologists are still working on.

Of course they are working on the origin of the universe. Cosmologists know the universe had an origin and they are trying to figure out how it all started. All the mechanics of the universe point to creation and origin.

But this argument is not relevant to the statements that you had made earlier JK that atheism was the popular world view held by the German populace during the time of the National Socialists, and that is was this acceptance of atheism that lead Nazi Germany to commit the holocaust.

When the Jews were being gassed, the German populations that saw those folks being removed from the community without raising a whisper about it weren't gravitating to church on Sunday to celebrate the 'community'. They were governed by an atheist madman who thought he was God.

It is not relevant to the proposal that atheism is a religion, as you have yet to demonstrate why atheism needs to take on the explanatory functions of religion to prove that it is not a religion.

A religion is a system of worship. Atheism is a system created by humans and atheists worship that system. It does not require an omnipotent being.

When you wrote

I can only conclude that either you do not know what I mean, I do not know what you mean, or both. I do not think that you can show that atheism is a religion. I also do not think that you can demonstrate that atheism was a popularly held view of the common German during National Socialists rule. I think that you can demonstrate that this alleged popular role that atheism held in the National Socialist state of Germany was the root of the Holocaust.

You just don't understand what religion really means. You hear the word "religion" and automatically assume there is a dead guy nailed to a cross that people worship. You need to get past that to be a critical thinker about the truth.

I never claimed that I could prove that there was no god/God/gods, or that the atheist is intellectually superior to the agnostic. I posted earlier in this thread agreeing that the agnostic view was more compatible for the true skeptic.

The atheist dismisses the omnipotent being, when there is a chance the omnipotent being might exist. I don't know if the omnipotent being exists or not and that is why agnosticism is the most intellectually honest scientific approach to skepticism. The origin of the universe must be tied into the omnipotent being because it is the point of all creation. If the universe is found not to have been created by an omnipotent being when humans become sophisticated enough to figure it out (thousands of years from now probably), then atheism will be a valid religious belief.

I am not sure if you are not reading my posts JK, and just ascribe whatever meaning to them that you wish, or if my posts are too pedantic for you. Maybe you do not have a strong argument for why you claim that the German people embraced atheism during the National Socialist rule, or any objective evidence why this supposed embrace of atheism would lead to the holocaust, and so you try to change the subject by claiming that my doubt of your positions is "based on self-defined declarations where there is no evidence".

The reason why the Holocaust occurred is because of the reduction in the moral grounding of the German people. The sense of right and wrong were removed from the German populations. This occurred because religion was slowly removed from Germany since the time of Luther. I covered that already too. You are trying to convince me of your viewpoint on the matter and all I can say is that your viewpoint is wrong. I am not ignoring what you are writing. I am recognizing it as being incorrect and providing facts to replace the inconsistencies for you.

If I am bending definitions, I'm willing to bow to dictionary.com, or any other major English dictionary. I think it is rather silly for you to assume that I am going to accept your definitions when they seem to differ greatly from orthodox usage.

Hey, break out the dictionary if you think it will help with your opinions. I encourage the use of dictionaries.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by athon


Haha, I love your ignorant attitude. You have such a singular view of everything, and if something doesn't fit it, you discard the notion. Pseudoscience on a plate, really.

I'm willing to concede that atheism is a religion, if you can provide for me a 'system' - in that it has doctrine, tradition, rules of living, and a relatively cohesive structure that binds the beliefs of atheists together. One single belief is not a system, any more than a government is a single person with a single rule.

I'm sorry if these pesky 'words' and 'definitions' don't fit into your schema, JK. It must be hard living in a world that doesn't fit your rationale.

Athon

Actually I find atheism to be a fitting fate for lesser intellects in 'the world'. To think, the atheist perhaps thinks of God more often than any traditional religious person. It is justice, in a sense.

But I really enjoyed your Hooked on Phonics post.

JK

[athon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Actually I find atheism to be a fitting fate for lesser intellects in 'the world'. To think, the atheist perhaps thinks of God more often than any traditional religious person. It is justice, in a sense.

But I really enjoyed your Hooked on Phonics post.

JK

Interesting thought. While I wouldn't call atheists 'lessor intellects', to think that an atheist gives more thought to the existance of a god than a theist is kind of ironic. Cool.

But the opinion contradicts itself. The atheist gives more thought (let's dismiss for the moment whether the thought is critical or not) to god's existance, hence saying many theists take it for granted that a deity exists. They might have this belief simply as a conditioned faith, for example. Wouldn't that suggest, if the opinion is true, that theist's are less 'intellectual'?

Look, the argument is oversimplistic, hence I would never suggest that a theist is any more or less intellectual than an atheist. But I like your suggestion as far as a basic opinion goes.

Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear how you equate atheism as a religious belief. A religion is more than a single faith in the existance of a deity. As I said, it requires in the very least a systematic behaviour, where one follows rules of sorts, doctrines, or routines common to those who believe in it. Where do atheists do this?

Athon

[Bjorn]

A calendar of Jewish Persecution

http://www.hearnow.org/caljp.html

A few examples:

1298

Persecution of the Jews in Franconia, Bavaria and Austria. The Nobleman Kalbfleish alleged that he had received a divine order to destroy all the Jews. 140 Jewish communities were destroyed, and more than 100,000 Jews were mercilessly killed.

1348

Jews were blamed for the plague throughout Europe, especially in Germany. In Strausberg 2,000 Jews were burned. In Maintz 6,000 were killed in most gruesome fashion, and in Erfut 3,000; and in Worms 400 Jews burned themselves in their homes.

1492

The banishment of Jews from Spain. 300,000 Jews who refused to be "baptized" into the Church of Rome left Spain penniless. Many migrated to the Muslim country, Turkey, where they found tolerance and a welcome.

1846-78

All former restriction, against the Jews in the Vatican State were re-inforced by Pope Pius IX.

......

Because Hitler or Germans were atheists? Rubbish. Religious people had been killing them for centuries.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by athon
Interesting thought.

Genius level actually.

A religion is more than a single faith in the existance of a deity. As I said, it requires in the very least a systematic behaviour, where one follows rules of sorts, doctrines, or routines common to those who believe in it. Where do atheists do this?

Oh so now you think a religion needs a 'church' and a 'priest' and a 'multitude'?

All a religion needs is a human to create a system of worship. The human does not need a physical structure, nor a deity--Just a system.

Atheists in that regard are pretty independent religious people.

JK

[Thumper]

Well, while they're arguing about whether atheism is a religion or not, we can have a good conversation. :)

Scarey-eyed guy at the bar??? I haven't run into any of those lately. Well, tonight I guess I did, but that's unusual in a college town. Ok, it's not I guess. lolol

The Thirty-years War is just a way of grouping the wars that took place on 'German' soil during the early 17th Century. I agree, the name is quite a misnomber, as the wars continued between France and Spain for at least a decade more (forget how much longer) and was preceded by the Netherlands War of Independence (or whatever it was called).

At that time in history, the State did not exist as we know it. It sovereignty was completely different than we understand it now. For instance, Denmark controlled territory in the Holy Roman Empire. How did that work? (I'd appreciate any links you have on the subject to scholarly works.) Probs pretty well. We are in an interesting age now, where we are changing from the State-Centered system prescribed by the Peace of Westphalia to a more primative system with an over-arching authority. Before the Peace of Westphalia, the peoples of Europe thought of themselves as members of Christendom first and members of their kingdoms/principalities second. Afterwards, the swith (thogh far from complete) made people feel a partof their states first, and of Europe second. The Thirty-Years' War did accomplish the marginalization of the Pope as a final arbiter. However,...

I still contend that the writing (as they say) was already on the wall, and the Thirty-Years' War only served as the death knell of a 'universal' order to international relations. This does NOT mean that the TYW was solely a religious war; it was not.

For me to say that there were no religious elements to the TYW is an error. If I said that, I was wrong. I still contend, however, that the main purpose behind the fighting of the TYW was the attempt to keep the Hapsburgs from completing a European Hegemony.

Fallout from the TYW was much more extensive than that, however.

Was it a war of religion? Not completely. There were religious elements. As you said, princes used religion to motivate the people.

In the final analysis, we won't even agree to disagree, we'll just disagree on the level of role religion played in it.

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I am not argueing, right now, that Hitler was. I'm telling the facts that the people Hitler ruled over were. The Nazi's were christians.

Are you assuming that all Germans who lived in Germany at the time of Hiter were Nazis? Not all Germans were members of the Nazi Party. I am sure some of the few Germans who were actual Nazis were Christians and some were atheists, But that is NOT the point. Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germay and it was HIS beliefs that were the driving force in Germany, not whether his followers were Christian or atheists. I am sure lots of Germans feared Hitler and did whatever it took to not draw attention to themselves.

[athon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Originally posted by athon
Interesting thought.

Genius level actually.

Oh so now you think a religion needs a 'church' and a 'priest' and a 'multitude'?

All a religion needs is a human to create a system of worship. The human does not need a physical structure, nor a deity--Just a system.

Atheists in that regard are pretty independent religious people.

JK

There is no bounds to the ability for your to delude yourself. I'm surprised you can get into your house without knocking out a wall for your ego to be able to follow.

I said 'interesting thought'. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, equate with genius.

Then you go on to extrapolate from 'system' and 'dogma' the need for a church and a priest. How is it possible to make such a leap? Why have them in quotation marks? You sure as hell didn't quote me.

Your blind ignorance astounds me. Try seeing what is there for once, instead of what you only think is there.

Now, go back, read what I posted, and answer it with something that actually reflects the argument. Or is it, like rational thought, beyond you?

Athon

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by athon


There is no bounds to the ability for your to delude yourself. I'm surprised you can get into your house without knocking out a wall for your ego to be able to follow.

I said 'interesting thought'. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, equate with genius.

Then you go on to extrapolate from 'system' and 'dogma' the need for a church and a priest. How is it possible to make such a leap? Why have them in quotation marks? You sure as hell didn't quote me.

Your blind ignorance astounds me. Try seeing what is there for once, instead of what you only think is there.

Now, go back, read what I posted, and answer it with something that actually reflects the argument. Or is it, like rational thought, beyond you?

Athon

You are just lashing out at me for accurately pointing out that atheism is a religion, as a junkyard dog would lash out at anyone that tried to take the dog away from a junkyard that no longer held stacks of crumpled cars.

JK

[Gem]

JK, what about those who are atheist by logic, and not belief? Like myself.

Gem

[CapelDodger]

I imagine myself walking through a public aquarium with a person who buys JK's logic. We stop to look at a large fish.

"That creature," I state "Has no religion."

"Ah," replies my companion, "But can it explain the existence of the Universe?"

"I could not prove this, " I say, "But I think it improbable."

"Then that fish does have a religion!" crows my companion.

I am left in a state of wonder.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
JK, what about those who are atheist by logic, and not belief? Like myself.

Gem

If there is no omnipotent origin to the universe, tell me why. It is a question that plagues me as a genius intellectual.

JK

P.S. I have studied the Big Bang Theory and it does not provide the answer.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
I imagine myself walking through a public aquarium with a person who buys JK's logic. We stop to look at a large fish.

"That creature," I state "Has no religion."

"Ah," replies my companion, "But can it explain the existence of the Universe?"

"I could not prove this, " I say, "But I think it improbable."

"Then that fish does have a religion!" crows my companion.

I am left in a state of wonder.

If fish were capable of reason, then yes, they would debate religion.

JK

[Gem]

If there is no omnipotent origin to the universe, tell me why.

Faulty logic, it's near impossible to prove a negative.

Big Bang is a theory, not law, and it is still being debated. It might not even be true, the universe might have been created by some other way we don't know about.

We aren't sure of how the universe was created, how can we say there is or not an omnipotent origin to the universe if we don't know all about it?

I have no doubt that some atheist beleive in some thing with religious zeal, but that's no excuse to brand atheism as a religion.

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


Faulty logic, it's near impossible to prove a negative.

Big Bang is a theory, not law, and it is still being debated. It might not even be true, the universe might have been created by some other way we don't know about.

We aren't sure of how the universe was created, how can we say there is or not an omnipotent origin to the universe if we don't know all about it?

I have no doubt that some atheist beleive in some thing with religious zeal, but that's no excuse to brand atheism as a religion.

Gem

Atheism is a religion because it is a system of worship.

The universe could have been created by an omnipotent being and minus the evidence it is acceptable to ponder it without dismissing the potential of the omnipotent being. It is called doubting, or agnosticism.

JK

[Gem]

Atheism is a religion because it is a system of worship.

But Atheism doesn't worship anything.

The universe could have been created by an omnipotent being and minus the evidence it is acceptable to ponder it without dismissing the potential of the omnipotent being. It is called doubting, or agnosticism.

We don't know how the universe was created. We have theories. There are some people who are atheists who beleive in A, B, and C without proof and don't give a damn about other proofs, but that doesn't make it a religion. It's a personal belief, and a bad one at that.

Gem

[E.J.Armstrong]

Jedi Knight often cannot distinguish between fact and fiction but seems to imagine that this is no barrier to his sick views being accepted. He has a very unhealthy interest in killing women and girls and seems to get a enormous kick out of posting details of murders. He has posted racist languauge on the site and I hope he gets the help he so clearly needs in the not too distant future.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
But Atheism doesn't worship anything.

Atheists self-worship. They do this by declaring special knowledge of the universe. They are not unlike any proselytizer of any other religious church or organization.

JK

[hal bidlack]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Jedi Knight often cannot distinguish between fact and fiction but seems to imagine that this is no barrier to his sick views being accepted. He has a very unhealthy interest in killing women and girls and seems to get a enormous kick out of posting details of murders. He has posted racist languauge on the site and I hope he gets the help he so clearly needs in the not too distant future.

This thread has been reported, and therefore I have looked at it.

EJ, I must ask that you clarify what you are saying. It can be read to mean that you think JK is a potential killer of women. Such a damaging charge must be supported or withdrawn.

[Gem]

They do this by declaring special knowledge of the universe.

Proof?

Atheists self-worship.

Proof?

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
Proof?

The declaration that there is no omnipotent being. Only a person claiming omnipotence could have such firm, exacting knowledge of the universe. That knowledge must then replace the omnipotent God with a human God.

Proof?

By creating a system of worship that dismisses the omnipotent being, minus proof.

JK

[Gem]

Proof?

The declaration that there is no omnipotent being. Only a person claiming omnipotence could have such firm, exacting knowledge of the universe. That knowledge must then replace the omnipotent God with a human God.

Proof?

By creating a system of worship that dismisses the omnipotent being, minus proof.


I was refering to websites and such. You're "proof" right now is a rant.

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


I was refering to websites and such. You're "proof" right now is a rant.

Gem

I haven't published a website with atheist religious facts.

JK

[Gem]

You're hopeless. Where do atheist claim all that you have said? If you provide websites from atheist who claim that, you have proven that some atheists follow your "atheism" religion. If you show statistics that a majority atheists say they beleive that "the universe isn't omnipotent" or whatever, then you have shown that atheism is a religion. But you haven't shown any proof, only flawed logical argument.

The declaration that there is no omnipotent being. Only a person claiming omnipotence could have such firm, exacting knowledge of the universe.

I beleive there is no omnipotent being because NO PROOF of an omnipotent being exists. That makes me an atheist. It's not a religious belief because /I/ want to have PROOF that the Omnipotent being exists, unlike all other religions who ASSUME/BELIEVE it exists.

Gem

P.S.: Shall we move this thread to religion and philosophy now?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Hal Bidlack
EJ, I must ask that you clarify what you are saying. It can be read to mean that you think JK is a potential killer of women. Such a damaging charge must be supported or withdrawn.
I am happy to clarify what I am saying. I have expressed concern at what JK has posted recently. I do not however think that JK is a potential killer of women and at no time have I said or implied so in any way whatsoever. I do not know who has made the chage that this is the case but if it has been read as me thinking that JK is a potential killer of women then I apologise for that.

I am however very concerned at the material he has been putting onto the site in relation to a girl who has been charged with murder. This has included florid descriptions of the murders with much unnecessary detail presented with apparent relish. He has also made calls for what reasonable people might consider to be unnatural punishment of that girl during the death penalty when he said
'Hanging would be OK too, come to think of it, if they leave the hood off so everyone can see her expression when her neck snaps as the rope constricts.'

[The Fool]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

I am happy to clarify what I am saying. I have expressed concern at what JK has posted recently. I do not however think that JK is a potential killer of women and at no time have I said or implied so in any way whatsoever. I do not know who has made the chage that this is the case but if it has been read as me thinking that JK is a potential killer of women then I apologise for that.

I am however very concerned at the material he has been putting onto the site in relation to a girl who has been charged with murder. This has included florid descriptions of the murders with much unnecessary detail presented with apparent relish. He has also made calls for what reasonable people might consider to be unnatural punishment of that girl during the death penalty when he said
'Hanging would be OK too, come to think of it, if they leave the hood off so everyone can see her expression when her neck snaps as the rope constricts.'

I suppose its all a question of why JK should have the right to continue to participate on this forum when his aim is clearly and simply to use spam, lies and fabrications to troll this forum. It is my view that this is his sole aim.

It is a shame that someone who is obviously intelligent and articulate should be incapable of anything more than conspiracy theory trolling and childish lying.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

I am happy to clarify what I am saying. I have expressed concern at what JK has posted recently. Not just recently.

A typical example by JK:

When every laser-guided missile and bomb strikes, I get a warm fuzzy feeling inside. And the 'worst' one, at least to me:

So as I think of that guy, I thinking of him strapped to a metal mattress spring with it hardwired with 115 volts and when the loyal American who turns the power regulator up spins the little copper dial, people a mile away are wondering why their lightbulbs are dimming.

I am thinking an American behind the electrode dial with earplugs on while the terrorist is doing the Zeus dance on the mattress spring. And then maybe, just maybe, 10 hours later the questions start to get asked. Hal, are there reasons to wonder and worry? Yes. :(

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I do not know who has made the chage that this is the case but if it has been read as me thinking that JK is a potential killer of women then I apologise for that.

You were wrong and I am glad you had the guts to admit it. Now if you would just grow up, the forum would be a whole lot better off.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool
I suppose its all a question of why JK should have the right to continue to participate on this forum when his aim is clearly and simply to use spam, lies and fabrications to troll this forum.

All my threads are great talking points. You just dislike me personally.

Whine on Fool, whine on.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Not just recently.

A typical example by JK:

And the 'worst' one, at least to me:

Hal, are there reasons to wonder and worry? Yes. :(

So I support American victory when America goes to war and that bothers you? Or just because Fool and EJ are taking the piss?

Insofar as the terrorist extraction of information, if it prevents further loss of innocent life, I certainly advocate any measure to extract that information. Terrorists have no rights.

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


All my threads are great talking points. You just dislike me personally.

Whine on Fool, whine on.

JK
I've got no feelings about you personally, I don't know you. I just think that if the policy of this board is moving towards removing the trolls then you, as our resident P & CE liar, fabricator and spammer should be near the top of the list. Does it ever concern you that you are regarded as a joke?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool
I've got no feelings about you personally, I don't know you. I just think that if the policy of this board is moving towards removing the trolls then you, as our resident P & CE liar, fabricator and spammer should be near the top of the list. Does it ever concern you that you are regarded as a joke?

I am not a troll and you just can't respect any non-leftist political opinion. Learn to respect some diversity. If you can't, don't reply to my posts. It is as simple as that.

People who post here love my posts. I am sure the communists and radical leftists don't like them, but I am not here to win your popularity appeals, Fool. You are in the left, I am in the right.

JK

[DavidJames]

" ...if the policy of this board is moving towards removing the trolls then you, as our resident P & CE liar, fabricator and spammer should be near the top of the list"

After careful consideration, I've just one comment:

Trolling posts, are primarily a Jedi Knight characteristic ;)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am not a troll and you just can't respect any non-leftist political opinion. Learn to respect some diversity. If you can't, don't reply to my posts. It is as simple as that.

You habitually call everyone who complains about your lies and fabrication a leftist. It is quite humerous. I respect diversity, If yours was simply a "diverse" opinion I would have no problems. Unfortunately, your opinions are most often simple fabrications and lies.... And I am sure you would like me to stop replying to your posts, you would also like others that highlight your lies and fabrications to go away....Well, its not going to happen, get used to it. I am not prepared to let you lie and fabricate without pointing it out. I challange you to post without using lies to support your opinions....It may just work.


People who post here love my posts. I am sure the communists and radical leftists don't like them, but I am not here to win your popularity appeals, Fool. You are in the left, I am in the right.

I'm sure some posters do love your stuff. Some may value your opinions some may find your trolling amusing. Some, like me, may find your constant spamming of this forum with lies, fabrications and misrepresentations annoying.

[Aardvark_DK]

I have noticed that JK commits the same error that Franko did. He thinks that a lack of belief in a god is the same as a belief that there is no god. Most of his mistaken assumptions about atheists stems from this error.

[CapelDodger]

From JK, quoted by Bjorn:
So as I think of that guy, I thinking of him strapped to a metal mattress spring with it hardwired with 115 volts ...
Does anyone else get the rather queasy feeling that he's typing that sort of stuff with one hand?

[CapelDodger]

From JK:
If fish were capable of reason, then yes, they would debate religion.
Now you claim extraordinary knowledge of the piscine mindset. I suppose I can believe that.

Now substitute "chimpanzee" for "fish". (And "aquarium" for something more appropriate.)

All my threads are great talking points
Seen any posts about the Crusades and Islam recently?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Seen any posts about the Crusades and Islam recently?

Certainly. There are always trolls like Fool, EJ and others who show up in threads to derail topics from time to time, but overall the discussions are good.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool


Ask me if I care lol. Seriously.

In fact, since you are going to stalk me on the forum, let me alter my avatar and forum persona a bit to really give you something to whine about.

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Does anyone else get the rather queasy feeling that he's typing that sort of stuff with one hand? Jedi

So as I think of that guy, I thinking of him strapped to a metal mattress spring with it hardwired with 115 volts and when the loyal American who turns the power regulator up spins the little copper dial, people a mile away are wondering why their lightbulbs are dimming.

I am thinking an American behind the electrode dial with earplugs on while the terrorist is doing the Zeus dance on the mattress spring. And then maybe, just maybe, 10 hours later the questions start to get asked. Does anyone think that Jedi's torture fantasies belong even in a civilized discussion about what methodes we should allow ourselves to use?

If I had a student who expressed similar thoughts, combined with a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, I would try to find out if he liked to see animals in pain when he was a kid. :(

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Jedi

Does anyone think that Jedi's torture fantasies belong even in a civilized discussion about what methodes we should allow ourselves to use?

If I had a student who expressed similar thoughts, combined with a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, I would try to find out if he liked to see animals in pain when he was a kid. :(

My son, terrorists have no rights. Any method can be used by government to seek them out and destroy them. It is God's will.

Amen.

JK

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
My son, terrorists have no rights. Any method can be used by government to seek them out and destroy them. It is God's will.

Amen.

JK
Hmm. Then you agree with British actions after the Boston Tea Party?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Hmm. Then you agree with British actions after the Boston Tea Party?

The Boston Tea Party was in response to British judicial terrorism.

JK

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The Boston Tea Party was in response to British judicial terrorism.

JK
I know...I just couldn't resist the chance to yank your chain a bit. :D

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

I know...I just couldn't resist the chance to yank your chain a bit. :D

Everyone has been yanking it. I am being driven towards Christianity.

lol

Jesus Knight

[The Fool]

Jedi...
Poor boy, are the nasty people stalking you? I'm sure you would like everyone to line up and say "whatever you think is ok by us". Unfortunately, when you have a policy of using lies and fabrications to troll the board it is silly to expect people are going to quietly watch you pull the place down.
Once again I simply challange you to post here without constant lies and fabrications. Is that too much to ask?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool
Jedi...
Poor boy, are the nasty people stalking you? I'm sure you would like everyone to line up and say "whatever you think is ok by us". Unfortunately, when you have a policy of using lies and fabrications to troll the board it is silly to expect people are going to quietly watch you pull the place down.
Once again I simply challange you to post here without constant lies and fabrications. Is that too much to ask?

Jesus loves you, child.

JK

[athon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Atheism is a religion because it is a system of worship.

The universe could have been created by an omnipotent being and minus the evidence it is acceptable to ponder it without dismissing the potential of the omnipotent being. It is called doubting, or agnosticism.

JK

Ever wonder why you're such a laughing stock around here, JK? Hmm, probably not.

You've avoided the question so often now that I'm convinced that you're simply rambling out of conceit. You just like the sound of your own keys tapping.

One single belief is not a system. Now I've given the benefit of doubt, accepting that atheism is a religion if a single belief is a religion in your twisted dictionary. But you have said atheism is a religion because it too has a system.

You stop there without explaining, obviously because you have backed yourself into a corner, having realised that atheism is indeed a belief, not a system, and is therefore by your own definition not a religion at all.

At least your own method of arguing is consistant. When defeat is evident, you resort to posturing and crowing. :rolleyes:

Well done,

Athon

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by athon
One single belief is not a system.

People that believe in Jesus believe in one belief.

Tell me Athon, how far did you get in school? 8th grade, perhaps?

JK

[athon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


People that believe in Jesus believe in one belief.

Tell me Athon, how far did you get in school? 8th grade, perhaps?

JK

I rest my case. You can't attack the argument, so you go for the arguee.

Haha, if nothing JK, you're predictable.

So, which belief in Jesus is singular? I might add, just believing 'love thy neighbour' does not constitute being a Christian. Secondly, we are not discussing a faith here, but a religion. Big difference, JK (although since your dictionary has been written by Little Golden Books, maybe you can't discriminate the two).

Besides, you're the one who keeps using the word 'system'. So, how is atheism a system? Still too hard a question? Or perhaps you would rather respond with another ad hom' attack?

Athon

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
People that believe in Jesus believe in one belief.

No...even among Christians, there is disagreement about Jesus. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses, undeniably Christian, do not believe in the Trinity, and see Jesus the Son as separate from God the Father.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

No...even among Christians, there is disagreement about Jesus. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses, undeniably Christian, do not believe in the Trinity, and see Jesus the Son as separate from God the Father.

Those are just separate systems like religious atheism.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by athon


I rest my case. You can't attack the argument, so you go for the arguee.

Haha, if nothing JK, you're predictable.

So, which belief in Jesus is singular? I might add, just believing 'love thy neighbour' does not constitute being a Christian. Secondly, we are not discussing a faith here, but a religion. Big difference, JK (although since your dictionary has been written by Little Golden Books, maybe you can't discriminate the two).

Besides, you're the one who keeps using the word 'system'. So, how is atheism a system? Still too hard a question? Or perhaps you would rather respond with another ad hom' attack?

Athon

Christian belief is singular by each practicing system. Atheism is the same form of system with the exception that atheism replaces God with a self-appointed human who believes they are God.

JK

[LCBOY]

Ok, here is my two cents:

Atheism is a belief under the system of Humanism.

[CapelDodger]

Christian belief is singular by each practicing system
Gibberish. Not even worth calling sophistry.
Atheism is the same form of system with the exception that atheism replaces God with a self-appointed human who believes they are God
First you mention the single belief in Jesus, then you bring in a god as well. Do you take this god for granted, not requiring any belief?

[Gem]

atheism replaces God with a self-appointed human who believes they are God.

LOL:D

Isn't the definition of atheism that THERE IS NO GOD? You said earlier that atheism is a religion because they firmly beleive there is no god w/out evidence. But now you say atheism replaces God with a self-appointed human who beleives they are God.

You deserve a good ad-hom attack.:p

Gem

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Bjorn
Does anyone think that Jedi's torture fantasies belong even in a civilized discussion about what methodes we should allow ourselves to use?
No.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


LOL:D

Isn't the definition of atheism that THERE IS NO GOD? You said earlier that atheism is a religion because they firmly beleive there is no god w/out evidence. But now you say atheism replaces God with a self-appointed human who beleives they are God.

You deserve a good ad-hom attack.:p

Gem

Atheism claims special knowledge of the universe, something only answerable by omnipotent beings. Since we know humans aren't omnipotent, then atheists are woo woos.

BTW, Jesus loves all the children of the world.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

No.

Repent, my child. Jesus loves you.

JK

[E.J.Armstrong]

originaly posted by Jedi Knight
You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination. -- Leviticus 18:22
You do know that some of the most successful military figures in history have been homosexual don't you?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

You do know that some of the most successful military figures in history have been homosexual don't you?

Hopefully they repented their sins before they checked out of the big hotel and called to Jesus, the lord and savior.

JK

[Gem]

Atheism claims special knowledge of the universe, something only answerable by omnipotent beings. Since we know humans aren't omnipotent, then atheists are woo woos.

Link! Link! Link!

something only answerable by omnipotent beings.

And yet the christian church (and others, of course) said they KNOW how the universe was created (opening pages of the bible). Their source? A book.

While we atheist DO NOT claim that we "know" 'special' knowledge, we "think" that it's that way, because the data we collected (Space Program, etc) points in that direction. I wouldn't be surprised if Cosmology was the one science where hypothesis change daily.

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
And yet the christian church (and others, of course) said they KNOW how the universe was created (opening pages of the bible). Their source? A book.

Well yeah, that is because Christianity is a religion. The same claim of special knowledge is also a primary atheist trait. That makes atheism a religion too. Both Christianity and atheism have human religious priests.

JK

[Suddenly]

Jedi:

So if I base my beliefs only on evidence, and I find the evidence for a particular claim lacking, my refusal to believe in that claim is based in the supernatural? Is that what you claim?

Also, just out of curiosity:

Is your real name Ignatius Reilly? Didn't you work at an outfit called "Levy Pants" a few years ago? You seem familiar.

[Gem]

The same claim of special knowledge is also a primary atheist trait.

They don't claim special knowledge, they THINK that's how the universe is, and would gladly change their mind if confronted with good proof, unlike a real religious person who would not.

Besides you still have to prove they they say that.

Gem

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Jedi:
Is your real name Ignatius Reilly? Didn't you work at an outfit called "Levy Pants" a few years ago? You seem familiar. Are you talking about this guy?

Ignatius J Reilly ...... the spoilt, pretentious and self-absorbed quasi-intellectual that seems to inhabit a different world from us :confused:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140282688/ref=br_lf_b_0/202-3360544-4325405

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


They don't claim special knowledge, they THINK that's how the universe is, and would gladly change their mind if confronted with good proof, unlike a real religious person who would not.

Besides you still have to prove they they say that.

Gem

No, atheists tell everyone with religious beliefs that there is no omnipotent being. That is a declaration of special knowledge of the universe, an omnipotent declaration minus omnipotence. A declaration by humans--a religious declaration.

JK

[The Fool]

Jedi
If the plan is to go back to trolling the board with the old "Atheism is a religion" line. You should really move over to R&P.

[Gem]

No, atheists tell everyone with religious beliefs that there is no omnipotent being.

Can you point to me where atheists do this? Obviously there must be a couple of atheist who do.

But you fail to even provide the atheist's woo woo sites.

Gem

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Gem


They don't claim special knowledge, they THINK that's how the universe is, and would gladly change their mind if confronted with good proof, unlike a real religious person who would not.

It's nice to know that there's no way I'll change my mind about religion. I mean if you make this statement, then it must be so.

[Gem]

Make that "any real zealot"

Apologies.

Gem

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Gem
No, atheists tell everyone with religious beliefs that there is no omnipotent being.

Can you point to me where atheists do this? Obviously there must be a couple of atheist who do.

But you fail to even provide the atheist's woo woo sites.

Gem

Let's see: James Randi, Isaac Asimov, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin...

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool
Jedi
If the plan is to go back to trolling the board with the old "Atheism is a religion" line. You should really move over to R&P.

No thanks. I will stay here and chat.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem


Can you point to me where atheists do this? Obviously there must be a couple of atheist who do.

But you fail to even provide the atheist's woo woo sites.

Gem

An atheist doesn't have to do anything except say that they are an atheist. Just taking the atheist position proselytizes the atheist viewpoint.

Is it not safe to agree that an Islamist believes in Allah?

A Christian in Christ?

An atheist in himself? (where God is the human).

There you go. That is a good example.

JK

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


No thanks. I will stay here and chat. It's much safer here, I'm sure. Politics is a much more ambiguous entity, there is more room to wiggle. He was duely whipped over on R&P when he presented his religious/philosophical/scientific logical inconsistancies and fallacies.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by LCBOY
Ok, here is my two cents:

Atheism is a belief under the system of Humanism. You've got it backwards, actually. Humanism is a subset of atheism, not the other way around. You can be an atheist without being a humanist. (Like myself) You cannot be a humanist without being an atheist.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by LCBOY
Originally posted by Gem
No, atheists tell everyone with religious beliefs that there is no omnipotent being.

Can you point to me where atheists do this? Obviously there must be a couple of atheist who do.

But you fail to even provide the atheist's woo woo sites.

Gem

Let's see: James Randi, Isaac Asimov, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin... Actually, James Randi makes it a point to not confront people on their religious beliefs.

Issac Asimov (http://www.asimovonline.com/asimov_FAQ.html#non-literary9) "did not oppose genuine religious feeling in others. He did, however, have little patience for intolerance or superstition masquerading as religion."

Charles Darwin (http://www.online-literature.com/darwin/) actually "started theology studies at Christ's College, Cambridge." Further,However, Darwin himself did not at first explicitly apply the evolutionary theory to human beings. "You ask me whether I shall discuss man," he wrote in 1857, "I think I shall avoid the whole subject, as so surrounded by prejudice." He also knew that his challenge to the Biblical doctrine would cause stress to his friends and family, among them hsi (sic) religious wife.
Hardly a group of religion-hating browbeaters.

[Tormac]

If this thread is still going I want to jump back in.

JK can you give me any evidence that the universe has a single point of origin?

The claim that if we lived in a gravitationally closed universe, then nothing would die is nonsense. There is no part of a gravitationally closed universe that would need for entropy, decay, time, etc to be put on hold.

Since your "atheism is a religion argument" hinged on atheists not being able to define a point of origin in the universe, I do not want to let the 2 points (that the universe may not have a single point of origin, and that atheism needs to take on the explanatory powers of religion) be taken as givens.

What is wrong with the idea that the universe is gravitationally closed, and has been forever expanding and contracting from one big bang to the next? Until astrophysicists are confident in their knowledge of non-baryonic how can you say that a gravitationally closed universe is impossible?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Jedi Knight
Hopefully they repented their sins before they checked out of the big hotel and called to Jesus, the lord and savior.

Just to be sure of your position here are you saying that being homosexual is a sin? Have homosexuals done anything wrong or broken any laws? Are they guilty of anything?

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Upchurch


Let's see: James Randi, Isaac Asimov, Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin... Actually, James Randi makes it a point to not confront people on their religious beliefs.

Issac Asimov (http://www.asimovonline.com/asimov_FAQ.html#non-literary9) "did not oppose genuine religious feeling in others. He did, however, have little patience for intolerance or superstition masquerading as religion."

Charles Darwin (http://www.online-literature.com/darwin/) actually "started theology studies at Christ's College, Cambridge." Further,
Hardly a group of religion-hating browbeaters. [/QUOTE]

Actually, I wasn't trying to prove that these men were "religion-hating browbeaters" but mearly show that they were/are atheists that believe religion is false. Yes, Darwin studied theology but he died an atheist.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by LCBOY

Actually, I wasn't trying to prove that these men were "religion-hating browbeaters" but mearly show that they were/are atheists that believe religion is false.
Perhaps I overstated the case with that term, but you were responding to the question of which "atheists tell everyone with religious beliefs that there is no omnipotent being", which in my mind implies that they are going out of their way to show religious people that they're wrong. Otherwise, it is redundant; any atheist fits the definition of "atheists that believe religion is false."

Of those you listed, Richard Dawkins is the only one I could conceed that goes out of his way to show the religious that they are, or might be, wrong.Yes, Darwin studied theology but he died an atheist. Perhaps, but my point was that he was sensitive to the truly religious person; his wife, friends and family, for example.

edited to fix grammer problem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
If this thread is still going I want to jump back in.

JK can you give me any evidence that the universe has a single point of origin?

The claim that if we lived in a gravitationally closed universe, then nothing would die is nonsense. There is no part of a gravitationally closed universe that would need for entropy, decay, time, etc to be put on hold.

Since your "atheism is a religion argument" hinged on atheists not being able to define a point of origin in the universe, I do not want to let the 2 points (that the universe may not have a single point of origin, and that atheism needs to take on the explanatory powers of religion) be taken as givens.

What is wrong with the idea that the universe is gravitationally closed, and has been forever expanding and contracting from one big bang to the next? Until astrophysicists are confident in their knowledge of non-baryonic how can you say that a gravitationally closed universe is impossible?

The basis of all religion, including of course atheism since it is also a major religion, finds its cornerstone on the origin of the universe.

The bible says that God made the heavens and the earth. No matter what religion is involved, the question naturally starts from the point of origin.

Since science has determined that the universe is expanding, it must be expanding from a point of origin. Since it expands, it must be something that was 'created'. How it all started, I have no idea.

But all the religious humans like atheists have their viewpoints on it and the question won't be resolved until we have the technology to go to the point of origin and examine it. But any mass release of energy has a point of origin, the universe being the ultimate example. It is a possible that expansion was created by an omnipotent being, but religious atheists are naturally entitled to their point of view about it as well, while flawed since atheism seeks a decisive declaration of the origin of the universe without facts to support it.

JK

[Gem]

Ok JK, prove what you have just said.

Gem

[Upchurch]

Oh, man. You are a riot, JK.Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The basis of all religion, including of course atheism since it is also a major religion, finds its cornerstone on the origin of the universe.Here I thought the cornerstone of Christianity was the resurrection of Christ and that the cornerstone of atheism was a lack of belief in god(s). :D
Since science has determined that the universe is expanding, it must be expanding from a point of origin. Since it expands, it must be something that was 'created'. How it all started, I have no idea.Excellent use of selective usage, JK! You are willing to believe scientists when they claim that the universe is expanding, but totally ignore the Big Bang Theory. Well done, indeed. :cool:
But all the religious humans like atheists have their viewpoints on it and the question won't be resolved until we have the technology to go to the point of origin and examine it.You have no idea what it means for the universe to expand, do you? Don't bother answering that, you're idea of a "point of origin" is answer enough. :D
But any mass release of energy has a point of origin, the universe being the ultimate example.I take it back. Maybe you really haven't ever had the Big Bang Theory explained to you. Do you envision that it's a hunk of matter floating in space that just up and exploded one day? :rolleyes:
It is a possible that expansion was created by an omnipotent being, but religious atheists are naturally entitled to their point of view about it as well, while flawed since atheism seeks a decisive declaration of the origin of the universe without facts to support it.(emphesis mine). Bravo, Jedi. High comedy at it's best! ;)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
Ok JK, prove what you have just said.

Gem

I could but the atheists wouldn't like the answer.

JK

[Tormac]

Your point about everything expanding from a point of origin would be valid if we were talking about a gravitationally open model of the universe JK, but if the universe is gravitationally closed it is not evidence of a single point of origin.

Maybe I should explain the two different possibilities that I have been talking about.

You and I both seem to accept the "Big Bang" for the sake of this argument JK. One of the questions that are connected to the Big Bang theory is how much stuff there is in the universe, and thus is there enough gravity to overcome the expansion of the universe.

In an open universe there is not enough gravity to overcome the expansion of the universe, so the universe may just keep expanding forever. I can see how this open universe may imply a single point of origin of the universe. At least the kind you want to use for your argument.

However the universe may be closed. In this model there is enough gravity to overcome the expansion of the universe. Gravity forces the universe to stop expanding and eventually close back on itself, eventually collapsing back to the state of singularity that preceded the big bang. Then what happens? Perhaps another big bang! A closed universe implies the possibility that he universe is forever expanding and contracting, with no single point of origin, just many reincarnations.

So you see JK, if the universe is open then there may be a single point of origin for the universe. If it is closed the universe may be eternal, forever expanding and contracting. Pretty wondrous stuff! One of the big questions now is just how much stuff is there in the universe. The universe may be closed or open. To my knowledge there is no consensus at this time.

But to claim that there has to be a single point of origin for the universe is to ignore the possibility that the universe is eternal, that is a closed universe forever expanding and contracting.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I could but the atheists wouldn't like the answer. I agree. JK's arguments are so easy to pull apart, it's hardly worth the effort, except for the humor aspect maybe. Besides, he just runs when confronted anyway, at least in my experience.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tormac
Your point about everything expanding from a point of origin would be valid if we were talking about a gravitationally open model of the universe JK, but if the universe is gravitationally closed it is not evidence of a single point of origin.

Maybe I should explain the two different possibilities that I have been talking about.

You and I both seem to accept the "Big Bang" for the sake of this argument JK. One of the questions that are connected to the Big Bang theory is how much stuff there is in the universe, and thus is there enough gravity to overcome the expansion of the universe.

In an open universe there is not enough gravity to overcome the expansion of the universe, so the universe may just keep expanding forever. I can see how this open universe may imply a single point of origin of the universe. At least the kind you want to use for your argument.

However the universe may be closed. In this model there is enough gravity to overcome the expansion of the universe. Gravity forces the universe to stop expanding and eventually close back on itself, eventually collapsing back to the state of singularity that preceded the big bang. Then what happens? Perhaps another big bang! A closed universe implies the possibility that he universe is forever expanding and contracting, with no single point of origin, just many reincarnations.

So you see JK, if the universe is open then there may be a single point of origin for the universe. If it is closed the universe may be eternal, forever expanding and contracting. Pretty wondrous stuff! One of the big questions now is just how much stuff is there in the universe. The universe may be closed or open. To my knowledge there is no consensus at this time.

But to claim that there has to be a single point of origin for the universe is to ignore the possibility that the universe is eternal, that is a closed universe forever expanding and contracting.

I think there is a postive matter universe and an anti-matter universe and there is a point where the two connect. The positive matter universe is the universe that is expanding and the anti-matter universe is energizing it as it expands and consumes the AU distances in the expansion.

I don't see the universe as having the ability to contract because that would take too much energy to form a universe-scale overpressure to draw all the matter back to the point of origin.

I theorize that the universe started in a sea of anti-matter where a particle of matter was introduced to start the creation of everything. Where that one particle of matter came from I don't know, but it could have been thrown in there by an omnipotent being.

If you have ever welded anything before using welding rods and smelled it as it burned, that is what outer-space smells like. My pals in the black flying triangles that fly over my house all the time taught me these things. lol.

Jedi 'the universe traveler' Knight

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


It is a possible that expansion was created by an omnipotent being, but religious atheists are naturally entitled to their point of view about it as well, while flawed since atheism seeks a decisive declaration of the origin of the universe without facts to support it.

JK
And why isn't your "omnipotent being" theory at least as flawed as any atheists "guess". Would it be because you have some evidence of an omnipotent being. By evidence, I mean something other thatn "I'm damned if I can think of a better explanation" which is usually the sum of your evidence in these matters.


Ring the bells, get everyone in.....Jedi is talking science again. We must not miss this, it may be as hilarious as hs last effort on gravity.....Explain to us again why marbles are not affected by gravity??? LOL.....