God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[Shaggtopia]

Does God exist? I don't care. I simply cannot be bothered to bring myself to muster anything beyond the default apathy for people and their personal beliefs. If you need a god to feel a sense of belonging, or maybe to justify your actions and existance then that's cool. If you don't feel like there is anything more than what we can experience with our own senses then that's cool too. The only thing that isn't cool is using your beliefs to belittle those that don't share them.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Yeah, so?

*shrugs*

It's just another regression where at the end it turns out that there's no true Christians.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I entirely believe that history will repeat itself. Here is an example, not in the US but the subject is Christianity in general. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/afr ... story.html This occurred only a year ago.

Christian Anti-Abortionist movements are responsible for killing, kidnapping and other forms of terrorism including bombing of clinics if you want to side step from war back into general violence. Christianity does endorse the actions of those committing the acts, but they are being done in the name of religion none the less and my point in this argument is that they wouldn't be doing it if religion did not exist. You can't even say that they'd do it anyways because Christianity promoted the beliefs that lead to the violence in the first place. And we have no way of knowing and therefore it is irrelevant what they would believe/do in the event that religion was not a factor.

I'm not saying Christianity should be erased just because of violence and war caused by radicals of their religion, I have a long list of other reasons for that; reasons that when looked at as a whole make the entire thing a hugely negative part of society. What I am saying in this case is that if your religion is going to continue to exist you should at the very least get your shit together and figure out as a whole what is and isn't acceptable in Christianity and make sure people don't misinterpret it.

I could over look the crusades if Christianity wasn't responsible for countless acts of violence since.

You need to knock off the general trolling here. You don't appear to realize that Christianity, such as it is, is made up of a number of individual organizations, churches, efforts, and people. And they do not all a) get along, b) agree with one another, or c) hold the same beliefs. Amazing, I know, but it's a thing. Do a bit of research. You may be surprised.

So this thing of you going around shouting that 'Christianity ought to be erased' and 'You Christians need to get your shit together' and such are more than a little off-base.

Leaving aside any comparisons to other groups, lumping all Christians in together, and all Christian organizations/belief systems under one heading, and then condemning it all and slandering it as you please ... yeah, that's trolling. It'd be the same for any group you did it with, regardless of any relation to religion or the lack thereof. If you have questions, there's a lovely thread in Moderation that outlines all of this - The One Stop Rule Shop. Feel free to look into it. Thanks.

Everyone else? Kindy refrain from getting baity or trollish or flaming anyone else as well, mkay? Keep it clean, keep it civil. Whether or not others are. Appreciate it.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Nope, ISIL is hardline religious radical. The Crusades, however, were primarily political.

Double standard.

If your people of your religion do something bad in its name, they are misguided and false christians, your religion is not to blame. If people of another religion do something bad in its name, they are religious radicals.

Not a double standard. The belligerents of the Crusades were kingdoms. ISIL is a bunch of terrorists.

Yeah, so?

*shrugs*

It's just another regression where at the end it turns out that there's no true Christians.

I never said the crusaders weren't true Christians, I said the Crusades were more political than religious.

Good riddance. I tire of militant atheists who say other people had mental illnesses.

Also, read your link. Are you implying I'm a religious conservative or historical revisionist?

Stop picking little parts out of my statements and twisting them around to try and discredit me.

You said yourself that Christians must have a mental disorder. I don't need to twist your words to discredit you.

As for your link, it displays in bright color,"One of history's lessons is that any ideology, sacred or secular, that divides the world into 'us vs them' can and will be used to justify violence." I couldn't agree more.

[Ardoki]

Double standard.

If your people of your religion do something bad in its name, they are misguided and false christians, your religion is not to blame. If people of another religion do something bad in its name, they are religious radicals.

Not a double standard. The belligerents of the Crusades were kingdoms. ISIL is a bunch of terrorists.

They were acting in the name of your god. Just how ISIL is acting in the name of your god as well.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Not a double standard. The belligerents of the Crusades were kingdoms. ISIL is a bunch of terrorists.

They were acting in the name of your god. Just how ISIL is acting in the name of your god as well.

Not my God, I'm an atheist.

[Ardoki]

They were acting in the name of your god. Just how ISIL is acting in the name of your god as well.

Not my God, I'm an atheist.

Then why do you worship the Abrahamic god?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Not my God, I'm an atheist.

Then why do you worship the Abrahamic god?

I don't, I just said I'm an atheist.

[Ardoki]

Then why do you worship the Abrahamic god?

I don't, I just said I'm an atheist.

Then what is your reason for denying historical facts for christianity?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I don't, I just said I'm an atheist.

Then what is your reason for denying historical facts for christianity?

I'm not. I'm saying the Crusades were primarily political and all Christianity shouldn't be blamed for some of its practitioners' atrocities.

[Ardoki]

Then what is your reason for denying historical facts for christianity?

I'm not. I'm saying the Crusades were primarily political and all Christianity shouldn't be blamed for some of its practitioners' atrocities.

Okay then.

Please tell me what was the main reason, all those Crusaders decided to join the Crusades? It is a fact that they believed that they would get a ticket straight to heaven if they went. So what was the greater reason they had?

[Vilatania]

I entirely believe that history will repeat itself. Here is an example, not in the US but the subject is Christianity in general. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/afr ... story.html This occurred only a year ago.

Christian Anti-Abortionist movements are responsible for killing, kidnapping and other forms of terrorism including bombing of clinics if you want to side step from war back into general violence. Christianity does endorse the actions of those committing the acts, but they are being done in the name of religion none the less and my point in this argument is that they wouldn't be doing it if religion did not exist. You can't even say that they'd do it anyways because Christianity promoted the beliefs that lead to the violence in the first place. And we have no way of knowing and therefore it is irrelevant what they would believe/do in the event that religion was not a factor.

I'm not saying Christianity should be erased just because of violence and war caused by radicals of their religion, I have a long list of other reasons for that; reasons that when looked at as a whole make the entire thing a hugely negative part of society. What I am saying in this case is that if your religion is going to continue to exist you should at the very least get your shit together and figure out as a whole what is and isn't acceptable in Christianity and make sure people don't misinterpret it.

I could over look the crusades if Christianity wasn't responsible for countless acts of violence since.

You need to knock off the general trolling here. You don't appear to realize that Christianity, such as it is, is made up of a number of individual organizations, churches, efforts, and people. And they do not all a) get along, b) agree with one another, or c) hold the same beliefs. Amazing, I know, but it's a thing. Do a bit of research. You may be surprised.

So this thing of you going around shouting that 'Christianity ought to be erased' and 'You Christians need to get your shit together' and such are more than a little off-base.

Leaving aside any comparisons to other groups, lumping all Christians in together, and all Christian organizations/belief systems under one heading, and then condemning it all and slandering it as you please ... yeah, that's trolling. It'd be the same for any group you did it with, regardless of any relation to religion or the lack thereof. If you have questions, there's a lovely thread in Moderation that outlines all of this - The One Stop Rule Shop. Feel free to look into it. Thanks.

Everyone else? Kindy refrain from getting baity or trollish or flaming anyone else as well, mkay? Keep it clean, keep it civil. Whether or not others are. Appreciate it.

Biased sounding. Whether or not the different sects within Christianity deserve to be treated differently is a matter of opinion. And in my opinion, they are all the same thing. Otherwise It's like saying Americans aren't all Americans because we eat different food.

[Vilatania]

You said yourself that Christians must have a mental disorder. I don't need to twist your words to discredit you.

Your twisting them because I've repeatedly explained that when I said that it was to display how their arguments sounded to me. It was never intended to expressly claim that anyone had an mental issue. Stop bringing it up.

Then what is your reason for denying historical facts for christianity?

I'm not. I'm saying the Crusades were primarily political and all Christianity shouldn't be blamed for some of its practitioners' atrocities.

Please source your claim that the Crusades were political. I don't dispute that the Pope was assisting the Byzantine Empire, but I do dispute the intent of those participating in the war.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I'm not. I'm saying the Crusades were primarily political and all Christianity shouldn't be blamed for some of its practitioners' atrocities.

Okay then.

Please tell me what was the main reason, all those Crusaders decided to join the Crusades? It is a fact that they believed that they would get a ticket straight to heaven if they went. So what was the greater reason they had?

Firstly, it's a tad complicated. I'll be honest and say such a large conflict has many conflicting motives, so this is mostly my opinion. Second, I'm mostly referring to the earlier Crusades for the Holy Land.

Now back to "I'm right, you're wrong" mode. It's not the soldiers but the politicians who decide the purpose of the war, which was:

1.) Assist the Byzantines against the Turks and their allies;
2.) Take the Holy Land to reestablish routes into the Middle East and maintain pathways for pilgrims;
3.) Get rid of the knights who were wreaking havoc in Europe;
4.) Expand the power of the church (I consider this political).
5.) Establish their own kingdoms in the Levant.

The crusaders may have had religious motives, but they had political ones as well.

Now please tell me how the Crusades were started more for religious reasons than political ones.

[Vilatania]

I contend the importance of the war's initial intent. I'd also like to see where your getting your information regarding the national leaders motives in the war(s). Remember different crusades started in different ways.

[New Neros]

I contend the importance of the war's initial intent. I'd also like to see where your getting your information regarding the national leaders motives in the war(s). Remember different crusades started in different ways.

Explain which crusades happened for which purpose, if you don't mind.

[Ardoki]

Okay then.

Please tell me what was the main reason, all those Crusaders decided to join the Crusades? It is a fact that they believed that they would get a ticket straight to heaven if they went. So what was the greater reason they had?

Firstly, it's a tad complicated. I'll be honest and say such a large conflict has many conflicting motives, so this is mostly my opinion. Second, I'm mostly referring to the earlier Crusades for the Holy Land.

Now back to "I'm right, you're wrong" mode. It's not the soldiers but the politicians who decide the purpose of the war, which was:

1.) Assist the Byzantines against the Turks and their allies;
2.) Take the Holy Land to reestablish routes into the Middle East and maintain pathways for pilgrims;
3.) Get rid of the knights who were wreaking havoc in Europe;
4.) Expand the power of the church (I consider this political).
5.) Establish their own kingdoms in the Levant.

The crusaders may have had religious motives, but they had political ones as well.

Now please tell me how the Crusades were started more for religious reasons than political ones.

You didn't answer my questions.

Do you deny that the motivations of the individual crusaders (peasants, knights and nobles alike) was religiously inspired?

[Vilatania]

I contend the importance of the war's initial intent. I'd also like to see where your getting your information regarding the national leaders motives in the war(s). Remember different crusades started in different ways.

Explain which crusades happened for which purpose, if you don't mind.

Gime a few minutes while I look them all up for you.

[Vilatania]

I contend the importance of the war's initial intent. I'd also like to see where your getting your information regarding the national leaders motives in the war(s). Remember different crusades started in different ways.

Explain which crusades happened for which purpose, if you don't mind.

Some of the dates may be a bit off as there are conflicting sources.

The First Crusade 1096-1099 Declared by Pope Urban II with the initial goal to assist Byzantine Empire.
However the principle objective was to reconquer Jerusalem, and to free Eastern Christians from Muslim Rulership.

The Second Crusade 1145-1149 Declared by Pope Eugene III in response to the fall of Edessa.

The Third Crusade 1189-1192 (King's Crusade) European Leaders attempt to reconquer the Holy Land.

The Fourth Crusade 1202-1204 Original intent to conquer Jerusalem, then under control of the Muslims.

The Fifth Crusade 1213-1221 Organized by Pope Innocent III and Pope Honorius III Attempt to retake Jerusalem and Holy land by conquering Ayyubid State.

Sixth Crusade 1228 (Unsure of end date) Attempt to regain Jerusalem.

Seventh Crusade 1248-1254 Lead by Louix IX of France to retake Jerusalem. By this time however Jerusalem was no longer widely important to Christian Europeans .

Eighth Crusade 1270 Started by Louis I, King of France started more or less because the Baibars were attacking the remnants of the Crusader States. More political than religous in this case.

Ninth Crusade 1271-1272(Often considered part of the Eighth) Continued effort against Baibars. Also political.

This information tells us that the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh crusades were launched with religious intents.

Edit: This is a good article to use as a source that I found after posting this. http://www.history.com/topics/crusades

Researching further, I found an interesting article that looks at religious violence pretty objectively. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ ... lywar.html
"The same religious traditions that affirm God to be compassionate, merciful, and just, also include more disturbing claims that promote religious hatred and intolerance, and sadly have provided a rationale for aggressive holy war."

While not all, and perhaps not even the majority of any particular religion condone the actions of those committing violent acts you cannot effectively take a stand point that the violence that IS committed is not done so for the sake of their religious beliefs. If you take away religion from the situation, take a case such as Christianity and Islam your taking away the potential for those two groups to be hostile to one another because they don't exist. And it is illogical to make assumptions that the people that would have otherwise been in these groups would find another reason to fight each other because we don't have any way of determining that. You may as well be saying that if yellow was never a color, then the lighter sitting on my keyboard here would have been green. But really it could have been any number of other colors.

This is enough for me to form my opinion that religion is guilty for violence by way of existing in order to be the cause of it. The non-violent members are not personally guilty, but the religion itself is because it provided the reason for the violence to occur. And despite this, the non-guilty still affiliate themselves with it. Taking very little action against those who are committing these atrocities.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

You know, Sociobiology, you have a unique tone of language that makes you difficult to converse with, and I doubt we'll ever gain anything if we're going to attempt to refute each other by quoting every sentence and phrase. I admit that my knowledge of history and society is not sufficient enough to traverse the whole world and be able to investigate every single war, military campaign or machete done and know the cause (I think you also are unable to do that).

So, to let us get started, put our discussion more sensible and to try to point and just to make our conversation simpler, yes, I agree that many wars in history have some religious overtones, but I'm going to ask you, if you assert that wars rarely have one cause, why are you pointing out religion as the cause of several wars in history without even trying to point out the other contributing factors?

because you made the claim that Christianity and Islam were responsible for most religious wars.
You are falling into basic logical and cultural bias, you know more about judeochristian history but not much about others so you assume so you assume what you know is somehow representative.

Yes, it's definitely true that Christianity and Islam in religion were responsible for most religious wars. That doesn't cut it when referring other worshippers of some other gods and then telling, "Hey, other religions do wars too, so not only Christianity and Islam". Those religious wars are nothing compared to the Crusades, and the various Jihad wars created in the name of Islam, the Crusades and the Jihads had led to much more death toll than some fringe Buddhist or Hindu war there. You point out some other war by a non-Christian or a non-Islamic religion when you don't realize, they're fringe, they're minor, and they're isolated compared to the known, infamous, bloody and violent Crusades and the Jihads by Islamic "whoevers" that led to so much destruction and death toll than others.

If Buddhism or Hinduism truly endorsed war, you have to expect so much violence and blood and so many severe Buddhist and Hindu religious wars, but history is a witness to the peaceful nature of the said two religions.

[Camelza]

No, I don't.
If you want to believe in God, do simply as such, just don't force your opinions down my throat and I will not do the opposite.
---
Also, religious institutions around the globe were responsible for both good actions and despicable ones, nothing is black or white.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

Oh ok so it's ok to kill a certain ethnic group. Gotcha. Slavery is ok because theres no charity? BS. Slavery is never OK ever. Under any circumstances. Morrally wrong. NEXT.

Your next point is irrelevant. Atheists aren't starting wars to promote Atheism and destroy people who disagree with us. Communists? Totally off topic, as I have stated non-religious wars are not important in this discussion. If you need to know why please refer to my previous posts, I explained why.

I could care less about what Christians have done to promote pacifism. They start wars, any war is one war to many to be justified by your other actions. And please stop claiming that Christianity is not responsible for it's own holy wars.

Heres an analogy of what your doing Scrin.

You saying that Christian's can't be held accountable for the actions that are taken in the name of something that they jointly believe in is the same thing as a man handing a weapon to a terrorist and then claiming the result isn't his fault because he isn't the one that committed the act.

I entirely believe that history will repeat itself. Here is an example, not in the US but the subject is Christianity in general. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/afr ... story.html This occurred only a year ago.

Christian Anti-Abortionist movements are responsible for killing, kidnapping and other forms of terrorism including bombing of clinics if you want to side step from war back into general violence. Christianity does endorse the actions of those committing the acts, but they are being done in the name of religion none the less and my point in this argument is that they wouldn't be doing it if religion did not exist. You can't even say that they'd do it anyways because Christianity promoted the beliefs that lead to the violence in the first place. And we have no way of knowing and therefore it is irrelevant what they would believe/do in the event that religion was not a factor.

I'm not saying Christianity should be erased just because of violence and war caused by radicals of their religion, I have a long list of other reasons for that; reasons that when looked at as a whole make the entire thing a hugely negative part of society. What I am saying in this case is that if your religion is going to continue to exist you should at the very least get your shit together and figure out as a whole what is and isn't acceptable in Christianity and make sure people don't misinterpret it.

I could over look the crusades if Christianity wasn't responsible for countless acts of violence since.

Heck, I didn't even thought your posts will get the attention of a mod. Actually, in my much experience being in NSG, I could say you're quite the most aggresive atheist I've met here.

The problem is that you don't understand religion. You just gather everything Christians and you act like they're a single thing. You perceive the way you want to perceive. That's not any good, it's just like compressing all Muslims in all group and saying all Muslims are ISIS members. You don't realize that difference and denomination exists in a religion. And, that, you call anything a "religion" just because it's the way that people believe it. You don't go on to properly define even "religious belief". That's my point in quoting Atheism and Communism, people can go to war in everything they believe in, making their beliefs an excuse and a reason. You don't even know how to properly differentiate orthodox religious doctrine of a religion from the religious belief of some of its members. Taking ISIS as an example, you can just say Muslims want to rape and kill anyone because that's what ISIS says and ISIS is Muslim.

You exaggerate Christian anti-abortionist movements when it's fringe, it's not exactly in the Christian mainstream, and it's nothing but embarrassing to us Christians. It's not taught by Christianity. Christianity does NOT endorse the actions of them because what they are doing is contrary to Christianity. Heck, they're not even on the same severity and scale as Muslim jihadist lone-wolf attacks in Europe and Murica.

Also, you said slavery is always wrong and the genocide of ethnic groups. Funny, how you believe in moral absolutes when you're even an atheist. You did not even realize you're believing religiously here.

Could you at least do a favor? Please learn to study the doctrines of a religion apart from the beliefs of its followers and do not compress all members into one umbrella group. You clearly don't know anything about Christianity nor the nature of religious belief. At this point, I'm stopping and I'm no longer going to reply at your posts because, at this point you're no longer making any sense. In NSG conventions, a warning from a moderator is a sign you're doing something wrong.

[Jute]

Does God exist? I don't care. I simply cannot be bothered to bring myself to muster anything beyond the default apathy for people and their personal beliefs. If you need a god to feel a sense of belonging, or maybe to justify your actions and existance then that's cool. If you don't feel like there is anything more than what we can experience with our own senses then that's cool too. The only thing that isn't cool is using your beliefs to belittle those that don't share them.

And that should obviously go for everyone, not just for those who follow a religion.

[Jute]

Explain which crusades happened for which purpose, if you don't mind.

Some of the dates may be a bit off as there are conflicting sources.

The First Crusade 1096-1099 Declared by Pope Urban II with the initial goal to assist Byzantine Empire.
However the principle objective was to reconquer Jerusalem, and to free Eastern Christians from Muslim Rulership.

The Second Crusade 1145-1149 Declared by Pope Eugene III in response to the fall of Edessa.

The Third Crusade 1189-1192 (King's Crusade) European Leaders attempt to reconquer the Holy Land.

The Fourth Crusade 1202-1204 Original intent to conquer Jerusalem, then under control of the Muslims.

The Fifth Crusade 1213-1221 Organized by Pope Innocent III and Pope Honorius III Attempt to retake Jerusalem and Holy land by conquering Ayyubid State.

Sixth Crusade 1228 (Unsure of end date) Attempt to regain Jerusalem.

Seventh Crusade 1248-1254 Lead by Louix IX of France to retake Jerusalem. By this time however Jerusalem was no longer widely important to Christian Europeans .

Eighth Crusade 1270 Started by Louis I, King of France started more or less because the Baibars were attacking the remnants of the Crusader States. More political than religous in this case.

Ninth Crusade 1271-1272(Often considered part of the Eighth) Continued effort against Baibars. Also political.

This information tells us that the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh crusades were launched with religious intents.

Edit: This is a good article to use as a source that I found after posting this. http://www.history.com/topics/crusades

Researching further, I found an interesting article that looks at religious violence pretty objectively. http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ ... lywar.html
"The same religious traditions that affirm God to be compassionate, merciful, and just, also include more disturbing claims that promote religious hatred and intolerance, and sadly have provided a rationale for aggressive holy war."

While not all, and perhaps not even the majority of any particular religion condone the actions of those committing violent acts you cannot effectively take a stand point that the violence that IS committed is not done so for the sake of their religious beliefs. If you take away religion from the situation, take a case such as Christianity and Islam your taking away the potential for those two groups to be hostile to one another because they don't exist. And it is illogical to make assumptions that the people that would have otherwise been in these groups would find another reason to fight each other because we don't have any way of determining that. You may as well be saying that if yellow was never a color, then the lighter sitting on my keyboard here would have been green. But really it could have been any number of other colors.

This is enough for me to form my opinion that religion is guilty for violence by way of existing in order to be the cause of it. The non-violent members are not personally guilty, but the religion itself is because it provided the reason for the violence to occur. And despite this, the non-guilty still affiliate themselves with it. Taking very little action against those who are committing these atrocities.

As far as I know, the only war permitted by the Quran is a defensive wars. Aggressive ones weren't supported by Mohammed or anyone, but of course it can be that some rulers/other people twist that definition.

[Tanoshiiye]

As far as I know, the only war permitted by the Quran is a defensive wars. Aggressive ones weren't supported by Mohammed or anyone, but of course it can be that some rulers/other people twist that definition.

Don't pretend being an Islamic scholar if you're really not one. ~