Materialists

Quote from axeman:

I believe the popes of the dark ages REALLY DID want to wipe out infidels.
More...

clang clang clang goes the cognitive dissonance.

pay attention.

it is not about what they wanted to do, it is about the reason they give for wanting to do it.

of course they wanted to subjugate those people. nobody is seriously suggesting otherwise. the question is WHY did they want to do it. you believe they act on religious, rather than base political, motives. why?

because they said so - a level of trust you have yet to exhibit for a non religious leader. your argument that religous leaders are evil is based on the premise that rationals given by religious leaders can be taken at face value.

that's called irony.
 
Quote from damir00:





for the simple reason atheism does not describe a belief held, it describes a belief NOT held.
More...
I don't think so.

One can only beleive that one is not holding a belief !??
Having no reason to believe in something, does not have the resultof believing you don't believe!!

It simply means you have no reasons to believe.
 
First of all... thats the SECOND time you put words in
my mouth and commited a Strawman fallacy by claiming
the reason I believe it is because "they said so".

But I already gave reasons, which you IGNORED and
instead put words in my mouth again.

I believe it because it makes sense and fits exactly what
we would expect of religious freaks who are in complete control.
The religious fervor of that era was rampant.
The religious freaks really did want to stamp out infidels.
You are ignoring the OBVIOUS and instead spinning
conspiracy theories.


On the other hand, your strawman aside, you have not
provided ANY evidence that crusades WERE NOT religiously
motivated.

Im still waiting for you provide a SHRED OF EVIDENCE that
the crusades were NOT religiously motivated.

We have a bunch of guys explicitly killing in the name of god
and there was no religious motivation? Are you kidding me?

If that doesnt qualify as religiously motived, THEN WHAT DOES???
ANYTHING?????? Give me a break.



peace

axeman



Quote from damir00:

clang clang clang goes the cognitive dissonance.

pay attention.

it is not about what they wanted to do, it is about the reason they give for wanting to do it.

of course they wanted to subjugate those people. nobody is seriously suggesting otherwise. the question is WHY did they want to do it. you believe they act on religious, rather than base political, motives. why?

because they said so - a level of trust you have yet to exhibit for a non religious leader. your argument that religous leaders are evil is based on the premise that rationals given by religious leaders can be taken at face value.

that's called irony.
More...
 
Axe your quote five or six pages ago actually supported damir's point.

Your quote

"Exactly.... as the catholic encyclopedia confesses, the crusades
were on the behalf of christendom."

Axe -- there is a very large difference between saying that the crusades were on behalf of christendom and on behalf of christ and his followers.

You see the catholic encyclopedia was saying that the crusades were fought on behalf of the "west" as we know the meaning today. Not on behalf of Christ and his followers.

It was a political not religious statement. I see people misunderstanding the Holy Roman Empire as well.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Turok:

You can say that the REAL reasons are always hidden..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Damir:
>i did not say that.

Damir, you are quite the little spinner. You and Mav will get along just fine. I didn't claim the above was a quote (notice the word "can" rather than the word "did"). What I claimed is easily proved by your words previous to that point and in posts just this morning since you wrote "i did not say that" You are basing an entire argument with Axe on your assertion that the reasons that are given for attrocities are not the REAL reasons.

Follow along:

Damir:
>when a non-religious politician makes a claim, people
>normally looks past the statements made for public
>consumption to find the "real" reason for the actions.

Damir:
>it is not about what they wanted to do, it is about
>the reason they give for wanting to do it.

Damir:
>the question is WHY did they want to do it. you believe
>they act on religious, rather than base political, motives.
>why? because they said so - a level of trust you have
>yet to exhibit for a non religious leader.

You write paragraph after paragraph supposedly supporting that the "reasons" aren't really the "reasons" and then when called out you back away from it by saying "i didn't say that".

Talk about clanging.

JB
 
Quote from stu:

I don't think so.

One can only beleive that one is not holding a belief !??
Having no reason to believe in something, does not have the resultof believing you don't believe!!

It simply means you have no reasons to believe.
More...


I agree, to not believe in god and to believe in scientific fact can reasonably be considered a belief system.
 
Jem:
>You see the catholic encyclopedia was saying that the
>crusades were fought on behalf of the "west" as we
>know the meaning today.

Ooooof cooouuurse! (rolling eyes) As we all "know" the word "christendom" actually means "west".

Well Jesus F West, I had no idea.


JB




Quote from jem:

Axe your quote five or six pages ago actually supported damir's point.

Your quote

"Exactly.... as the catholic encyclopedia confesses, the crusades
were on the behalf of christendom."

Axe -- there is a very large difference between saying that the crusades were on behalf of christendom and on behalf of christ and his followers.

You see the catholic encyclopedia was saying that the crusades were fought on behalf of the "west" as we know the meaning today. Not on behalf of Christ and his followers.

It was a political not religious statement. I see people misunderstanding the Holy Roman Empire as well.
More...
 
Quote from jem:

Axe your quote five or six pages ago actually supported damir's point.

Your quote

"Exactly.... as the catholic encyclopedia confesses, the crusades
were on the behalf of christendom."

Axe -- there is a very large difference between saying that the crusades were on behalf of christendom and on behalf of christ and his followers.

You see the catholic encyclopedia was saying that the crusades were fought on behalf of the "west" as we know the meaning today. Not on behalf of Christ and his followers.
More...


This is ridiculous. In my mind there is little or no difference. They generally mean the same thing.

People nitpick grammar when they haven't a substantial rebuttal.


Bottom line: over decades of warring, tens of thousands of people living in the region of what is now the Middle East were killed by holy crusaders that killed in the name of god.
 
These guys are so way off base its not even funny.
Can this get any more absurd?


If we cant correctly claim that the CRUSADES were
religiously motived, then there have been **NO**
religiously motivated wars in the history of man kind.

(At least according to their absurd logic :D )

peace

axeman
 
Main Entry: Chris·ten·dom
Pronunciation: 'kri-s&n-d&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English cristendom, from Old English cristendOm, from cristen
1 : CHRISTIANITY 1
2 : the part of the world in which Christianity prevails.

Merriam Webster's dictionary.

Dude it does not matter what you think, it matters how scholars use the word.

Having studied Catholic writings and being a lawyer, I can assure you the church is very lawyered up. I would find it amazing if they admited in the Catholic Encyclopedia that the crusades were fought for Christ. How could they justify that in light of Christs teachings in the bible.

I knew that was a poor interpretation the second I read it.

I also happen to know what Christendom means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top