Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Oh right, that's why they happened to journey all the way to Jerusalem to grab this land, instead of grabbing land which was closer and much easier to cultivate, defend, etc.Rogue 9 wrote:Religion was often used as an excuse, but it was not always the cause. The Crusades were a land grab. Too many nobles, not enough Europe. Religion was an excuse, not the cause (or at least not the primary one).
Hey look, a nice salad of "Golden Mean fallacy", sprinkled with a lovely dressing of "Style over Substance".Aiyel wrote:wow.... just... wow.
Why not just forget the whole debating form and get into a fist fight over it? It'd accmplish about as much for either of your points as beating each other with your tongues, and would be considerably more hygenic.
That sounds like an apologist responce to me. Even if that were the case, it still doesnt change the fact that the christian faith and religion in general played a fundamental role. The whole point is that people were killing gladly and openly in the name of their god, nothing will ever change that or make it any less appalling or less deserving of criticism.Rogue 9 wrote:Religion was often used as an excuse, but it was not always the cause. The Crusades were a land grab. Too many nobles, not enough Europe. Religion was an excuse, not the cause (or at least not the primary one).
Regardless of the motivations of the individual people who got involved in this thing, or what motives they might have tacked onto it, it was issued in the name of God. The war cry of the First Crusade was "God Wills It!" for fuck's sake.Pope Urban II wrote:I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ's heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends.
Get back to me when you have proof other than your quote-end-quote "word" that you distinguish between the subjective and the objective. I've yet to meet a Christian, atheist or rock who doesn't hold onto intuitively arrived at beliefs.Darth Wong wrote:Smart-ass attempt to evade the point about how fundamentalists do not distinguish between the objective and subjective, and how you falsely accused me of doing the same. Get back to me when you have an answer for the point, asshole.
False cause fallacy. Show how these actions where somehow related to their fundamentalism rather their personal desire for power.False cause fallacy. Show that these actions were somehow related to their atheism rather than their communism.
See above.False cause fallacy. Show that these actions were somehow related to their atheism rather than their communism.
Prostitution is the sexual exploitation of women.Give me one.
Nope.You honestly see no distinction between the rationality of laws which can identify objective harm being done by the criminal (eg- murder, theft, etc) and laws which can only point to subjective offense against certain belief systems?
False cause fallacy. Show that these actions were somehow related to their fundamentalism rather than their personal desire for power.False cause fallacy. Show that these actions were somehow related to their atheism rather than their communism.
As am I with yours, but I ain't madatchya.OK, I'm fed up with your bullshit.
Funny. You may think I'm stupid but I'm not that stupid. What exactly do you mean by "better?"You repeatedly claim that atheism is no better than religious fundamentalism; care to debate this with me? Based on your moronic false cause fallacies?
Of course, recapturing the Holy Lands for posterity's sake for a century is just a side salad, right?Spanky The Dolphin wrote:The Crusades were simply about getting revenge agaisnt the Jews and Islam, nothing more.
Who's disagreeing with you?Bob McDob wrote:I like how nobody answered my post about the Fundamentals supporting evolution ...
In my opinion, that was part of the whole thing.revprez wrote:Of course, recapturing the Holy Lands for posterity's sake for a century is just a side salad, right?Spanky The Dolphin wrote:The Crusades were simply about getting revenge agaisnt the Jews and Islam, nothing more.
Rev Prez
This is a over simplification of the crusades, if any can say more.The Crusades were simply about getting revenge against the Jews and Islam, nothing more.
Are you going to give me your fucking bullshit about how science is mere "intuition" again, asshole?revprez wrote:Get back to me when you have proof other than your quote-end-quote "word" that you distinguish between the subjective and the objective. I've yet to meet a Christian, atheist or rock who doesn't hold onto intuitively arrived at beliefs.
They use the Bible as justification, dumb-fuck. Give me one Communist atrocity which was publicly justified by saying "it's because there's no God".False cause fallacy. Show how these actions where somehow related to their fundamentalism rather their personal desire for power.False cause fallacy. Show that these actions were somehow related to their atheism rather than their communism.
Prove it.Prostitution is the sexual exploitation of women.Give me one.
Then you're even dumber than I thought. Here's a hint: the death of a human being is an objectively verifiable form of harm. Offense against God is not.Nope.You honestly see no distinction between the rationality of laws which can identify objective harm being done by the criminal (eg- murder, theft, etc) and laws which can only point to subjective offense against certain belief systems?
Oh yes you are, as demonstrated by your moronic behaviour in this thread.Funny. You may think I'm stupid but I'm not that stupid.You repeatedly claim that atheism is no better than religious fundamentalism; care to debate this with me? Based on your moronic false cause fallacies?
More rational, less subjective, you fucking moron. We've been over this a thousand times.What exactly do you mean by "better?"
I like the way you make a dick out of yourself.revprez wrote:False cause fallacy. Show how these actions where somehow related to their fundamentalism rather their personal desire for power.
1) It's no bullshit.Darth Wong wrote:Are you going to give me your fucking bullshit about how science is mere "intuition" again, asshole?
Man, you're an idiot. Stalin's purge of thousands of Christian Latvian and Lithuanian Christians.They use the Bible as justification, dumb-fuck. Give me one Communist atrocity which was publicly justified by saying "it's because there's no God".
Fuck you. I'm not interested in its justification and neither were you a minute ago. It's a secular reason; you want justification look it up.Prove it.
Or perhaps you're too stupid to ask the right question.Then you're even dumber than I thought.
That's true, but you asked if I "see no distinction between the rationality of laws which can identify objective harm being done by the criminal (eg- murder, theft, etc) and laws which can only point to subjective offense against certain belief systems?" That was in response to me asserting that "society's laws are historically conceived irrationally, regardless of the religiosity of the people."Here's a hint: the death of a human being is an objectively verifiable form of harm. Offense against God is not.
Oh snap. Your definition of fundamentalism is ridiculously fungible and utterly distinct from the one relevant to the social sciences. You assert ethical boundaries for lawmaking that virtually no one in history recognizes. You actually tried to say that there were no atrocities motivated by someone's atheism. You don't get any dumber than that.Oh yes you are, as demonstrated by your moronic behaviour in this thread.
I don't like your definition of better. Move on.More rational, less subjective, you fucking moron. We've been over this a thousand times.
And you know how to "me too" very well. Darth already raised this point.GySgt. Hartman wrote:I like the way you make a dick out of yourself.
Don't be an idiot. When Stalin was slaughtering people in Latvia and Lithuania, he drew a distinction between atheists and Christians. Every Communist regime has drawn such a distinction and committed atrocities accordingly.When the Commies were oppressing minorities, they never used "because no-god said so" as a justification, they based their actions on Stalinism.
Really? I'd like to see proof of that as opposed to say, proof that they're making laws based on prejudices that stem from non-religious sources of reality.When fundies make laws that call for the jailing of adults for consensual sex, they do so an religious grounds.
See above.(because the bible said so) How would a personal desire for power cause you to hate those who are different?
Yes it is. You, like many religious idiots, seek to lower science to the same level as religion so that you can pretend one is no more intrinsically valid than the other.revprez wrote:1) It's no bullshit.Darth Wong wrote:Are you going to give me your fucking bullshit about how science is mere "intuition" again, asshole?
Since you define "intuitively" in such a manner that all of science is "intuitive", I will take this statement for what it's worth: zero.2) No, I'm simply saying I have no evidence that you distinguish between the subjective and the objective other than your word. I have yet to meet an atheist or anyone who doesn't hold any intuitively arrived at beliefs.
You're a lying fuck. How do you go from "there's no God" to "I must kill all these people?"Man, you're an idiot. Stalin's purge of thousands of Christian Latvian and Lithuanian Christians.They use the Bible as justification, dumb-fuck. Give me one Communist atrocity which was publicly justified by saying "it's because there's no God".
Concession accepted.Fuck you. I'm not interested in its justification and neither were you a minute ago. It's a secular reason; you want justification look it up.Prove it.
Sorry dumb-fuck, but an ethical system based on real, objectively verifiable forms of harm rather than purely subjective ones is clearly more objective and therefore superior to any rational person.That's true, but you asked if I "see no distinction between the rationality of laws which can identify objective harm being done by the criminal (eg- murder, theft, etc) and laws which can only point to subjective offense against certain belief systems?" That was in response to me asserting that "society's laws are historically conceived irrationally, regardless of the religiosity of the people."Here's a hint: the death of a human being is an objectively verifiable form of harm. Offense against God is not.
I took this to mean an ethical distinction, so I answered "nope."
Empty grandstanding.If you want me to just verify that you mentioned to different classes of offenses, then you need look no farther than the sentence to which you replied for my answer. Moron.
Buy a fucking dictionary, moron.Oh snap. Your definition of fundamentalism is ridiculously fungible and utterly distinct from the one relevant to the social sciences.
Appeal to tradition fallacy.You assert ethical boundaries for lawmaking that virtually no one in history recognizes.
And when challenged to show how atheism motivated those atrocities, you simply gave an example of an atrocity without even attempting to show that atheism caused it. Yet again, relying on your false cause fallacies.You actually tried to say that there were no atrocities motivated by someone's atheism. You don't get any dumber than that.
In other words, you proudly prefer that which is less objective and less rational. Why don't you just tattoo "flaming idiot" on your fucking forehead?I don't like your definition of better. Move on.More rational, less subjective, you fucking moron. We've been over this a thousand times.
That is complete BS. Why would he do that? Because he was an atheist and all atheists hate christians?revprez wrote:Don't be an idiot. When Stalin was slaughtering people in Latvia and Lithuania, he drew a distinction between atheists and Christians. Every Communist regime has drawn such a distinction and committed atrocities accordingly.
from http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.htmlThe most prominent elements of Stalin's Purges, for most researchers, were the intensive campaigns waged within key Soviet institutions and sectors like the Communist Party, the Army, the NKVD (secret police), and scientists and engineers.
As opposed to "religious sources of reality"? How often do you hear references to homosexuality being an "abomination unto the lord"? It is quite clear that these laws stem from religion.Really? I'd like to see proof of that as opposed to say, proof that they're making laws based on prejudices that stem from non-religious sources of reality.When fundies make laws that call for the jailing of adults for consensual sex, they do so an religious grounds.
from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws.htmLaws prohibiting homosexual behavior are commonly called "sodomy laws." They have taken many forms in different jurisdictions. Some criminalize certain behavior by opposite-gender as well as same-gender couples. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that every sexual act except sexual intercourse between a married couple using the missionary position in the dark has been criminalized in at least one U.S. state at one time during its history.
These laws and regulations can be traced back at least to biblical times. In England, homosexual behavior was originally handled in the ecclesiastical courts. By 1791 CE, when the original 13 states ratified the Bill of Rights, they all treated sodomy as a criminal offense. By 1961, the U.S. military, and all of the states and territories maintained "sodomy" laws on their books -- some dating back more than a century. Some were worded so generally that they would even criminalize consensual oral sex in private between a married couple as a "crime against nature." In 1961, Illinois became the first American jurisdiction to repeal its sodomy law.
What a lovely appeal to motive, asswipe. I've made it quite clear that I believe the objective view of reality to be preeminently useful.Darth Wong wrote:Yes it is. You, like many religious idiots, seek to lower science to the same level as religion so that you can pretend one is no more intrinsically valid than the other.
I argued in another thread that fundamental assumptions we hold about reality, not the systems of reasoning built upon them, are all arrived at intuitively you dishonest fuck. I'm no more dismissive of science than Hume.Since you define "intuitively" in such a manner that all of science is "intuitive", I will take this statement for what it's worth: zero.
You're a slow piece of shit. See below, fool.You're a lying fuck.
The same way you go from "there is a God" to "I must kill all these people." You devise a creed stemming from that fundamental assumption that compels you to commit atrocities. Try and keep up.How do you go from "there's no God" to "I must kill all these people?"
Of course, I'm willing to concede any strawman you think up.Concession accepted.
Try again, loser. You have failed to show how a system of ethics predicated on what you perceive to be "objectively verifiable forms of harm" is preferable to rational persons, you've only asserted as much.Sorry dumb-fuck, but an ethical system based on real, objectively verifiable forms of harm rather than purely subjective ones is clearly more objective and therefore superior to any rational person.
Stop backpedaling, man. It's sad.Empty grandstanding.
Gawd you're so ignorant. Take your own advice, and buy a sociology textbook while your at it.Buy a fucking dictionary, moron.
Appeal to authority fallacy. You're suggesting we use your definition because you say so.Appeal to tradition fallacy.
Man, can you go a single post without lying? Stalin, an atheist who believed in Marx's atheistic assertion that religion is an opiate and should be expunged from society, specifically singled out religious Lithuanians and Latvians to be purged. That is just as much evidence as you have for the motives behind religious oppression.And when challenged to show how atheism motivated those atrocities, you simply gave an example of an atrocity without even attempting to show that atheism caused it.
Only in your sad, deluded imagination, son.Yet again, relying on your false cause fallacies.
You should really drop this despicable "tu quoque" canard, you dishonest bastard. You've argued that religious folk are uniquely intolerant and uncivil because their faith leads them to irrational and harmful conclusions about the world in your first post to this thread. I countered with an assertion that history casts doubt against the premises of that argument, that religious people are not unique in their ability to devise irrational and harmful conclusions about the world and that atheists prone to such behavior have dominated the oppressor high score for the last century. Obviously pointing out atheist atrocities supports my argument.It is trivially easy to show how religion directly caused atrocities; the people committing the atrocities even explained how they arrived at their conclusions based on the Bible, for fuck's sake. When challenged to support your "Tu Quoque fallacy" rebuttal to that irrefutable point, you simply repeated yourself without supporting your claim.
I've never been terribly concerned with impressing bigots like yourself.As always, if you were out to make religious people look stupid, you succeeded.
Depends. If we're talking about understanding objective reality, then I prefer more objective, more rational. If we're talking about law, well that depends as well.In other words, you proudly prefer that which is less objective and less rational.
Why don't you at least try to act like a gainfully employed sane man? Jesus; you're cogent enough when it comes to smacking down ridiculous challenges to the estimated firepower of the Death Star, but step one foot into a discussion about political or social matters and you turn into a teenager trying desparately to rationalize his way out of informing his opinions through research. You only throw fallacy accusations around because you're too stupid to see when a rebuttal is constructed to show the flaw in your arguments. Case in point, you've now managed to show that some intervening justification is needed to go from "there is no God" to "I must kill these people."Why don't you just tattoo "flaming idiot" on your fucking forehead?
OK asshole, I challenge you to explain how a LACK of belief can motivate someone to do ANYTHING.<snip typically endless nitpicking bullshit>
This doesn't make sense, because what Darth Wong is trying to tell you is that an atheist has a LACK of belief. Their motivation of killing has no reason to be linked to atheism. Now if they CLAIMED they were killing religious people because they themselves were not, and they thought it would be helpful to mankind to eliminate such believers, then yes, you could say that the person's atheism played a part in their actions.The same way you go from "there is a God" to "I must kill all these people." You devise a creed stemming from that fundamental assumption that compels you to commit atrocities. Try and keep up.
