92
   

Atheists... Your life is pointless

 
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 08:13 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Organized religion, but, as i've already pointed out, although religion may be the casus belli, money and politics trump religion every time in time of war.

Sounds good...But I do not agree...Organized religion is not the "justification of war"...And if it is "trumped" every time...then you can clearly see what the whole purpose was from the start...Whatever they wish to USE as a scapegoat or to claim it to be (religion) and what they want to gain (money, politics, power, greed etc) Just means people are not men enough to be truthful...After all, nothing good about wars...So deception isn't out of the question...Seems like a very easy thing to blame a war on religion...When smart people know that is not the reason at all...the nations involved have something to gain...and it is money, politics, power, greed, oil... etc

There is nothing to gain by religion destroying a religion....nothing....If that was the case, then people would not "take over" their land, or possessions? Now would they? Why would they need to?
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 08:15 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
No, i don't believe that, and i haven't said that, or anything remotely like that. This is why i say you twist things, and that you aren't very good at this. You're also oversimplifying.

Well, what exactly are you saying then? Simplify it for me, I am willing to hear and learn...

There wasn't nasty at all...
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 08:32 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
I don't care whether you agree or not--i'm telling you this because i know a good deal of detail about history. You still don't get it, either. I referred to the Thirty Years War. It was fought because of religion. Politics trumped that cause because France, although Catholic, did not want to see Austria--also Catholic--become powerful in Germany.

But organized religion is still responsible for wars, they just usually can't get the wars going without money, or, more rarely, a political reason. In the 12th century, there were a group of christians in south central France who said the church was greedy and corrupt (absolutely true), and without going into detail, they called for a complete reorganization of the church, and offered a new and drastically different theology. They called themselves Perfects, and they were known to the Church as Cathars.

For decades, successive Popes called for a crusade against them. It didn't work. Nobody was interested. The Pope offered absolution, which means one's sins would be forgiven, including any sins committed during the crusade, and all of your sins for the rest of your life (people believed the Pope could do that). No takers. So the Pope started looking around for a good military leader, and he endedd up negotiating with Simon de Montfort. He was one of the most competent military leaders in France at the time, and his men were very loyal because he saw to it that they had good arms and armor, were well fed and decently housed, and that they got paid on time. His terms to the Pope were that the Pope would pay to hire enough troops to do the job, and pay to equip them, and pay them while they were fighting--he, de Montfort, would see to it that they were properly supplied. But the clincher was that de Montfort wanted the lands of the Cathar lords when they were defeated--the Pope caved in, cheap bastard though he was, because it was the only way he could get his crusade. Simon de Montfort defeated the Cathar lords, and got a lot of land in return, and every time the Pope failed to meet the payroll, he'd start maching home, so the Pope had to pay up.

That didn't end the Cathar "heresy," but it broke the back of the movement. For political reasons, the King of Aragon supported the Cathars, but he was killed in battle. Some of the cities of northern Italy gave them refuge, and they held out for another century in southern France and northeast Spain. But the Pope got his war, and over the next century, the Cathars were exterminated.

The cause of the war was definitely religion. It was not successfully fought, however, until that cheap bastard the Pope came up with the cash--and it lasted for a long time because people sheltered and supported the Cathars for political reasons.

None of this is simple, but you want to reduce it to simple terms which is why you post bullshit such as that i said that religion is responsible for every war. I said nothing of the kind--that is known as a straw man fallacy. Once again, you're not very good at this.
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 08:32 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
It can't be simplified, it's not a simple subject.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 08:37 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
None of this is simple, but you want to reduce it to simple terms which is why you post bullshit such as that i said that religion is responsible for every war. I said nothing of the kind--that is known as a straw man fallacy. Once again, you're not very good at this.


I think you said too tight a pair of trousers was responsible for most wars.
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 08:39 am
@izzythepush,
One could make that argument.

Why are tight jeans like a cheap hotel?

No ballroom.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 08:45 am
@Setanta,
Actually, that did make me chuckle. Normally people are unintentionally funny like Jason or RL, but that was the business. No doubt RL will accuse me of ball licking.
Setanta
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 08:46 am
@izzythepush,
I think the boy is obsessed. Maybe he's just not ready to come out of the closet.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 10:05 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And who is responsible for the human race????

It depends on who you ask ...I can't understand an atheist saying it is from God can you?


No, honestly, I can't Spade.

But obviously I was asking you...not any of the atheists.

You had said humans were responsible for wars...which caused me to wonder who was responsible, IN YOUR OPINION, for humans.

Obviously it was an attempt at irony concerning your comment that humans are responsible.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 10:31 am
@Setanta,
Well they say everyone needs a hobby.
0 Replies
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 10:53 am
@Frank Apisa,
I believe that God created humans...He created us exceedingly smart...and with free will...So much so, we have the choice to reject him or not...So much so, we could invent WMD's and blow up the earth if we want to...I believe this is validated in the Bible by saying the world will end once by man...I believe even if not near our lifetime, people can see that it will be global warfare...I believe that Humans wage war against other people because of differences...Most times very corrupt reasons...Most times over things like greed, and power...Most times very little to do with religion....But sometimes/to maybe even a lot of times religion is used as a scapegoat and then when the war happens or is happening, the real reasons are unveiled...I believe none of that kind of **** is what a God would do/ or would want us to do...I believe a God would want the world to one day unite with one another....I believe this can/and may only happen at the end of times...I believe that God knows this....I believe that all good things come from God....All evil is the work of the Devil....I believe if you sense a person, you can see if they have that inner glow of righteousness or of evil...I believe in the end (maybe) not one is lost....If not, I believe all righteous ones will be one, and happy...I do not know exactly what will happen to the wicked...
izzythepush
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 11:05 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
I do not know exactly what will happen to the wicked...


They'll probably form a rock band or something.
0 Replies
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 11:11 am
@Setanta,
My mistake misinterpreted the whole thing...Seems he was not insulting me but another??? ok...Well I will let them speak for themselves...
izzythepush
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 11:17 am
@XXSpadeMasterXX,
RL is obsessed with ball licking, he even posts videos about it. It's not hateful for Setanta to say he should come out of the closet. RL needs to nail his ball licking on the proverbial table, (ouch), and be honest with himself.
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 11:25 am
@izzythepush,
Sorry, jumped the gun....I will let RL give the hate back as it is received, thought it was meant for me...

Since Setanta, probably did not pick up on it, I will drop it....
0 Replies
 
XXSpadeMasterXX
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 12:00 pm
@Setanta,
Matter of fact...Do not know how much this will matter...Do not even know if your aware of what I am saying this for...But it is of no concern to me...and it may/may not matter to you...But it matters to me and my morality...

I sincerely apologize for my post to you, that I retracted...If you did not read it...then take this as you will...

See ya around...
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 12:42 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta is there giving a rather trite version of the "what-when-where" school of historical events, just as the evolutionists do of life itself.

There is nothing worth knowing about the Cathars in his essay. Not a sign of "why-how-whence" philosophy. His rote learned notions appeal to rote learners. They are shallow. The truer they are the shallower they get.

On the "why"--some fast talking **** stirrers from the east, who had possibly found things to hot for them in Bulgaria, wove their wisps of wasted words around a somewhat backward peasantry and recruiting a few local worthies who saw the way the wind was blowing. An amalgum of gnostic, Chaldean and generally oriental bullshit so mixed up and so plausible that the poor gawping masses, who spent their entire adult lives frightened out of their wits, thought it was the right way to run Europe.

The "how", being implied in that above except that it was miles more complex and gradual than I have said. By gradual I mean not a great deal happened from father to son or even grandfather to grandson. It's hard for us to imagine when so much has happened here since last week but those who never even try to imagine that sort of drift will never know the slightest thing about history. ( His story).

The "whence" is that you wouldn't be here had they been allowed to flourish and take over Rome which was the objective. In the mishmash of their religion each separate plank of the doctrine could have a lot of good things said about it. Hence the plausibility. But taken together they were ridiculous scientifically. It is easy to suspect that they indulged in long dancing ceremonials. We still have dancing crazes but the Government has them under control. We have The Burning Man. Jonestown. Waco. We are not far removed except that our days flash by in a welter of coloured and moving novelties.

And Rome had the results of hundreds of years of study in how not to run a shipshape crew of human beings. So naturally, having got a result from all that study and peer-reviewing, the Cathars were spotted. Watched. Studied to see if it had anything useful to offer. See how it catches on and if it does exterminate it and tell them to come back when they have got their monastic knees brown. The theology being exportable as well. Getting a culture going is not a task for bleeding hearts.

It was, I suppose, a bit like Flower Power when we were all going to San Francisco. A lower-middle-class affectation.

Completely ignoring Kan't Categorical Imperative because if we did all go to San Francisco either literally or spiritually we were all fucked. Long ago. I thought it a publicity stunt but it did show that even in our enlightened age plausible simplicities can still cause a degree of infectious hysteria. Especially with hot drugs on every street corner at the epicentre. The Cathars probably chewed mushrooms or mandrake root. Diluted of course.

Evolutionist are just the same. Put the logic of evolution to them properly and watch the buggers scarper like greased lightning with their tails between their legs.

What do you actually know about the Cathars from Setanta's post? It's like Holden Caulfield's exam answer on Egypt. That was correct too.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 12:55 pm
@spendius,
When you fail to understand the different sciences that proves evolution, there's nothing anyone can do to convince you of its existence. You are ignorant in so many ways, my fingers and toes (all part and parcel of evolution) are not enough to count them.

spendius
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 01:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Turn it up ci. That's pure drivel.

I can see evolution in every leaf that falls and every nipple that pouts.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 7 Mar, 2012 02:19 pm
@spendius,
You admit to knowing about evolution, but also fail to understand the relationships between the findings of Darwin and other scientists on evolution.

You are a dumbkoff!
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
American Atheists Barred from holding Office - Discussion by edgarblythe
Richard Dawkins doesn't exist! - Question by Jay2know
The New State Religion: Atheism - Question by Expert2
Is Atheism the New Age Religion? - Question by Expert2
Critical thinking on the existence of God - Discussion by Susmariosep
Are evolution and the big bang true? - Discussion by Johnjohnjohn
To the people .. - Question by Johnjohnjohn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 11/22/2024 at 02:03:36