Yo Vatican: Here’s Why I Should Be Your Next Pope

Yo Vatican: Here's Why I Should Be Your Next Pope.

A rant from War Wizard

Ok, let’s get the confessions out of the way first.

1.) I haven’t been to a Catholic mass for at least 20 years.
2.) I’m married.
3.) I think the Catholic church holds onto views that are extremely outdated.

So, let’s address reason one. I lost my faith in the Catholic Chrch a long time ago, probably around the time my parents got divorced. Part of this was due to the fact of getting religion shoved down my throat by my mother every Sunday. You gotta believe in Christ the almighty. I hated Easter. Not because of what it was supposed to represent, but I knew on “Good Friday” from 12-3 PM we were going to be on our knees praying. With no music or TV or anything but our thoughts and the Bible.

So how Catholic am I? Well, I’ve been baptized and Confirmed (Confirmation name of Simon) and which basically means I can be a prick bastard my whole life but if at the end I find it in my heart to repent for my actions, I am supposed to get into heaven. WHAT A BUNCH OF SHIT THAT IS. So, instead of being a decent human being my entire life, as long as I regret being a dickhead and apologize, then ask forgiveness from the church, I am on the same level as Mother Theresa.

Just one of the many flaws of the Catholic belief.

Marriage?
Please. In the Catholic Church, you are supposed to get counseling from a priest to see if you are ready to be married. The Priest is married to God. You know what? God doesn’t suck my dick. There’s no way a man who has never been married has any way of knowing of how to live with a wife/partner/husband. And, if the priest were married, there would be a huge reduction in the number of altar boys who are abused. Listed up church. SEX is normal and NEEDED. I don’t need an oath of celibacy to prove to me that you are religious. Be a good person and treat others well, and I think that applies to just being a good human, not credited to a religion of any kind.

You need someone young in there. I’m not even 40 yet, so I could be the Pope for a good 40 years I could usher in a whole new way of thinking. Marriages for priests. Get past the entire homosexuality problem you have. Guess what? Every gay person I know is more open minded and charitable than your followers. They are there to talk and help however they can, and DON’T EXPECT ANYTHING IN RETURN. You on the other hand pass out 2 collections for money at every service.

Yes, we all know money makes the world go round, and we all need some. But stop acting like the Catholic church is poor. Have you seen the Vatican? It’s one of the most luxurious places on Earth. Why not sell that gold you have plastered on the walls to help out some kids who need a well dug in their village? O wait, they’re not Christians, so you can’t help them, that’s why. Now I remember.

The Crusades. Whoops. Time to finally admit that was a bad idea.

My first act would be to release all the information the church has held back. I’m tired of history being told by men who crave power yet hide behind a shield of religion so that they can dictate to others what they can and cannot know about. This world has so much to offer, and there are people in history who have been wronged greatly by the church, and that’s why we all know you keep your secrets hidden.

Next move – see the marriage statement. Let all the men and women get married and have families. THEN, when a priest talks to me about marriage advice, at least I know he has a REAL point of reference.

Relocate the Vatican.

As in, move it to a place with no perceived religious “holy ground” Why?

PROVE YOUR RELIGION. If it’s the best answer to why we are here, you can be located anywhere in the world and help people.

Giving your time to others is how we should all live, and not just because a religion told me to. Another thing, you need to get rid of that bullshit line of “God has laid it upon my heart to tell
you…”

All that really translates into is: I’m too chicken shit to tell you myself, so instead, I will play to your religious beliefs and say that God or Jesus told me to tell you something.

Be honest with people. If you don’t know something, say it. Are you telling me that Jesus really turned water into wine? Really? Where is that technology? Miracles are an easy way to explain
something away without any proof.

The Catholic Church needs a kick in the ass in reality. Realize that the world has changed, and the old stuffy ways of living in the past are over. People are leaving everyday in droves because
today we have this thing called the Internet where people can become informed of many topics and aren’t forced to rely on what “someone else” told them.

Despite all of this, I do hold in high regards I had for a Catholic priest who lived and died in a tiny little shit town named Evans City (PA), at the St Mathais church. His name was Father Ritzert and he was what all other “men of the cloth” should aspire to. He was always giving to others – be it his time, money or words of wisdom. Always knew the right thing to say and treated everyone as an equal – a human being.

If it weren’t for him, I’d say all your priests were a bunch of closet pedophiles looking to get some action with the Altar boys. There’s just something wrong with men and women not being able to have sex.

I almost forgot about Ash Wednesday. Or as my non-religious friend calls it – “Dirty Forehead Day”. Again, nothing wrong wrong with demonstrating your faith.

Let’s get one thing clear. I am not against religion in any way. People need to beleive in something that gives them comfort. Only when religious people get fanatical and try to press their beliefs onto me do I get offended. Believe what you want, it doesn’t matter to me, but don’t tell me that I am wrong because I don’t believe the same thing that you do.

Back to my Popeship.

Another action to take is to stop dressing like a wizard. Why do I need all of that? It’s just an outfit. The clothes don’t make the man, it’s his actions.

Boil it all down and you’ll see that I bring a common sense to the Catholic way of thinking. Address reality and move forward. The only constant IS change so embrace it. And don’t forget to pay me while I’m there.

The next Pope needs to understand that faith is not a product to be sold, but a service for comfort.

Related Posts:

SHARE THIS POST

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Myspace
  • Google Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Stumnleupon
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • Technorati
Author: admin View all posts by
Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion.

Comments being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion can lead to the banhammer getting used. You can read more about our comments policy here.

130 Comments on "Yo Vatican: Here’s Why I Should Be Your Next Pope"

  1. Sauroposeidon February 14, 2013 at 11:16 am -      #1

    “Believe what you want, it doesn’t matter to me, but don’t tell me that I am wrong because I don’t believe the same thing that you do.”
    -
    Don’t tempt me. Don’t make me do it… Fuck..
    -
    You are wrong if you are not a Pastafarian like I. Repent and join us, so that you may enjoy a heaven full of free beer and strippers.
    -
    Sorry, it’s in my defiant nature.

  2. The Guardian in the TARDIS February 14, 2013 at 11:17 am -      #2

    I agree with the things wrong with the Catholic Church. Never understood why the Pope needs a gold scepter, a throne above other men, a Popemobile, all the jewelry (plus the Cardinal’s rings? really? You need a Gold Ring with a ruby and symbols of the church to show your a Cardinal? The faith and bright red robes aren’t enough?). Jesus was a wanderer with nothing like that, he wore sandals and plain white linens. If he can live like that the Pope can go without all the gold, if the ultimate goal of the Christian faith is, as I’ve always understood it, to be Christ Like then you need to give up the extravagance. I’m not saying live like a hobo but melt down all that junk to sell and donate the money from it to charities. They Pope is still a man, he’s still human, he’s not better or worse than anyone else he doesn’t need to be hoisted above everyone like he’s a king.

  3. Professor ParaLowk February 14, 2013 at 2:01 pm -      #3

    ” Never understood why the Pope needs a gold scepter, a throne above other men, a Popemobile, all the jewelry (plus the Cardinal’s rings? really? You need a Gold Ring with a ruby and symbols of the church to show your a Cardinal? The faith and bright red robes aren’t enough?).”
    -
    lol popebling.

  4. Marcel February 14, 2013 at 2:43 pm -      #4

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvJFoOEOYpE
    -
    The problem with “religion” is that people have not gone deep with it or challenged it. They have not gone beyond merely believing it and made it a conviction. While there can be sincerity, goodness, and truth in a context as strict as, for example, the Catholic religion, many have not really put it to the test. And they crumble. I believe the answers are there, but we have to dig to find them. Once we do, they will be tested, sooner or later. If we really apply them to who we are, we won’t fly to pieces in a crisis, as it were. As for this…
    -
    “People are leaving everyday in droves because
    today we have this thing called the Internet where people can become informed of many topics and aren’t forced to rely on what “someone else” told them.”
    -
    This statement is simply dripping with irony, lol. With the Internet we are relying more than ever on information someone else has gathered, and often twisted or manipulated to tell people what they want to hear instead of the truth. No, we aren’t forced to rely on what someone else told us; we simply do it by default now! It actually takes some real digging to get to the bottom of things, especially on the Internet.

  5. Wolfangel February 14, 2013 at 3:02 pm -      #5

    RPJI:YHGLIKU>JGFYHKOUTGFCDYJNGF MFBFKUE YFGLEGBFLIU OUGHIGLHJGKFYTSDFIU<RFDHRDcDFLULTFRDJYKUGH:OUTLIYHFVGLUIFGKYF

    random encoded rant about how stupid the catholic church is

  6. Wolfangel February 14, 2013 at 3:03 pm -      #6

    bregh the pope system is outdated and i eat pizza :D

  7. The Expert February 14, 2013 at 3:15 pm -      #7

    The pope is nothing a puppet who listens to what other peoples tells him. if he were a true cathlioc he try to help the poor of his nation and help end wars.
    (spoken from a true christan)

  8. Marcel February 14, 2013 at 3:29 pm -      #8

    I am not here to bash Catholicism or any other denomination; God can still be found in it! All I was trying to point out is there are not many who go deep with it, question tradition, and search for Truth. That’s all I’m saying.

  9. PwNaGE TraiN February 14, 2013 at 3:30 pm -      #9

    Well if I have ever heard a rant about religion, this would be it. Good points too, I see your arguments, entertaining as hell (oops thats a naughty word, where bad people go to stay) to read. Laughing all the way through this at lines like “Why not sell that gold you have plastered on the walls to help out some kids who need a well dug in their village? O wait, they’re not Christians, so you can’t help them, that’s why. Now I remember.”

  10. Epicazeroth February 14, 2013 at 3:31 pm -      #10

    @comment 2: It’s a symbol. Why does the president need Cadillac One, Airforce and Marine 1 and 2, and a mansion? The vehicles are so he doesn’t get shot. Also, tradition from back in the Middle Ages probably covers the rest.

    @comment 4: Really? I believe the Catholic Church (I might be wrong; it might just be theologians) teaches that the only way to make your faith grow is to challenge it.

    @comment 7: It’s usually bad to ignore what others tell you. Also, he’s 87 and way too weak to do anything. That’s kinda why he’s stepping down.

    @OP: Noooo. If you repent, you go to Purgatory. If you’re actually sorry, then you eventually go to Heaven.
    -
    Also, this is a perfect time to use this analogy: there are lots of idiotic politicians. They DO NOT represent everyone in their party. Just because the College of Cardinals is very conservative doesn’t mean all Catholics or priests are.
    -
    Finally, all these reasons are precisely why they won’t elect you Pope. They’re too conservative. Also, move the Vatican? Really?

  11. Epicazeroth February 14, 2013 at 3:34 pm -      #11

    @PwNaGE TraiN: He said that? Really?
    -
    The real reason I was gonna post this other comment: Oh damn. This article was so wrong, before I posted comment 10, I thought I was still on Cracked.com

  12. PwNaGE TraiN February 14, 2013 at 3:35 pm -      #12

    @Epicazeroth
    Yep exact words.

  13. The Expert February 14, 2013 at 3:36 pm -      #13

    @PwNaGE TraiN
    exactliy my point he’s just to greedy to be a real cailthoc not help wounded in afganistan or iraq.

  14. PwNaGE TraiN February 14, 2013 at 3:37 pm -      #14

    @The Expert
    I hear ya, I hear ya, completely agree with you.

  15. TrashMan February 14, 2013 at 3:46 pm -      #15

    I will never wote for you.

    BTW – It might be good to understand what Christianity actually teaches, and not some BS nonsense I keep hearing people complain on and on about (like you go to heaven even if oyu are a jerk, as long as you are baptized).

  16. TrashMan February 14, 2013 at 3:49 pm -      #16

    “The Crusades. Whoops. Time to finally admit that was a bad idea.”

    NOPE.
    Crusades were defensive wars aimed to stop the advance of the Ottoman empire. Several christian/western kingdoms already fell BEFORE the Crusades were called.
    A culture/religion has the right to defend itself.

  17. The Guardian in the TARDIS February 14, 2013 at 3:57 pm -      #17

    Except the Childrens Crusade, sending a bunch of orphans against the hoards of the Ottoman Empire was just wrong.

  18. Marcel February 14, 2013 at 4:06 pm -      #18

    OK, time out. The crusades were this AND that, not this OR that. Yes, the Christian Kingdoms were being threatened by Muslim advances, but the means to recruit the soldiers by promising absolution of all sins through murder and for religious/monetary reasons was wrong. While the Crusades held many negatives and were filled with corruption on both sides, there were individuals that were heroic and fought for the right reasons.

  19. Ruliya February 14, 2013 at 4:31 pm -      #19

    “NOPE.
    Crusades were defensive wars aimed to stop the advance of the Ottoman empire. Several christian/western kingdoms already fell BEFORE the Crusades were called.
    A culture/religion has the right to defend itself.”
    _
    …Okay. #1: The first Crusade, that of 1095-1099 was originally a call from the Byzantine Emperor for back up against Muslim aggression in the middle east. He only wanted volunteers too. It ended up though, being a fight to take back Jerusalem and the holy land.
    __
    #2: The Ninth crusade, that of 1271-1272 was a whole 27 years before the establishment of the Ottoman States. It wasn’t until Constantinople’s fall in 1453 by Mehmed II did it become the Ottoman Empire.

  20. The Guardian in the TARDIS February 14, 2013 at 4:32 pm -      #20

    @Marcel
    That’s why I only mentioned the Children’s Crusade as just plain wrong. The others had some amount of positive to them as you said. But the Children’s Crusade was just flat out, no good in it wrong.

  21. Ruliya February 14, 2013 at 4:40 pm -      #21

    @ GA.
    Sorry sweetie but the Children’s Crusade is mostly myth. It never really happened. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Children%27s_Crusade . And again, *not* fought against the Ottomans ;P

  22. The Guardian in the TARDIS February 14, 2013 at 4:41 pm -      #22

    plus like Ruliya said it wasn’t the Ottoman Empire during the first few Crusades.
    Still to say they were completely defensive isn’t totally true. Need to go back and check my old World History notes from last year but if I recall correctly the Church was trying to kill two birds with one stone, help Byzantium and unite the warring groups that were to one day become Europes nations that were outside the Byzantine Empire.

  23. Marcel February 14, 2013 at 4:41 pm -      #23

    “That’s why I only mentioned the Children’s Crusade as just plain wrong. The others had some amount of positive to them as you said. But the Children’s Crusade was just flat out, no good in it wrong.”
    -
    The Children’s motives might have been good; I doubt twelve-year-old Stephen was thinking about mass murder and land grabbing. The people who took advantage of the Children’s Crusade were messed up, though, I agree with that.

  24. The Guardian in the TARDIS February 14, 2013 at 4:42 pm -      #24

    @Ruliya
    weird, why were they teaching it at my college then.

  25. The Guardian in the TARDIS February 14, 2013 at 4:43 pm -      #25

    And just forgot about it not quite being the Ottoman Empire quite yet by that point. Like I said been a while since I’ve brushed up on those notes.

  26. The_Assassin711 February 14, 2013 at 4:51 pm -      #26

    “The Crusades. Whoops. Time to finally admit that was a bad idea.”
    -
    I agree; they didn’t try nearly hard enough.
    -
    I blame Barbarossa and the Eastern Roman Empire.
    -
    Barbarossa’s army could have been exactly the reinforcement the crusader’s had needed to gain the upper hand, instead he chose to be an idiot.
    -
    The Eastern Empire’s failure was long beforehand and has its roots in the decline of Rome. While the Eastern Empire did succeed in surviving for an admirable amount of time after the fall of the west (one has to keep in mind that it became the Byzantine Empire and that the two are not exclusive from one another); it failed to continue Rome’s great legacy of conquest and even in preserving its own land holdings; the Byzantine Empire was nothing but a shadow of its former self by the time of the Crusades, comprising almost entirely of land held in Greece and Asia Minor; had it actually been capable of holding on to Egypt and Israel there likely wouldnt have been Crusades(in the middle east at least) at all. (Granted it might have been a good idea under that circumstance to launch a crusade to desroy Islam instead of capture the holy lands; Islam had been a constant threat to Europe throughout the time period. However in this pursuit and in this scenario; if the Eastern Empire had held on to those lands that long; I find it likely that Islam would have crumbled under the combined might of the Catholic and Orthodox churches.)
    -
    -
    (In fact, now that I think about it, there is a whole host of people that could possibly be blamed for it, long before the Crusades took place; Brutus and Cassius come to mind. (You may wonder why I say those two; and in case anyone is, it is because Ceasar was planning on invading Parthia; this would have greatly expanded Rome’s strength in the middle east and set the groundwork for conquest of the entire region; likely producing a Christian middle east eventually, rather than a Muslim one. I suppose it is possible Ceasar would have failed; but somehow I extremely doubt that, few places Rome ever invaded succesfully defended themselves, and just about none when faced against a commander of Ceasar’s caliber; but it is a slim possibility I suppose.)

  27. The_Assassin711 February 14, 2013 at 5:01 pm -      #27

    ^I should note in regard to Ceasar’s potential conquest above, Rome did at a much later date acquire most of Parthia in its land holdings; however as can easily be seen; the difference in time of when they held it as opposed to when they did severely limited their ability to expand to the rest of the region; coupled with that it had plenty of more pressing matters at the time it did hold that land.
    -
    I am not certain that Rome still had Parthia after it abandoned lands and decreased its size; I think it may have been one of the places they pulled out of but I’m not entirely certain. If they did indeed hold onto it then I believe that just goes to shame the Eastern Empire even moreso.

  28. The_Assassin711 February 14, 2013 at 5:03 pm -      #28

    “the difference in time of when they held it as opposed to when they did”
    -
    Should be:
    -
    “the difference in time of when they held it as opposed to when they could have under Ceasar”

  29. Ruliya February 14, 2013 at 5:08 pm -      #29

    @T_A
    The Roman Empire crumbled under it’s own weight. It was just too large to defend. If they had conquered further than Trajan did under his reign, it might have been a hindrance. Though it’s funny you bring up the Roman Empire in this thread considering it was Christianity which split the Empire in two. The Greek East and the Latin West. Which by the time of the invasion of the Seljuks and the Crusades, meant the Byzantine Empire would have had a larger area to defend. Considering the vast holdings of the Seljuks, Byzantine probably wouldn’t of held out any better than they did in the late 11th century.

  30. The Guardian in the TARDIS February 14, 2013 at 5:09 pm -      #30

    @Assassin711
    It’s hard to say if Caesar taking over would have stopped the rise of Islam since it didn’t come into existence until the 6th or 7th century, somewhere in that range. It became what it was because of exposure to Christianity and Judaism Rome was split into the western and eastern empires when the Islamic world started to reach its apex, really that’s more why it was allowed to grow without hassle from the “Western World” the fact that Rome had fallen so hard. Hell Justinian was Emperor during the time Muhammad was born, there is a lot of history that could have been changed from Caesar not being assassinated. Had he taken over what is now the Middle East back then there’s no guarantee that the rise of Islam wouldn’t have happened anyway. Rome couldn’t stop the rise of Christianity, I doubt they would have stopped the rise of Islam.

  31. The_Assassin711 February 14, 2013 at 5:36 pm -      #31

    @Ruliya
    “The Roman Empire crumbled under it’s own weight.”
    -
    It was not even close to beginning its decline at any period around the lifetime of Ceasar; that is the very beginning of the Empire itself; a time when Rome’s armies could conquer at full momentum without the worry of becoming “Too Big”; at the time Rome thrived on conquest.
    -
    Rome fell for far more reasons than just being big as well. Not only was its government corrupt as could be; their standing armies had become pitiful after the disbanding of the legions.
    -
    It was their crippled economy as well as their neutered army that led to their fall moreso than the Empire’s size.
    -
    Not only that; had Rome conquered all of the middle east at the better time to do so, I doubt it would have stopped there; perhaps in the later times that would be true, but in the early days of the Empire its likely those that followed Ceasar would have pressed even further after having mopped up most of Europe; as opposed to how long it took them to accomplish a similar size in a much longer amount of time. This is evidenced by Ceasar himself; his plans were not to simply take Parthia, he fully intended to claim the Caucusus, Scythia and Germany in his lifetime, before returning to Rome.
    -
    After that it would only have been a matter of his successors defending the lands and claiming whatever else in Europe Ceasar hadn’t touched (Scandinavia and the British Isles for example) and perhaps even expanding even further out than their predecessor.
    -
    Truly Rome could have been even grander had the Senate not reared its ugly head.
    -
    “Though it’s funny you bring up the Roman Empire in this thread considering it was Christianity which split the Empire in two.”
    -
    It was hardly just the differences between the Orthodox and Catholics that split it apart; the greatest reason was one you yourself make use of here: “It was too big” by Constantine’s understanding of things for the city of Rome to administrate entirely by itself; by dividing the empire in half he believed he could cut the amount of work both halves would have to do; he was probably right. However this is unimportant as by his time the Empire had begun its descent, and the West would prove not long for this world due to its own stupidity; at least to his credit Constantine’s actions preserved the East from being dragged down into oblivion by the West. (I’m also certain he would be none to happy about the Muslims defacing his capitol, obliterating Christianity from it and just to stab the knife in and twist it, renaming it; practically destroying his legacy (albeit somewhat unsuccessfully.)
    -
    @Guardian
    “It’s hard to say if Caesar taking over would have stopped the rise of Islam since it didn’t come into existence until the 6th or 7th century”
    -
    If you would check up on your middle eastern history a little; Islam only rose to power because it had an army backing it; had Rome ruled the area there would be no army to support Muhammad; whereas Rome couldnt have stopped Christianity even if wanted to, and by the 6th/7th century it would have become the State Religion, thus enforcing conversion in the middle east; Islam wouldn’t have even started as a movement at all.

  32. Ruliya February 14, 2013 at 6:02 pm -      #32

    To be fair I never mentioned it being too big around Caesar’s time. In fact I mentioned Trajan, who took the Empire to it’s biggest point. It reached up to the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf. While it didn’t hold what is Modern Day Saudi Arabia or lower, it certainly held plenty of land in Persia.
    __
    The Empire of Alexander however comes to mind. Even if Caesar had managed to conquer most of the middle east, it doesn’t mean they’d have been able to hold it, especially for the 6/700? years to the rise of Islam. Definitely not for a thousand years. Which is when the Crusades happened.
    __
    But Hadrian did build a lot of defences around the empire’s border regions, which probably helped.
    __
    Rome was always pretty corrupt though, and it’s standing armies did lose power, which is why it became too much to hold on to.
    __
    Whatever secondary reasons, the main reason to split the Empire was due to the difference of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. At least, as far as I’ve read that seems to be the biggest factor.
    __
    The point is, Regardless of if Caesar had lived to capture the middle east, doesn’t mean they’d have been able to defend it for the length of time necessary to defend against the rise of Islam, or the Seljuk Sultanate.
    __
    It’s an interesting hypothetical quandary to say the least though.

  33. The Guardian in the TARDIS February 14, 2013 at 6:06 pm -      #33

    I said they were likely able to grow as much as they did because of Rome being divided. And I still doubt that Rome could have completely stamped it out, the Catholic Church has tried to stamp out offshoot faiths that cropped up during the Protestant reformation and wasn’t able to. I really doubt an earlier version of the Church would have succeeded with another religion entirely. Besides that you realize how drastically history would be altered without the Ottoman Empire correct? They were a major power in the world until WWI

  34. The_Assassin711 February 14, 2013 at 6:38 pm -      #34

    @Guardian
    Its also worth pointing out; had Rome controlled the middle east around the time of Ceasar and a little while afterward; it is entirely likely that Muhammad would not have even been born (in fact I’m fairly certain if history were altered in a way such as this; none of us alive today would exist).
    -
    @Ruliya
    “To be fair I never mentioned it being too big around Caesar’s time. In fact I mentioned Trajan, who took the Empire to it’s biggest point. It reached up to the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf. While it didn’t hold what is Modern Day Saudi Arabia or lower, it certainly held plenty of land in Persia.
    __
    The Empire of Alexander however comes to mind. Even if Caesar had managed to conquer most of the middle east, it doesn’t mean they’d have been able to hold it, especially for the 6/700? years to the rise of Islam. Definitely not for a thousand years. Which is when the Crusades happened.”
    -
    1. It is true you were speaking of Trajan’s time; however I’m saying if it had become as large or even larger around the time of Ceasar that it would have lasted even longer. To sum it up at least.
    -
    2. Think of if Ceasar had lived; he’d put Trajan to shame in terms of size; Trajan took it to the Caspian and the Persian gulf; had Ceasar went through with his envisioned campaign, he would have conquered all of the land surrounding the Caspian as well as almost all of Europe that Rome did not already control, which would as I said before set the ground work for the conquest of the rest of the Middle East (which is relatively small when compared to the rest of this).
    -
    3. Alexander is a different case entirely and his Empire collapsed for extremely different reasons than Rome; the two situations are not even comparable in any other way than stating the fall of an empire. (We could go into that, but really there is no reason; I expect this to end sooner than later, World of Tanks is beginning to beckon me…)
    -
    4. As I state earlier in this post, Muhammad will likely not even be born by that time, Islam will never rise to begin with. Not only that; but who is it that is going to invade and destroy Rome, take its lands before that? (Which would probably also increase the probability of Muhammad not being born.) If Rome were to conquer all of Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East, there would be no Goths or Vandals or Sarmatians to come knocking on its gates; the only legitimate threat would be Asia (provided that Rome did not continue its conquest into Asia after all of that; its a possibility worth noting), and anything short of Ghenghis Khan throwing the full might of his empire at them wouldn’t be enough to topple it (and that also brings up the point of birth again; such historical changing events might stretch so far as to have Ghenghis Khan never be born as well; while it leaves the possibility of equally great figures arising, whether they would be as succesful or even moreso we cannot even speculate).
    -
    “Rome was always pretty corrupt though, and it’s standing armies did lose power, which is why it became too much to hold on to.”
    -
    The latter is due to the former; and while it was always corrupt, never even close to the time of the late roman empire, when it had already caused far too much damage; which still does leave the splitting of the empire in half should it become too gargantuan; as Constantine proved, doing so extended the lifespan of the East extremely, and that is all that really matters here for our final goal of the discussion: Rome’s potential influence on the birth/death of Islam in its infancy and the potential of the Crusades to later happen. Even if the West fell by some kind of civil war or something (which would be insane for it to splinter all things considered; whoever the winning side would be I would think would want to hold on to the power Rome commanded, unlike in real life when it was sacked by foreigners, these “rebels” would have a direct right to assume control of the entire Western Empire, since they were already a part of it.) the East would likely continue as it did in real life.
    -
    If the East even survived as long as it did in real life that would be more than enough to ensure the Crusades (for the holy lands in Israel; its entirely possible a “Crusade” be called to attack into Asia or Africa over religious reasons; however I find that to be a silly notion as the Pope would have no true power in this scenario, that would be the Emperor’s decision not the Pope’s, and unlike the Pope it wouldn’t be a Crusade, it would just be more average Conquest) never came about to begin with: There is no reason to “reclaim” lands Christendom already controls, pilgrimmage would not be prohibited so long as the East and West stay on good enough terms, there is not even the potential of a Crusade to destroy a bunch of Middle Easterners, their already part of the Empire and likely Christians at that (Alternatively possible Pagans, but thats another discussion altogether).
    -
    “It’s an interesting hypothetical quandary to say the least though.”
    -
    That it is, that is is….
    -
    If only I could somehow defeat paradoxes, invent a time machine, go back and use my knowledge to build the greatest Empire the world would ever see…. /evil* grin
    -
    *Replace with “righteous”, evil’s got nothing to do with it.

  35. The_Assassin711 February 14, 2013 at 6:46 pm -      #35

    @Guardian
    “I said they were likely able to grow as much as they did because of Rome being divided.”
    -
    See above, its pointless anyway, Islam likely wouldn’t have begun to begin with.
    -
    “Besides that you realize how drastically history would be altered without the Ottoman Empire correct? They were a major power in the world until WWI”
    -
    So narrow minded; Neither WW1 nor the Ottoman Empire as they were in real life would even happen in this scenario; by that time its likely one of two things would have happened:
    1. Both the East and West Empire endure through the ages via an extremely symbiotic relationship (the less likely of two possibilites, but still possible).
    Or
    2. The West fragments first, as it did in real life; the East endures through the middle ages and likely fractures some time during the Renaissance.
    -
    In case 1; Rome likely goes on to conquer the entire world over the course of human history; possible to fall at some other point in time but who cares about that in this discussion?
    -
    In case 2 both inevitably fracture, and something much larger than both WW1 and WW2 eventually comes about probably; as the nations that rise from the ashes of these two will likely be quite large and at odds with eachother.
    -
    Alternatively in Case 2 something unprediccted eventually happens: These nations eventually reunite and reform Rome, either through diplomatic or violent means (though its not the most likely outcome.)
    -
    In both cases the Ottoman Empire never exists and neither does WW1 as we know it.

  36. Ruliya February 14, 2013 at 7:01 pm -      #36

    Okay, for the purposes of this discussion, let us say that Caeser lived. He lived and invaded as far east as the Indian Subcontinent like Alexander before him. They would have brushed up against the Middle Kingdoms of the Indian Subcontinent, who pushed Alexander back. If not them, then the Han Dynasty had a huge Empire, one to Rival Rome’s own.
    __
    If not Islam, then it could very well have been against Buddhism or Hinduism.
    __
    “If only I could somehow defeat paradoxes, invent a time machine, go back and use my knowledge to build the greatest Empire the world would ever see…. /evil* grin”
    __
    History Abhors A Paradox.

  37. The_Assassin711 February 14, 2013 at 7:15 pm -      #37

    “If not Islam, then it could very well have been against Buddhism or Hinduism.”
    -
    Provided like I said to Guardian; if we are assuming it to be called around that time, it likely wouldn’t even be a Crusade; its not the Pope calling the shots like it was in real life; its the Emperor’s of the two halves declaring the invasions here, and there’s no real reason for them to launch a “holy war” simply for the sake of destroying other religions; no, it would most likely be just to expand, as they always had.
    -
    Who would win at that point? Meh, dunno. China would likely have numbers on their side, but Rome did win time and time again against greater numbers; but at that point in time I’m not really sure we can even say what the technological levels of each side would be like.
    -
    I think we might be going too far into the realm of speculation…
    -
    “Okay, for the purposes of this discussion, let us say that Caeser lived. He lived and invaded as far east as the Indian Subcontinent like Alexander before him. They would have brushed up against the Middle Kingdoms of the Indian Subcontinent”
    -
    Its also worth noting the possiblity of expansion into Russia.
    -
    (^Although General Winter is quite the adversary to overcome.)
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:General_Winter.jpg

  38. Ruliya February 14, 2013 at 7:29 pm -      #38

    See I can see them expanding so far as the Baltic states, and up into maybe Denmark. But up into the higher Scandinavian countries, and up into Russia, the temperatures really do drop. I don’t think the Roman army ever had to contend with such drops in temperature. Though on the flip side, I think they could probably have conquered North Africa. at least to a further extent then they did.
    __
    The other thing to note about Caeser living, I think is there wouldn’t have been all those power plays and political back handedness, so it would have been a stronger, more stable Rome under his rule too. Which would have helped immensely.
    __
    “Provided like I said to Guardian; if we are assuming it to be called around that time, it likely wouldn’t even be a Crusade; its not the Pope calling the shots like it was in real life; its the Emperor’s of the two halves declaring the invasions here, and there’s no real reason for them to launch a “holy war” simply for the sake of destroying other religions; no, it would most likely be just to expand, as they always had.”
    __
    I’d just like to say here, that what I meant by against Hinduism or Buddhism. If the Roman Empire conquered so far as the Indian Subcontinent, then I think the Middle Kingdoms would feel pretty threatened. It could be them, or the Chinese who instigated a war against the Romans first. Which would be what leads them into conflicts. I’m not saying that would be the case, but if history is anything to go by, it definitely seems plausible. – But yes, we’re going a little further down a path that would require far more time and effort than this thread ;P

  39. The_Assassin711 February 14, 2013 at 7:49 pm -      #39

    “See I can see them expanding so far as the Baltic states, and up into maybe Denmark. But up into the higher Scandinavian countries, and up into Russia, the temperatures really do drop. I don’t think the Roman army ever had to contend with such drops in temperature.”
    -
    General Winter crushes all… lol..
    -
    Perhaps they could form Auxiliaries out of the lower Scandinavian lands to fight for them in the upper? They would be much more adjusted to the climate than the legionaires; might even be able to teach the legions how to better deal with the cold.
    -
    Still probably not a very promising strategy but its a start.
    -
    “Though on the flip side, I think they could probably have conquered North Africa. at least to a further extent then they did.”
    -
    They might have to circumvent the Sahara by traveling down the shore of the Red Sea first or sailing around the coast in the west. But Rome certainly had its fair share of morons as well; I wouldn’t be at all surprised if one general attempted to march his way through the desert.
    -
    “The other thing to note about Caeser living, I think is there wouldn’t have been all those power plays and political back handedness, so it would have been a stronger, more stable Rome under his rule too. Which would have helped immensely.”
    -
    I actually wanted to say something along those lines in my previous post; I just didn’t know quite how to phrase it correctly without making the Senators (and their descendants as well) and other noble families look like Satan in disguise…
    -
    :P
    -
    “I’d just like to say here, that what I meant by against Hinduism or Buddhism. If the Roman Empire conquered so far as the Indian Subcontinent, then I think the Middle Kingdoms would feel pretty threatened.”
    -
    Ah, that makes much more sense. It might also be a question of how long it takes Rome to get that far; I doubt it would be some time around Ceasar’s rule, maybe 7 or 8 Emperors down the line (depending on how long each lives and how many the Praetorians decide to spare); it is a rather distant land after all, and even with all that Ceasar would have brought under Rome’s horizon, they would still have plenty of problems back in europe to address, as well as the occasional cou attempt I’m sure; I’d be willing to bet the british isles slow their advance down quite a bit, seeing as how even the slow hammer of the real life empire never truly conquered them.
    -
    “I’m not saying that would be the case, but if history is anything to go by, it definitely seems plausible.”
    -
    Yeah it does seem likely, if Rome makes it that far in this scenario.
    -
    -
    “But yes, we’re going a little further down a path that would require far more time and effort than this thread ;P”

    Hehe; I think we may have just formed the basis for the most epic Rome Total War 2 mod ever…

  40. Sauroposeidon February 14, 2013 at 7:57 pm -      #40

    “I am not here to bash Catholicism or any other denomination; God can still be found in it! All I was trying to point out is there are not many who go deep with it, question tradition, and search for Truth. That’s all I’m saying.”
    -
    You can find God in anything, as long as you are able to experience it.
    -
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU
    -
    No matter how corrupt the religions of Yahweh become, people will always feel as if they can contact and experience God. Even while insulting their religious leaders, who are supposed to be the equivalent of a direct land line from God to Earth. Why? Well, watch the video.
    -
    You want to find truth? Look to Science.
    -
    “You on the other hand pass out 2 collections for money at every service.

    Yes, we all know money makes the world go round, and we all need some. But stop acting like the Catholic church is poor. Have you seen the Vatican? It’s one of the most luxurious places on Earth. Why not sell that gold you have plastered on the walls to help out some kids who need a well dug in their village? O wait, they’re not Christians, so you can’t help them, that’s why. Now I remember.”
    -
    cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1106/go-sell-everything-you-have-pope-catholic-religion-atheist-j-demotivational-posters-1309313361.jpg
    -
    That’s a very dark image above, by the way. Not something for the faint of heart, or those who feel strongly empathetic for the dying, the suffering, and those truly in need in a world where, if there is a God, he certainly doesn’t love them enough to help them.

  41. Ruliya February 14, 2013 at 7:57 pm -      #41

    “Hehe; I think we may have just formed the basis for the most epic Rome Total War 2 mod ever…”
    __
    We need to get this further out on the internet so people take note and make this! XD

  42. The Guardian in the TARDIS February 14, 2013 at 8:19 pm -      #42

    @Assassin711
    didn’t mean to come across as narrow minded, was just asking if you realized the far reaching implications that change would have.
    ——————–
    Still I’d love to discuss this topic further, is there a section on the Topia perhaps where this topic could be discussed further?

  43. The_Assassin711 February 14, 2013 at 8:21 pm -      #43

    “Still I’d love to discuss this topic further, is there a section on the Topia perhaps where this topic could be discussed further?”
    -
    Not quite sure, I don’t use the topia for much other than grabbing quotes and chating with Chuck….

  44. Hermit February 15, 2013 at 2:12 am -      #44

    I’m not sure about the Catholic Church in the US, but the branch here in the Philippines is not that outdated.
    .
    I’m a proud Catholic, and I’m glad to say that the Catholic Church in our area is both modern (e-Bibles and newspaper daily gospels) and noticeable (interacting with students and participating in outreaches).

  45. Gluttonous-Behemoth February 15, 2013 at 8:53 am -      #45

    Personally I’d vote for a Cardinal from the Philippines. The last so centuries of the Papacy have been rather achingly pale.
    -
    A Younger person of course, as Benedict has just demonstrated, would be logical. His Holiness should be able to last a few decades before tapping out.
    -
    Perhaps a Latino Cardinal; a fresh take on the leadership of the Church is needed.

  46. Gluttonous-Behemoth February 15, 2013 at 9:07 am -      #46

    Personally I’d vote for a Cardinal from the Philippines. The last so centuries of the Papacy have been rather achingly pale.
    -
    A Younger person of course, as Benedict has just demonstrated, would be logical. His Holiness should be able to last a few decades before tapping out.
    -
    Perhaps a Latino Cardinal; a fresh take on the leadership of the Church is needed.
    -
    And to be fair, hacking gold and stone off of your Basilicas is rather extreme. Most of those things have a significance somehow. It can be grandiose, but I wouldn’t advocate asking Churches to hawk their relics.
    -
    Said in a non-confrontational manner, why doesn’t the Smithsonian Institute and other museums auction off all of the things they have on display? I mean, I bet you could feed a lot of hungry Africans with the cheddar you’d make from selling the Enola Gay or Sue the T.Rex.
    Because its ridiculous, that’s why. Why wouldn’t the Churches do the same thing? Because that would be absurd as well.

  47. Sauroposeidon February 15, 2013 at 10:37 am -      #47

    “Said in a non-confrontational manner, why doesn’t the Smithsonian Institute and other museums auction off all of the things they have on display? I mean, I bet you could feed a lot of hungry Africans with the cheddar you’d make from selling the Enola Gay or Sue the T.Rex.
    Because its ridiculous, that’s why. Why wouldn’t the Churches do the same thing? Because that would be absurd as well.”
    -
    That might be at the same time the most offensive and fucking stupid thing I have ever seen you say, GB. Which shocks me, because I don’t normally see you say things like that. Surely you know why we have museums. There is no reason for religious figures to sit on golden thrones and to live in such a regal state outside of greed and self importance. Your argument is akin to saying “Well if we ask them not to have their bible taught in school then we should also ask teachers to not teach the state issued text books either.”

  48. Expert February 15, 2013 at 1:11 pm -      #48

    COME TO YOUR NEW MASTER.. YES.. This way..

    Winner: Expert

  49. Ruliya February 15, 2013 at 1:17 pm -      #49

    “COME TO YOUR NEW MASTER.. YES.. This way..
    Winner: Expert”
    __
    Which Expert are you again? There’s so many these days.

  50. The Guardian in the TARDIS February 15, 2013 at 1:22 pm -      #50

    @Ruliya
    the old delusional one that mistakes people for sheep.

  51. Wheeler February 15, 2013 at 1:34 pm -      #51

    This rant is more of a waste of time than English Bulldog vs Death Star and Mike put together. Another factpile fail, even for nerds.

    -1

  52. Gluttonous-Behemoth February 16, 2013 at 1:03 am -      #52

    @Sauro
    Well, I’m sorry that I’ve offended you various sensibilities with that statement; as you said, I generally try to avoid noxious statements.
    -
    I will say that I wasn’t actually disagreeing with you. I do think that many have gone overboard in the Church; whether intentioned to Glorify God, or themselves. Indeed, I believe fewer shiny things in Churches would help distill a more potent understanding of the Word and rite.
    -
    Where our views primarilly diverge (and where I made my failed analogy), is that it is not only the Institutions of Faith that “misappropriate” with their money. Popular musicians, artists, movie stars, CEOs, Innovators-any place you look where there is money aplenty, there are those who use it on things flashy and otherwise superfluous. Bill Gates could live in a modest apartment and direct all of his resources towards his charity efforts, Pop Star A could have not bought 40 Million Dollar B and given it to C Foundation. There’s a number of examples lying about.
    -
    I’ll indulge what sense of vanity I do possess and say that I live a relatively simple life. Set somewhere in that awful vague concept of Middle Class. By many comparisons, my relatively common access to fast food, shelter, education, and the luxury that is the internet, my existence is that of a Prince of Old. The best comparisons would see me as I am: quite average, as far as the world goes. I would like to hope that my own upbringing and ever shifting mindset keep me reasonably off of the Ivory Tower. At least enough to talk about these things without being totally full of shite.
    -
    Perhaps stated clearer, by the standard you expect of the Religions, The president should sell all of his property (including the White House and its assortment of rather unique desks) and rent a sturdy office building, because a True Ruler must not need flashy symbols and property to run a Country. The Queen of England, being more or less the head of the Church of England, should sell the various royal possessions and offer up her Palaces as a home to England’s destitute. Have any person who makes over five million dollars a year give up all of that money for the benefit of the poor except for what he needs to live on, because Ferraris are not absolutely necessary to live a fulfilling existence.
    -
    If the entire world could consist of Ascetics, then it would no doubt be a much better one. But, it is not. How to effect such a reality is a subject with quite a many views, as is with most subjects that are actually important, but that is not what I’d like to start a discussion about. I do respect your intelligence, and your opinions, and try to understand them as fully as my deluded theist mind is able. I don’t particularly enjoy demotivationals such as that one, but that is your right to express. However, I do expect that His Holiness be joined in that picture by Rhianna, Justin Bieber, Bill Gates, and the Koch Family.

  53. Mr. happy February 17, 2013 at 8:10 am -      #53

    well that hurt but anyway some things outdated to u goes against a lot i believe in. I dont mind if u are a Jew,Muslim, Buddhist,Hindu,Singh, Atheist,or Christian u can judge me.
    -
    I just got back from a debate with friends on religion with a Muslim and not all are bad just the extremist(i live in an Islamic country)
    -
    things we covered in the debate is our differences but also similarities. The thing we all had in common that tie that prevented us from degenerating into an all out fight in the bus was mutual respect. So please show some or it will turn out ugly with everyone sulking after that(or a least some of us).
    -
    I also agree with GB they have historical value
    -
    I also admit the church had done heinous things like the crusades but we moved on and went passed that.Sure lots of innocents were killed but the popes then were power hungry and corrupt.I’m not saying that they are not 100% pure but they’re still people and are more peace loving.
    -
    The pope mobile issue is to protect the pope just like the way you protect the president. Before the pope mobile,the pope traveled like JFK when he was assassinated. In that vulnerable position,like JFK,an attempt on the pope’s life was made so they use the pope mobile now to prevent such things from happening again.The pope then was Pope John Paul the Second.
    -
    On the issue of female priest,a priest is a representative of Jesus so ya he is a man and not a woman.This however does not address the problem about gay priest.
    -
    And that brings it here,the most talked about topic with the most pressure on christian churches worldwide:to accept homosexuality.In the bible,it is stated in many verses as shown here christianity.about.com/od/Bible-Verses/a/Bible-Verses-Homosexuality.htm
    that homosexuality is wrong from my point of view.
    Plus marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If you disagree fine just not in a church that disapproves.
    -
    Just to be clear i have nothing against gays,i may be a little homophobic but i’m cool with them.You can get married and i agree with the laws that allow you to but do not insist for a marriage in a church that does not allow it or force by law to allow them to get married there and other things like the healthcare issue about condoms and abortion but i will not cover that now some other time maybe.
    -
    Last but not least regarding a new pope.The church has it’s own politics and i DO NOT understand it so don’t look at me.Lately a lot of new cardinals are Italian which looks like an Italian will most likely be a pope.However i do not think that the Vatican is ready or an Asian Pope but i sure am!!!

  54. Mr. happy February 17, 2013 at 8:14 am -      #54

    Oh i just remembered the pedo thingy is just a minority not every priest does that but it was greatly publicized so well you now

  55. TheBoss February 17, 2013 at 12:40 pm -      #55

    Ah, another Indoctrinated and brainwashed child, welcome ^^.
    __
    Let’s take a look at some of your points, shall we? I’m going to start with the one I think is the most important.
    _
    “On the issue of female priest,a priest is a representative of Jesus so ya he is a man and not a woman.This however does not address the problem about gay priest.”
    __
    That has to be, possibly the weakest argument I have ever seen for that stance. “A priest is a representative of Jesus” how does this equate to man only? Because Jesus was a man?
    __
    Lemme ask you something, Without referring to the Bible (by which mean quoting passages, and the like), and without mentioning Jesus specifically, explain to me why a woman shouldn’t be a priest. I say shouldn’t because there’s no reason they can’t. There are plenty of them out there anyway.
    __
    While you’re mulling that over, let us take a look at another of your points.
    _
    “I also admit the church had done heinous things like the crusades but we moved on and went passed that.Sure lots of innocents were killed but the popes then were power hungry and corrupt.I’m not saying that they are not 100% pure but they’re still people and are more peace loving.”
    __
    “sure innocents were killed but ” – Really? Killing thousands is fine because “we’ve moved on”. May I remind you that the first Crusade was in 1095-1099 and the final ninth crusade was 1271-1272. That’s a few hundred years of killing “In the name of God” – which btw, both sides were doing. Not separate Gods either, the same one. Not just the soldiers either, they both butchered women, and children, the weak, old and infirm, even babies sleeping in their cots.
    __
    It’s not just the Crusades either. The Spanish Inquisition, a Christian, Catholic movement killed thousands across multiple centuries from 1480 until 1834 when Spain formally passed a Law abolishing the Inquisition. Hell when Henry the VIII broke away, what was the Church’s first reaction? Lets go to war and force them back under our rule!
    __
    Their sins should not be forgiven so easily,
    __
    Okay, to the “loaded” topic of homosexuality and the church. I’m not sure why they considered it wrong tbh, considering homosexuality pre-dates the church. It was prevalent in Rome and Ancient Greece. It’s also hardly “unnatural” when it can be found all across nature. Yes, Humans are not the only species where males will have sex with other males.
    __
    “Plus marriage is a union between a man and a woman. If you disagree fine just not in a church that disapproves.”
    _
    Well now, that’s quite the statement. Allow me to pull up the definition of Marriage for you:
    mar·riage [mar-ij]
    noun
    1.
    a.
    the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
    b.
    a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
    2.
    the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
    3.
    the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
    __
    It’s a different institution altogether from what it was when they wrote the bible (even the King James, or Gideon). So no outdated statements please.
    __
    Lastly “”Oh i just remembered the pedo thingy is just a minority not every priest does that but it was greatly publicized so well you now”
    __
    You can’t hide this one away. As to “minority” well, I don’t think it’s full extent was ever shown.
    __
    I respect the opinions and views of the person, provided they are the opinions and views of the person. If people say to me, in answer to anything “It says so in the bible” well now, that’s not your opinion, that’s you just echoing what it says in a book. To the books validity, well I won’t go into that.
    __
    I will say this, you should go check out the Religion vs Science debate on this site, that was lots of fun!

  56. The_Assassin711 February 17, 2013 at 4:43 pm -      #56

    “It’s not just the Crusades either. The Spanish Inquisition, a Christian, Catholic movement killed thousands across multiple centuries from 1480 until 1834 when Spain formally passed a Law abolishing the Inquisition.”
    -
    One would think you could try doing your own homework first…
    -
    Of the 125,000 people investigated by the Spanish Inquisition, only around 2,000 were executed.
    -
    If we include all of he Inquisitions throughout history together the number barely rises above 6,000. Such a ridiculously small number; it gets overshadowed entirely by just about any significant war in all of history, and stretched over hundreds of years, as opposed to wars which are generally a much shorter span of time.
    -
    As to the Crusades, I do not know the approximate number of people who died in them; were I to hazard a guess (and a generous one at that) I’d say close to 2.5 million, as far as amry vs. army goes (please correct me if I’m wrong.)
    -
    Lets drop the whole “Pope’s are nothing but pure evil.” view for a second and take a look at what possible motivations for the Crusades could have been.
    -
    1. A war of Conquest. Indeed this is the most common form of War throughout all of history; to say the Crusades are unjustified on this basis alone is ridiculous, the only possible attack from this perspective would be to say “All war is bad!”, and then proceed to wave your protest sign high above your shoulders while your friends go grab the bongs.
    -
    2. Financial gain; while this likely isn’t one of the most important factors in all of the Crusades (I believe at least one of them was believed to have been), it stands to reason that all of Europe had quite a bit to gain should they have triumphed over the Muslims and sacked their cities. (Adversely however the opposite became true due to their loss of the wars; they lost money instead. Such is the risk of gambling I suppose.)
    -
    3. Retaliation, lets look at a handful of notable occurences of Muslims plaguing Europe leading up to the First Crusade:
    -
    633 – Mesopotamia falls to Muslim invasion, followed by the entire Persian Empire
    635 – Damascus falls
    638 – Jerusalem capitulates
    643 – Alexandria falls, ending 1,000 years of Hellenic civilization
    648-49 – Cyprus falls
    653 – Rhodes falls
    673 – Constantinople attacked
    698 – All of North Africa lost
    711 – Spain invaded
    717 – Muslims attack Constantinople again; repelled by Emperor Leo the Isaurian
    721 – Saragossa falls, Muslims sights on southern France
    720 – Narbonne falls.
    732 – Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt down
    732 – Charles Martel and his Frankish army defeat Muslims, turning back the Muslim tide
    732 – Attacks on France continued
    734 – Avignon captured by an Muslim force
    743 – Lyons sacked
    759 – Arabs driven out of Narbonne.
    838 – Marseilles plundered
    800 – Muslims incursions into Italy begin, Islands of Ponza and Ischia plundered
    813 – Civitavecchia, the port of Rome sacked
    826 – Crete falls to Muslim forces
    827 – Muslim forces begin to attack Sicily.
    837 – Naples repels a Muslim attack
    838 – Marseilles taken
    840 – Bari falls
    842 – Messina captured and Strait of Messina controlled
    846 – Muslims squadrons arrived at Ostia, at the Tiber’s mouth, sack Rome and St. Peter’s Basilica
    846 – Taranto in Apulia conquered by Muslim forces
    849 – Papal forces repel Muslim fleet at the mouth of the Tiber
    853 – 871 – Italian coast from Bari down to Reggio Calabria controlled, Muslims terrorize Southern Italy.
    859 – Muslims take control of all Messina
    870 – Malta captured by the Muslims.
    870 – Bari recaptured from the Muslims by Emperor Louis II
    872 – Emperor Louis II defeats a Saracen fleet off Capua
    872 – Muslim forces devastate Calabria
    878 – Syracuse falls after a nine-month siege
    879 – Pope John VIII forced to pay tribute of 25,000 mancuses (AUD$625,000) annually to the Muslims
    880 – Byzantine Commanders gain victory over Saracen forces at Naples
    881 – Muslims capture fortress near Anzio, plunder surrounding countryside with impunity for forty [40] years.
    887 – Muslim armies take Hysela and Amasia, in Asia Minor.
    889 – Toulon captured
    902 – Muslim fleets sacked and destroyed Demetrias in Thessaly, Central Greece,
    904 – Thessalonica falls to Muslim forces
    915 – After three months of blockade, Christian forces victorious against Saracens holed-up in their fortresses north of Naples
    921 – English pilgrims to Rome crushed to death under rocks rolled down on them by Saracens in the passes of the Alps
    934 – Genoa attacked by Muslim forces
    935 – Genoa taken
    972 – Saracens finally driven from Faxineto
    976 – Caliphs of Egypt send fresh Muslim expeditions into southern Italy. Initially the German Emperor Otho II , who had set up his headquarters in Rome, successfully defeated these Saracen forces
    977 – Sergius, Archbishop of Damascus, expelled from his See by Muslims
    982 – Emperor Otho’s forces ambushed and his army defeated
    1003 – Muslims from Spain sack Antibes
    1003-09 – Marauding bands of Saracens plunder Italian coast from Pisa to Rome from bases on Sardinia
    1005 – Muslims from Spain sack Pisa
    1009 – Caliph of Egypt orders destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the Tomb of Jesus
    1010 – Saracens seize Cosenza in southern Italy.
    1015 – All Sardinia falls
    1016 – Muslims from Spain again sack Pisa
    1017 – Fleets of Pisa and Genoa sail for Sardinia, find Saracens crucifying Christians, drive Saracen leader out. Saracens try to re-take Sardinia until 1050
    1020 – Muslims from Spain sack Narbonne
    1095 – The First Crusade.
    -
    I don’t know about you; but several hundred years of attack after attack without much in the way of striking back; can you honestly blame the Catholics? Would you simply allow someone who is trying to kill you to keep hitting you without fighting back? No sane person would.
    -
    But of course, any killing of any kind is evil, so we should of course include other views on mass killing for comparison to the deaths caused by the Catholics and Muslims over the span of the Inquisitions and Crusades.
    -
    Without further delay, lets highlight the grand accomplishments of noteworthy Atheists from the last century alone, who presided over/are responsible for the death of at least 20,000 or more people:
    -
    (Note:In the cases of not having an established exact number I have substituted in a “20,000+” for simplicities sake, though they killed more (or that we know they did, which is all we really need for our purposes here.) Most of the deaths listed here do not take into account deaths via war.)
    -
    Nur Muhammad Taraki- 20,000+
    Babrak Kamal- 20,000+
    Enver Hoxha- 20,000+
    Agostinho Neto- 20,000+
    José Eduardo dos Santos- 20,000+
    Todor Zhivkov- 40,000+
    Pol Pot- 1,700,000
    Heng Samrin- 20,000+
    Mao Tse-Tung- 45,000,000+
    Hua Guofeng- 20,000+
    Deng Xiaoping- 20,000+
    Jiang Zemin- 20,000+
    Hu Jintau- 20,000+
    Fidel Castro- 30,000+
    Klement Gottwald- 20,000+
    Antonín Zápotocký- 20,000+
    Antonín Novotný- 20,000+
    Gustáv Husák- 20,000+
    Walter Ulbricht- 20,000+
    Erich Honecker- 20,000+
    Tafari Benti- 20,000+
    Mengistu Haile Mariam- 500,000+
    Nikolaos Zachariadis- 20,000+
    ——–
    Mátyás Rákosi- 2,000
    (While he was not an outstanding killer, to his credit he arrested over 100,000 people in his life and exiled another 200,000 from the country; that and one of his favorite passtimes was oppressing churches.)
    ———
    Kaysone Phomvihane- 20,000+
    Khamtai Siphandone- 20,000+
    Khorloogiin Choibalsan- 35,000+
    Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal- 20,000+
    Samora Machel- 20,000+
    Kim Jong-Il- 750,000+
    Kim Il Sung- 1,600,000+
    Władysław Gomułka-20,000+
    Boleslaw Bierut- 20,000+
    Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej- 20,000+
    Nicolae Ceausescu- 20,000+
    Vladimir Lenin- 20,000+
    Josef Stalin- 20,000,000+
    Nikita Khrushchev- 1,000,000+
    Leonid Brezhnev- 25,000+
    Manuel Azaña- 20,000+
    Francisco Largo Caballero- 50,000+
    Ho Chi Minh- 170,000+
    Le Duan- 160,000+
    Truong Chinh- 50,000+
    Nguyen Van Linh- 20,000+
    Do Muoi- 20,000+
    Nong Duc Manh- 20,000+
    Josip Broz Tito- 20,000+
    -
    -
    Now, were we to average out the number of people killed by Atheists in the last century, even when taking into account statistical innacuracy and poor research on my part, this still leads to the conclusion that Atheists killed more people in a single decade than Catholics did over the timespan of the Inquisition and the Crusades, several hundred years as you yourself have pointed out.
    -
    Even were we to include total deaths via war from the entire history of the Catholic Church (we could reasonably include deaths from wars fought by the people listed above for this purpose), the Atheists are still responsible for significantly more deaths in a single century than Catholicism was for over a millenium.
    -
    “I will say this, you should go check out the Religion vs Science debate on this site, that was lots of fun!”
    -
    I’m sure the Theists there were just as dumb as you, rest assured, there are plenty of morons on both sides.
    -
    Ill not respond to anything else in your post as:
    1. I have more interest in historical war/killing, as shown by my previous comment in this thread.
    -
    And
    -
    2. Mr. Happy should attempt to retaliate on his own.
    -
    (P.S. Before it possibly comes into your mind to do so, please do not reply (if you reply) with a “No True Scottsman” arguement for the above Atheists. They were.)

  57. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 4:54 pm -      #57

    Are seriously suggesting that Atheistic views play any part at all in why they killed thousands of people? Are you insane?

  58. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 5:02 pm -      #58

    One would think you could try doing your own homework first…
    -
    I think you need to comprehend what people are saying first. She said, and I quote,”Catholic movement killed thousands across multiple centuries”, you gave an estimate of how many were killed. How does that contradict anything she just said?

  59. The_Assassin711 February 17, 2013 at 5:02 pm -      #59

    “Are seriously suggesting that Atheistic views play any part at all in why they killed thousands of people?”
    -
    Well actually if you read my post I only say that Atheists are responsible for those deaths; no, if anything I am suggesting Atheists are the greatest mass murderers to have ever walked the face of the Earth, and compare them to Catholics, who while just as violent as just about any other region of the world, do not even come close to the same body count. Atheists by and far have killed more than any other religious group in history.
    -
    “Are you insane?”
    -
    Quite.

  60. The_Assassin711 February 17, 2013 at 5:04 pm -      #60

    “I think you need to comprehend what people are saying first. She said, and I quote,”Catholic movement killed thousands across multiple centuries”, you gave an estimate of how many were killed. How does that contradict anything she just said?”
    -
    Yes, to put into perspective about how many died (and I do point out the Inquisition numbers are far more accurate than my guess on the Crusades) in order to compare to the deaths caused by Atheists, this is rather simple you know…

  61. The_Assassin711 February 17, 2013 at 5:06 pm -      #61

    Although reading it again; I suppose I said the wrong things in the wrong way, so I can see what you mean by that.
    -
    Regardless, personal attacks are irrelevant to the arguement.

  62. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 5:06 pm -      #62

    Atheists by and far have killed more than any other religious group in history.
    -
    My God… okay let me break this down to you in a way you can comprehend. Atheism has nothing, NOTHING to do with why they killed people. What Atheism stands for is a lack of a belief in God, that’s it. It does not tell them to kill/oppress millions of people. I don’t know where you get this notion from and I would appreciate it if you never uttered it again.
    -
    I know you are trying to sound smart in some incredibly contrived/deluded fashion, but all you have done is come across as insanely misinformed. Tell me, when was the last time you heard a brutal dictator say the words “I do this in the name of Atheism”?

  63. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 5:08 pm -      #63

    Regardless, personal attacks are irrelevant to the arguement.
    -
    “I’m sure the Theists there were just as dumb as you, rest assured, there are plenty of morons on both sides.”
    -
    Follow your own advice before sharing it with others.

  64. TheBoss February 17, 2013 at 5:08 pm -      #64

    Hmmm, so much effort just to look pretty stupid. How sad for you.
    __
    But let’s take a look shall we? I said “Inquisition … killed thousands across multiple centuries”
    __
    You replied “Of the 125,000 people investigated by the Spanish Inquisition, only around 2,000 were executed.
    -
    If we include all of he Inquisitions throughout history together the number barely rises above 6,000.”
    __
    If my calculations are correct, 6 thousand would come under “thousands killed”. Congratulations there.
    __
    You then proceed to waffle on about how many may have died in the crusades, indeed, giving us a very nice run down of what happened leading up to the first crusades. Which has been said previously, was due to a call of aide from the Byzantium Emperor.
    _
    The funniest thing about all of that is, you’re working off this: “Lets drop the whole “Pope’s are nothing but pure evil.” view for a second and take a look at what possible motivations for the Crusades could have been.”
    _
    Which is something I never said in the first place, well done for paying attention. I also never mentioned anything about how many have been killed by Christianity on the whole, so your whole Atheists have killed more than Catholics bit, was rather premature, and unneeded. Not sure what you were aiming to prove. – To make it clear, I was responding to the fact he was making light of the deaths.
    __
    “I’m sure the Theists there were just as dumb as you, rest assured, there are plenty of morons on both sides.”
    _
    Your name calling aside, you seem to have taken this out of context, perhaps it wasn’t clear enough. Mr. Happy was mentioning that he hoped this didn’t degrade into… well, what you decided to make it, an argument (Bravo btw). So I was saying, if this could devolve into a mass argument, you should see the Science Vs Religion thread. That was a shit storm in a can if ever there was one.
    _
    To finish, I’ll repeat what you said “rest assured, there are plenty of morons on both sides.”. Indeed there seem to be.

  65. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 5:11 pm -      #65

    Next thing you know, you’ll tell me that Hitler was an Atheist too.

  66. The_Assassin711 February 17, 2013 at 5:28 pm -      #66

    “If my calculations are correct, 6 thousand would come under “thousands killed”. Congratulations there.”
    -
    And you are indeed correct; like I said to Sorrow, the insult was incorrect on my part.
    -
    “You then proceed to waffle on about how many may have died in the crusades, indeed, giving us a very nice run down of what happened leading up to the first crusades. Which has been said previously, was due to a call of aide from the Byzantium Emperor.”
    -
    The vast majority of wars in history are not for a lone reason; the Christians saw their opportunity to strike back at Islam and took it, the Byzantines provided a reason to start.
    -
    “Which is something I never said in the first place, well done for paying attention.”
    -
    Well, it is my understanding that the majority of people do loathe the Popes involved with the crusades; the entire purpose of that part of my post was to justify the Crusades as a “legitimate” war, not all that different from any other, mostly due to the fact that the majority of people view it as such. However if you were offended by me assuming you were one of those people who dislikes those particular popes, then I suppose you simply are offended, whether I am wrong or right.
    -
    “I also never mentioned anything about how many have been killed by Christianity on the whole”
    -
    You’re right you didn’t, I did. The purpose of my post should really be quite simple: to compare deaths caused by Catholics and Atheists.
    -
    “Your name calling aside, you seem to have taken this out of context”
    -
    Actually I was noting that were I to guess, the Theists did a bad job defending themselves in that thread, I find it to be likely that they “lost” without even having read it myself; none of the people on this site are exactly some of the most intelligent and knowledgeable on the matter, including myself. Oh I’m sure they struggled in vain, they likely never stood a chance at “Defeating” the supporters of science to begin with.
    -
    As to the name calling, if you’re getting a bit heated over being called dumb once (and wrongly implied another time) then I suspect you have rather thin skin.
    -
    “Mr. Happy was mentioning that he hoped this didn’t degrade into… well, what you decided to make it”
    -
    What Mr. Happy wants is regardless to me. I am not him.
    -
    “That was a shit storm in a can if ever there was one.”
    -
    Flame wars are boring to read and one rarely learns anything from them (just as no one will learn anything from this); the only benefit whatsoever is for those participating in them, most likely for the entertainment of arguing.
    -
    “To finish, I’ll repeat what you said “rest assured, there are plenty of morons on both sides.”. Indeed there seem to be.”
    -
    I full heartedly agree.
    -
    @Sorrow
    “Next thing you know, you’ll tell me that Hitler was an Atheist too.”
    -
    Don’t be silly, that would be historically incorrect. Sure I’d love to add him to that list, it would boost the numbers significantly, but alas, I cannot.

  67. The_Assassin711 February 17, 2013 at 5:33 pm -      #67

    “Oh I’m sure they struggled in vain, they likely never stood a chance at “Defeating” the supporters of science to begin with.”
    -
    To clarify this just in case; what I mean is they were likely push-overs on this particular subject, I would be surprised to find that they “Won”, here at least.
    -
    Now this is all assumpion of course so its possible I’m wrong, not likely, but possible.

  68. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 5:36 pm -      #68

    to compare deaths caused by Catholics and Atheists.
    -
    Which immediately falls apart because Atheism was never apart of the cause. You just use it as an excuse to promote your argument. You’re such a snake.
    -
    As to the name calling, if you’re getting a bit heated over being called dumb once (and wrongly implied another time) then I suspect you have rather thin skin.
    -
    Another excuse to slither your way out of the blame? Hardly surprising.
    -
    Sure I’d love to add him to that list, it would boost the numbers significantly, but alas, I cannot.
    -
    It wouldn’t have mattered even if you did because you have complete misunderstanding of Atheism as a whole.

  69. The_Assassin711 February 17, 2013 at 5:42 pm -      #69

    “Which immediately falls apart because Atheism was never apart of the cause. You just use it as an excuse to promote your argument. You’re such a snake.”
    -
    Were those people I listed Atheists? Yes. Did they kill more people than Catholics? Yes.
    -
    Their motivation is irrelevant to my arguement. All I said is Atheists are the greater killers, nothing more, nothing less. You are the one accusing me of saying something I didn’t.
    -
    “Another excuse to slither your way out of the blame? Hardly surprising.”
    -
    Blame? Why yes, I did in fact say insults. I am to blame, could I be any more honest about insulting someone?
    -
    “It wouldn’t have mattered even if you did because you have complete misunderstanding of Atheism as a whole.”
    -
    I have not attacked Atheism or talked about it once thus far; I have said only, and I stress this once more, only that in the history of mankind, the greatest mass murderers are counted amongst their ranks.
    -
    You seem to believe that I am saying Atheism is what caused them to do it, I am not.
    -
    The only reason that I have said anything about in terms of killing thus far was reasons the Catholics would want to launch an invasion of the Middle East.

  70. Aelfinn February 17, 2013 at 5:49 pm -      #70

    What about the witch hunts, huh? With estimated burnings being anywhere from 35,000 to 90,000 in a 300 year period? What about how the Crusades led to the rape and pillage of Constantinople AND Jerusalem (a crime that insurgents/terrorists still feel anger about to this day)? What about the slaughtering of Jews on the march to the Holy Land, even if they were still in Europe? What about the Crusaders cannibalizing the Muslims?
    -
    What about the divine inspiration that led the Japanese in World War II? The Rape of Nanking? Pearl Harbor? Kamikaze, which literally means “Divine Wind”?
    -
    All of the Atheist dictators were right and truly assholes, but they were never inspired to kill tens of thousands (or even tens of millions) for the sake of Atheism. The atrocities committed by religions, however, WERE divinely inspired.

  71. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 5:51 pm -      #71

    Were those people I listed Atheists? Yes. Did they kill more people than Catholics? Yes.
    -
    Atheism was not the cause for their deaths, your argument is irrelevant. You make this way too easy.
    -
    Their motivation is irrelevant to my arguement.
    -
    Then you have no argument. Labels means nothing, motivation means everything.
    -
    Blame? Why yes, I did in fact say insults. I am to blame, could I be any more honest about insulting someone?
    -
    Well you tried telling me personal insults were irrelevant to the argument, which makes you a complete hypocrite.
    -
    I have not attacked Atheism or talked about it once thus far; I have said only, and I stress this once more, only that in the history of mankind, the greatest mass murderers are counted amongst their ranks.
    -
    You wouldn’t mention Atheism at all if that were the case. It serves no purpose to whatever point you are trying to make.
    Which I think you are just bullshitting at this point.
    -
    You seem to believe that I am saying Atheism is what caused them to do it, I am not.
    -
    Then why bother mentioning it in the first place? If you have no ulterior motive, Atheism wouldn’t even be a factor.

  72. Wolfangel February 17, 2013 at 5:51 pm -      #72

    Great just great. not surprising that people are talking about atheism and religion on this but i must say that the whole atheism and religion thing has been talked to death about and as an atheist i say i dont care if you beleve in the christian god or buda or allah any other deity. i made my persional decition because of tradgety and the fact i was kicked out of 2 churches because i razed the question of what if the bible was wrong and why things like the big bang evolution

    @The_Assassin711 i am sorry but i struggle to see how your latest post is true because well lets see less than 5% of the worlds prision population has atheists. only about 1.5% of the worlds atheist population yet somehow atheists are treated like satin worshipers. (i have nothing agensed satin worshipers its just an example) ALSO has dawkins or hawking or Brian cox .ect i dont think they have murdered anyone or commited manslaughter ect

    i do recomend this youtube channel to settle some stuff out www.youtube.com/user/CultofDusty

  73. Aelfinn February 17, 2013 at 5:59 pm -      #73

    Not to mention the complete subjugation of an entire continent. The removal of rights, whether they be of speech, for women, or slaves. I wonder how many deaths go unknown, considering that they happened to women. There are a multitude of ways to be killed in the Bible for frivolous things, such as how if you marry a woman who isn’t a virgin, she’s gotta die.
    -
    Not to mention the other manners of atrocities, not just in terms of murder. A raped woman must marry the man who raped her, for example. If you beat a slave, and as long as he can get back up, you shouldn’t be punished. How women should be subject to men.
    -
    Heck, how about the Native Americans? The Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas? The xenophobic culture caused by religion that allows anyone different to be persecuted?
    -
    I saw you mentioned Josef Stalin. He didn’t have an organized genocide. He caused the deaths of tens of millions, but he never actively murdered any specific ethnic group. He was just a really shitty guy.

  74. Soulerous February 17, 2013 at 6:06 pm -      #74

    What Atheism stands for is a lack of a belief in God, that’s it.
    -Perhaps the definition varies from person to person, but I have always thought that Atheism is generally the belief that God (or deities as a whole) do not exist, as opposed to it being merely a lack of belief. The latter would be more akin to Agnosticism, yes?
    ~
    I’ve always considered Atheism to be a religion in it’s own rite; not an organized one, but a belief system nonetheless, whereas Agnosticism is more along the lines of skepticism. I even thought Bill Maher was an atheist, but he denies this and says he’s simply full of doubt. He also likes to criticize the flaws that he sees.
    ~
    Tell me, when was the last time you heard a brutal dictator say the words “I do this in the name of Atheism”?
    -This strikes me as a common problem. I don’t have a perfect knowledge of everything, but I think it is due to the organized nature of those religions that such things happened. If atheists got together like that, who can say they wouldn’t have acted in kind? But there is no atheist church, that I know of. Thus, there is no organized power.
    ~
    And yet I remain blissfully unaware of any teaching borne of Christianity that directs members to destroy unbelievers. When people kill, whether they be atheist, Christian, Catholic, or whatever, it is due to their own corruption. People will go a long way- will fight and die- for their beliefs. It’s what bought liberty and justice for America. And such strong beliefs can also result in hate, fear, and mistakes.
    ~
    When one possesses the power and backing of organized religion though, such mistakes can naturally become much larger. Yet still, they find their genesis in Mankind.
    ~
    That’s the common mistake. People so often look at what the people of religion have done. But if those actions are not consistent with the teachings of the religion, well, then those religious people are simply idiots, and it’s as simple as that.

  75. Wolfangel February 17, 2013 at 6:09 pm -      #75

    @aelfinn
    also josef Stalin was incompitant/partially drunk when he was in power i mean how can a ex teacher who robbed banks to get money for lenin and Trotsky has any idea how to run a state properly but he knew what to do to get power

    also he used to be an Georgian Orthodox

  76. Wolfangel February 17, 2013 at 6:18 pm -      #76

    @admin can you please police this one and stop this arguement before it gets real nasty

    @assasin
    i find it ironic when an atheist says something religious peoople say that human/carbon based life form is stupid a dumb idiot who should die ect. yet when religion gets bashed they say “Stop being intolerant” ( to me religion is a good way to get you out of depression but not realy good for anything afterwards)

  77. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 6:19 pm -      #77

    Perhaps the definition varies from person to person, but I have always thought that Atheism is generally the belief that God (or deities as a whole) do not exist, as opposed to it being merely a lack of belief
    -
    Well yes it basically amounts to the same thing. In some ways Atheism can be perceived as belief since it requires a train of thought that pretty much rules out any possibility for supernatural beings.
    -
    My entire point is that Atheism simply doesn’t leave much room for interpretation. So for anyone to say that it can lead to horrific events would be ridiculous and anyone saying they are doing it because of their Atheistic views are just twisting it to suit their own desires. That goes with any almost any view.

  78. Soulerous February 17, 2013 at 6:24 pm -      #78

    i find it ironic when an atheist says something religious peoople say that human/carbon based life form is stupid a dumb idiot who should die ect. yet when religion gets bashed they say “Stop being intolerant”
    -You can’t generalize that. There are brilliant people and stupid people on both sides. As with most everything.
    ~
    to me religion is a good way to get you out of depression but not realy good for anything afterwards
    -It can get you out of depression. Is that due to the hope that it brings? Hope for something better, or what?

  79. Max81 February 17, 2013 at 7:05 pm -      #79

    @soulerous
    being a current student going on his second half of his junior year in pyschology, Spiritiuality is a good way to promote a happier life. Faith gives people hope, not only for the better, but a reason to live and something to live for.
    -
    its like in anime, dreams are what make people strong, religion tells people to follow thier dreams, this is what makes humans strongs.
    -
    I personally believe God gave us dreams to guide us, and give us purpose.

  80. Soulerous February 17, 2013 at 7:19 pm -      #80

    In some ways Atheism can be perceived as belief since it requires a train of thought that pretty much rules out any possibility for supernatural beings.
    -Precisely. And you do realize, don’t you, that there is no evidence for the existence of beings beyond our ken being impossible? At least, that’s a parallel that I often draw. Why should anyone believe in deities?
    On one hand, there are many great scientific minds that say it is inconceivable for something which can exist to not exist. I believe Stephen Hawking feels this way about alternate universes/realities or something. But on the other hand, how can it be impossible for something to not exist? It’s a particular way of thinking.
    ~
    The easy question is why should anyone not believe in deities? We already answered that: Lack of proof. Yet it is actually very difficult to scientifically prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt. There’s another parallel. Religious people (actually, I’m just talking about Christians here) may give arguments such as this. I think that’s worth listening to, by the way.
    ~
    In essence, the significant distinction is that it is not illogical to say that God does not exist, but it is certainly illogical to say that he cannot exist. That doesn’t follow any train of logic I can fathom. Atheism should always be tempered with this acknowledgement, just as religion should be tempered with the knowledge that if they believe in a deity simply because they like the messages they stand for, they are still left with no reason to actually believe in the deity.
    ~
    My entire point is that Atheism simply doesn’t leave much room for interpretation. So for anyone to say that it can lead to horrific events would be ridiculous and anyone saying they are doing it because of their Atheistic views are just twisting it to suit their own desires. That goes with any almost any view.
    -So because atheism is so simplistic, that means it won’t inspire people to take extreme action? Are you basically stating that atheism is a less “hazardous” belief system than others? I think the difference is that atheism doesn’t call for a change in action, whereas most religions do.

  81. The_Assassin711 February 17, 2013 at 7:21 pm -      #81

    @Aelfinn
    -
    “With estimated burnings being anywhere from 35,000 to 90,000 in a 300 year period?”
    -
    Truly a shame; the people responsible for that definately were in the wrong, how could anyone claim they weren’t? (Unless of course some truly were witches, but that is a completely separate discussion that is pointless.)
    -
    “What about how the Crusades led to the rape and pillage of Constantinople AND Jerusalem”
    -
    The Orthodox church and the Catholic church have never, since the days of Rome, been on excelent terms with one another, for there to be hostilities and an eventual breakdown of alliances between the two should be no surprise, it certainly does not help that the Europeans can never seem to get along in harmony under any circumstances, tensions between nations over there has always existed.
    -
    As to Jerusalem, it was a Muslim held city, you expect them to show mercy on their sworn enemies?
    -
    “(a crime that insurgents/terrorists still feel anger about to this day)?”
    -
    By that you mean the Muslim extremeists; does it come as any surprise that they did the exact same thing to both of those cities?
    -
    “What about the slaughtering of Jews on the march to the Holy Land, even if they were still in Europe?”
    -
    Jews were strongly despised in medieval/ancient Europe, you expect any less? Hearing that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest.
    -
    “What about the Crusaders cannibalizing the Muslims?”
    -
    Was their army short on food supplies? Or did they do it simply because they wanted to? I’m curious to know really.
    -
    If the former, all that could be said of that is men do quite the assortment of crazy things when forced into desperation; I seem to recall the soldiers of the Red Army eating the wallpaper (or something like that) in Leningrad during WW2 when the city was surrounded and cut off from supply; they ate anything they could, pets, horses, rats, etc… eventually turning to the wallpaper(or whatever it was that was part of the walls that I might be remembering incorrectly) because potatoes were used in its creation, they would boil it to get the potato out to eat.
    -
    Starvation tends to lead to insanity.
    -
    However if that case was the latter then you are entirely right to be horrified about it, cannibalsim is an ugly thing.
    -
    “What about the divine inspiration that led the Japanese in World War II?”
    -
    What of it? I’m not defending religion here or anything, I made one comparison and nothing more.
    -
    “All of the Atheist dictators were right and truly assholes, but they were never inspired to kill tens of thousands (or even tens of millions) for the sake of Atheism. The atrocities committed by religions, however, WERE divinely inspired.”
    -
    Agreed on both counts.
    -
    “Not to mention the complete subjugation of an entire continent.”
    -
    You mean like just about any major religion has claimed a large portion of land in its name at one point or another? Hell, Islam still has an iron grip on its portion of land, everywhere else is going soft in comparison.
    -
    “The removal of rights, whether they be of speech, for women, or slaves.”
    -
    As had always been in Europe for quite some time before them, they are hardly solely to blame for it.
    -
    Case in point:
    “The strong did what they could, the weak suffered what they must.” – Thucydides
    -
    “War gives the right of the conquerors to impose any conditions they please upon the vanquished.” – Julius Ceasar
    -
    Unfortunately, what is right and wrong seldom matters when looking at history.
    -
    “There are a multitude of ways to be killed in the Bible for frivolous things, such as how if you marry a woman who isn’t a virgin, she’s gotta die.”
    -
    Are you taking this from the Old or New Testament? I’m not entirely certain myself but it is my understanding that in the New Testament, the laws of the Old Testament cease to apply to the early Christians (with the likely exception of the 10 Commandments)
    -
    You could look to Islam instead where it is law that if a female rape victim brings it to trial and does not have at least 3 witnesses to back her up, she is stoned to death instead of the rapist.
    -
    “If you beat a slave, and as long as he can get back up, you shouldn’t be punished.”
    -
    So long as the slave is not critically injured or killed then sure; as to the right/wrongness of slavery that is another discussion altogether. (That will inevitably come to the conclusion that is wrong, regardless of how important it was for the majority of human history, because it is wrong.)
    -
    “How women should be subject to men.”
    -
    This is actually questionable, unlike slavery I cannot automatically denounce it, it is possibly the “right thing”; but that will be a long drawn out discussion as well so please just call me a sexist or whatever you intend to do about my saying so and leave it at that, I have other things I’d like to do today…
    -
    “Heck, how about the Native Americans? The Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas?”
    -
    Personally I have certain amount of disdain for the pre-colonial Native Americans, the Aztecs in particular; but thankfully it provides me another fascinating event in military history, Cortez is one of the greatest conquerors ever thanks to how he defeated the Aztecs with such horrible odds in their favor.
    -
    “The xenophobic culture caused by religion that allows anyone different to be persecuted?”
    -
    Claiming it is caused solely by religion is incorrect; humans are tribal by nature and will always associate themselves most with their own people and shun those that are not part of their own. In general terms at least. Just because two people are of a different religion doesn’t mean they are going to immediately try to start killing one another. Hell, there can even be healthy respect between them; Dante Alighieri even put Saladin in the uppermost level of Hell with the “Virtuous Pagans” that he himself admired (incase you haven’t read Dante’s Inferno, the Virtuous Pagans do not suffer a torment of any kind, besides not being allowed into Heaven that is.)
    -
    “I saw you mentioned Josef Stalin. He didn’t have an organized genocide.”
    -
    I don’t recall bringing up ethnic cleansing in my previous posts….
    -
    “He was just a really shitty guy.”
    -
    Agreed, although he did have good taste in music.
    -
    @Sorrow
    “Atheism was not the cause for their deaths, your argument is irrelevant.”
    -
    Would you mind telling me what my arguement is? I never once claimed Atheism was the cause for their deaths.
    -
    “Then you have no argument. Labels means nothing, motivation means everything.”
    -
    Now that’s just being dishonest, my arguement is these particular atheists are responsible for more deaths than those nasty nasty Catholics, I am not wrong.
    -
    “You wouldn’t mention Atheism at all if that were the case. It serves no purpose to whatever point you are trying to make.”
    -
    Serves no purpose to the arguement? That IS the arguement…
    -
    “Which I think you are just bullshitting at this point.”
    -
    Its possible, watching the sensitivities of Atheists and Theists alike flare at a single negative implication towards their beliefs is very entertaining, although granted not my primary reason for all of this, or at least I don’t think so. Perhaps subonscioully that is the reason, I dunno.
    -
    Although keeping in mind, they all involve notable amounts of killing in history, and most were involved in a violent conflict of some kind; as you’ll note, both things I have a particular interest in when viewing history; a more sadistic person might comment that I actually admire them, although I’d respond that they are nothing but fascinatingly cruel characters to study to me and nothing more.
    -
    “Then why bother mentioning it in the first place? If you have no ulterior motive, Atheism wouldn’t even be a factor.”
    -
    I havne’t truly bashed Atheism in any way have I? It is indeed a factor though, it is something all those men had in common, and they all acted within a relatively short time of one another. To say it is not a factor of any kind to what I have said is nothing but a lie.
    -
    Ulterior motive? What do you think I could possibly hope to accomplish by all of this? That I can make people look stupid? That I can maybe “convert” people? That I intend to prove Atheism is nothing but pure evil?
    -
    The answer to all of those questions is no. This is an excercise, something I have done for no apparent reason other than to argue for the sake of arguing, in small part for entertainment, you’re all quite obviously bent out of shape about it, but more importantly as I said its an excercise, I have not done much debating at all recently and now I know for certain I have gotten quite rusty, just look at how many mistakes I’ve made in this short thread alone. If you feel angry at me that is fine, I may have made enemies just now possibly, that’s fine as well; its none of the people that I’m concerned with so I’m not bothered, but in this regard you do have my thanks, the purpose has been met, though it may not be quite concluded yet.
    -
    @Wolfangel
    “2 churches because i razed the question of what if the bible was wrong and why things like the big bang evolution”
    -
    Welcome to the wonderful world of Churchianity. Unfortunately it is a rather common situation, and you just so happened to find yourself in it.
    -
    “i am sorry but i struggle to see how your latest post is true because well lets see less than 5% of the worlds prision population has atheists.”
    -
    That would likely be due to the fact that they are one of the smallest minorities in the world.
    -
    Did you know that in 2000-2001 the UK had a disproportianate number of atheists in jail compared to christians?
    -
    71.8% of the total population identified themselves as Christian, 15.1% identified as No Religion; yet in jail, 39.1% of the total inmate population was Christian and the close runner up with 31.6% of the inmates being, would ya look at that, No Religion.
    -
    Now I’m not making a case here or anything, you brought it up after all; I just find that to be a fascinating fact.
    -
    “find it ironic when an atheist says something religious peoople say that human/carbon based life form is stupid a dumb idiot who should die ect.”
    -
    You should take a closer look at your own kind before making a general observation; I called one person dumb twice, dumb of all the petty and meaningless insults out there, yet look at the much more violent and offended replies I recieved. Its like throwing a steak to a pack of hungry wolves.
    -
    They believe me to be nothing but a Wormtongue, my every word laced with venom and malice, in their eyes.
    -
    “ALSO has dawkins or hawking or Brian cox .ect i dont think they have murdered anyone or commited manslaughter ect”
    -
    I don’t believe any of those three to have the stomach to do such a thing, and I don’t ever recall having accused them of having done so, nor have I even implied that they would.
    -
    -
    @Soulerous
    Truly you are wiser than I.

  82. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 7:28 pm -      #82

    Precisely. And you do realize, don’t you, that there is no evidence for the existence of beings beyond our ken being impossible? At least, that’s a parallel that I often draw. Why should anyone believe in deities?
    -
    I’m basically making a bet that supernatural beings do not exist.
    -
    So because atheism is so simplistic, that means it won’t inspire people to take extreme action?
    -
    From my view point yes, I just don’t see what else anyone could draw from it. Evolution, science, spirituality, nothing suggested. Just a statement about ones beliefs.
    -
    Are you basically stating that atheism is a less “hazardous” belief system than others?
    -
    Atheism on it’s on is harmless. The human element can make it dangerous. They bring their own ideals into places where it is not needed nor wanted.

  83. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 7:41 pm -      #83

    Would you mind telling me what my arguement is? I never once claimed Atheism was the cause for their deaths.
    -
    Why don’t you tell me, because you seem fairly ambiguous about it and it makes me curious.
    -
    Now that’s just being dishonest, my arguement is these particular atheists are responsible for more deaths than those nasty nasty Catholics, I am not wrong.
    -
    But you never gave an explanation as to why you brought it up in the first place. You are being incredibly vague.
    -
    Its possible, watching the sensitivities of Atheists and Theists alike flare at a single negative implication towards their beliefs is very entertaining, although granted not my primary reason for all of this, or at least I don’t think so. Perhaps subonscioully that is the reason, I dunno.
    -
    You aren’t making any sense.
    -
    To say it is not a factor of any kind to what I have said is nothing but a lie.
    -
    It is not a factor. You gain nothing from learning it.
    -
    This is an excercise
    -
    Then clearly you choose the wrong place to start it.
    -
    the purpose has been met
    -
    To infuriate people and to show just how bad you are at getting your actual point across?

  84. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 7:50 pm -      #84

    Oh and next time, come up with a better lie than “debating exercises”. It doesn’t help your case at all. The best excuse is no excuse.

  85. Soulerous February 17, 2013 at 8:02 pm -      #85

    The atrocities committed by religions, however, WERE divinely inspired.
    -Aelfinn, you are either saying that God is real and bad enough to order people to kill each other (and I’m sure you’re not saying that), or that those people thought they were divinely inspired but weren’t, which still just equates to human corruption. So I guess you’re saying the same thing as TheSorrow?
    ~
    I’m basically making a bet that supernatural beings do not exist. Atheism on it’s on is harmless. The human element can make it dangerous. They bring their own ideals into places where it is not needed nor wanted.
    -Then I understand that. People do go astray, and especially when they are led by one human who is still imperfect; when leaders are in power, their inevitable mistakes have that much more of an effect. That’s why the democracy that America is based on, complete with President, is better than a Monarchy, even while it doesn’t solve all problems.
    ~
    So that’s why I agree with you on this and I have such a problem with the fact that certain religions have human leaders. According to the Bible, Christianity should be led by God, which would be a perfect monarchy due to the fact that God is perfect. When you follow perfect direction, things tend to go wrong a lot less, and when they do, they always get fixed. Sadly, that’s not the typical practice of religions, hence why so many bad things have happened in the past. Thankfully, we are now in a more advanced age.

  86. TheBoss February 17, 2013 at 8:05 pm -      #86

    ” “How women should be subject to men.”
    -
    This is actually questionable, unlike slavery I cannot automatically denounce it, it is possibly the “right thing”; but that will be a long drawn out discussion as well so please just call me a sexist or whatever you intend to do about my saying so and leave it at that, I have other things I’d like to do today…”
    _
    You know what, how about we actually take a look at this? If you had other things to do, why bring up such a loaded viewpoint?
    _
    You’re saying it is right to subjugate women. Think about that for a moment.
    _
    Subjugate: Verb
    Bring under domination or control, esp. by conquest.
    Make someone or something subordinate to.
    __
    You’re basically saying there that slavery is fine, so long as it’s a women, in fact, it’s actually the “right thing” to do.
    _
    Interesting how your mind seems to work, slavery is wrong, yet it’s fine to have lord over women? Hmm.

  87. Soulerous February 17, 2013 at 9:17 pm -      #87

    You know what, how about we actually take a look at this?
    -I seriously doubt that would get anywhere. All it comes down to is free will and equality Vs any pro-subjugation of women argument, and the former will always win. That’s a simple concept, that the basic and indisputable truths will always hold true when presented with an idea that conflicts with them. So I think he probably didn’t mean what it looked like he meant.
    ~
    @TheSorrow- Seems to me he was trying to illustrate that if both atheists and members of organized religion can do terrible things, then a religion that stands for good things should not be blamed for the corruption of men. The problem, as you said, was the vagueness of his point.
    ~
    What The_Assassin711 said about it being an exercise, though, is not without merit. Debating is good for learning as much as it is for convincing.
    ~
    Anyway, I think we all learned something. Shall we call it good?

  88. The_Assassin711 February 17, 2013 at 9:22 pm -      #88

    “Why don’t you tell me, because you seem fairly ambiguous about it and it makes me curious.”
    -
    No no, please do tell, since you claim to know what it is, tell me what my “actual” point is.
    -
    “But you never gave an explanation as to why you brought it up in the first place.”
    -
    This seems like a reason to me:
    -
    “I don’t know about you; but several hundred years of attack after attack without much in the way of striking back; can you honestly blame the Catholics? Would you simply allow someone who is trying to kill you to keep hitting you without fighting back? No sane person would.
    -
    But of course, any killing of any kind is evil, so we should of course include other views on mass killing for comparison to the deaths caused by the Catholics and Muslims over the span of the Inquisitions and Crusades.
    -
    Without further delay, lets highlight the grand accomplishments of noteworthy Atheists from the last century alone, who presided over/are responsible for the death of at least 20,000 or more people:”
    -
    But I obviously know very little about what I myself have said.
    -
    We were discussing the killing of the Crusades, an event spanning hundreds of years, which I compared to a particular group of similar people.
    -
    The point of it all is fairly summed up when I say this in my very first reply to you:
    -
    “Well actually if you read my post I only say that Atheists are responsible for those deaths; no, if anything I am suggesting Atheists are the greatest mass murderers to have ever walked the face of the Earth, and compare them to Catholics, who while just as violent as just about any other region of the world, do not even come close to the same body count. Atheists by and far have killed more than any other religious group in history.”
    -
    Seems fairly straightforward to me.
    -
    “It is not a factor.”
    -
    It is a factor they all share, I was specifically comparing the deaths caused by the Crusades and Catholics in general, to a particular group of “noteworthy Atheists” (and I do not mean they are noteworthy because they were Atheists, I am saying they are noteworthy and are Atheists, there’s a key difference right there.)
    -
    “You aren’t making any sense.”
    -
    My statement that I find this conversation to be a bit amusing somehow doesn’t make sense?
    -
    “Then clearly you choose the wrong place to start it.”
    -
    Don’t see how, as I pointed out I have learned how much my debating skills have decayed up to now thanks to it; whether I believe what I have said or not is irrelevant to my own personal goals (for all you know, I’m intentionally trolling you, and as you say yourself, it has succeeded if that is indeed what I am doing.)
    -
    “To infuriate people ”
    -
    Nothing but icing on the cake so to speak, rest assured.
    -
    “and to show just how bad you are at getting your actual point across?”
    -
    Which is…? Go on, let me know, you know what I say better than I do after all.
    -
    “Oh and next time, come up with a better lie than “debating exercises”. It doesn’t help your case at all. The best excuse is no excuse.”
    -
    Not that it matters, you’re biased against me now anyway, even if I am/were telling the honest truth you would see it as nothing but lies; after all, you view me as a snake do you not? Even were I to say the exact same things as Soul in a non threatening manner, you would be responding to me in this exact same way you are now; you talking to me is just as meaningless as me talking to you.
    -
    @TheBoss
    “You know what, how about we actually take a look at this?”
    -
    By all means go ahead and discuss why someone could possibly say such a thing; I however have some tabletop games to get to. (I’m certain Sorrow will view this as nothing but yet another lie for me to try and wiggle my way out of things; regardless its time for me to prepare my armies, it makes no difference to me.)
    -
    “Interesting how your mind seems to work, slavery is wrong, yet it’s fine to have lord over women?”
    -
    Ponder this; how many times in history have women had the exact same social status as slaves? (Not including women who were themselves slaves of course.)
    -
    Have fun with that.

  89. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 9:40 pm -      #89

    No no, please do tell, since you claim to know what it is, tell me what my “actual” point is.
    -
    There is no point, it’s clear you enjoy making this argument go around in circles.
    -
    Seems fairly straightforward to me.
    -
    For anyone lacking common sense, yes it would sound that way. To anyone else, it sounds like you are making a statement about Atheists in general.
    -
    My statement that I find this conversation to be a bit amusing somehow doesn’t make sense?
    -
    Your entire reasoning behind starting this “debate” in the first place didn’t make sense.
    -
    for all you know, I’m intentionally trolling you, and as you say yourself, it has succeeded if that is indeed what I am doing.
    -
    Which is exactly what I think you intended to do, regarding your responses, or you are just incompetent. Either way, you don’t look good.
    -
    Nothing but icing on the cake so to speak, rest assured.
    -
    Yeah I am sure it is. I don’t know how you can get satisfaction from it, but we all have our own delusions of grandeur right?
    -
    Which is…? Go on, let me know, you know what I say better than I do after all.
    -
    I ask the questions, you give an answer. You do not have a leg to stand on by shooting the question back at me. Beating around the bush wont keep me from saying your flaws.
    -
    Not that it matters, you’re biased against me now anyway, even if I am/were telling the honest truth you would see it as nothing but lies; after all, you view me as a snake do you not?
    -
    It’s the price you pay for not getting your point across as well you think you did. I could care less if you think I am being biased, I don’t like you or the way choose to word your arguments and there isn’t a thing you can say now to change that.
    -
    Now then, scurry on back to the hole from whence you came.

  90. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 9:48 pm -      #90

    What The_Assassin711 said about it being an exercise, though, is not without merit. Debating is good for learning as much as it is for convincing.
    -
    The exercise itself is not an issue, but the way he worded everything up until now almost looked like it was made just so it could interpreted as harmless or offensive.
    -
    The fact that he continued to form his responses in the same way made me all the more dubious to his actual intentions. Point being, he wasn’t looking for anything productive, just a reaction from his peers. He may think it’s amusing, but it really doesn’t amount to much. Just wasted space.

  91. The_Assassin711 February 17, 2013 at 9:52 pm -      #91

    “Beating around the bush wont keep me from saying your flaws.”
    -
    According to that which you claim to be lies, “pointing out your flaws” is precisely what I would hope you are doing…

    “I don’t like you or the way choose to word your arguments and there isn’t a thing you can say now to change that.”
    -
    I was never going to try and change your opinion of me to begin with. As I stated earlier I quite clearly I don’t care that I’ve offended anyone here; none of those that I have offended are people that I care what they think of me to begin with.
    -
    “but we all have our own delusions of grandeur right?”
    -
    That we do, that we do; but grandeur? Just delusions would likely have sufficed.

  92. ptaine February 17, 2013 at 9:55 pm -      #92

    You guys are making me giggle. Which is weird considering the thread….

  93. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 9:58 pm -      #93

    According to that which you claim to be lies, “pointing out your flaws” is precisely what I would hope you are doing…
    -
    Which was sloppily done at best. You should have known people would take it negatively. Decaying debating abilities or not.
    -
    As I stated earlier I quite clearly I don’t care that I’ve offended anyone here; none of those that I have offended are people that I care what they think of me to begin with.
    -
    Oh but you do, otherwise you would not go through the trouble of explaining it at all. You wanted people to react poorly.
    -
    Just delusions would likely have sufficed.
    -
    Well apparently your “scheme” had a goal with which you sought. You seemed proud of what you did, despite the means you took to get there.

  94. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 10:00 pm -      #94

    You guys are making me giggle. Which is weird considering the thread….
    -
    Oh trust me, I know how bizarre this looks at a causal glance. This is anything but a typical debate.

  95. Marcel February 17, 2013 at 10:06 pm -      #95

    …What was supposed to be accomplished in debating this thread? It’s controversial enough without debating the controversy created in debating the controversial issue, lol

  96. The_Assassin711 February 17, 2013 at 10:08 pm -      #96

    “What was supposed to be accomplished in debating this thread?”
    -
    In terms of the thread? Absolutely nothing.

  97. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 10:10 pm -      #97

    …What was supposed to be accomplished in debating this thread?
    -
    Nothing in particular, but I am used to that. I just like to get whatever point I have on my mind across to people who I believe deserve it.
    -
    It’s controversial enough without debating the controversy created in debating the controversial issue, lol
    -
    *Inception Music*

  98. SgCombine February 17, 2013 at 10:11 pm -      #98

    A another religion war? Oh I saw this coming.

  99. SgCombine February 17, 2013 at 10:12 pm -      #99

    Another religion war? Oh I saw this coming.

  100. TheSorrow February 17, 2013 at 10:15 pm -      #100

    Another religion war? Oh I saw this coming.
    -
    No apparently The_Assassin’s plot was more devious and convoluted. Religion was just a tool.

Leave A Response

You must be logged in to post a comment.


3b3390d9415db7f45e4b79ac7e8a57f590198af474230e495a