95% of atheistic attacks are against christianity.Why?

[PikeStance]

Firstly, equating all Christians with Catholics is just stupid (i don't see any mention of Orthodox Crusades in that article), and blaming an institution for the actions of a few men that are supposed to serve it is just as stupid (this also works when it comes blaming all atheists for the imbecility of some). It's like me calling a crusade in your name, slaughtering a bunch of people and then landing the blame entirely on you; because, hey, I did it in your name.

Secondly, the Crusades were about money and power, religion was only a pretext. The real goal of the crusades was to:
1. snag the insanely rich Holy-lands, and the lucrative trade routes that passed through them, before the Byzantines could, supposedly, get them back (at that time the Byzantine Empire had just begun to rise again, while the Saracens' power was fading),
2. give the western-European knights someone else to fight, other than each other.

Thirdly, you should know that the Renaissance happened because of the crusades. It wasn't just soldiers that went to the crusades, but scholars too, and they brought back with them all sorts of knowledge that was lost in Europe after the fall of Rome. So, while they were campaigns of extreme violence and barbarity, the Crusades are also facilitated Europe's emergence out of the Dark Ages.

Hey Sir Adrian,

I don't have any particular problem with any of your point, but I would like to elaborate on your third point. One of the factors for the Renaissance was the enormous wealth generated by the Italian City states that traded through the eastern Mediterranean. They obviously benefited from the Crusades, which opened the trade routes, but it was the wealth that allowed them patronage the artist and building projects that allowed the Renaissance to get started.

For your point, the "Europe" certainly had a interest in ensuring the survival Byzantine- it was an ideal buffer to Arabic expansion.

---

[Gaidin]

Firstly, equating all Christians with Catholics is just stupid (i don't see any mention of Orthodox Crusades in that article), and blaming an institution for the actions of a few men that are supposed to serve it is just as stupid (this also works when it comes blaming all atheists for the imbecility of some). It's like me calling a crusade in your name, slaughtering a bunch of people and then landing the blame entirely on you; because, hey, I did it in your name.

Secondly, the Crusades were about money and power, religion was only a pretext. The real goal of the crusades was to:
1. snag the insanely rich Holy-lands, and the lucrative trade routes that passed through them, before the Byzantines could, supposedly, get them back (at that time the Byzantine Empire had just begun to rise again, while the Saracens' power was fading),
2. give the western-European knights someone else to fight, other than each other.

Thirdly, you should know that the Renaissance happened because of the crusades. It wasn't just soldiers that went to the crusades, but scholars too, and they brought back with them all sorts of knowledge that was lost in Europe after the fall of Rome. So, while they were campaigns of extreme violence and barbarity, the Crusades are also facilitated Europe's emergence out of the Dark Ages.

It's called quid pro quo. Whenever he wants to equate me and other atheists with various non-religous or atheistic monsters of the 19th and 20th centuries, explicitly or implicitly, guess what's going to happen. I suggest you have a talk with him about this.

[Diocle]

I think that being from Italy, I have to attack the the Catholic or Cristhian Religion, because it's the Religion to wich I've to deal in my European corner.

If I attack Islam, I'm attacking the religion of other countries, so this attack might result in a Nationalistic rant against the Muslim's world, and this in the end would help the extremism in those countries.

This is why I don't like attacking the Islamic Faith: If we, from Europe or Usa, attack Islam we offer to the Islamic Radicalism, one of its better arguments: They'll immediatly accuse the West of a new spirit of Crusade.
I hope that in the Islamic countries one day the Atheists will be able to publicly explain their arguments, but this is a battle that has to be fought by them, not by us.

[Sir Adrian]

It's called quid pro quo. Whenever he wants to equate me and other atheists with various non-religous or atheistic monsters of the 19th and 20th centuries, explicitly or implicitly, guess what's going to happen. I suggest you have a talk with him about this.

Quid pro quo? In a debate?

Debates are supposed to be based around arguments, not "up yours too" competitions. By using that old adage (though misusing it would be better since it does not belong here, and it cannot be used outside the economic world with any other meaning than an "eye for an eye") you are not convincing anyone, or even making a good point; you are simply showing that you are willing to stoop to the other guy's level (speaking in general here, no specific user targeted). Needless to say that is not a good idea, ever.


If someone wants to jump in a well let him, or try to stop him, but don't jump in right after him (which is exactly what you are doing with quid pro quo).

[Lazarus]

To be fair I was continually referencing "the Church" and discussing Papal actions. While I used Christian as a stand in I feel it's quite clear that I'm specifically discussing the Catholic Christians.

[Gaidin]

Quid pro quo? In a debate?

Debates are supposed to be based around arguments, not "up yours too" competitions. By using that old adage (though misusing it would be better since it does not belong here, and it cannot be used outside the economic world with any other meaning than an "eye for an eye") you are not convincing anyone, or even making a good point; you are simply showing that you are willing to stoop to the other guy's level (speaking in general here, no specific user targeted). Needless to say that is not a good idea, ever.


If someone wants to jump in a well let him, or try to stop him, but don't jump in right after him (which is exactly what you are doing with quid pro quo).

He should think of that before he says what he says.

[Sir Adrian]

Everyone should.