Earliest evidences of atheism & agnosticism?

Von Ritter said:

You keep alluding to the fact that the Crusade was because of Christian pilgrims who were attacked. The fact that Christian pilgrims were attacked certainly did not warrant raising armies to stop the attacks, that is totally unnecessary over kill and a waste of resources. The first Crusade was ordered by the Roman Catholic Church, you intentionally continue to bypass that fact, and I don't understand why, it's written and it is a fact so why keep denying it. The Holy See was the driving force behind the Crusades, the Pope was very aware Islam wasn't a pagan religion yet he continued to push this fact even after the Koran was translated into Latin, so there was no excuse to continue to propagate a lie.

Click to expand...

I am aware the Catholic Church called for the Crusades. Why would that be disputed?
From the perspective of Christianity Islam is not better than paganism. Both are seen as false religions.

At the risk of continuing this major digression from the OP, just some additional thoughts on the Cruades. According to Dermaid MacCulloch, Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years, , chp. 11, the notion of 'Holy war" began to enter Christian thinking with the Carloingian Franks, who tried to justify their campaigns in Northern Europe in those terms. In 1009, the menally disturbed Caliph al-Hakim provided provocation by ordering destruction of the Bassilica of the Holy Sepluchre in Jerusalem, arousing Christian indiganation. The oening uop of a new land route to Jerusalem through Hungary meant that more pilgrims could go to Jerusalem and witness the damaged site. This provided the climate for an abortive attempt at a crusade by Pope Gregory VII, a very ambitious cleric who had visions of asserting papal authority over all the nations of the world. In 1074, Gregory unscuccessfully tried to launch acrusade into the Holy Land. He was unable to muster an ary. But his successor, Urban II, had an appeal for help from the Byzantine Emperor in 1095. "Urban described renewed but completely imaginary atrocities against Christian pilgrims by Musliks in Jerusalem, and he initiated the first papal indulgence assuring participating and repentent crusaders of salvation." Thoughts?

I don't agree attacks on pilgrims were imaginary. The Holy Land was a battleground between the Seljuks and the Fatimids. The pilgrims would inevitably get caught in the crossfire.

Pelagon said:

think You went too oftopic, and I cant understand why its difficult to continue Your talk in new or other ontopic thread!?



Your whole post is oversimplified, but this logic is culmination Judaism is monotheism and Christianity not, how? Please open another thread where You will elaborate this so we wouldnt digress further in this thread, I'll just say Check Your Facts ...

Click to expand...

Its sort of implied in the first commandment .

compare ;

" ''Thou shalt have no other gods before me. "

with

"There is no god but God "

Then there is the matter of 3 deities struggling to fit on the one throne .

They try to make that 1 God by 'religious unreasoning ' ( ie. 'theology' )

maybe every member should be reminded dont go oftopic, but forum AdHonorem like specul8 when need help then this is quite big spam problem, dont worry let me ease the burden here You can continue Your speculations if You havent checked Your facts too


its not my intention to say You cant have Your own opinion, but to me this reply of Yours is like Sun is Sun it dont have Light nor Warmth to quote some clever think late anitiquty logic to similar doctrinal attacks , and what You need now its simple replay-quote of this post to the suggested thread so we can debate as long as You wish

Pelagon said:

maybe every member should be reminded dont go oftopic, but forum AdHonorem like specul8 when need help then this is quite big spam problem, dont worry let me ease the burden here You can continue Your speculations if You havent checked Your facts too

Orthodox Christian Dogmas

this thread is attempt for correct answer on the opened dilemmas in another one about the Bible popularity through the centuries, where the debate went in apologetic reasoning about the The Christian Dogmatics, thus think its better the same to have own thread because obviously many are guessing...

historum.com

its not my intention to say You cant have Your own opinion, but to me this reply of Yours is like Sun is Sun it dont have Light nor Warmth to quote some clever think late anitiquty logic to similar doctrinal attacks , and what You need now its simple replay-quote of this post to the suggested thread so we can debate as long as You wish

Click to expand...

But what does this have to do with early evidence for atheism or agnosticism?

Von Ritter said:

I do not denie there was a military expansion of Islam but the Christian need to take and hold Jerusalem had nothing to do with Islamic intrusions into Western Europe. The Roman Catholic Church was directly responsible for the policies that lead Crusaders to build Armies and attempt to take and hold the holy city, and the holy lands around it.The Crusades were viewed by followers of Mohamed as an intrusion and an attack on lands that held their most religious sites and the Roman Catholic Church viewed the fact that Jerusalem was under the control of Muslim Leaders as the same threat to the most venerated Christian sites in the same manner.

Christain Crusader Army's were not raised to keep routes of travel open and to protect Christian Pilgrimages to the holy lands, because the Muslims did this themselves. This was because they were interested in keeping the flow of needed valuables and money into Jerusalem. In fact the Muslims themselves organized tours into the Holy Lands and guaranteed the safety of Western Pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem for a price. However, after the first Crusade was organized and implemented it became apparent to the Musilm Leaders that the goal of the Crusaders was to take complete control of the Holy City of Jerusalem along with the holy lands surrounding it and to expell the Muslims from their holy sites.

Until the first Crusade the Muslims allowed Christians and their places of Worship to stay within Christian hands within and around the Holly City of Jerusalem. They only charged tax on the Holy Sites, lands, and the Christians under their rule were allowed to free practice their religious beliefs which was in no way unreasonable because even the taxs they paid were also equally paid by Muslims in these same areas. Muslim rule of the Holy lands did not place Christians in any peril in fact they were viewed and treated like all other citizens under Muslim Rule. But, then under Pope Urban II the Muslims were viewed as pagans who were contaminating the holy sites across the holy land with idolatry and especially in Jerusalem.

He pushed this view even though he was aware this wasn't true, because by his rule as the Roman Catholic Pope the Kuran had been translated in Latin so while the Muslim faith was different than the Christian faith they both sprang for the same Biblical roots that diverged into different Religious practices. So I will stand by my comments, becausevI believe them to be true according according to this situation, if you would like to offer some research tha proves your comments to valid I would be glad to examine whatever sources you have to offer.

The Crusades and Islam by Norman Housley

https://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/dokumente/b/b077033.pdf

Take Care my friend

Click to expand...

All groups, whether atheist, Christian, Jewish or Muslim have a history of followers that practiced extreme intolerance and violence toward others.

It is true that honorable Muslims respected Christians presiding in the holy land, such as Umar.

But later Muslim leader ship in Jerusalem saw injustices against Christian pilgrims. Atsiz ibn uwaq For example was a late 11th century Muslim leader of Jerusalem who reportedly mistreated Christian pilgrims.

in addition in 1071 the Seljuk Turks scored a huge victory against the Byzantine Empire at the battle of manzikert, and many Christians in the Byzantine Empire and Europe were worried that the turks would eventually take over all of the Byzantine Empire as well as Europe. The Catholics were called in to stop The Seljuk Turks and they successfully did so.

Now here is an additional tidbit about the types of Catholics that lived in the middle ages and how they treated non-Catholics. I have written in different threads about the knights Hospitaller. The knights were renowned for their tolerance of non-Christians, it was their duty to provide medical relief to Jews , pagans and Muslims alike. You can find this work from the American historian Edgar Hume as well as contemporary sources of the time. Point is it would be propaganda, anti-Christian propaganda to claim the Crusaders were violent or intolerant, or that the Catholic kingdom of Jerusalem was intolerant. I could provide you with about 10 or 15 pages of my posts about work from historians like Edgar Hume and Renee Grousett that showcases the Catholics of the first crusade in large part as being men and women of justice, friendliness and honorable values. None of this denies that there was intolerant Catholics of the middle ages, but look at our modern era there are violent religious people and violent atheists. That doesn’t make all religious people or all atheist bad though.

by the way I respect you, you make many good points about how Islam has a history of tolerant Muslim followers. What I am saying to you is something you might agree with, that also the Catholics practice tolerance and respect of others just as Muslims did during the middle ages. I based my views On historians such as Hume. I say that because it seems you put a lot of stock into what historians have to say instead of wiki which is important. I will also say because you asked another poster if he was Catholic in this thread, well fwiw I am Catholic but that does not affect me emotionally on this topic. I also have a great and profound respect for the faith of Islam. I’m non bias as you are.

there are also numerous reports you can access online about how Muslims reported they were treated with great respect in the Catholic kingdom of Jerusalem. One source suggesting that our very modern justice system in the so called west was influenced in part by the justice of the Catholic kingdom of Jerusalem.

JoanOfArc007 said:

All groups, whether atheist, Christian, Jewish or Muslim have a history of followers that practiced extreme intolerance and violence toward others.

It is true that honorable Muslims respected Christians presiding in the holy land, such as Umar.

But later Muslim leader ship in Jerusalem saw injustices against Christian pilgrims. Atsiz ibn uwaq For example was a late 11th century Muslim leader of Jerusalem who reportedly mistreated Christian pilgrims.

in addition in 1071 the Seljuk Turks scored a huge victory against the Byzantine Empire at the battle of manzikert, and many Christians in the Byzantine Empire and Europe were worried that the turks would eventually take over all of the Byzantine Empire as well as Europe. The Catholics were called in to stop The Seljuk Turks and they successfully did so.

Now here is an additional tidbit about the types of Catholics that lived in the middle ages and how they treated non-Catholics. I have written in different threads about the knights Hospitaller. The knights were renowned for their tolerance of non-Christians, it was their duty to provide medical relief to Jews , pagans and Muslims alike. You can find this work from the American historian Edgar Hume as well as contemporary sources of the time. Point is it would be propaganda, anti-Christian propaganda to claim the Crusaders were violent or intolerant, or that the Catholic kingdom of Jerusalem was intolerant. I could provide you with about 10 or 15 pages of my posts about work from historians like Edgar Hume and Renee Grousett that showcases the Catholics of the first crusade in large part as being men and women of justice, friendliness and honorable values. None of this denies that there was intolerant Catholics of the middle ages, but look at our modern era there are violent religious people and violent atheists. That doesn’t make all religious people or all atheist bad though.

by the way I respect you, you make many good points about how Islam has a history of tolerant Muslim followers. What I am saying to you is something you might agree with, that also the Catholics practice tolerance and respect of others just as Muslims did during the middle ages. I based my views On historians such as Hume. I say that because it seems you put a lot of stock into what historians have to say instead of wiki which is important. I will also say because you asked another poster if he was Catholic in this thread, well fwiw I am Catholic but that does not affect me emotionally on this topic. I also have a great and profound respect for the faith of Islam. I’m non bias as you are.

there are also numerous reports you can access online about how Muslims reported they were treated with great respect in the Catholic kingdom of Jerusalem. One source suggesting that our very modern justice system in the so called west was influenced in part by the justice of the Catholic kingdom of Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

Let me explain something while I am a Buddhist, that wasn't always the case. I was raised Catholic, Baptized, given a God father, and all the practices that go along with the Catholic Religious beliefs. Now, if I came off as not liking Catholics, that would not be true, in fact being a Buddhist you are taught complete tolerance for all peoples beliefs along with their religions. Being raised Catholic gives me a complete view of the workings of religion and how it functions today. But, during the time frame that the Crusades occurred the Roman Catholic Church was vastly different than the Church we have today.

At the time frame in which the Crusades occurred the Church had much more power over the lives of common people, including the right to choose if someone would live or die. The power of life and death in the hands of any religious organization, which in the Catholic Religion would be the Pope is far to much power for any single man to have. In those days power was often abused in the same manner that Kings of the time were guilty of. During this thread .i have had people telling me that the Crusades were necessary because Christian Pilgrims were being attacked and robbed while traveling to the holy city by Arabs, that had nothing to do with the Crusades.

At the time the Crusades began Catholics were open and friendly to other men, even Muslims which was a two way street. However, not all Crusaders were so tolerant in both cases there were evil men on both sides, it was a two sided coin. However, in either case when religion becomes weaponized it is a very dangerous practice. Most Catholic Popes during the Crusades pushed a weaponized form of Canonized beliefs from the the .Holy See, that simpley States that by liberating the Holyland and especially Jerusalem at any cost they would guaranteed entrance into the kingdom of Heaven. So by the third Crusade it was considered to be a holy act to kill Muslims because they were viewed as being no different than Pagans which could not be farther from the truth.

In both cases if the Bible of the Kuran where followed according to the intent they were written for there would be no problems to be discussed here today. Unfortunately though, once evil men twist and subvert the written word to fit their agenda the true mening of either Holy Book is throw out the window. This has been proven today by both extremist Christians and by extremist Muslims, these phases of religious violence have occurred on and off throughout history, just like they are both occurring today.

Take Care and thanks for your comments they were refreshing.

Von Ritter said:

Let me explain something while I am a Buddhist, that wasn't always the case. I was raised Catholic, Baptized, given a God father, and all the practices that go along with the Catholic Religious beliefs. Now, if I came off as not liking Catholics, that would not be true, in fact being a Buddhist you are taught complete tolerance for all peoples beliefs along with their religions. Being raised Catholic gives me a complete view of the workings of religion and how it functions today. But, during the time frame that the Crusades occurred the Roman Catholic Church was vastly different than the Church we have today.

At the time frame in which the Crusades occurred the Church had much more power over the lives of common people, including the right to choose if someone would live or die. The power of life and death in the hands of any religious organization, which in the Catholic Religion would be the Pope is far to much power for any single man to have. In those days power was often abused in the same manner that Kings of the time were guilty of. During this thread .i have had people telling me that the Crusades were necessary because Christian Pilgrims were being attacked and robbed while traveling to the holy city by Arabs, that had nothing to do with the Crusades.

At the time the Crusades began Catholics were open and friendly to other men, even Muslims which was a two way street. However, not all Crusaders were so tolerant in both cases there were evil men on both sides, it was a two sided coin. However, in either case when religion becomes weaponized it is a very dangerous practice. Most Catholic Popes during the Crusades pushed a weaponized form of Canonized beliefs from the the .Holy See, that simpley States that by liberating the Holyland and especially Jerusalem at any cost they would guaranteed entrance into the kingdom of Heaven. So by the third Crusade it was considered to be a holy act to kill Muslims because they were viewed as being no different than Pagans which could not be farther from the truth.

In both cases if the Bible of the Kuran where followed according to the intent they were written for there would be no problems to be discussed here today. Unfortunately though, once evil men twist and subvert the written word to fit their agenda the true mening of either Holy Book is throw out the window. This has been proven today by both extremist Christians and by extremist Muslims, these phases of religious violence have occurred on and off throughout history, just like they are both occurring today.

Take Care and thanks for your comments they were refreshing.

Click to expand...

Thanks

I would first say as you know violence comes from people of all religions including Buddhists and Catholic. Look at the Empire of Japan during World War II for example which some of its followers were Buddhist but who also practiced violence.

By the way I don’t think you come off as anti-Catholic. Also I’m not a religious Catholic. I was baptized, confirmed as a Catholic. I went to Catholic religious school on Saturdays as a kid. I would usually go to church each Sunday with my parents followed by a nice breakfast. Well then perhaps towards the end of high school and around the age of 19 or 20 I stopped going to church as much as I used to.

It sounds like you were at one point quite a religious Catholic unlike myself. It’s been sometime since I have been to church for example. But I still consider myself Catholic.

as for popes or Catholic kingdoms of the middle ages, injustices did occur but look at so called secular countries of today there are injustices in these countries . For example innocent people have died on death row in the modern era. there are injustices against workers in the modern era. There’s problems with Healthcare systems in the modern era. Power in the hands of any person can be dangerous but can also be a positive thing. So the point is there were Popes and Bishops who practiced fairness to non-Catholics during the middle ages, just as they were presidents and senators today in secular countries who practice fairness to minorities.

as for the Bible, there have been different interpretations of the Bible . For example during the US Civil War some people said the Bible support slavery other said it denounces it.

Catholics took up the crusade for various reasons, some thought it would wash away their sins, others did so because they thought it would be an adventure.

As for relations between Muslims and Catholics of the crusade periods. The relations Vary as you might know. For example the French historian Grousett reports that the renown noble Godfrey of boullion , One of the important Catholic leaders of the first crusade had positive relations with Muslim tribal leaders that he encountered. Arab Muslim chiefs viewed Godfrey as a man who was similar in pious nature to Muhammad himself. Saladin The great Muslim leader was so impressed by the Knights Hospitaller that he had his men tithe the knights for all time. The Muslim scholar Ibn Jubayir traveled to the Catholic kingdom of Jerusalem where he said Muslims were treated with justice. Therefore the first crusade was not a war of extermination, Muslims and Jews lived in the Catholic states and received justice and fairness . I can show you a link detailing the courts of the crusader states treating non-Catholics with justice if you would like. Part of the point is is that our ancestors of the past whatever their faith may have been we’re both good people and some more bad people, similar to today. Look at our world today there is violence, but there is also positive relations.

JoanOfArc007 said:

Thanks

I would first say as you know violence comes from people of all religions including Buddhists and Catholic. Look at the Empire of Japan during World War II for example which some of its followers were Buddhist but who also practiced violence.

By the way I don’t think you come off as anti-Catholic.

as for popes or Catholic kingdoms of the middle ages, injustices did occur but look at so called secular countries of today there are injustices in these countries . For example innocent people have died on death row in the modern era. there are injustices against workers in the modern era. There’s problems with Healthcare systems in the modern era. Power in the hands of any person can be dangerous but can also be a positive thing.

as for the Bible, there have been different interpretations of the Bible . For example during the US Civil War some people said the Bible support slavery other said it denounces it.

Catholics took up the crusade for various reasons, some thought it would wash away their sins, others did so because they thought it would be an adventure.

As for relations between Muslims and Catholics of the crusade periods. The relations Vary as you might know. For example the French historian Grousett reports that the renown noble Godfrey of boullion , One of the important Catholic leaders of the first crusade had positive relations with Muslim tribal leaders that he encountered. Arab Muslim chiefs viewed Godfrey as a man who was similar in pious nature to Muhammad himself. Saladin The great Muslim leader was so impressed by the Knights Hospitaller that he had his men tithe the knights for all time. The Muslim scholar Ibn Jubayir traveled to the Catholic kingdom of Jerusalem where he said Muslims were treated with justice. Therefore the first crusade was not a war of extermination, Muslims and Jews lived in the Catholic states and received justice and fairness . I can show you a link detailing the courts of the crusader states treating non-Catholics with justice if you would like. Part of the point is is that our ancestors of the past whatever their faith may have been we’re both good people and some more bad people, similar to today. Look at our world today there is violence, but there is also positive relations.

Click to expand...

The anology that violences comes from every religion isn't really a true. What followers of a religion do has nothing to do with the religious leadership, and violence isn't taught or formented by Buddhist Monks in this century or any other. The Leaders of the Buddhist religion do not teach, or use violence of any kind in any situation. Where as Catholic Popes and Other Christian Leaders have preached violence for religious purpose across the centuries, and then used Jesus as a shield to atone for their actions, along with using their followers to commit the crimes under the same guise. This is honestly why I walked away from the Christian Faith, first for the hypocrisy of Christian Leaders doing one thing and telling their flocks to do something else. Now I am not saying that all Christian Leaders are guilty of this, or that all Christians are not faithful.

But, over the years Evangelical Leaders and Catholic Priests all the way up to the Pope have given Christianity a major Black and destroyed the religious beliefs of a very very large number of loyal Christians. The famous Televangelists who came into Multiple Millions of home self destructed on Nation Tv, and the Catholic Religions dirty secret concern Priests and young boys have caused a major loss of faith within the Catholic faithful. Not because of few bad people, but because of hundreds of bad people, and the fact that the senior Church Leadership were aware of it and didn't put an end to it. Even the Previous Popes had dirty hands concerning the scandles that erupted. But it is not for me to judge, that is for each person to do by themselves, that's the best anyone can do. If everyone realizes they are wrong and have made mistakes and then do the best they can do to atone for there mistakes, and then can forgive themselves for what they have done that us all that can be done.

Take Care my friend

Von Ritter said:

In both cases if the Bible of the Kuran where followed according to the intent they were written for there would be no problems to be discussed here today. Unfortunately though, once evil men twist and subvert the written word to fit their agenda the true mening of either Holy Book is throw out the window. This has been proven today by both extremist Christians and by extremist Muslims, these phases of religious violence have occurred on and off throughout history, just like they are both occurring today.

Click to expand...

Amen. It is disappointing to see the Bible being twisted to suit whatever agenda is on the table.

Von Ritter said:

The anology that violences comes from every religion isn't really a true. What followers of a religion do has nothing to do with the religious leadership, and violence isn't taught or formented by Buddhist Monks in this century or any other. The Leaders of the Buddhist religion do not teach, or use violence of any kind in any situation. Where as Catholic Popes and Other Christian Leaders have preached violence for religious purpose across the centuries, and then used Jesus as a shield to atone for their actions, along with using their followers to commit the crimes under the same guise. This is honestly why I walked away from the Christian Faith, first for the hypocrisy of Christian Leaders doing one thing and telling their flocks to do something else. Now I am not saying that all Christian Leaders are guilty of this, or that all Christians are not faithful.

But, over the years Evangelical Leaders and Catholic Priests all the way up to the Pope have given Christianity a major Black and destroyed the religious beliefs of a very very large number of loyal Christians. The famous Televangelists who came into Multiple Millions of home self destructed on Nation Tv, and the Catholic Religions dirty secret concern Priests and young boys have caused a major loss of faith within the Catholic faithful. Not because of few bad people, but because of hundreds of bad people, and the fact that the senior Church Leadership were aware of it and didn't put an end to it. Even the Previous Popes had dirty hands concerning the scandles that erupted. But it is not for me to judge, that is for each person to do by themselves, that's the best anyone can do. If everyone realizes they are wrong and have made mistakes and then do the best they can do to atone for there mistakes, and then can forgive themselves for what they have done that us all that can be done.

Take Care my friend

Click to expand...

Many Christians would tell you the same as what Buddhists would say, that is that the true faith preaches nonviolence. And that warfare is allowed as a means of self-defense or to be used to help people who are being oppressed.

So whether it’s the Buddhist religion or the Catholic religion these religions teach very good and honest values. That said What a Buddhist leader or a pope does is a human action. And humans are prone to fault. Just as Catholic leaders supported the third Reich, and therefore supported injustice during World War II, the same can be said for Buddhist leaders in the Empire of Japan, it is true Buddhist leaders in the empire supported the Japanese war effort. See the book Zen at war. There are numerous examples of Buddhist monks supporting warfare, in fact training samurai.

Beyond that crime including violence against children or sexual assault is a worldwide issue, it always has been. But neither the Catholic Church or Buddhist faith would ever support that. Catholics would tell you that Jesus founded the church, so the Catholic Church is based on the teachings of Jesus and however a bishop, priest or pope interprets the teaching is open to error same with how a Buddhist monk interprets the teachings of the Buddhist faith.

From the bbc

• “in the 14th century Buddhist fighters led the uprising that evicted the Mongols from China
• in Japan, Buddhist monks trained Samurai warriors in meditation that made them better fighters

In the twentieth century Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan's wars of aggression.”———


Whether it is a Buddhist monk teaching to fight to help oppressed people, or a Catholic knight fighting to liberate slaves, a Catholic knight fighting for freedom, these are things to admire.

DanAlquati said:

Care to stay on topic?
Earliest evidences of atheism & agnosticism

Click to expand...

I was responding to what was a few pages itt of discussions on the crusades and other related issues.

sry I’ll stop posting itt

DanAlquati said:

Wow, I wonder why and how a conversation about atheism and agnosticism turned into a debate about the validity of the crusades, but anyways.


Interesting, but I'd say that materialist philosophy contributed to the ideation of an unexistent supreme being rather than Kantian philosophy

Click to expand...

I agree that was probably more significant. I do think the beginning of that thread of thought was Kant declaring that there can be no theoretical knowledge of things that lie beyond our experience, about God, the afterlife, the Soul, free-will etc.

DanAlquati said:

Wow, I wonder why and how a conversation about atheism and agnosticism turned into a debate about the validity of the crusades, but anyways.


Interesting, but I'd say that materialist philosophy contributed to the ideation of an unexistent supreme being rather than Kantian philosophy

Click to expand...

Thank you. May I suggest that those who want to talk about the crusades open a new thread to do so, and that we not say another word about them on this thread.. unless it can be shown they were really atheists.

The dates Durant gives for the beginning of philosophical atheism, 6th or 5th century B.C.E., put it squarely in the middle of the so-called "Axial Age" (800-200 BCE) when people started rethinking their traditions more deeply and questioning traditional understandings. In Israel, this was the era of the prophets, certainly not atheists but champions of monotheism and social justice and enemies of mindless ritual. In lands as far removed from one another as ancient Greece and India, religious traditions that endure to the present day--Hinduism, Buddhism--came into being, and in Greece, the first of the mystery religions personalizing the connection between humans and their gods. I think philosophical atheism was part of this phenomenon, although obviously its answers were different. In India, Carvaka/Brhaspatya , Ajivika, Samkhya, and Purva-Mimamsa were atheist schools, and depending on one's definition, Jainism and Buddhism were close, although they accepted the existence of supernatural beings that didn't interact with humans. In Greece, I yhink we decided Protagoras was an agnostic. Democritus and Leucippas seem to have been atheists, along with Heraclitus, Prodicus of Ceos, and Diagoras of Melos. Theoduorus of Cyrenee. Euhemus and Epicurus didn't deny the existence of gods, but thought they were uninvolved with humans.

DanAlquati said:

Wow, I wonder why and how a conversation about atheism and agnosticism turned into a debate about the validity of the crusades, but anyways.


Interesting, but I'd say that materialist philosophy contributed to the ideation of an unexistent supreme being rather than Kantian philosophy

Click to expand...

Its a running 'Christian apologia debate' that some cant help returning to .

DanAlquati said:

Wow, I wonder why and how a conversation about atheism and agnosticism turned into a debate about the validity of the crusades, but anyways.

Click to expand...

Because some atheists started spouting things to the effect that the Popes subverted "true" Christianity via their call for a Crusade, without acknowledgment that Islamic armies were practically knocking on the doors of Byzantium.

Of course, if you bothered to read back you would see how that happened, but I guess that's too much to ask....