How many of you believe in God?

<p>DO NOT MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE AZTECS PRIMARILY DIED BY EUROPEAN DISEASES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TAke some time to read the stats that I have provided</p>

<p>
[quote]
Religion does not commit tragedies. People do.

[/quote]
This is the main problem right here. A failure of religion to take theheat for its own misdeeds. IT takes the credit for its benefits, but never its shortcomings.</p>

<p>
[quote]
They are not one in the same even though most of the Spanish conquistadors were Catholic.

[/quote]
who thought that they were embarking on a religiious quest.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In fact, Pope Alexander VI prohibited the enslavement of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. The Spanish general disregarded the papal decree and enslaved the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incas anyways. Queen Isabella of Spain also decreed that the indigenous peoples were not to be enslaved.

[/quote]
Correction. After these decrees a new system was implemented...one that did not technically hold them as slaves, but as indentured servants. This was a loophole...and the decrees certainly did not improve the lives of the aztecs enslaved by the Christians. Decrees were never ignored...you are flat out wrong...policy was changed in order to maintain enslavement, yet still keep with decree. Spain was probably one of the most religious countries...papal influence was very high. He would not have been flat out ignored.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Gradually, the conditions of the encomienda system were improved after a new viceroy was appointed for the management of New Spain (Mexico).

[/quote]
Bull. The aztecs were worked untill they were virtually depleted. After there was a scarcity of labor, Africans were brought in by spainish ships to resume where the fallen aztecs had left off.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Church vigorously tried to abolish slavery and to protect and aid the IP.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Factual abstraction.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I stand by my statement that the Church enlightened the Mayans and Aztecs. The Mayans and Aztecs were indeed blood-thirsty and practiced disgusting rituals that entailed human sacrifices.

[/quote]
No practice is more disgusting than the Christian imposition of morals and the inculcation of one's culture forcefully. To impose on the sovereignty of an autonomous nation and people is the worst misdeed of all...a crime against the human race.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I also base many of my beliefs in Christianity based upon logical reasoning and the scientific basis of miracles.

[/quote]
HAHAHA, what a joke</p>

<p>look at this data...there were hardly any more people to instill morals in

[quote]

The Spanish established the encomiendas, where the government granted conquerors the right to employ groups of Indians. The encomiendas, in truth were a form of legalized slavery. Relegated to practical slave labor within sugar cane plantations and mining caves, the native population of Peru declined from 1.3 million in 1570, to 600,000 in 1620. In Meso-America the circumstances were no different. The population of Indians went from 25.3 million in 1519, to a scant 1 million in 1605. Though forced labor played the largest part in the decimation of the Incan and Aztec, disease is by no means minor within this time frame. Widespread epidemics of small pox and other diseases were not uncommon, and claimed the lives of millions. On the psychological front, historians and psychologists have offered another reason for the decimation of the Incan and Aztec populations, namely the Indians had lost the will to survive. With the extreme and quick loss of culture, accompanied by the pressure of Christian missionaries and laws preventing the practice of any form of native religion (if they did there were strong repercussions even death), the Indians were, by all means, slaves to the Spaniard immigrants.

[/quote]
The keyword here is LEGALIZED SLAVERY. It was justified and allowed by the spainish kings and the papal athority. At that time, the two were closely affiliated.</p>

<p>I do not claim that Nazism was a Christian movement. Instead, I would say that Christianity is a Nazi movement.</p>

<p>Belief influencing your perception. Belief is certainly not a reasoned judgement; it is a personal conviction. That is what we call a prejudice or a bias--- a personal and often unreasoned judgment
<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bias%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bias&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
DO NOT MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE AZTECS PRIMARILY DIED BY EUROPEAN DISEASES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Trancestorm,</p>

<p>This is no "assumption." This is supported by several academic sources, including Jared Diamond at UCLA.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This is no "assumption." This is supported by several academic sources, including Jared Diamond at UCLA.

[/quote]

I would have to disagree. Disease did decimate the Aztecs/Mayans to a large extent, however forced labor was the biggest cause of death of Aztecs/Mayans.

[quote]
Though forced labor played the largest part in the decimation of the Incan and Aztec, disease is by no means minor within this time frame. Widespread epidemics of small pox and other diseases were not uncommon, and claimed the lives of millions.

[/quote]

<a href="http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/latinamerica/topics/spanish_conquest.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/latinamerica/topics/spanish_conquest.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
The encomienda system, no matter how it originated, became a monster with a voracious appetite for Indian lives.

[/quote]

<a href="http://muweb.millersville.edu/%7Ecolumbus/papers/scott-m.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://muweb.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/scott-m.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Many othersources as well..</p>

<p>Among historians, there is no real question of the fact that it was slavery that primarily killed off the indians.</p>

<p>Either way, this is a triviality. Had the christians never invaded the Aztecs/Mayans, the Indians would hot have beenkilled period.</p>

<p>"Why is it that when it's convenient, theists ask that scripture be 100% accurate and literal, but when it's inconvenient, interpretation is okay?"</p>

<p>The Qu'ran is poetry and the metaphors and simile have to be interpreted. Religion is having faith in something that controls the universe. Theists can point to all this scientific reasoning and logic, but it comes down to is that. yes the big bang occured and life started, but what came before that? and what force caused it to spread? This unknown force is known as God, and basic faith is the belief that there is something out there that may have control over our miniscule lives in the context of the universe. Just pointing to lab experiments cannot disprove the fact that everything is still here and that something must have started it all.</p>

<p>
[quote]
This unknown force is known as God, and basic faith is the belief that there is something out there that may have control over our miniscule lives in the context of the universe.

[/quote]
There is no mention of teh big bang in the bible or any other spiritual text. furthermore, even if this was "god", how does this prove that god still exists today?</p>

<p>trancestorm,</p>

<p>Your source is from 1992, whereas Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is contemporary. I'd be inclined to believe Diamond.</p>

<p>And the fact is, you're right. Had the Christians not come to the Americas, it wouldn't have happened. But you know what? They would have come and brought smallpox eventually. Is smallpox their fault?</p>

<p>Atheists, out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that God exists?</p>

<p>proof.....</p>

<p>
[quote]
This unknown force is known as God

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not necessarily. To many people, it's still just "that unknown force." Not everyone has to assign God to the unknown.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Atheists, out of curiosity, what would it take to convince you that God exists?

[/quote]
Proof..either deductive or inductive sans anomalies.</p>

<p>
[quote]
furthermore, even if this was "god", how does this prove that god still exists today?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because if it WAS God, then God exists. If God ceased to exist, we would too.</p>

<p>
[quote]
proof.....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What TYPE of proof? Narrow it down here.</p>

<p>anything to show me that god exists besides faith, something tangible.</p>

<p>to clarify though, i'm agnostic and not athiest, I don't believe any way because I don't have proof one way or another, it's certainly possible that god exists, but at this point he's one of multiple possible explanations in my book, and opens jsut as many questions as it would answer.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Your source is from 1992, whereas Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is contemporary. I'd be inclined to believe Diamond.

[/quote]
ARe you familiar with Dr. Eugene Weber? He taught at UCLA and released video lectures. In those, he talked about the encomienda system as being the #1 cause of death of Indians. A difference from 1992 to "contemporary time" is not significant when discussing events that took placein the 16th century. Besides, we don't just judge historical sources based on how recent it is. Numerous other sources (such as my history text book "History of a Modern World" by Palmer) also point to slave labor as the leading cause of death.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But you know what? They would have come and brought smallpox eventually.

[/quote]
Is this historical speculation that I hear? Either way, this statement is on the assumption that disease was the #1 death which I still contend.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Because if it WAS God, then God exists. If God ceased to exist, we would too.

[/quote]
wrong..you assume that god is everlasting. The bang onlyshows that perhaps a god existed at one time...this says nothign about whether or not the god still exists. IT is just as right to assume that god vreated the universe and then died or stepped back. Deism</p>

<p>It would take a great deal to convince me that God exists. I think I would need some piece of incontrovertible proof of it's existence. I don't mean "I almost died, then I didn't It was a miracle." I mean like, parting a sea in front of my eyes followed by the clouds opening up to spell, "see I do exist."</p>

<p>I don't mean to offend anyone because I know many of you believe. However, I just can't understand it. To me, the whole idea of some omnipotent being creating us seems terrible. Furthermore, why on earth would something so powerful have any interest in us? Finally, the fact that the church has changed it's story so many times screams to me that it's all bull. For example, the world is flat until oops it was disproved. Now, if that were the book of God you wouldn't think it would have mistakes like that would you?</p>

<p>
[quote]
wrong..you assume that god is everlasting. The bang onlyshows that perhaps a god existed at one time...this says nothign about whether or not the god still exists. IT is just as right to assume that god vreated the universe and then died or stepped back. Deism

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First you say God never existed, now you say God died. Do you have any evidence God is mortal?</p>

<p>trancestorm,</p>

<p>Yes, the difference between 10 years ago and today is significant. Historical understanding is not static. A lot of our primary sources on causes of death have shifted in the past decade as modern forensics and historical tools have grown more precise. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Is this historical speculation that I hear? Either way, this statement is on the assumption that disease was the #1 death which I still contend.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, this is logic. Europeans were the only culture other than the Chinese that had the technological and political infrastructure required to expand so far. Had the Chinese not turned inward at the end of the Ming Dynasty, it might have been them in South America instead. However, at some point, smallpox and other devastating diseases would have been brought over.</p>