Get Rid of All Religion?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
521

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

These words don’t signify anything:

I’m sure Edmund Burke would disagree. As would the Emperor Augustus who became increasingly conservative with his age. He exiled Pliny to the Black Sea for writing a Karma Sutra style book for the Roman gentry. He even exiled his own granddaughter for promiscuity. He personally witnessed the moral decline as Rome became an agrarian based republic to an empire. Thucydides personally witnessed the same moral decline resulting from 30 years of war with Sparta and the change in society from an agrarian based republic to mercenary state.

The norm? Good grief the human race would die out in a generation. But I see what you’re getting at with the repetition of the word and the quotation marks. I committed a thought crime didn’t I? I should be hung with piano wire with a sign around my neck professing my lack of political correctness.

You said ‘the norm’ - as in it would be abnormal not to be a fag.

I was using it as an example of the decline of the greatest empires ever by a great man who witnessed it.

That’s an area of shades of grey…

You’re a good rhetorician, I’ll give you that. Burke and his contemporaries witnessed the French revolution and the rapid decline of France. He wrote books about it. They’re relevant to the discussion, I suggested you read them as I don’t have the patience or inclination to explain.

Yes, don’t like radical gay activists in schools =must be gay. Good grief!

EDITED^^

No it doesn’t mean that. It means it has some power to morally degrade our society.

Oh, not this shit again!

[quote]
But about that word. “Faggot.” You think you should be free to use it. I agree. But I’m going to put it in quotes because I don’t use it. Just like I don’t use the word “kike.” You seem to be pretty preoccupied, of late, with your religion and possibly Jewish ancestry. Surely you can connect the dots of that analogy.[/quote]

I would consider it a compliment.

522

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

Why do you say that in the 3rd and 4th centuries Rome was a ghost town, it was not. [/quote]

Merely semantics. I meant in comparison to the glory days of the early Republic. Are you disagreeing with Gibbon?

In fact, it was the most populous city in the world throughout the entire 3rd century, and it almost certainly remained so throughout most, if not all, of the 4th. Its population declined sharply over the next few hundred years, and it was most certainly a ghost town throughout the early and high middle ages, but it was very much a bustling city during the span of time in question.[/quote]

I quote: Rome’s population detracted in the third century as Aurelian’s wall detracted… Russell’s estimate of the population of the total empire in the third century was 39 million in 350AD as opposed to up to 120 million at its height.

Rome had to recall its legions from England in the fourth century leading to the Anglo-Saxon invasions and the Celtic/Pictic raids over Hadrian’s wall and from Wales.

If you go to wikipedia and type in ‘population of Rome’ you will see a graph showing a sharp decline beginning in the first century and reaching its peak around 500AD. However you are correct that it remained a ‘ghost town’ (can I use that word Scooby?) throughout the Middle Ages.

523

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
PS An Augury is an omen and an Augur is one who reads it. Generally only Roman architects practiced Augur prior to planning a building. It was generally performed by Etruscans, sometimes expat Greeks and on important occasions at Delphi. Scipio Africanus performed an Augur prior to Zama predicting success but this was not the norm. Please refrain from contradicting me void of alternative explanation my ‘Roman’ friend.[/quote]
Provide sources because you have already proven you don’t know as much as you claim. [/quote]

My books are in a storage locker in boxes so I will have to rely on the inter webs. Give me time.

524

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:

[quote]killerDIRK wrote:
It is because they ARE religious that they are intolerant of me !

So F-em, let them have their little fantasies to keep them going…[/quote]

You mean to tell me that Atheists aren’t intolerant of you? I was born in a country that claims to be among the most tolerant in the world, the Netherlands, and have traveled extensively in Europe, you know, the bastion of tolerance, and I can tell you with a 100% certainty that intolerance towards you and how you identify has very little to do with religion (because very few over there are religious or even believe).

This aversion and cruelty towards a person like you manifests across the board.

The religious and non-religious, the believer and atheist are uncomfortable because they simply do not understand, at all, what you are going through.

For the religious it might be easy to say; “well the Bible/Koran etc says…” and be done with it but that’s actually a kindness compared to what I have heard Atheist describe someone in your position.

I think it absolutely sucks and I feel for you and I have a good friend who suffers similarly but to blame religion and give non-believers a free pass is not right. As a matter of fact, more religious people have reached out to my friend than any other. Her own family disowned her yet a small Hope Church accepted her just the way she identifies. Don’t try to change her, convince her of anything other than that Jesus loves her and will accept her the way she is.

Your experience is obviously different but you cannot paint the world with your brush.

I wish you all the best. Truly.

[/quote]

thanks for the kind words. You are correct. It is not just religion that has been oppresive. Yet, it Is those that are more fundementaly religious who try to shove their believes down my throat that I abhor.

I consider and am considered a very tolerant person due to my situation, so I (being an atheist) do not condemn a person for believing what they do or who they are…they just are.

It is those that get up in my face about it.
I have walked more than a mile in womens shoes and it is not easy.
Yet you do and will not see me getting into someelses business unless it directly effects my quality of life…
[/quote]

Wasn’t this a conversation about LGBTQIwhatthefuckers and cross dressers? I was just joining in…sorry.

525

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sexmachine, you’re choice of language basically amounts to screaming in the face of the people you’re trying to convince. But, if you’re purpose isn’t to convince…Well, why even bother?

[/quote]

Yes you’re right. I just feel like expressing my opinion which is particularly strong. I don’t believe they can be ‘convinced’. The Sodomites are headed for the pit and there’s nothing I can do about it.

Leviticus 18:22

526

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

Why do you say that in the 3rd and 4th centuries Rome was a ghost town, it was not. [/quote]

Merely semantics. I meant in comparison to the glory days of the early Republic. Are you disagreeing with Gibbon?

In fact, it was the most populous city in the world throughout the entire 3rd century, and it almost certainly remained so throughout most, if not all, of the 4th. Its population declined sharply over the next few hundred years, and it was most certainly a ghost town throughout the early and high middle ages, but it was very much a bustling city during the span of time in question.[/quote]

I quote: Rome’s population detracted in the third century as Aurelian’s wall detracted… Russell’s estimate of the population of the total empire in the third century was 39 million in 350AD as opposed to up to 120 million at its height.

Rome had to recall its legions from England in the fourth century leading to the Anglo-Saxon invasions and the Celtic/Pictic raids over Hadrian’s wall and from Wales.

If you go to wikipedia and type in ‘population of Rome’ you will see a graph showing a sharp decline beginning in the first century and reaching its peak around 500AD. However you are correct that it remained a ‘ghost town’ (can I use that word Scooby?) throughout the Middle Ages.[/quote]

No, it was not a ghost town, and you’re reaching for things like the contraction of the empire rather than the city because you know, I suspect, that you were wrong.

There were–and this is from memory, so perhaps I am off by some small margin, but I don’t think so–at minimum 500,000 inhabitants of the city of Rome throughout the 4th century, during which time scholars now say it was the most populous city in the world.

^ Yes, I just looked up a graph. That is not a ghost town, not even fucking close. It is, as I originally said, a city in decline. It became a ghost town, dwindling down to just about nothing and remaining that way for more than a millennium, but an ancient city with 1/2 a million inhabitants–the most populous in the world–is not, in any possible universe, a ghost town.

527

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sexmachine, you’re choice of language basically amounts to screaming in the face of the people you’re trying to convince. But, if you’re purpose isn’t to convince…Well, why even bother?

[/quote]

Yes you’re right. I just feel like expressing my opinion which is particularly strong. I don’t believe they can be ‘convinced’. The Sodomites are headed for the pit and there’s nothing I can do about it.

Leviticus 18:22[/quote]

It isn’t about strength of opinion. People who speak in derogatory slurs are bitter and stupid. I know you’re not stupid, though you certainly seem to be very bitter.

People who say “faggot,” “nigger,” whatever–they insult themselves, not their target.

528

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sexmachine, you’re choice of language basically amounts to screaming in the face of the people you’re trying to convince. But, if you’re purpose isn’t to convince…Well, why even bother?

[/quote]

Yes you’re right. I just feel like expressing my opinion which is particularly strong. I don’t believe they can be ‘convinced’. The Sodomites are headed for the pit and there’s nothing I can do about it.

Leviticus 18:22[/quote]

It isn’t about strength of opinion. People who speak in derogatory slurs are bitter and stupid. I know you’re not stupid, though you certainly seem to be very bitter.

People who say “faggot,” “nigger,” whatever–they insult themselves, not their target.[/quote]

Yeah okay. But I’ve got probably 8 times more Irish in me than anything else so maybe you should stick to ‘taig.’

529

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

Why do you say that in the 3rd and 4th centuries Rome was a ghost town, it was not. [/quote]

Merely semantics. I meant in comparison to the glory days of the early Republic. Are you disagreeing with Gibbon?

In fact, it was the most populous city in the world throughout the entire 3rd century, and it almost certainly remained so throughout most, if not all, of the 4th. Its population declined sharply over the next few hundred years, and it was most certainly a ghost town throughout the early and high middle ages, but it was very much a bustling city during the span of time in question.[/quote]

I quote: Rome’s population detracted in the third century as Aurelian’s wall detracted… Russell’s estimate of the population of the total empire in the third century was 39 million in 350AD as opposed to up to 120 million at its height.

Rome had to recall its legions from England in the fourth century leading to the Anglo-Saxon invasions and the Celtic/Pictic raids over Hadrian’s wall and from Wales.

If you go to wikipedia and type in ‘population of Rome’ you will see a graph showing a sharp decline beginning in the first century and reaching its peak around 500AD. However you are correct that it remained a ‘ghost town’ (can I use that word Scooby?) throughout the Middle Ages.[/quote]

No, it was not a ghost town, and you’re reaching for things like the contraction of the empire rather than the city because you know, I suspect, that you were wrong.

There were–and this is from memory, so perhaps I am off by some small margin, but I don’t think so–at minimum 500,000 inhabitants of the city of Rome throughout the 4th century, during which time scholars now say it was the most populous city in the world.

^ Yes, I just looked up a graph. That is not a ghost town, not even fucking close. It is, as I originally said, a city in decline. It became a ghost town, dwindling down to just about nothing and remaining that way for more than a millennium, but an ancient city with 1/2 a million inhabitants–the most populous in the world–is not, in any possible universe, a ghost town.[/quote]

I may have used poor terminology but I am not essentially wrong. My Mac Air doesn’t actually have an insert function but if you google ‘the decline of Rome’ you will see that by the third century Rome was hit by numerous disasters, the emperors could not even live there and fled to Constantinople and the populace became merely a rabble.

Also you’re off by more than half. I’ve found a good paper on Rome’s population size from Stanford. It’s called 'Rome’s population size: the logic of the debate by Walter Scheidel. Google it.

530

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

Why do you say that in the 3rd and 4th centuries Rome was a ghost town, it was not. [/quote]

Merely semantics. I meant in comparison to the glory days of the early Republic. Are you disagreeing with Gibbon?

In fact, it was the most populous city in the world throughout the entire 3rd century, and it almost certainly remained so throughout most, if not all, of the 4th. Its population declined sharply over the next few hundred years, and it was most certainly a ghost town throughout the early and high middle ages, but it was very much a bustling city during the span of time in question.[/quote]

I quote: Rome’s population detracted in the third century as Aurelian’s wall detracted… Russell’s estimate of the population of the total empire in the third century was 39 million in 350AD as opposed to up to 120 million at its height.

Rome had to recall its legions from England in the fourth century leading to the Anglo-Saxon invasions and the Celtic/Pictic raids over Hadrian’s wall and from Wales.

If you go to wikipedia and type in ‘population of Rome’ you will see a graph showing a sharp decline beginning in the first century and reaching its peak around 500AD. However you are correct that it remained a ‘ghost town’ (can I use that word Scooby?) throughout the Middle Ages.[/quote]

No, it was not a ghost town, and you’re reaching for things like the contraction of the empire rather than the city because you know, I suspect, that you were wrong.

There were–and this is from memory, so perhaps I am off by some small margin, but I don’t think so–at minimum 500,000 inhabitants of the city of Rome throughout the 4th century, during which time scholars now say it was the most populous city in the world.

^ Yes, I just looked up a graph. That is not a ghost town, not even fucking close. It is, as I originally said, a city in decline. It became a ghost town, dwindling down to just about nothing and remaining that way for more than a millennium, but an ancient city with 1/2 a million inhabitants–the most populous in the world–is not, in any possible universe, a ghost town.[/quote]

And I still don’t see a connection between what Marius did while Rome was still a Republic and what happened 400 years later.

531

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And I still don’t see a connection between what Marius did while Rome was still a Republic and what happened 400 years later. [/quote]

Then to put it kindly you’re a little slow. Rome was already in decline at the time of the Cataline conspiracy, the Marian reforms, the rise of the triumvirate and the establishment of the empire. Marius’ reforms made the legions more mobile; more suitable to the kind of enemy he was fighting. They also introduced uneducated plebeians into the ranks who did not have any allegiance to the city or their own land(as they didn’t own any). They were there for plunder and pay and their loyalty was to their commander who used the legionaries to gain political power as Julius Caesar did. Although from the equestrian class he used rabble rousing politics against the optimates as the Grachi brothers had done and as Sulla and Caesar would soon do. Pompey didn’t have the balls.

It had already become tradition not to allow the army into the city after a campaign for this very reason. Rome was already in a moral decline long before the disasters of the 3rd/4th century.

532

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

Why do you say that in the 3rd and 4th centuries Rome was a ghost town, it was not. [/quote]

Merely semantics. I meant in comparison to the glory days of the early Republic. Are you disagreeing with Gibbon?

In fact, it was the most populous city in the world throughout the entire 3rd century, and it almost certainly remained so throughout most, if not all, of the 4th. Its population declined sharply over the next few hundred years, and it was most certainly a ghost town throughout the early and high middle ages, but it was very much a bustling city during the span of time in question.[/quote]

I quote: Rome’s population detracted in the third century as Aurelian’s wall detracted… Russell’s estimate of the population of the total empire in the third century was 39 million in 350AD as opposed to up to 120 million at its height.

Rome had to recall its legions from England in the fourth century leading to the Anglo-Saxon invasions and the Celtic/Pictic raids over Hadrian’s wall and from Wales.

If you go to wikipedia and type in ‘population of Rome’ you will see a graph showing a sharp decline beginning in the first century and reaching its peak around 500AD. However you are correct that it remained a ‘ghost town’ (can I use that word Scooby?) throughout the Middle Ages.[/quote]

No, it was not a ghost town, and you’re reaching for things like the contraction of the empire rather than the city because you know, I suspect, that you were wrong.

There were–and this is from memory, so perhaps I am off by some small margin, but I don’t think so–at minimum 500,000 inhabitants of the city of Rome throughout the 4th century, during which time scholars now say it was the most populous city in the world.

^ Yes, I just looked up a graph. That is not a ghost town, not even fucking close. It is, as I originally said, a city in decline. It became a ghost town, dwindling down to just about nothing and remaining that way for more than a millennium, but an ancient city with 1/2 a million inhabitants–the most populous in the world–is not, in any possible universe, a ghost town.[/quote]

I may have used poor terminology but I am not essentially wrong.[/quote]

It is the terminology, and only that, with which I took issue, so on this count, you are indeed plainly wrong. It wouldn’t even have stuck out to me, by the way, if Rome hadn’t actually become a ghost town within a few centuries. It just wasn’t nearly there yet. It was, as I said in my first post on the matter, a city in decline. But it was still the most populous in the world, a distinction that is mutually exclusive with the moniker “ghost town.”

[quote]
My Mac Air doesn’t actually have an insert function but if you google ‘the decline of Rome’ you will see that by the third century Rome was hit by numerous disasters, the emperors could not even live there and fled to Constantinople and the populace became merely a rabble.

Also you’re off by more than half. I’ve found a good paper on Rome’s population size from Stanford. It’s called 'Rome’s population size: the logic of the debate by Walter Scheidel. Google it.[/quote]

Can you point out the specific part of the paper that addresses this? I found a lot of waffling and a flat-out statement: “This survey has failed to produce a conclusive answer…” If I know exactly where to look, I can comment and/or come up with my own citations, of which there are many.

Edit: When I said plainly wrong, I referred, simply, to the use of the word. I second the sentiment that Rome, empire and city, was in serious decline.

533

^ By the way, scholars like Lo Cascio and–it seems–this guy are quibbling about a comprehensive upward or downward revision of the numbers. That is, those who argue for a low-end count are simply advocating for a smaller count throughout Roman history inclusive. This doesn’t change anything for us, because “ghost town” is not really affected by proportion–it implies proximity to an absolute (that is, 0)–and Rome, during the time in question, was hundreds of thousands of citizens away from 0.

But, anyway, I would like to look into the specific claim made in the paper you cited.

534

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And I still don’t see a connection between what Marius did while Rome was still a Republic and what happened 400 years later. [/quote]

Then to put it kindly you’re a little slow. Rome was already in decline at the time of the Cataline conspiracy, the Marian reforms, the rise of the triumvirate and the establishment of the empire. Marius’ reforms made the legions more mobile; more suitable to the kind of enemy he was fighting. They also introduced uneducated plebeians into the ranks who did not have any allegiance to the city or their own land(as they didn’t own any). They were there for plunder and pay and their loyalty was to their commander who used the legionaries to gain political power as Julius Caesar did. Although from the equestrian class he used rabble rousing politics against the optimates as the Grachi brothers had done and as Sulla and Caesar would soon do. Pompey didn’t have the balls.

It had already become tradition not to allow the army into the city after a campaign for this very reason. Rome was already in a moral decline long before the disasters of the 3rd/4th century.[/quote]
Now you change it to MORAL DECLINE and not population decline or some other tangible, measurable decline as Rome expanded its conquests and borders after Marius. That doesn’t sound like decline.

535

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
And I still don’t see a connection between what Marius did while Rome was still a Republic and what happened 400 years later. [/quote]

Then to put it kindly you’re a little slow. Rome was already in decline at the time of the Cataline conspiracy, the Marian reforms, the rise of the triumvirate and the establishment of the empire. Marius’ reforms made the legions more mobile; more suitable to the kind of enemy he was fighting. They also introduced uneducated plebeians into the ranks who did not have any allegiance to the city or their own land(as they didn’t own any). They were there for plunder and pay and their loyalty was to their commander who used the legionaries to gain political power as Julius Caesar did. Although from the equestrian class he used rabble rousing politics against the optimates as the Grachi brothers had done and as Sulla and Caesar would soon do. Pompey didn’t have the balls.

It had already become tradition not to allow the army into the city after a campaign for this very reason. Rome was already in a moral decline long before the disasters of the 3rd/4th century.[/quote]
Now you change it to MORAL DECLINE and not population decline or some other tangible, measurable decline as Rome expanded its conquests and borders after Marius. That doesn’t sound like decline. [/quote]

This is tedious. The zenith of Rome is universally agreed as the period of the early republic. I have also quoted numerous contemporary authors who describe the decline long before Marius. I have admitted that ‘ghost town’ was a poor choice of words although the period in question was one of continual disasters, a lowering population and a change in population as citizen rights were granted to virtually anyone. Rome even had non-Italian emperors and scores of foreign peasants moving in.

The reason for the decline and fall of Rome is THE most hotly debated subjects in the field. Almost all agree there were numerous reasons. Gibbon actually attributes Christianity.

536

@smh it’s six thirty in the morning and I’ve just been released from hospital again in a lot of pain. I concede you are largely right due to my poor use of words. I’ll try to explain my position ASAP -not a cop out. I don’t have access to my library.

537

@smh it’s six thirty in the morning and I’ve just been released from hospital again in a lot of pain. I concede you are largely right due to my poor use of words. I’ll try to explain my position ASAP -not a cop out. I don’t have access to my library.

538

I’d like to offer an apology for my use of words that may have come across as offensives to. Ah… Whatever it is you’d like to be called. I honestly bear you no ill will. Best of luck.

539

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
@smh it’s six thirty in the morning and I’ve just been released from hospital again in a lot of pain. I concede you are largely right due to my poor use of words. I’ll try to explain my position ASAP -not a cop out. I don’t have access to my library.[/quote]

Just a semantic quibble man. I like history and debating history and etc. Don’t think I feel like I’ve “won” anything. By the way, you know much more about Roman history than I do.

I am sorry to hear about the hospital and pain. I sincerely wish you luck and a full and fast recovery.

540

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’d like to offer an apology for my use of words that may have come across as offensives to. Ah… Whatever it is you’d like to be called. I honestly bear you no ill will. Best of luck.[/quote]

I know this isn’t addressed to me, but this is cool too. And, if I may be so presumptuous, very Christian.