Matty

early morning Yoga ... they're just limbering up

It's not so much that it has adapted as it is that it has been interpreted in different ways throughout history. This is especially noticeable for younger religions like Christianity and Islam.
Martin Luther didn't agree with how the church was using god's word, and he had to fight just to promote an alternate point of view. If anything, Christianity has splintered and branched off rather than morphed or changed.

Much worse? Compared to what? Doesn't really matter, as that's pretty subjective talk to begin with. The bottom line is that it depends on the person, and as humans, we are prone to the same strengths and the same weaknesses; religion is just one of several tools people have used to achieve what they want, for better or for worse.
As for what's actually warranted by religion, I believe that's overblown completely. Just because someone says god is on their side doesn't make it true. If I were to commit heinous crimes and leave notes that said "Matt said this was ok", it obviously doesn't make it ok, and you'd probably be pretty pissed that your name was dragged through the mud, too. It's no different when people twist the words of a religion to suit their needs.

Such interchangeability would only strengthen my point, people do bad things regardless or religion. You've argued repeatedly that people do good things regardless or religion, so it stands to reason the opposite would be just as true.

Please, no need to keep speaking in extremes like that. No one said religion is no longer a factor, but we obviously don't have to check with the pope to do something as a nation anymore.

If things get especially heated, that could be an easy way to do it. If I remember correctly, flame wars were responsible for its deletion initially, so heavier moderation is all that would be required. When you make the thread, definitely try to sell it. I'm sure some old staffers might not want it back.

You should make a thread about it in Customer Service. I can bring it up in the staff forum, but public approval of it would help.

True, true. Beyond just this discussion, though, I'm wondering if I might be able to try re-opening the debate forum. I really miss that place.

I like what you've been doing in the thread, though. Pointing out the fallacies in arguments from people who are also on your side. I ought to start doing that; it's a good way to show logical neutrality.

Like a hitch-slap!

Debating is much more difficult for some people when you can't interrupt and everyone can re-read your points.

hahahahaha

I know man, I know. Though it looks like we've tackled another one into a corner.

I apologize for not quoting the guy above me in the Religion thread. Sorry for any rage you might have experienced when reading that. Haha.

P.S. I was going to say thousands but I honestly wasn't sure and didn't feel like it was really worth my time to look up. I knew it was up there and my point still stands (even better with your corrections. lol)

Yes, that's because the major religions were given the power that states typically have now. Most people don't wield power purely for good, though. We still fight these very same idealistic wars, but now that religions aren't in power, we do so in the name of other things. The fight between democracy and communism has been an excellent example of this. You're putting too much stock into religion when we're capable of the same things with or without it. You've used this reasoning yourself, so it shouldn't be hard to grasp just because we're using a historical context.

The same reasons most wars are fought, territory and/or wealth. With the Muslims taking so much of their territory, the Crusaders wanted to reclaim it.
They certainly weren't trying to ignore money, either. Due to rumors that some Muslim soldiers would eat their gold to hide it, many Crusaders would cut open their stomachs after a battle to find it. They'd even check the piles of burned bodies to see if any gold had melted down.

You know what they say, theists be crazy.

It's merely a synonym for ever-changing, but you're right, dynamic does seem to be the wrong word.

What scientific answers are you even talking about? I've been trying to see where you part ways with religion. I haven't been asking you for scientific proof against god or anything of the sort, yet you seem stuck in that mode of thought. I'm not asking you to prove anything.
As for citing, you said yourself that you prefer books. It's difficult to cite materials I no longer have, but I'm sure you could verify these things if you felt so inclined. However, the importance of Jerusalem's position is self-evident; hell, just go look at a map. Honestly, it's not even something you could lie about if you wanted to.

You are aware of how old that city is, aren't you? That's an incredibly short-sighted comment.
I trust you when you say your position is dynamic, but you really aren't coming off that way.

As for the Crusades, I'm mainly referring to the constant fight over Jerusalem. Sure, it's been a holy site for some time, but it's been a strategic site for much longer. Not only is it nestled snugly amidst the Central Hills, but it has one of the only reliable springs in the area. It's also a central location between many of the major civilizations of the past.
So yes, there would have absolutely been conflict over this area; religion makes a convenient excuse, though. Unfortunately, religion is also the only lens through which this particular conflict has been widely taught, so I would not expect you to know otherwise. Still, I would think you would be quick to embrace the idea of viewing history through the relative objectivity of geography.

You're just interpreting them far too harshly. The idea is that if you do those things, it will almost always lead to obvious problems, so it's best not to dwell on such thoughts to begin with. They are the same type of moral guidelines that you, as an atheist, would just as easily come up with. Don't start oogling your best friend's girlfriend or **** will likely go down. It's practically common sense.

You have no reason to be upset.
To use the Crusades as an example, do you really believe it was a holy war? Also, would you say our recent wars overseas have been solely for the sake of democracy? If you would said yes to either, you'd be rather naive. The things we use to justify our less pleasant actions are rarely the same things that actually cause them.
And might I ask what relevance the verse has? I don't know about you, but I don't see the harm in having some standards to live by. It's not as if there are any real threats behind them.
You have to look at it in a historical context, too. Sure, we think we know it all now and we don't like being told what to do, but back then, such advice was not seen as an unreasonable proposition.