Was he really a bad guy?
Yes, he was. Living in communist Romania was complete and utter shit unless you knew somebody in the government.
>>447628
>natsionalist communism
Literally the most retarded shit ever.
>>447628
He got shot by a firing platoon, guess that counts for something.
Did the Ottomans ever make any attempts at colonization in the New World or elsewhere?
It always seemed kind of weird to me why they were seemingly absent from the entire Age of Discovery even though they had one of the most formidable navies of the era. Any explanation for this?
You try exploring Americas with galleys and Spain blocking exit from Mediterranean.
According to AOEIII, which is a well known credible source they did.
>>447603
>It always seemed kind of weird
Why? European colonization was driven by attempts to access eastern resources (I will admit, I don't know alot about the mentality behind Russian Colonization. All I know is EU memes). The Ottomans sat on the only land+sea route to the east.
Why isn't anyone talking about this? This means that the ancient Chinese more than likely saw these guys.
http://www.sott.net/article/308852-Red-Deer-Cave-Mysterious-humanoid-species-may-have-intermingled-with-early-humans-in-China
>>447536
>more than likely killed these guys
There. Fixed.
>>447566
This desu. Seems to me that we have to congratulate the Chinese on being one step above the British. As far as I know, the British are the only ones who actually managed to genocide a whole ethnicity.
Why not, it's not like presence of Homo Sapiens was destined to kill the other races instantly.
there is no rational way to go from deism to theism
Perhaps not everything is rational
>inconsistent revelations
>judaism mk2, mk3, etc
deism can be theism and vice versa if a man is noble
worship can be good acts
the world can be a temple
god is in the world and at the same time, above it
transcendent and immanent
separation in the nature of god is absurd; god is the point of origin
when you say god can't be this and only that, you deny his absoluteness.
>god doesn't exist
the jewish kabbalists would agree; god is no-thing (Ain), literally nothingness, as the everything of the universe is but an emanation of his creative power and can never contain his fullness. a god of the void
>god exists
the hindu pantheists would agree and sah everything is god split into a myriad of forms, that everything is the essence of god divided, the dreaming of boundless divine mind
the mystery of the All-Father is profound and many layered, and once you think you've reached the summit of understanding, another mountain rises out of the mist in the distance. it cannot be known through intellect alone.
Has irony replaced christian stoicism as the modern way of life in developed western countries?
Wasn't Socrates the progenitor of irony already?
>>447223
Stoicism was a way of life? When did that happen?
>>447223
>stoicism
>christian
>greek philosophy
go to bed marcy marc
If the South had won the Civl War, would we have sided with the Germans in World War 2?
>>446667
If the darkies didn't get deported, we'd have invited the Union to invade us to suppress endless Black communist uprisings.
Would there even be a WW2? Butterfly effect and all that shit.
>>447019
I think that only applies to time travel. We still would have been feeding England and France our cotton and shit.
Why didn't companies and corporatism and other features of modern capitalism develop in Ancient Rome? Wasn't Rome capitalist?
>Wasn't Rome an economic model that has it's basis in the late 1700's?
No
>>446595
>corporations
What are latifunidas
Also wasn't some amout wheat given for plebs for free? If yes then it's safe to say that rome was pretty nanny state.
Rome had quite a lot of advertising. Both businesses and politicians would graffiti their names on walls and gladiators would even get sponsored by them.
>This post has been brought to you by the Guild of Millers. The Guild of Millers uses only the finest flour; true Roman bread for true Romans.
Anime proven real by philosophy. Checkmate atheists.
Is religion a mental disease, as Dawkins maintains? If so, what is the cure?
>>446538
religion was the founder of our modern day morals
morals are kind of important in a society
>>446538
Atheism is a mental disease, not the other way around. A society without morals will wither and die.
>>446815
Morals and ethics are an illusion of Satan to lead man astray. They foster doubt in the validity and supreme authority of the word of the Lord and His laws. Many philosophers have attempted to use morals and ethics to disprove the Lord's benevolence. Like with science, Satan has enabled this by giving man the illusion he can understand ultimate truth, know more than the Omniscient. But the basis of science and morals and ethics is not knowledge, it is doubt, proving they are the work of Satan. Make no mistake, morals and ethics are humanistic in nature, an imperfect human tainted by sin can not begin to comprehend the thinking of the Creator. To attempt to apply them to the workings of the Divine is folly, morals and ethics do not apply to God. It is hubris to treat God as but a simple man. There is no God but God, concepts of relative fairness do not apply to God, for God has no equals. The only morals and ethics that apply to God are how he he judges all of mankind as the ultimate judge. The concept of morals and ethics are ultimately paradoxical. Man in his imperfection can not determine the ultimate truth and judge between right and wrong. Man putting his own finite thoughts ahead of the thoughts of infinite knowledge is beyond pointless. It is man saying he is superior to God. People enter conflict because of differing morals and ethics, a Satanic plot to divide and plant the seeds of doubt. Philosophers are Satanically inspired, they think because they doubt, not because they know. Only He who is perfect and omniscient can knows truth in its entirety, and the only being capable of judging what is good and evil. You can not judge God by the standards of man, you can not judge the word of God or the law of God, to do so is to presume dominion over God, the Creator of all. You, as man, need only know the absolute Truth of God, you, the imperfect being, can not comprehend nor understand God, the perfect being, you can only know God. God is the Truth.
How true is the idea that religion killed lots of people and was the cause of many wars throughout History?
I mean, of course people belonging to different religions have fought and the main narrative may have contained an element of religious difference, but it's not like people actually went to war over theological disputes. I believe that before the Enlightenment religion simply provided the main framework through which we could interpret the world and shape society, so people containing diverging political ideologies (as we'd call them now) articulated them through religion.
So basically, if you take liberals v. conservatives in today's vocabulary and placed them in a time where religious bonds were the main source of cohesion among a people, politicians would be saying that God either approves or condemns welfare, immigration, and all the other issues they fight over. Soon you'd have two different "religions" at conflict even though that would have no qualitative difference from what we do today.
>>446536
Religion is just an excuse.
>>446536
> How true is the idea that religion killed lots of people and was the cause of many wars throughout History?
Not true at all, and I basically agree with our statement. Some cultures used religion as a pretext, just like US today brings "democracy" and "freedom" to the world, but the underlying reasons were expansionism and struggle for power and resources.
Then again, there were some conflicts that make little sense without religion, like the first three Crusaders.
The religious kill in the name of their religion.
Making excuses for them doesn't change that fact.
The Frankish Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire and the Caliphate, who was the true heir of Rome? Who had the most influence on the way the world turned out?
Why not everyone?
>>446523
Is mankind inherently evil? Do the countless examples of brutality, greed and murder throughout history speak louder than objective good?
Who's to say they speak louder than the countless examples of compassion, selflessness and empathy?
>Is mankind inherently evil?
No
>Do the countless examples of brutality, greed and murder throughout history speak louder than objective good?
Which would you remember more, being given a cookie or having your wallet stolen?
"If it bleeds it leads"
Define evil.
Post Ancient Symbols and the meaning behind them.
The deeper the meaning, the better
The Swastika was probably inspired by the rotation of Ursa Major (big dipper) about the star Polaris.
Spirit entering matter
also eternal life
>>446268
I've heard it said that it symbolizes amplification
Are there historical examples of lesser nations nitpicking the great regional powers over asinine shit? I notice this happens a lot now with the US, and I'm wondering if this happened with the lesser polities who lived around the time of the Mongols, the Romans, the Aztecs, etc.
Some examples:
>Why is atheism so weird in Rome? I worship Jupiter, but I'm just wondering.
>Those stupid Romans. Why do they eat their bread this way?
>Can you believe the manner in which those dumb Mongols braid their hair? lel they're so gay for it.
I think some historical examples of this would be pretty amusing.
>Can you believe how dumb the Mongols are for losing to a bunch of peasants in Hungary? lel nice "empire" you got there Genghis
literally always. Its not even just confined to states and nations, this is a human behavior that comes from a very primal form of humaness
>>446101
That's interesting. I subscribe to the theory that there's nothing new under the sun. I'm hoping someone can contribute examples from old writings or inscriptions.
This is a potato plant, there are two ways to make more of these plants. You can extract the seeds from it's fruit and plant them, growing more potato plants or you can take a potato, cut into sections which have an eye and plant them.
The former method matures more slowly than the latter method, but as a rule one should avoid growing potato plants from slices of potatoes. Said new potato plants are clones of the original and if a sufficient number of clones are propagated in an area this means a disaster could occur in which a type of bacteria or fungus evolves which is ideally suited to bypass said potato plant's immune system and spreading like wildfire among other plants.
>>445998
Thank you for this information OP.
The English, why?