We actually have several extant documents regarding the crusades during the time they occurred and several written not too long afterward. I have read many books on the crusades including the 3 volume edition by Steven Runciman. But I also found a good website that cites some of the source documents as well. http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/ca...sades1.htm In my opinion history is valid especially if you have existing source documents to study and analyze. Although that may not be the case with many occurrences in our past there are some that are very well documented.

None of the chroniclers of the Crusades bothered to write down what Urban said until some 20 years later. Still, it's all we have and they were at least closer in time to the events they described than the so-called "gospel" writers were. Fulcher was also present when Urban spoke...again, an improvement over xtian bullshit which was made up much later.

Another reason to suppose that the crusaders went for religious reasons was that many of them sold their land to finance the expedition, falsifying the 'doing it for greed' theory. There was no material benefit from the crusades for anyone, except for a few of the leaders. Also, the indulgence (pardoning of sins) which was offered would have been very attractive, as it would have meant there was no need for penances, like giving up sex. Undoubtedly, religious fervour drove the crusades, making them possible, and was instrumental to the success on both sides. At one point in the First Crusade, for example, the discovery of the 'Holy Lance', which allegedly pierced Jesus' side on the cross, lifted morale.

So, whilst no-one can claim that religion actually killed people, we can see it as a major motive behind the crusades at least.

@ Existentialist

Yes, atheism and theism themselves can't kill people because ideas alone can't kill people, ideas need to be applied.

But also, no atheists can kill people directly because of their atheism because atheism is not an ideology.

I suppose, EvF, someone might say that lacking belief in God means there is no reason for moral behaviour. Which is bollocks, but you hear it nonetheless.

(September 7, 2010 at 7:36 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: ... no atheists can kill people directly because of their atheism because atheism is not an ideology.

I see atheism as a legitimate ideology that forms when people explore the non-existence of God in a society which has been formed and structured on the basis of the existence of God.

Well it just isn't an ideology because whether it's "I don't believe there is a God" or "The absolutely is no God", both forms of atheism, in themselves, are not belief systems, are not creeds, they aren't doctrines. Atheism isn't a philosophy.

If you could point to how atheism is in any way an ideology without adding an ideology on top of atheism (and thereby going further than mere atheism alone, which is my point), be my guest. But you would have to redefine the word.

(September 7, 2010 at 2:35 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: you would have to redefine the word.

You mean I'd have to disagree with your definition of the word.

No I mean you'd have to disagree with what the word means.

If, for example, I say that the word "cheese" means: "A slide in a children's playground", I am redefining the word in the same sense that you are redefining atheism.

Atheism per se is not an ideology, but it makes a whole host of various ideologies possible. A secular humanist, an objectivist, and a nihilist may all be atheists of course, but the conclusions they reach (partly because they are atheists) are considerably different. Atheism by itself is not an ideology, but it usually leads to ideologies that could not be held by a theist.

Just because someone tells me they are an atheist (or a plain "theist"), they haven't told me very much about themselves at all.