<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>
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>
who thought that they were embarking on a religiious quest.</p>
<p>
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>
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>
</p>
<p>Factual abstraction.</p>
<p>
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>
HAHAHA, what a joke</p>
<p>look at this data…there were hardly any more people to instill morals in
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>
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.
<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>
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>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>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>
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>
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>
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>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>
</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>