Trolldor said:
Whoever said I denied anything? You're the one refusing to accept how large of a factor religion was in the matter.
For starters, Jerusalem was only 'of key economic importance' because it was the central holy point for three primary religions - Christianty, Judaism and Islam. That naturally saw a great deal of trade visit the region.
The entire Middle East has long been a center of trade due to the fact that it connects trade routes from Asia, Europe and Africa. Perhaps the city of Jerusalem itself wouldn't be so hotly contested, but whoever controlled the region would still be quite wealthy and powerful. Are you still willing to claim that it wouldn't have been a target for conquest during the Middle Ages?
I'm not trying to say that religion didn't play a big part in the crusades. It certainly did. However, I don't think that abolishing religion could have prevented similar wars from happening. In that, and nearly every other "religious" war, there were more than enough financial and political incentives for each side. That's why I can't say that religion is any more responsible than, say, the concept of governments or money.
MaxPowers666 said:
boholikeu said:
So you admit the possibility that God might exist, but you say that it's illogical for anyone to believe so?
When there is a lack of concrete evidence there is always a possibility that something may exist. In this case there is no evidence on either side so although it is a possibility I find it extremely unlikely.
If there is no evidence on either side, how is it logical to say that one possibility is more likely than the other?