Please help me to find a flaw in my derivation for a proof of atheism: Intelligence is the ability to make decisions. To make a decision you need to conceptualise the present environment and simulate the outcomes from future actions, hence a chronological order in which you exist. That means every intelligent subject needs to be a subject of time. Since God exists outside of time and even created it, he can’t be intelligent. That leaves only room for a pantheistic God that can’t be distinguished from any other natural force, so why even care for that one.
Only attempts to deny intelligence in an anthropomorphic sense when there are other conceptions out there both within Christianity and outside Christianity. Further, denying an anthropomorphic God doesn't only enable a pantheistic god suddenly. You've done no work to assert such a thing.
Can /his/ explain to me why the Finno-Korean hyper war ended the way it did? From what I can tell the Ancient Finnish Empire was at the height of its power, and the Hwan Empire seemed to be nothing more than a small but growing eastern power.
What led to the defeat of the Finns, and their eventual retreat from Southern Europe, paving the way for the golden age of the Hwan Empire, any recommended books on the subject?
>What led to the defeat of the Finns, and their eventual retreat from Southern Europe
Wtf is this Hwan propaganda? The Finns WON the great war. All evidence about the existence of the Hwan Empire got erased whereas the Finnish Empire got it's economy totally messed up and destroyed itself after some years
>The Finns WON the great war
Read a book sometime. The Finns were obliterated by the biological warfare of the Hwans. The reverberations of weaponized autism are still felt today in Northern Europe.
Tell me about the 30 Years War.
Is there a historical explanation as to why Britain has almost no decent cuisine? At some some or another in history Britain have been world leaders in nearly every major category of human activity except culinary art.
What is the most tolerant religion?
First time here, hadn't realized this board existed.
How does /his/ feel about the aztecs and precolumbian mesoamerica in general?
Is there any other culture that had cities comparable to tenochtitlan while also only having a similar level of technology?
Pretty sure population with tenochititlan was in the top 5 largest cities on the world when the Spanish came, around the size of Constantinople, and even aside from the population the city itself being made of stone, built on a lake, and the amount of infrastructure and agricultural stuff going on as you said at least off the top of my head is unparalleled considering stone age level cultures.
maybe this is an outright dumb question, and if it is, ill move on with my previously ignorant self, but what makes the Scottish people not more Anglo than Celt?
>speak not only English mostly, but even have their own Anglic language, Scots, that is spoken more than Scottish Gaelic
>have historical ties to Anglo-Saxon kingdoms like Northumbria
and overall have been buddies with the English through most of their recent history
what am i missing...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
This map is pretty much the divide you will see between catholic/protestant, highland/lowland, celtic/anglo influenced etc.
Ofc thats historically speaking, nowadays, after the industrial revolution, there are large mixed populations in places like Glasgow and Edinburgh.
And if you look closely you'll also notice that the green half, which used to have a population equal to the pale half, is now almost completely depopulated.
Anglo fucking shits.
Norse-Gaelic settlement that outbred/genocided the Picts (also considered Celtic), and were only slightly colonized by Anglos. By slightly, I mean enough that they made an impact but not enough to overtake them. Also, you seem to have a less than elementary understanding and could have found this info easily. People are already being spoiled by /his/.
How come the greeks have withstood all these centuries? They were there before Rome, they were after (and were Rome for centuries after the western half collapsed).
How come the romans didnt survive as an ethnic group after their empire ended? The greeks lost their lands in asia minor and other parts, yet they are still there, in their homeland. How come Rome didnt evolve like that?
Modern greeks are not Hellenic greeks.
By now they are only linguistically Greeks.
Their genes have changed, their religion has changed, even their entire cultural outlook has changed.
I am a spiritually enlightened individual. Ask me anything.
Did the Romans really defecate in public and with others?
(do not use any infantile words for feces like "poop' when responding to this thread - we're all over 18 here)
>remember the finno korean hyper war happened
It wasn't just the loss of life, but the loss of learning and culture and civilization. Probably the worst such event until the Mongols destroyed Baghdad, or maybe the Qin empire's cultural destruction of its rivals.
>pecka suutan's speech before the finnish invasion of india
>according to the proddie YEC logic, evolution couldn't happen because it's by "chance" and the Bible says that "life was created by God"
>therefore painting chance (nature) and God as two antagonistic forces
>post yfw when you realise that YEC are basically Manichaeists
Whats wrong with Natural Law?
Well there is natural law. However Aquinas supports man's law speficially the law of priests. He literally beleived that certain truths can never be proven and one must just blindly obey the priests that have been given exclusivivity. Essentially he turns God into his own personal sock puppet.
Why did Iraq lose so horribly in the Gulf War? I'm sure they had tons of veterans from the Iraq-Iran War that should have counted for something. It's not just that they lost, but they lost over 20,000 men with over 75,000 wounded while only 148 U.S. soldiers died
I know this is very hard for many people to appreciate, especially fellow liberals, but never in the history of mankind has a nation been anywhere near as powerful as the US. Mid ranking generals hold more power than entire continents. If it weren't for the fact that other countries have nukes (which yeah that's a bit silly to even say), and if the US didn't give a shit about consequences (PR n shit), it could take on the rest of the planet without really breaking a sweat. It's really really funny...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Technologically inferior weapons, total air dominance by the americans,army still somewhat fucked by iran-iraq war, not resorting to a guerilla tactic against overwhelming enemy superiority
Mfw when america got BTFO in any war after WW2 even Korea and has only declined in its might since.
Be realistic you might be able to quickly conquer 3-4 shit tier nations at once, 1-2 secondary powers and 1 great power (China and russia are debatable due to Terrain and stuff). You won't be able to hold these for long and america would quickly spiral into bankrupcy and massive civil unrest.
Desert Storm is fucking insane, and if it wasn't for the political landscape wanting to only take a huge shit on US affairs in MENA, it would be hailed as an exceptional victory with its speed and ferocity.