Truth

Truth

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Cqzq01i2O3U
twitter.com/AnonBabble

*tips fedora*

...

A thousand years from now, they'll be making the same jokes about liberalism.

If liberalism fails so does western civilization, not even joking

This.

*SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT measured in feefees

>Whig history

>if liberalism fails
It already has. In fact, that's all it's done.

Then western civilization is doomed

I'm really not sure what this comment is supposed to mean. The whole idea of a christian dark age regressing science is wrong, so I guess you're just proposing that in the future people will be wrong about liberalism being bad

>I'm really not sure what this comment is supposed to mean.
Liar.

I have nothing to say but this is a very weird belief and I don't know what you mean 100% but I actually agree with you.

It's a Sup Forums is so contrarian that they break through the spectrum and become Christian episode.

Why do you keep making this thread? Do you just get bored when your mom is driving you to school so you post this shit from your phone?

...

If it wasn't for christianity, no knowledge from rome would survive after non-christian barbarians sacked it. Humanity would be about a 1000 years behind right now. Truth

good.

Nice revisionist history, christfag.

You know every child believes this in high school and upon leaving highschool, but upon growing up you realise medieval Europe really did not do much in terms of technological advancement.

Th fact that they expressed this idea, even in satire shows the extent of their world knowledge.

Which part isn't true? Were barbarians christian? Did christians not preserve some roman knowledge while in exile?

They suppressed scientific advancements you fucking nigger, stop playing dumb.

If there was no Christianity, another religion would have just took it's place.

No?

>They suppressed scientific advancements you fucking nigger
What scientific advancements? I'm talking about the centuries right after the sack of Rome, when barbarians ruled over Europe and Christians lived in exile preseving Roman knowledge. If it wasn't for them, it would be lost. Sure, at some later stage they suppressed science, at another stage they did science, I don't see anyone celebrating that.

this to be honest. you kids need to learn the immortal science and praxis of dialectical materialism. animism was appropriate to nomadic society, polytheism to slave empires and monotheism to feudalism. secularism has become dominant in the modern industrial era, particularly in societies with high standards of living and education and low disparities in wealth distribution. religion does not produce the conditions, the conditions produce the religion. christianity did not cause the dark ages.

The greatest stop in scientific advancement has been the internet

>They suppressed scientific advancements
the only notable times they did such a thing were in the 1500's, before hand, monks were the only people who gave a damn about knowledge, and meticulously copied down ancient roman texts. As for the suppressing that occurred, it was really only in catholic countries, most ideas still spread to throughout protestant countries, but also catholic countries. The "suppression", more often than not caused the Streisand effect to take place

objectively inaccurate. the greatest stop in scientific development has been budgetary cuts toward the sciences (with the exception of military and surveillance technology) which coincided with the rise of the internet and silicon valley.

>liberalism literally definition is moving forward
>conservative definition is moving backwards
>advanced society with space cars somehow got there by moving backwards instead of ending up in stoneage

the greatest stop in scientific advancement has been Sup Forums, I sincerely believe that

>"definitions" instead of realities
Shut up, you dumb cunt.

Conservatives are so fucking stupid I want to punch them all in the face.

Come fight me.

>polytheism to slave empires and monotheism to feudalism
Guess that explains why all three prominent "slave empires" in the 5th, 6th, 7th centuries and beyond were monotheistic. Fucking retard

>social "progress" is the same as technological
and before you say they are, they arn't.

I'd like to see you try you noodle armed faggot

We stopped calling it the dark ages a while ago. It's called the middle ages because there was nothing particularly dark about it. No significant scientific repression took place.

Come say that to my face.

>all first world countries and western civilization as a whole are built on the foundation of Christian protestant civilizations

really makes you think

slave empire refers to those societies where slaves are the bulk of the productive population and which are expansionist, not societies in which slavery exists.

>"definitions" instead of realities
>realities
there aren't any conservatives inventing stuff and making technology and contributing to society in reality

>Christian
>protestant

pick one

No.

The church was the foundation of all European Universities pre 17th century, and was responsible for preserving a huge amount of the knowledge of the ancient world.

Also in general your a idiot.

youtube.com/watch?v=Cqzq01i2O3U

>fedoras will never acknowledge the true history of the world

>there isnt monks codifying every recorded piece of information
LUL

already posted, autist

>better invent a definition on the spot so I don't seem like a total dipshit
Not like your "point" is even relevant since slavery was critical to both the Byzantine and Ottoman economies as well as the early Islamic caliphates.

Read nigga
R E A D

>this is what fedoras actually believe

>slave empire refers to those societies where slaves are the bulk of the productive population and which are expansionist
>[Source]
those damn polytheist americans!

Endless patents and standards have reduced inventions to a design funnel. Everythings geared towards advancing existing technologies than creating new ones

>Its a "people dont realize Christian monks are the only reason the knowledge of the ancients survived the collapse of Rome" episode

>If the people actively trying to destroy tradition and inviting islam into our civilization fail, so does western civilization

Where does the hyborian age fall in this graph?

Whiteout some sort of religion Civilisation could never rise beyond barbarism

so societies like the Portuguese and Dutch colonial empires? Or the early US when the agrarian slave south was the dominant economic driver? Or the Muslim states along East Africa in the middle ages?
yes, all outstanding examples of polytheism

they really aren't though. The majority of ancient knowledge was preserved by the Arabs and Byzantines and then had to be brought back to Europe. There's a reason the Renaissance started right after the Crusades and in the regions that benefited the most from them (Italy and the Netherlands)

Conservatism's definition is staying the same, you're thinking of reactionism. Everything after that is probably likewise horseshit, but I stopped reading by that point.

Look up the Benedictine monks. Youre not 1/10th as smart as you think you are kid

>There's a reason the Renaissance started right after the Crusades

I didnt realize the Renaissance started in 1095.

You mean without Christianity ;^)

Classical antiquity wasn't killed off by Christianity, it was killed off by invasion from waves of anti-intellectual barbarians who coveted the wealth and social prosperity of their civilized neighbors and flooded into their lands in an attempt to have it for themselves, but who violently retaliated when asked to make the necessary cultural and social sacrifices and who, upon finding that the pre-existing populations of the lands that they had invaded were infertile, decadent, and no longer willing to risk their own lives to stand up against imposition of outside influences as their forefathers had done for generations, ended up bringing down the prevailing economic system in attempt to seize total power, destroying for all the prosperity that had brought them to the civilized world in the first place.

Thankfully there is no modern analogue to this.

But he's an atheist. That automatically means he's a supergenius.

How did they measure the scientific advancement part?

...

really...makes...you....think.....

But Isaac Newton was a christian. In fact, a shitload of philosophers and scientists were christian.

>implying all Atheists are unaware of religion's impact on civilization
When there's groups of people, there's bound to be some dumb ones in there.

desu whenever I see religious people on Sup Forums I don't even assume they actually believe in god, I think they just grew to hate what atheisms image became (reddit,fedora,dawkins) so now they roleplay as the devout for reasons that are ultimately contrarian

>but who violently retaliated when asked to make the necessary cultural and social sacrifices and who
kind of like immigrants today huh

Findhorn must sing

Yeah, but a lot of those Christian scientists were also going against the teachings of the church and being jailed or threatened to try to make them stop being so heretical.

Christians (people) weren't the problem. There were many intelligent and progressive Christians back then making all kinds of advancements.

Christianity (the organization) was the problem. As an organization the Christian church really did hold back a lot of progress and try to stifle the discoveries of supposedly heretical scientists,

I don't believe in God, I also refuse to identify as atheist because I might die of cringe.

underrated

yeah, it's almost as if the Crusades persisted well into the 1200's and the Renaissance started in the 1300's. Crazy that

I didn't say that Christians didn't preserve anything from the ancients, I said the most important texts in spurring science and the rediscovery of Greek and Roman knowledge came from the Arabs. There's a reason the vast majority of star names are transliterations of Arabic translations of Greek terms, or that a huge amount of basic chemical terms are Arabic. Look up any major Greek or Roman treatise on the natural world or philosophy and chances are they came from Byzantine Greece or the Arab world. The best example off the top of my head is Ptolmey's Syntaxis Mathematica which is almost always called by it's Arabic name, the Almagest.
Plenty of monks preserved knowledge but they were mostly dedicating themselves to solitary lives and it didn't really impact the culture as a whole.

its not about identifying as anything
your first statement just means you're an atheist. It's simple. Atheism is just an absence of belief in divines, you don't have to subscribe to any group

What about Islam?

Fuck off gibbon, "christianity" had nothing to do with the muslims stopping in france

Newton was basically a heretic, honestly. His focus was on alchemy and astrology, and the math and physics all came later (and he still focused mostly on the crazy shit until his death)

Islam was more or less a net positive on humanity in the time between the sassanids falling and the mongols invading arabia

after baghdad 1254 and later the whole tamerlane saga it pretty much went to shit (imo)

Only 200 years between the start of the crusades and the infancy of the Renaissance? Wow that must be a correlation.

Its not like there was exchange of ideas and trade that had nothing to do with the crusades but nope it was the crusades.

That isn't atheism's image, that's what religious neckbeards insisted was atheism's image because that's their exclusive method of "arguing." It's the modern day version of calling someone a heretic and having them tried in court. You can no longer literally kill people for saying your god isn't real in the west, so this is the internet-based alternative.

That's why people like this are gullible cunts, they get duped by what is essentially a religious smear tactic meant to distract from their complete lack of arguments and sound logic.

time to go back to plebbit, faggot

I guess I just have a hard time believing significant numbers of westerners in the 18-30 range really believe in god

>Somehow believing it's relevant to point out that scientists were religious during ages of extreme ignorance when just about 100% of people claimed to be religious and nearly that percentage actually were religious

Your critical thinking is really lacking

honestly if it weren't for Christianity (especially the Pope's power games), Venice wouldn't have sacked Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade and the Eastern Roman Empire wouldn't have been spent into a death spiral letting the Turks take half of Eastern Europe

And yes, the Umayyad's went through several Christian kingdoms in Spain before being stopped by the Frankish king. If it weren't for Christianity the Franks would still be there, just pagan of one stripe or another

Christianity is responsible for the preservation of most of our knowledge from antiquity you fuckwit.

The gap in technology left by the fall of Rome wasn't because of Christianity; it was because liberalism killed the empire and people didn't have time to scrawl down their collective knowledge. Christianity did the best if could to save that knowledge.

Oh, did I mention the part where the barbarians were gleefully welcomed in by the wealthy landowners who controlled the Roman political system? You see, the vast majority of land was owned by a handful of aristocrats using slave plantation agriculture. It was impossible for small farmers to compete with their huge operations, but they still weren't willing to be worked like slaves either, so most of them moved to the cities and subsisted off of welfare. These people didn't have children because another mouth to feed was completely useless to them, while the slaves were worked so hard that they couldn't reproduce to sustain their populations either. The population decline had cut into their workforce, so they demanded that a source of farm labor be brought in from outside and that this would be 'good for the economy'

When the barbarians inevitably rose up after realizing that their destiny was slavery, the military was too under-manned and under-equipped to deal with it. In the time of the Republic, such a crisis would have warranted a massive outpouring of civic virtue; funding and volunteers would have flowed easily (Privately-funded navies and armies were instrumental in turning back Carthage in both Punic Wars). But the aristocrats had stopped paying their taxes ages ago and most weren't willing to start for a problem in another province; if Dacia, or even Rome itself, was being pillaged by barbarians, that wasn't a concern for someone who lived on a massive olive plantation in Greece.

Not that there's any modern analogue to this either, of course.

fpbp