Atheists, Agnostics, and Anti-theists of ModDB
Educational
A group for those without religion, as well as those who oppose it. Atheism and Agnosticism and Anti-theism.
Sad Truth
(view original)
Post a comment
A group for those without religion, as well as those who oppose it. Atheism and Agnosticism and Anti-theism.
(buried)
Its quite hard to predict what would have happened if something in history changed. also the dark ages are the result of the collapse of the Roman empire, every empire eventually collapses. And even though the Romans had amazing tech like fully functional sewers, they still had a few stupid beliefs and celebrations, so in a way its better that Christianity replaced their past beliefs at the loss of technological prosperity, then for them to advance technologically and be cruel. (of course they might have eventually realized that Saturnalia is wicked and cruel festival and stopped celebrating it but it's quite hard to get a multitude of people to stop something, sort of wiping everyone out, getting them to see logic, or providing an alternative. most of which would cause the roman empire to fall or be known as even more evil) additionally poverty in the roman empire was terrible: http://www.innominatesociety.com/Articles/Death%20and%20Disease%20in%20Ancient%20Rome.htm
I think its better for quite a lot of people that the roman empire fell although it is unfortunate that their knowledge was lost in the process:(
Huh? Stupid beliefs? Unlike yours? Last I heard the Romans didn't believe a guy lived inside of a fish, or thought the highest mountaintops (Mt. Everest) could be flooded by water.
The Romans converted to Christianity because an emperor supposedly saw a cross in the sky when the tide of some battle turned or it was won.
What destroyed the Roman empire was greed, similar to that of today where few own most and most own few.
1. Don't post some BS article from some person claiming to be from a University. They are obviously not as they haven't cited any sources at all. So it's either made up or some casual write-up... ie. it isn't an in-depth look at the Roman Populace.
2. Don't call their religious beliefs stupid because of what Vel said; you're own are pretty bad as well.
3. Saying the dark ages began because the Roman Empire fell is the same as saying it was when Christianity rose. It's like saying you don't awaken when you wake up, but when you stop sleeping. It's a different way to say the same thing and a fail way to try and shift the blame.
4. Most of the Roman knowledge (and Greek) was kept within the scientifically enlightened lands of the Middle-East where the Arab scholars continued to add on to it. Eventually the Christians found all of this knowledge and began to crawl out of the caves which Christianity had made for them, after killing a lot of them in the name of their peaceful God
BTW how is Saturnalia a wicked and cruel festival? It influenced how Christmas was and is celebrated. fail
Okay first sorry for a bad article, I didn't spend much time looking for a good article and it seemed to fit what I saw on...was is national geographic or history Chanel? I can't remember it was one or the other, and it was about how hygiene was quite bad in the Roman Empire. Or at least that's what I remember from it, it has been a few years.
And how can human sacrifice be a sane festival?
That's about all that I can write in response to your comment the rest of your points I just don't feel like they need answering and/or were already answered.
The emperor didn't "convert" anyone, he legalized it. Many people still believed in Roman mythology for decades until it died out.
Elf your beliefs are just as stuipid if not worse than theres.
and christainity has caused far more harm than The Pagan romans ever did.
the dark ages were christain- that cannot be denied- christainty purposefully stunted advancement, just as they are trying to do today.
So I ask you this which religion is stuipider- one that incouraged advancement and spread civilization (Roman paganism) or one that purposefully stops progress (because they know anyone with half a brain would not buy into its silly crap) purposelly hurts millions and trys to subjegate and control all peoples lives (christainity)?
The answer here is clear. christainity is far below Roman paganism on the bad scale- not the bottom, in would still reserve that fore the Aztecs and Thuggies- but over all christainity has commited more atrocities than them all.
someday people will look back on christainity and say- what kind of idiots believed that ****? our beliefs are not nearly as evil, barbaric, stuipid or cruel- what kind of horrible idiotic people copuld believe that? Its a good thing there gone.
That is the way of things- now go away and take your mindless bathering to some people who care.
Christianity is NOT against progress. I very much encourage progress, my idea is if it can be done the do it:) now I know I don't represent every Christian out there, and there are some that might call themselves Christians but they actively go against what God commands. God never commanded to stop or go against progress. And why shouldn't we research new ways to treat people. The more people that can be healed from life threatening diseases the better. Also why shouldn't we explore this wonderful universe that God made? I'm quite sure that there were some people that were motivated to advance technology and/or to explore something new because of their belief in God. Saying that a certain group is against progress without some short of source or example is simply an opinion.
As for maniacs that run around killing people....you'll have those in every culture. But I truly do not consider a maniac that kills people in the name of god a Christian. In stead I would be worried as to what their god is.
elf, no offence but christianity isn't against progress now because they know it is inevitable, we are forever more going to advance and nothing can stop us (unless something like aliens prevent us from doing certain things)
@ Elf
So you see the 6-day- and young-earth creation, Noahs flood and that stuff as absolutly true anymore? If yes, than congrats, you activated some brain cells. If not, you deserve another facepalm.
How is refusing to accept actual history pro-progress? I will always believe in the truth. Also since we can't take a field trip to 4000bc we have to rely on historical documents.
Yes, there were people 4000, 6000, 8000, 10000 and even 200000 BC and its pretty much undenyable that there were 13.4 billion years before that, so if you just implied that we dont know any time before the Bible, than you are totally dishonest again.
*So you dont see...
Sorry, I forgot a word. Shame on me!
There never was any technological stagnation due to dark ages. Things kept moving on all the time. Dark ages is dark ages, because there's not as much knowledge about it as there are of other ages. And Christianity doesn't play any major part in causing the collapse of the Roman empire, besides forcing pagan citizens to move out of cities ofc.
Emperor Constantine didn't make Christianity the state religion of the empire, nor did he convert the people. He signed the edict of Milan, which was basically a declaration of religious freedom in the empire. The person you people are looking for is Theodosius I; he made Christianity the state religion.
One thing I know was that Romans ignored a lot of technological innovations, because they simply thought using slaves instead of machines is better. And what bad the pagan Romans did? Besides massacring bunch of people and deporting the rest around their empire?
The Pagan romes did about as much as any other civilization has done brutality wise.
christainity is on a whole different level- so much has been lost or suppressed in the name of an imaginary being it makes me sick.
The stagnation of the dark ages was one of knowlegde and understanding of the world. the christain world went backwards in almost all field (except of torture and killing of innocents). yes there was innovation but much of what had been known was lost. christainity purposely helped this loss by trying to keep the population ignorant and uneducated and subservent.
That's actually not true. The dark ages of GREECE were like that, we still don't know anything about that age. However, the European dark ages (for Europe, at least) weren't just technological stagnation, it was a complete downfall technologically, scientifically, politically, etc.
Once the Roman Empire fell, almost the entire continent went to hell. A once semi-democratic, organized nation was replaced by feudal warlords who declared themselves placed on the Earth by divine will. The advanced infrastructure of the Romans collapsed entirely, awe-inspiring aqueducts and government buildings quarried to build primitive fortresses. Science fell to superstition, medicine fell out of practice almost completely, and it was just generally awful. The dark ages were definitely an age of stagnation, and we actually know a great deal about them.
However I do agree with you that it wasn't the fault of the Christians that Rome fell. In fact, I believe that during the dark ages- and you'll all hate me for this- that Christianity was to a great extent a GOOD thing. In an age without order, Christianity united the warring kingdoms under one banner, and in an age without morals, Christianity at least made SOME sort of moral system. Yes, it was horrible, it was brutal, but it could've been a lot worse. In a more primitive age, religion was the way to go.
All the people saying "the dark ages are Christianity's fault!" are wrong. It most certainly wasn't, and I'll say that wholeheartedly. I'll also remind all of you that the most advanced nation in the west- Byzantium- was Christian as well. The Dark Ages didn't flourish (or, rather, be more horrible) because of Christianity, it's just that Christianity flourished due to the Dark Ages. Saying that the Dark Ages were Christianity's fault is kind of like saying Stalin & other communist dictators were atheism's fault.
Name me a single technological innovation that was commonly in use in Roman empire, yet was forgotten in the dark ages. Or more.
Yes, the Romans built what could be considered the first modern state with modern infrastructure. Regions could be kept up with resources from other regions. And of course, it was very vulnerable if someone took certain lands from it. The Germanic migrations and resulting dark ages allowed regions in Europe to become stable and partly self-sustaining, as the Roman empire collapsed on itself: Germanic tribes stopped the collapse from going total and reinstalled authority. At the same time, they adopted some Roman customs and added them to their own.
It is true that by the dark ages, urbanization was even less than it was prior to Roman conquests of western Europe, (Celts were pretty much reaching the level of Classical Greece in urbanization just before Caesar and Claudius showed up) but at the very least some sort of a central authority was returned in place when it could have disappeared completely.
In addition, Christianity didn't remove any common knowledge adopted earlier, they simply stopped science and philosophy from advancing further. The church commanded knowledge to be based on two sources, the Bible and Aristotle's works. And while science ceased to develop until renaissance, technology did indeed advance, as the inventions of wind mill and eye glasses during the middle ages show.
Aqueducts, sewage systems, sanitation systems, road systems, sizable bridges/dams/general construction beyond fortresses became near nonexistant. These are both infrastructure and technology which was for the most part torn down & abandoned during the dark ages. If you're talking about specific inventions, then yes the dark ages held new technology, however technology was for the most part ignored and left unused at the time.
The only thing that made Europe semi-stable during that era was the church. The Germanic tribes were a series of continually warring and unstable factions. Im not saying that Rome didn't cause plenty of violence and chaos during its reign; however, in at least the Southern portions of Europe, it was significantly more stable.
I would argue that it was the widespread ignorance which prevented the expansion of science, not particularly Christianity. I think that the form of Christianity we know from the dark ages was the product of ignorance, not ignorance the product of Christianity.
Yes, many building techniques were lost. But some were retained, and new ones were also developed (or were the Gothic cathedrals built by aliens?) And why were they torn down? Maybe because there was no more a system that could support them. Don't blame it on dark age people that the system came down, they just got rid of the unnecessary, and used its materials for something that was needed. And I believe it was the ancient ages when many technological inventions were also ignored. Someone invented a steam engine in the ancient ages, IIRC. But it didn't come to widespread use. Why? Because slaves already did where it could have been applied, and much cheaper. Only when dark ages came, and slavery started to slowly disappear in Europe (to be replaced by serfdom) did there start to come need for technology.
That thing about Germanic tribes is not true anywhere except perhaps British isles. The Franks and Goths formed quite decently stable realms, and the states of the latter fell down due to outside attackers (Eastern Romans and Arabs).
The form of Christianity we know now was created in the councils of Nikea to provide a last ditch attempt to stabilize the empire. But it failed. The church though did provide the early forms of social services to the people in the dark and middle ages however.
I'm not blaming the common people on using them as building materials, I'm just saying they did tear them down. As you said, they become unnecessary- because they were in the dark ages :l If things kept advancing and there was no stagnation, then there wouldve been a use for such infrastructure...
Yes, some were retained and built. However, there weren't widespread sanitation systems, or roads, or sewer systems, or really any major buildings other than fortresses and cathedrals which came into existence until the enlightenment.
I agree that it helped eliminate slavery (sort of, they eventually just reverted to Africans to make up for it). However, this is one advantage of a generally bad situation, a silver lining at best. Sort of like the crusades expanding communications, or the holocaust giving us better medical science.
I understand that stable empires were erected in parts of Europe, such as the Holy Roman Empire, or Byzantium, however they still couldn't achieve the technology, government, architecture, or infrastructure of Rome.
I think this sounds a bit like you're saying dark ages were dark ages because the Germanians and others could not rebuild in a few decades, what the Romans spent building for centuries on the top of what other people had built for centuries.
Concrete, Sewers, Aqueducts, Sanitation, proper roads, countless advanced architectural techniques...
scientific progress is what this is about, not technology.
new things would be invented on matter what that is how it works. people solve problems its in our nature.
but over all cultural and scientific progress was stopped in Europe during the dark ages because of the teachings and practices christainity and of the catholic chirch.
This is common knowlegde. they suppressed learning and would kill those who tried.
The world is still hurting because for what they did, the damage they cause to human society is still very prelevent today and will still be there as a scare on human history probebly forever.
We cannot forgive them for it or make excuses- or ever let them do it again.
O and tech that was lost- concrete would be one, it wasnt rediscovered until like the 1700s (or something like that.)
what was lost from rome was building styles- infrastructure, philosophy, art, literature, science, trade and orginization- overall culture. The only books that were to be read in the middle ages was the bible. the only reason ANY of the great works survived is that a few monks broke the rules and hand copied them and preserved them- we have no idea how much was lost.
Yes rome would have fallen reguardless of christainity- but what christainity did was make sure that no one rose up to fill the void left- and if it had it way we never would have moved on because the moment we started back on the rode of knowlegde christainity began to faulter. This is why we can never let our guard down- if history shows us one thing its that christainity will do anything to stay in power and stagnetate human society because will progress comes knowlegde and understanding which always bring down myth superstion and imaginary gods.
This sounds pretty much like extremely biased ******** from you. I can understand that it's frustrating when the system decides to discriminate on you for lack of religion, but black painting history isn't the answer.
whats biased about it? I agree with you in that technology did advance, people have and will create things to solve problems- but intellectually europe stagnated and it was the fault of christainity and the catholic church.
I was raised in a christain family- but also one who never sugar coated history or reality.
The only good thing the catholic church did in the darkages was create some semblance of order- which ironically wasnt even necessary. if there had been no church europe would still have rose again- human society naturally organizes after we get a certain population mass. mabye without the suppression of the church it may even have happend quicker.
It is a not opinion but FACT that at every turn christainity has fought scientific advancement, so i really dont see were my biased ******** is, if you would please specify exactly what i said that isnt correct.
it would be apprietated.
p.s. I dislike all religion equally but unlike many am able to see the historical benifits that many religions had on there cultures, so when i say i see no benifit from christainity on darkages europe its not just me spewwing anti- christain redoric (which i do sometimes) i really do mean that i have looked at it and can literally see no real benifits (and yes i have tried) or things that could not have been done as good or better by by roman or germanic paganism or even islam- If yo can think of any good it did then let me know, it would be interesting to see what you have to say.
You claimed that during dark ages philosophy was lost. But guess what, Aristotle was a very popular philosopher during middle ages, and medieval philosophers even created a new faction combining aristotles teachings with those of bible. It's called scholastic philosophy.
In addition, it was the church that maintained social services such as healthcare and education. There was no other institution there to take care of it.
Yes i knew that, but taking the bible and calling it philosopy was just a sign of the complete and utter domination and suppression of the church.
I find it quite funny actually philosophy is about thinking, reason and logic- christainty (specifically dark ages doctrine) demands you dont. So the philosphy of the middle ages was to not think and do what the church tells you is true.
Thats why i said we lost philosophy- the great philosophers questioned everything and though outside the box. The christain philosophers just sat around thinking aboutan imaginary God.
and on the subject of health and education- both fields were (and still are) heavily suppressed by christainity.
If we had followed there teachings we would still believe all aliments were cause by demons, evil vapors or imbalances of the fluids (thats why they bled them) o and lets not forget burning young girls because the illness must have been caused either by witches (or jews).
I really dont see a monopoly, supression and murder a good thing, but you clearly think it had some benifits - i can see your reasoning so ok I guess i will give you that one
So the mainstream of Christians aren't biased in some way? Because, from what I know, they were the ones who fought against homosexuality years ago and somewhat still do to this day.
I never claim that, but does their bias give you a reason to be biased? Wouldn't it be better to be non-biased and thus gain the moral high ground?
Although I don't live in Murica or a Catholic country...
You should come visit the good old U.S.A- its a great place- lots and lots of fun.
Give you ten minutes and you will see why I am biased.
Hell this last election we had canidates who wererunning on what could be called fascist principles, couple others were running on making a theocracy- and yes these people got votes because as it turns out the one thing American fundamentaist christains hate more than gays and atheists is there own freedom. Compared to Europe we are still in the bloody dark ages...
Deer_Hunter, your idiocy is astonishing if you think this image is accurate...
XD
except it is, soooo
go be an annoying christain troll somewhere else.