That scene implies that only White people can progress civilization. All of the non-White civilizations never advanced to that level despite being not being Christian.
>no white people >Columbus never "discovers America" >Native Americans never get decimated by european diseases >Spaniards don't exist and therefore never destroy the Aztec Empire >Mesoamerica nahua peoples flourish
I would fricking kill to see what the flying frick the Aztec Empire would have turned into if left to their own devices. Wiping it out is the single greatest crime to fun in human history.
We could have lived in a world where we had actual televised human sacrifices.
It's true and Christcucks always crumple like paper when they are face with the ultimatum: Either Europeans we're fine without Christianity or defend hundreds of years of shitskin lack of progress despite being Christians.
Europeans are not fine without Christianity. They were a Aztec tier society filled with depravity and human sacrifices. Most non European progress was the result of European interference.
The Roman empire conquered the relevant part of the world during antiquity when they were pagan. Nice try christcuck homosexual. Unless you want to become the world's biggest leftist and explain why Christianity didn't uplift shitskins without admitting race matters, then shut the frick up.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>The Roman empire conquered the relevant part of the world during antiquity when they were pagan.
Correct. Not West Europe, because it was a shitty backwater.
>Unless you want to become the world's biggest leftist and explain why Christianity didn't uplift shitskins without admitting race matters, then shut the frick up.
Race isn't even real.
9 months ago
Anonymous
race does matter which is another reason atheists suck
9 months ago
Anonymous
Race isn't even real. It's a made up concept with no bearing on reality.
It's wrong, and I say that as someone who isn't a christcuck.
The church was hugely responsible for preserving knowledge through the dark ages. That's why latin has become the lingua franca for much of science, because the copies they held were transcribed in the tongue.
>The church was hugely responsible for preserving knowledge through the dark ages.
Because they’re the only ones who were allowed to do it.. they ran the universities moron.
Then there’s how much history they actually destroyed. Christgolems are single-handedly responsible for our limited knowledge of prechristian Europe particularly outside of Greece and Rome. The same with Native American culture.
You can't explain history to people who have none. They just make it up and decide it's fact
no you’re the moron here >only ones allowed to do it
should be easy for you to prove some sort of prohibition on non clergy learning then. for non morons, the reason should be obvious, and it’s that like in almost every era of history only the nobility could afford to educate children, so the priestly class were obviously mostly noble. it had nothing to do within restriction to education unless you count finance as a restriction, but that was always the case before christianity too
> should be easy for you to prove some sort of prohibition on non clergy learning then.
All schools were explicitly religious institutions. If you don’t understand that the university is where scholarly research was done and they were 99.99% Christians. You would have needed fluency in Latin. It was literally only clergy and the nobility, as you admit, who were also almost entirely, Christian. If you don’t think that’s gatekeeping, you’re moronic, which you are. >only the nobility could afford to educate children
so again, it was reserved for nobility, who again were 99% Christian, and the professional Christians, who were according to you, nobility.
>It was literally only clergy and the nobility, as you admit, who were also almost entirely, Christian. If you don’t think that’s gatekeeping, you’re moronic, which you are.
lmao how does this logic work out? >everyone was christian, so that meant non christians were barred from education
there weren’t any. again, you can apply this exact same standard to the antique world >everyone educated was an aristocratic pagan, therefore only pagans were allowed an education
>all schools were explicitly religious
you could learn a litany of secular trades at places like oxford. law for one, since most clerks in england studied there. it wasn’t just a place for teaching theology and you did not need to be clergy to go there to be educated. if you mean it was a christianised institution, so was literally everything in the middle ages in the same way every aspect of antique government was heavily ritualised around the state religion. this doesn’t mean there was some enforcement on being clergy in either case to learn, just wealth was needed. which was always the case before christianity existed - so how is the middle ages unique there?
>destroyed
What native american manuscripts did they burn, moron? They didn’t record their history and so, coincidentally, not much was recorded. What we do know was from western christians making an effort to preserve it. Same with the norse, snorri was fairly devout and is our source for most of their folklore
I would assume, being generous to him he is referring to - Meso-American manuscripts that were in fact very much destroyed. If I am being super generous he means the general attempts at stifling their oral culture and the transmission of their culture, but to pin that second one wholly on religion is stupid, religious actors certainly play a part, but Priests were also often the people who stood up to the horrible practices they saw being done to the natives.
>Because they’re the only ones who were allowed to do it.. they ran the universities moron.
They were in monasteries and that didn't prevent anyone else from writing things down.
This is the error atheists make, and Family Guy is making. They always compare religion to some theoretical perfect system. They never compare it to actual reality. They think 'if the church didn't preserve knowledge someone else would have.' No, they wouldn't have. The natural state of people is living like animals. Getting anything useful accomplished is a monumental uphill struggle. You can't just tear religion away and expect everything will somehow work out by itself.
>No, they wouldn't have. The natural state of people is living like animals.
Except we know they would have because they did. Is brain damage a prerequisite for being a christgolem? Why are all of you moronic?
>post the collapse of Rome
So after christianity already controlled the western world. Is there a reason you ask such a moronic question or are you just trolling?
9 months ago
Anonymous
you literally just claimed other people were doing it in the “dark ages”, which is specifically post rome.
9 months ago
Anonymous
No, I didn’t, you absolute moron.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>No, they wouldn't have. The natural state of people is living like animals.
Except we know they would have because they did. Is brain damage a prerequisite for being a christgolem? Why are all of you moronic?
The guy you are replying to said if the church didn’t preserve them, nobody would have. You disagreed with that and said they did. But they didn’t. You then changed your stance and said the church was the only thing that could do it, which I guess was somehow meant to be a knock on christianity? Either way you’ve altered your stance from there to here
>post the collapse of Rome
So after christianity already controlled the western world. Is there a reason you ask such a moronic question or are you just trolling?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>You disagreed with that and said they did.
Because they did. Before the dark ages, not during it, which I never said despite you falsely attributing that made up, bullshit argument to me. Prechristian people DID keep records of history, and we know they did because some of it survives today, you lying idiot. Your entire argument is a lie, a deliberate misinterpretation of what I said. >You then changed your stance and said the church was the only thing that could do it
No, I said the church, after it took power, was the thing that did it. Period. If you can’t understand the difference, rope
9 months ago
Anonymous
When did I imply people before christianity didn’t keep records? I even made this clear by saying christians copied records, mostly pre christian ones like aristotle and so on. What is relevant is that we have about 2 extant classical manuscripts, literally two, and every other bit of writing from greece and rome is down to medieval copies preserving them. So the idea that christianity somehow led to a collapse of written culture holds no water.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>When did I imply people before christianity didn’t keep records?
>Because they’re the only ones who were allowed to do it.. they ran the universities moron.
They were in monasteries and that didn't prevent anyone else from writing things down.
This is the error atheists make, and Family Guy is making. They always compare religion to some theoretical perfect system. They never compare it to actual reality. They think 'if the church didn't preserve knowledge someone else would have.' No, they wouldn't have. The natural state of people is living like animals. Getting anything useful accomplished is a monumental uphill struggle. You can't just tear religion away and expect everything will somehow work out by itself.
>They think 'if the church didn't preserve knowledge someone else would have.' No, they wouldn't have. The natural state of people is living like animals.
To which I responded
>No, they wouldn't have. The natural state of people is living like animals.
Except we know they would have because they did. Is brain damage a prerequisite for being a christgolem? Why are all of you moronic?
Please stop wasting my time.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Not me, but you’ve clearly misunderstood him anyway. This is what historians mean when they say “skin of our teeth” for this period, because if the monastic system had not existed post the collapse of rome we would genuinely have been fricked. If the church in that period didn’t do this, we would have lost the vast majority of antique writing that we have today and society would probably not have recovered even still.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>iPhone screenshot
Holy shit dude, you responded FOR that anon to my argument, continuing his line of argumentation, invoking his comments and my responses to them.
The rest of your comment is completely irrelevant.
You are shamelessly dishonest
9 months ago
Anonymous
I didn’t actually,
>No, they wouldn't have. The natural state of people is living like animals.
Except we know they would have because they did. Is brain damage a prerequisite for being a christgolem? Why are all of you moronic?
I just disagreed with this post. And that’s fine if you can’t refute anything i’ve said, but at least be honest about it
9 months ago
Anonymous
> “I didn’t respond to your argument with someone else and directly reference his comments and yours” >“I just responded to this post *links to my argument with someone else*” >specifically begins his posts with “I’m not that anon BUT WHAT HE WAS SAYING WAS..”
Why are you even doing this? Do you think you’re fooling anyone?
9 months ago
Anonymous
I didn’t link your argument with someone else. You responded to him saying something I thought was wrong and asked you to qualify your statement. Am I not allowed to challenge whatever bullshit someone happens to say unless i’ve been in the reply chain for half an hour already?
>Then there’s how much history they actually destroyed. Christgolems are single-handedly responsible for our limited knowledge of prechristian Europe particularly outside of Greece and Rome
Source for this claim? Christ chads are the ones who translated shitty nord scribbled, Christ Chad’s are the only reason you know who Odin is
Because that’s not what I argued against and you should walk in front of traffic. I added necessary context and then made my argument from there, but you know that, and your only hope lies in dishonesty.
I didn’t link your argument with someone else. You responded to him saying something I thought was wrong and asked you to qualify your statement. Am I not allowed to challenge whatever bullshit someone happens to say unless i’ve been in the reply chain for half an hour already?
You literally did, we just proved it and you admitted it.
Here’s the takeaways from this whole exchange. >anon 1 says that without the church, other people wouldn’t have “preserved knowledge” >anon 2 (me) says actually they would have, and we know they would have because they did and we have surviving examples of this, and we also have evidence that the Christian’s destroyed similar evidence en masse. obviously referencing pre-Christian peoples. BEFORE the dark ages >1 or more moronic anons (you) respond to this argument and ask when in the dark ages, after the church took power, did these pre-Christian people copy/preserve/write manuscripts
Was your goal to make this conversation so off topic and so moronic that no one could even follow it? Because for anyone with two brain cells to rub together and an honest open mind, they know the truth is that you’re a liar.
document copying was being done in Toledo and Baghdad
9 months ago
Anonymous
>toledo >not christian in 300+ AD
what?
9 months ago
Anonymous
What I mean is when Christians took back the land they found many copies of Aristotle in arabic. I should have said document copying during the islamic rule. of course the document copying couldve been because of the Christians beforehand and continuing the practice.
Same for Baghdad having Constantinopolitan influence
9 months ago
Anonymous
this is like way, way after the dark age period we are talking about. again, to make it clear, if christians were not copying documents in secluded monasteries post the fall of rome we would have lost a huge chunk of the classical canon because at the time nobody else was making copies. muslims doing this centuries later is not that relevant
9 months ago
Anonymous
agree with everything you said. Just adding that not some key literature was lost and the renaissance is from rediscovering the old greek literature in the west from places like Toledo.
>literally nobody else would have
Can you prove that? This is an unfalsifiable claim and all available evidence suggests otherwise. Thanks for playing.
9 months ago
Anonymous
It’s actually easily falsifiable, name a non christian and non monastic manuscript from western europe post the collapse of rome in the “dark ages”. There isn’t any
9 months ago
Anonymous
We have them from BEFORE THE DARK AGES, and the reason we don’t have any during the dark ages is because the Christians destroyed them and the Christians controlled scholarly research and the dissemination of information, which is what we’ve been talking about in this thread for the last two hours. Please have a nice day.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>christians destroyed them
Literal shred of evidence for this claim? They didn’t do this, at all. There are only two extant classical MS because of centuries of germanic barbarians (a lot of them le based pagans btw) looting libraries and burning cities to the ground. This is actually part of the reason monks were so desperate to copy them, you even have some like dunstan who risked their lives repeatedly crossing the sea and hordes of these roving pillagers just to rescue books. And now you’re claiming with no evidence they destroyed them. And it’s funny you brought that point up because you got BTFO here on it:
>It was literally only clergy and the nobility, as you admit, who were also almost entirely, Christian. If you don’t think that’s gatekeeping, you’re moronic, which you are.
lmao how does this logic work out? >everyone was christian, so that meant non christians were barred from education
there weren’t any. again, you can apply this exact same standard to the antique world >everyone educated was an aristocratic pagan, therefore only pagans were allowed an education
>all schools were explicitly religious
you could learn a litany of secular trades at places like oxford. law for one, since most clerks in england studied there. it wasn’t just a place for teaching theology and you did not need to be clergy to go there to be educated. if you mean it was a christianised institution, so was literally everything in the middle ages in the same way every aspect of antique government was heavily ritualised around the state religion. this doesn’t mean there was some enforcement on being clergy in either case to learn, just wealth was needed. which was always the case before christianity existed - so how is the middle ages unique there?
And simply stopped replying
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Literal shred of evidence for this claim?
There is so much and it’s so easily accessible with literally just a Google search that I really can only feel sorry for you. You’re so badly undereducated and ignorant. Here is a pretty comprehensive article from the Times with multiple references for you. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/08/books/review/catherine-nixey-darkening-age.html
I stopped replying to that anons post because I already answered everything he said and I challenge you to point out one thing which I didn’t already address in my previous response.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>paywalled israelite york times article
AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA
9 months ago
Anonymous
>being poor
Kek
9 months ago
Anonymous
>this easily disproves you >just give money to a israeli publication to see my refutation
???!
>AHAHAHAHAHA
isn’t an argument, and if you legitimately don’t know how to get around it and view that article, you are moronic.
quote the relevant parts and their source
9 months ago
Anonymous
>AHAHAHAHAHA
isn’t an argument, and if you legitimately don’t know how to get around it and view that article, you are moronic.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Pay for my subscription then moron
9 months ago
Anonymous
>being poor
Kek
>Literal shred of evidence for this claim?
There is so much and it’s so easily accessible with literally just a Google search that I really can only feel sorry for you. You’re so badly undereducated and ignorant. Here is a pretty comprehensive article from the Times with multiple references for you. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/08/books/review/catherine-nixey-darkening-age.html
I stopped replying to that anons post because I already answered everything he said and I challenge you to point out one thing which I didn’t already address in my previous response.
Actual homosexual lmao, I'm crying laughing
9 months ago
Anonymous
okay so you claim christians were destroying the classical manuscript they were desperately trying to copy after the fall of rome. you’ve sent me an article I can’t read without paying money to prove this happened
9 months ago
Anonymous
yeah maybe answer >the different standards you apply to the pagan and christian education system despite them being almost identical >how the medieval education system prohibited non religious learning when we have actual factual evidence it didn’t at all
9 months ago
Anonymous
9 months ago
Anonymous
Holy frick this is embarrassing
9 months ago
Anonymous
>here’s your evidence for my moronic claim bro >just pay israeli journalists 5 dollars to see it
9 months ago
Anonymous
9 months ago
Anonymous
Just have a nice day
9 months ago
Anonymous
catherine nixey wrote this article and pretty much every medieval scholar called her full of shit for the book she’s shilling in it
9 months ago
Anonymous
not vouching for the validity of any overarching argument or claim she makes in any of her works, but she includes verified evidence and examples of Christians destroying pagan buildings, writings, works of art, etc. which is what the christgolem was asking for, evidence of this widely understood and talked about phenomenon.
9 months ago
Anonymous
ok list them then???
9 months ago
Anonymous
>dude just search my own argument for me
I understand the point of this game is to shift the focus of the argument away from what’s being said to attack to the character of the person or entity who published the evidence, but it’s literally not my responsibility to provide you with evidence, when someone tells you something you look it up and verify for yourself. This isn’t a debate, this is a Cinemaphile argument. Here’s a free article that references The NY Times one. https://churchandstate.org.uk/2023/01/christian-vandalism-of-the-classical-world/
9 months ago
Anonymous
this game? you made a claim, someone asked you to prove it, and you have for the 10th time refused to give a single tiny quote or anything indicating what you’re saying is true. it absolutely is your responsibility to provide evidence when you make claims
9 months ago
Anonymous
>you made a claim
Okay. >someone asked you to prove it
I’ve linked to two separate articles, posted pictures, and given instructions on how to research this topic for yourself >it absolutely is your responsible to provide evidence when you make claims
Of a widely acknowledged phenomenon? Something that gets taught in elementary and middle schools? No. I did anyway though.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>I linked a paid for article, I posted another massive article that I didn’t quote and just vaguely gestures toward saying it proves my point
not too smart are you
9 months ago
Anonymous
this article is bullshit like two sentences in >romans had freedom of religion
no they didn’t. they literally prosecuted people for denying the state religion. this was before christianity
9 months ago
Anonymous
’s had freedom of religion
Except it literally doesn’t say that. It says they tolerated multiple religions, which is 100% true.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>https://churchandstate.org.uk/2023/01/christian-vandalism-of-the-classical-world/
This blog is run by Stephen Mumford who is a literal crackpot eugenicist arguing that Christians get in the way of "population control."
9 months ago
Anonymous
https://historyforatheists.com/2017/11/review-catherine-nixey-the-darkening-age/ >Catherine Nixey, The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World, (Macmillan, 2017) 305 pp. Her publisher’s blurb informs us that Nixey’s book tells “the largely unknown – and deeply shocking – story” of how a militant Christianity “extinguished the teachings of the Classical world” and was “violent, ruthless and intolerant” in an orgy of destruction and oppression that was “an annihilation”. On the other hand, no less an authority than the esteemed historian of Late Antiquity, Dame Averil Cameron, calls Nixey’s book “a travesty”, roundly condemning it as “overstated and unbalanced”. And Dame Averil is correct – this is a book of biased polemic masquerading as historical analysis and easily the worst book I have read in years.
>In Literary Review, University of Exeter medievalist Levi Roach’s review is rather more kindly than Nixey deserves, but Roach does not pull his punches when he focuses on the problems with Nixey’s book. “Perhaps most worryingly” he observes “Nixey ends up endorsing the long-debunked view of the Middle Ages as a period of blind faith and intellectual stagnation”. And he notes, with considerable understatement, “it is hard not to detect a degree of anti-Christian animus”. Averil Cameron was certainly able to “detect” Nixey’s clear and almost visceral anti-Christian bias. “Catherine Nixey is a lively writer and likely to go far,” she writes, “but unfortunately in her first book she has rather unimaginatively bought into the old ‘blame the Christians’ model. She drives it through with a steely-eyed determination, unrelieved by nuance or counter-argument.”
9 months ago
Anonymous
I’m not paying for that
9 months ago
Anonymous
9 months ago
Anonymous
KWAB
9 months ago
Anonymous
I don’t speak AIDS sorry
9 months ago
Anonymous
holy shit you're such a homosexual its unreal
9 months ago
Anonymous
9 months ago
Anonymous
9 months ago
Anonymous
>actually chud, grima rosenburg proved that christianity is evil. for the low low price of 10 dollars you can find out how I won this argument with you
9 months ago
Anonymous
I love it when midwits end their stupid little posts in some redditism like this
there aren’t dark age examples of non christians copying any MS in europe. and as was said, there are two extant antique MS and everything else we have is down to medieval copies. as for “destroying evidence” you will have to be more specific because I don’t know what you mean
>there aren’t dark age examples of non christians copying any MS in europe
That’s my point. I was talking about BEFORE. THE FRICKING. DARK AGES.
But I guess I should not be shocked, since you people believe in a magical rabbi.
9 months ago
Anonymous
and again, the post you were responding to was specifically talking about the dark ages. nobody is denying that literacy existed before christianity
9 months ago
Anonymous
No, you ape, the post I responded to
>Because they’re the only ones who were allowed to do it.. they ran the universities moron.
They were in monasteries and that didn't prevent anyone else from writing things down.
This is the error atheists make, and Family Guy is making. They always compare religion to some theoretical perfect system. They never compare it to actual reality. They think 'if the church didn't preserve knowledge someone else would have.' No, they wouldn't have. The natural state of people is living like animals. Getting anything useful accomplished is a monumental uphill struggle. You can't just tear religion away and expect everything will somehow work out by itself.
entertains a hypothetical where, in the absence of the church, would the period of the dark ages have seen non Christians “preserving knowledge” in place of the church. He said no, and I responded yes they would have, because before the church came to power, they already did and were doing this for thousands of years.
9 months ago
Anonymous
and you are wrong on this as has been tediously pointed out repeatedly. if there was the capacity for manuscripts to be copied outside of the church in that period of west european history, we would have at least one. we don’t.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>we would have at least one
Okay, I can see you’re just not getting it, but I have another one to approach this.
Why do you think we have them from before the dark ages, but not during?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Please stop being a dense motherfricker and address the argument at hand. It's not >manuscripts from before the dark ages don't exist
or >pagans are incapable of recording their own history
It's >In the dark ages, Christians were the only ones copying those older manuscripts and if they didn't nobody else would. We can be confident in this because there's no counterexample (secular people/institutions in the dark ages in particular copying older manuscripts)
9 months ago
Anonymous
Is there a reason you’re not answering my question? I’ll ask it again; Why do we have them from before the dark ages and not during the time when the church held power and controlled academia?
9 months ago
Anonymous
I can answer this. You just need to pay $10 to ADL to read the article explaining it
9 months ago
Anonymous
We don’t moron, as i’ve said 50 times. We have two (2) extant classical manuscripts. Everything else is based on medieval copies. I’ve already explained why this happened (you ignored it) and it’s because of migrant barbarians burning and looting libraries across the remains of the empire. 99% of the time when we don’t have something it’s because some pagan vikang burned the monastery with the autograph copy
9 months ago
Anonymous
Holy frick this is embarrassing
>here’s your evidence for my moronic claim bro >just pay israeli journalists 5 dollars to see it
[...]
[...]
Actual homosexual lmao, I'm crying laughing
I can answer this. You just need to pay $10 to ADL to read the article explaining it
Post your GED.
Literally just do a Google search for examples of Christian’s destroying pagan relics, manuscripts, artifacts, etc. this is such common knowledge that you’re just embarrassing yourself
9 months ago
Anonymous
if it’s such common knowledge you could easily just post about it
9 months ago
Anonymous
I did, and the only way that article is pay walled is if you already viewed articles on their website, and you can literally use a vpn to get around it. And if you don’t like the New York Times, go to any legitimate database you want and enter the fricking words I told you to, or just go to Google and use the search bar.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>still not just listing examples and telling people to go read an entire book instead
9 months ago
Anonymous
Research articles are not books, and doing a Google search or looking through an actual scholarly database is not reading a book.
It's weird how a few episodes later Quagmire who's also voiced by Seth condemns Brian for looking down on religious people and he's in no position to judge them
It feels like he realized how smug he came across shoving his athiest thoughts onto everyone
Seth hasn’t done anything besides voice work for the show in decades. He certainly didn’t write the one in the OP. Also, that quagmire speech was moronic and you taking it seriously is dumb.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever thought that. Not only did - trade not stop (are you thinking of like, the immediate aftermath following the fall of the Mongol Empire?) Most historians are pretty locked in that the dark ages never existed, or at least - did not happen in the way people think. But, leaving that aside, "The Dark Ages" was always - the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of Barbarians kingdoms after. This is fricking Gibboh shit where he felt he needed to shit on Christianity because he was a big Enlightenment boy. The fact that much antique knowledge - was kept up by the church, still existed in the west even though they lacked the resources of empire, and it 100% certainly existed and was expanded upon in the Islam/Byzantine worlds didn't matter to people in the renaissance and enlightenment who had to make themselves feel self-superior to the time before.
the dark ages weren't dark at all from a historical perspective. i've heard of historians starting to write it off because its not as described, glad its catching on.
It's called the Migration Era now. We know so much more about what was going on between the fall of Rome and the battle of Hastings now than we did even twenty years ago. It's incredible.
i wasn't even aware the new shit had a term. areas in history were absolutely devastated by things that happened, but there wasn't really a loss of technology, it just was as prominent.
Christian monks preserved latin writings in the west and the Arab/Byzantine world preserved greek writings in the east
Ironically it was the fall of Constantinople which led a ton of greek works to be “rediscovered” in the latin west, like the Corpus Hermeticum thanks to Marsilio Ficino
you’re basing this on a series of books sold in the 20th century lmao, that’s not an objective metric. notice they don’t have the guy who created the entire arthur mythos as we know it on there, maybe there were oversights?
It was the dark ages because it was violence and feudalism. The empire fragmented into tiny states and kingdoms, there was poor cohesion and cooperation. Those are not the conditions to be making advances.
The rise of humanist scholarship ala Petrarch is 1 not new, but even if it was in the renaissance - it had nothing to do with "The dark Ages." People in Antiquity also did the rote memorization, and commentary rather than critique upon older works. That's not something that starts in medieval times. It was the "Dark Ages" because people pretended like they were rediscovering and reviving something. Its the myth that knowledge was lost, and the world was shrouded in ignorance and superstition. The fact that shit stuck around is in fact.
yeah like dante and aquinas and chaucer and langland and the pearl poet and the ring cycle poet and snorri and boccacio and augsutine and anselm and malory and the vulgate cycle what a dearth of writing
They burned down Alexandria library and shut down greek universities also the whole Byzantine things is ridiculous rome never achieved anything close to what mediaeval Europe had in terms of tech the dark ages are a meme
>meds and BBC
NOW
touch grass. take your meds. have sex. You are more deluded than the anything you replied yo could have said. Sorry your BBC fantasy fetish hasn't happened yet.
Arguably the worst period was due to disease, specifically the Black Death, rather than religion. You could make the case that religion prolonged the BD but it would be a weak case.
you walk out of your pod at 11am because no one works or does anything productive
you look up to see the sun blocked out, because "climate change"
after picking up the latest propaganda paper from the pre-approved box you take a look inside
"biden nominates asshomosexual woketard who rapes children to position with children"
and then i'll plow the sidewalk
Name one thing wrong with scientists exploring ideas just to understand how they would actually work. Which is what your picture is saying they are doing btw.
>would actually work
none of it works. earth has gone through so much climate change that isn't in the record and there is ZERO things humans can do about it.
if you dont realize they are lyijng to your face in the first place - they are trying to make their own jobs more prestigious by claiming to save the earth. they want so badly to be the person to say "stop eating meat"
ever notice how its only the west that needs to stop driving cars, having kids, no new industry growth? now look at the last time greta went to china or india to tell them to stop doing shit. its all a fricking scam.
"i wish the climate change would happen so the science could be proven right regardless of the consequences" - phil jones, PHD/IPCC/CRU
these buttholes dont care about earth at all. its just their job to talk down to others which is where we get HECKIN SOLAR ROADS from and other bonkers shit. yeah lets just block the sun, that seems like a great idea.
>Nobody works or does anything productive. >Also they build a shield around the sun.
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
man thats a lot of words to say FRICK OFF (if you arent the cultist) but i agree otheriwise. it never stops and once you can see that, you can begin to de-program yourself
What shits me is when they depicte their ideal socieities they still have their propaganda everywhere even after they have won, it's 1 thing to have a flag here or there but they still have battle tier imagery when there is no more battle to fight, imagine if religions did that, a cross on the door of every home.
Is this assuming the dark ages never happened because the roman empire never fell because of christianity?
If this were an endorsement of roman paganism that's pretty cool but I suspect it's more of a hatred of modern american christians and boy I wonder who would feel that way.
To be sure. After a perfect world without religion has been created. Everybody who knows the concept of god, even if they are atheist, should be killed. There is no place for people with knowledge of religion existing.
Sorry to say this but if every human society independently developed religion you can’t really escape it. You actually just hate human beings i’m afraid
>Independently >He actually believes this
Lol. Most religious are just the same pagan nonsense with a new name. Eradicate that, and it won't come back.
even if you get a donkey to kick you in the head five times and become convinced that abbos somehow were connected to indo european religion, it wouldn’t explain how religion came to be. It’s still something every human culture shared and which sprang up before writing did
9 months ago
Anonymous
>it wouldn’t explain how religion came to be
Mostly stupid caveman looking at thunder and thinking Gods are responsible.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>looking at thunder
Think you might be the caveman there buddy
I'm an Atheist and I approve this message.
I want to go back to the moronic Christ-cucks who never understood my interests, rather than live with these moronic woke-gays actively destroying them all. Bring back religion. The masses need their opium.
The Dark Ages is a meme. It was not a time of scientific repression as people assume, it is called the Dark Ages because there wasn't much written works at the time. Ancient texts containing wisdoms that everyone pretends was lost were transcribed and copied by monks.
I doubt that is even the point Seth was making. That at least would have been a tiny bit historically literate. Instead he probably just thinks technology, peace, and rationality is the default state of people but for Christianity and that we'd be living in John Lennon's 'Imagine' if we could just get rid of its vestiges. That is basically how all liberals see the world.
seth is a merchant who hates christians. him and his people murdered jesus. he'll never joke about that though - only safe anti-christian jokes are allowed.
seth is a merchant who hates christians. him and his people murdered jesus. he'll never joke about that though - only safe anti-christian jokes are allowed.
>he thinks Seth Macfarlane rights for Family Guy in any shape or form
Ohno…
Ohnononono…
AHAHAHAHAHA
i checked out on seth when he finally got the orville after begging paramount for 20 years to let him make a trek show. and he couldn't help himself, it became family guy in space. he's a hack with a little glimpse of brilliance here and there.
>Japan kills all their Christians and stays pagans >No hyper advanced civilization >Modern Japanese are a race of work slave bugmen who are literally dying out
>Japanese Christians stay in hiding for 200 years >Finally it's safe to come out >The ~~*united states*~~ drops a nuke right on top of their village
Really makes u think
It's really simple logic, and it's telling how these fart-sniffing "intellectuals" can't grasp it. We lost the technology to make concrete. Was it a conspiracy of oppression? No, the lack of a unified government did it. Here's how that shit happens:
Government gets complaints that the roads are fricked. They hire contractors to fix it. Contractors buy concrete from their supplier. The supplier buys it straight from the manufacturer. The manufacturer buys the ingredients to make it from the gatherer.
Government collapses. Now there aren't any jobs to fix roads. The contractors take smaller local jobs thatching roofs and building fences. The supplier isn't selling concrete anymore, so he starts stocking more wood and straw. The manufacterer isn't making concrete since the supplier stopped buying it, so they become a lumber company. The gatherer can't sell his concrete materials, so he starts farming instead.
It's now 200 years later. Some noble heard what Roman architecture used to look like, and wants part of his home made with concrete. But no contractors have ever worked with concrete. The supplier doesn't know where to buy any. The manufacturer wasn't alive when the workshop still made it and doesn't remember the recipe. The gatherer is now a farmer and only knows how to grow turnips. Concrete no longer exists anywhere.
It's important that people figure this stuff out, because it could very easily happen again. Do you think anyone's going to remember how to maintain our sewage system if the government stopped paying people to do it?
It's curious that nobody responded to this despite being one of the better rational insights into how this shit actually works
https://i.imgur.com/kKzVBP8.jpg
Was this the mist intelligent scene in family guy ever?
The absence of Jesus/Christianity changes so many things about history it's literally impossible to predict what could have happened so the screenshot is moronic in a variety of ways. Just to name a few >no Crusades >no Islam and subsequent wars of conquest as it grew out of a mixture of fringe Judeo-Christian ideas and the local Arab pagan religions. Modern Iberia/North Africa/Arabia would be completely alien to anyone from our world without it >The new world might be colonized but a not insignificant part of the reason in our timeline was missionary work to the natives so the governing structures would be entirely different, and this assumes it was even discovered in the first place because for all we know Europe could have turned out like China who could explore the world but didn't really feel like it >the English language itself is a clusterfrick of Greek, Latin, French, Germanic, and native British languages and that mixture is heavily dictated by the history of the region so it's almost certain alternate-timeline US spoken language would be unintelligible to us (again, assuming countries and history unfolded identically to us except without the most influential religion's effects)
I think the biggest influence of Christianity not existing would probably be that Rome would still be around in some form. Not to say it was responsible for the decline of the Roman Empire, it wasn't, but the rise of Islam and the religious divide was probably the main reason why Byzantium fell.
Byzantium wasn't Rome. The way I like to explain it is >Rome = Lego >Byzantium = Megabloks >HRE = Bionicle
Sure Megabloks looks more like Lego than Bionicle does, but Bionicle is an actual Lego brand continuation whereas Megabloks is just a ripoff.
>the Pope when he still had authority.
There was one period when the Pope was approved by Byzantine Emperors, but afterwards the Pope literally appointed Charlemagne and the HRE, not Constantinople, as the successors of Rome.
9 months ago
Anonymous
The HRE and the pope fell out pretty quickly. There's also the fact that the actual founding of the HRE and the pope appointing Charlemange as Emperor was pretty far apart.
Byzantium wasn't Rome, but it was the only actual successor to the Roman Empire outside of arguably the Pope when he still had authority.
Byzantium was literally the eastern half of the empire and the citizens called themselves Romans all the way into the 1400s. HRE could only claim descent from Rome because the Pope decided to give the title of emperor to some Frankish king, it is in all other respects a French/German state
Is there a reason you’re not answering my question? I’ll ask it again; Why do we have them from before the dark ages and not during the time when the church held power and controlled academia?
Because the actual question is about who was copying manuscripts IN the dark ages? Of course manuscripts from prior to it existed because that's what was being copied, nobody's disputing that. I really hope you're baiting at this point because I don't want to believe anyone can be this dumb naturally
>Because the actual question is about who was copying manuscripts IN the dark ages?
No, because we already know the answer to that is the church. So I asked you a question which you’ve dodged twice, so I’m gonna ask it again;
Why do you think we have them from before the dark ages and not the time when the church controlled academia? Don’t run.
9 months ago
Anonymous
I'm genuinely trying to figure out what your argument is at this point, so I'll list out mine, which isn't even opinion as much as it is historical facts, and you tell me which part you disagree with >1. Non-Christians are capable of (and did) record their own history and literature >2. Most of those original manuscripts were lost in various wars and viking raids >2a. We have very few left that are not Christian religious texts >3. During this, they were copied by Christians (monks and others) so we at least know what they said >4. Nothing prevented non-Christians from doing (3) too but we haven't found any evidence of it happening despite a lot of modern interest in finding it
9 months ago
Anonymous
How about you just the answer the question you’ve dodged three times now?
>no Crusades
I disagree on this one. That psycho in Rome whether he was pope or pontifex was getting land in the middle east (preferably egypt) no matter what
>That psycho in Rome whether he was pope or pontifex
the title of pontifex has since Augustus Caesar been held either by the Roman emperor (who would instead command legions and call it a war) or the Pope himself so I don't know what you mean by this. Can you be more specific?
I think the biggest influence of Christianity not existing would probably be that Rome would still be around in some form. Not to say it was responsible for the decline of the Roman Empire, it wasn't, but the rise of Islam and the religious divide was probably the main reason why Byzantium fell.
I want to disagree but I don't think I can, and now that I'm imagining livestreamed gladiator fights I don't want to anymore
Wait if human history isn't supposed to be viewed as dominated or manifested through the western lense, then why did nowhere else in the world end up like family guy suggests in the absence of Christianity. South Africa, Japan, India ffs, nowhere did human civilization advance while Christian Europe supposedly sat in squalor for a millennia according to these sillies. Hell, China and the Islamic empires dominated gunpowder and explosive chemistry longer than most of Europe was Christian, what's the excuse for the Confucianists having skyscrapers crumbling down less than 4 years after they get built instead of flying car green cities?
>nowhere did human civilization advance while Christian Europe supposedly sat in squalor for a millennia according to these sillies.
? They did advance like crazy.
>what's the excuse for the Confucianists having skyscrapers crumbling down less than 4 years after they get built instead of flying car green cities?
Mostly the fact that didn't happen.
>Mostly the fact that didn't happen
I'm genuinely asking for the excuse though. I mean that's as close as you're going to get to logic absolutist atheist society mostly untouched by Christianity at the global scale and they end up recessing tremendously a couple centuries in, then falling to the Khans, get btfo by colonization, and then get a pretty decent 20 year peaking rebound from the 1990s-00s before crashing themselves with slapstick levels of corruption probably back down to a barely industrial level if they don't fix their current trajectory. if Christianity is what held the west back, where are the flying cars from any other part of humanity that existed from 1bc on?
>I'm genuinely asking for the excuse though
Like I said, most of the world outside of West Europe did experience a large amount of growth.
>they end up recessing tremendously a couple centuries in,
Not really, no. They were weakened by internal strive. Culturally and scientifically they kept up growing and advancing.
>then falling to the Khans, get btfo by colonization
There is about 600 years between those two. Ming and Qing had problems, to be sure. But they were hardly entirely backwards states that had zero growth.
No. israelites, as a group, are not actually real. It's a idea invented by the Romans to justify their actions in the middle east by claiming the people pushed a long dead religion.
Jesus wasn't real either. Christianity was actually a fringe cult that worshiped Julius Caesar. After the fall of Western Rome the papacy fabricated the idea of Jesus Christ.
Why do roman sources not say this then? Tacitus doesn’t seem to think they worshiped Caesar. It’s also worth pointing out that post Caesar the roman state religion began to deify the emperors anyway, so this cult would be superfluous
Most roman sources were fabricated by the papacy after the fact.
> It’s also worth pointing out that post Caesar the roman state religion began to deify the emperors anyway, so this cult would be superfluous
Christianity was born mostly because Emperors refused to retroactively deify Julius Ceasar.
If all those records were forged (even though there are copies of them we can actually date before the roman papacy existed and which were disseminated across mesopotamia) that just makes the early church one of the most competent entities in history. Since historical forgeries are usually very easy to notice and apparently nobody did
>that just makes the early church one of the most competent entities in history.
Very much so. Unsurprising considering the sheer amount of power they had.
>Christianity was born mostly because Emperors refused to retroactively deify Julius Ceasar.
Wtf he was literally deified during the reign of Augustus. Divus Julivs. Explain yourself
The deification of Julius Caesar was highly controversial. It caused a civil conflict within the Imperial cult. The defeated side eventually became the Christian cult.
There was a state religion in rome. Paganism wasn’t some wishy washy vague nonsense but was he’s out organised and was extremely tied into how the state ran. People were still being executed for impiety and denial of the state religion pre christianity, socrates is a famous example of that.
>There was a state religion in rome
never official.
yes it was very organised I agree with you. Julius Caesar was flamen dialis which was siginificant. Pontifex was also key figure HOWEVER it was never the state religion.
People killed who held a different religious belief i.e. Christians were killed because they disturbed the order of Rome. It was not a religious cause but more "you got christians you got problems" (riots, uproar etc).
It mellowed around 3rd century once paganism became unpopular. Other religions started popping up too
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_Pontiffs >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_maximus
then wtf was all this
tagging you in too 🙂
9 months ago
Anonymous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome#Religio_and_the_state >The official deities of the state were identified with its lawful offices and institutions, and Romans of every class were expected to honour the beneficence and protection of mortal and divine superiors. State cult rituals were almost always performed in daylight and in full public view, by priests who acted on behalf of the Roman state and the Roman people. Congregtions were expected to respectfully observe the proceedings. Participation in public rites showed a personal commitment to the community and its values.[70] >The public Vestals prepared ritual substances for use in public and private cults, and held the state-funded (thus public) opening ceremony for the Parentalia festival, which was otherwise a private rite to household ancestors. Some rites of the domus (household) were held in public places but were legally defined as privata in part or whole. All cults were ultimately subject to the approval and regulation of the censor and pontifices.[71]
9 months ago
Anonymous
but it wasnt a state religion. you need to understand the gods were different where ever you were in the Empire. On this basis judaism, christianity and islam is the same religion.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>was funded by the state >was tied to government offices >disrespecting it was a criminal act >"it wasn't a state religion lol"
>the gods were different where ever you were in the Empire.
Weirdos in Egypt also having this homie Hermanubis doing his own thing does not change the obviously public and political dimension of the Roman priesthoods in Rome.
9 months ago
Anonymous
just telling you a fact. Its all very complicated. Ive not argued here
9 months ago
Anonymous
again, socrates was put to death for not believing in the state gods. there was 100% a state pantheon in both rome and greece with rituals and festivals associated with it.
Most roman sources were fabricated by the papacy after the fact.
> It’s also worth pointing out that post Caesar the roman state religion began to deify the emperors anyway, so this cult would be superfluous
Christianity was born mostly because Emperors refused to retroactively deify Julius Ceasar.
yes hyper advanced christians conquered both effortlessly in the 19th century because for some reason their lack of christianity made them technologically inferior despite the fact that christianity has the opposite effect according to you
> conquered both
They never conquered China and didn't even conquer all of Africa until a year or two before World War 2. They also never conquered Thailand, Japan, and Korean.
>they never conquered china
they basically did, and with poppy seeds. >all of africa
nobody wanted most of it >thailand, japan, korea
all were feudal tier when euros showed up, they just couldn’t properly stage wars that far way realistically
>they basically did,
Ah yes, by that logic the Ottoman Empire basically conquered West Europe. Through a alliance with France.
>nobody wanted most of it
Yeah, they did. Even tried and failed to invade Ethiopia.
>all were feudal tier when euros showed up
90% of Europe was feudal tier going by that logic.
9 months ago
Anonymous
It’s amazing how you managed to be that dishonest and purposefully obtuse in every single one of your answers, genuinely have a nice day.
The deification of Julius Caesar was highly controversial. It caused a civil conflict within the Imperial cult. The defeated side eventually became the Christian cult.
Source on this claim?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Not a argument.
>Source on this claim?
Read up actual Roman documents from the time.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Read up actual Roman documents from the time.
You said they were all forged
Most roman sources were fabricated by the papacy after the fact.
> It’s also worth pointing out that post Caesar the roman state religion began to deify the emperors anyway, so this cult would be superfluous
Christianity was born mostly because Emperors refused to retroactively deify Julius Ceasar.
schizo
9 months ago
Anonymous
That's why I said "Actual".
9 months ago
Anonymous
Do you unironically think all of the actual New Testament papyri and the Nag Hammadi codices that can be radiocarbon dated to antiquity were all just "forged"? What you're implying literally makes no sense.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Most of it was forged or heavily rewritten.
History is written by the winners, often retroactively. The lies are too fundamental as well. Any scientist that would try to claim they were fabrications would be executed.
9 months ago
Anonymous
My homie the shit is all RADIOCARBON DATED to have existed in its current form before what you're alleging happened happened
9 months ago
Anonymous
>RADIOCARBON DATED
Fake. Like I said, scientists can't tell the truth.
9 months ago
Anonymous
No that logic isn’t remotely similar. Chinas armies were defeated and exhausted, they had zero capacity to fight the british. That’s not the case with europe and the ottomans at all.
Abandoning the ethiopian campaign because they realised it was a worthless endeavour doesn’t mean they were incapable of defeating tribesmen.
And I don’t even know what you mean here. Japan for example was hugely technologically inferior when europeans showed up. We had literal guns.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Chinas armies were defeated and exhausted
Not really, no. Nor does that mean you were conquered. UK weren't conquered because they lost in America.
>That’s not the case with europe and the ottomans at all.
Crusade disagrees.
>Abandoning the ethiopian campaign because they realised it was a worthless endeavour doesn’t mean they were incapable of defeating tribesmen.
Cope.
>Japan for example was hugely technologically inferior when europeans showed up. We had literal guns.
Japan has had guns for centuries, you moron.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>uk and america
do you just not know history or what? do you think america obliterated the UKs entire fleet and standing army and were poised to invade the country? that’s what happened in china. they had no fleet and no fighting force. the british could have done whatever they wanted but decided it would be a waste of money >crusade
give me one example where the crusades literally depleted the entire fighting population of western europe? or where occupying muslims could have conceivably installed themselves in any place outside of spain? >cope
ok, spear chuckers defeated modern infantry >japan has had guns
not when the portuguese showed up they didn’t, not until the west gave them guns
9 months ago
Anonymous
>they had no fleet and no fighting force.
Their fleet was sunk but they had plenty of fighting force left. If they had wanted they could have kept the war going for years.
>give me one example where the crusades literally depleted the entire fighting population of western europe?
Not West Europe, but Crusade of Varna literally broke everybody in East Europe.
>ok, spear chuckers defeated modern infantry
Yes. Italy is just that shit.
>not when the portuguese showed up they didn’t, not until the west gave them guns
Portugal showed up centuries before the USA did, and they mostly sold them guns.
Everytime some moron says the christians caused the dark ages, it all goes back to one seething pagan gay named Zosimus
because most writings of the time were lost and his were one of the few whose weren't so it gives us a skewed view of things because all his writings are constantly blaming the christians for everything bad(literally the /misc/ of his time swap out israelites with christians)
Family Guy is guttural dogshit, I mean its the Applebees of media - the most empty shameful shit you can consume.
it was early humanists who mistakenly believed medieval caroline manuscripts were “lost roman knowledge” because they were written with a font similar to roman block capitals. that misconception led to enlightenment atheists claiming that society restarted when pagan documents were recovered, when really they were actually just medieval
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_humanism >During the Renaissance period most humanists were Christians, so their concern was to "purify and renew Christianity", not to do away with it. Their vision was to return ad fontes ("to the sources") to the simplicity of the Gospels and rediscovery of the New Testament, bypassing the complexities of medieval Christian theology.[3]
"Humanism" was literally never about muh secular atheism until atheists tried to grift it as a dishonest workaround to not look like nihilists.
mistaken italian christians started it, but enlightenment atheists formulated the modern “age of backwardness because of christianity” thing based on what the humanists said
The thing that people don't understand, at least nowadays, is that the dark age was a thing but it was not the same as the middle age. Dark Ages happened in plenty of cultures and times. Greeks had a short dark age after the Bronze age Collapse. Europe did experience a dark age after the fall of West Rome. Hell, you could make a pretty good argument it experienced a second dark age after the black death.
It's insane how historically illiterate Americans are.
All they "know" is that the Holocaust was the only important event in human history and we need to be constantly reminded of it.
it was. it defined the modern world and modern politics. it also disproved forever the existence of god and showed how barbaric christianity really was. the holocaust was a massive turning point in people realising traditional ideologies didn’t fit humanity anymore
>showed how barbaric christianity really was
there is no way of knowing Hitler's true view of Christianity. He has publicly shared both sides. Holocaust was not a religious purge but ethnicity
religion taps into the low level tribalist mind. “good” and “bad”, absolutes and essentialism. your enemies are “bad” because they’re just inherently born with some sort of spiritual disease. so you have israelites, who have done nothing but contribute to western art, science and literature consistently for centuries, who are in fact over represented in the western canon. but then someone like martin luther gets upset that they won’t kneel down to his religion and says they’re inherently evil. boom. tribalism of racism justified with religion. and centuries later hitler ordered their demise
9 months ago
Anonymous
holy frick you are an idiot
9 months ago
Anonymous
if there is any one people who have contributed to civilisation the most it is Anatolians
the people of judea are not the same as israelites neither are they the same as hebrews. not to shit on israelites but they were irrelevant for most of history.
9 months ago
Anonymous
This is genuinely your average atheist these days kek
9 months ago
Anonymous
Do you think Coptic persecution is based on race as well?
>if religion went racism would probably die too
I mean the spartans held the same religion/mythological views as the people they believed not fit enough to live according to their eugenic standards
NTA, but to a certain extent yes. It's the same kind of superstition born out of the same kind of ignorance. Both of them are also attempts at population control.
>the most documented genocide in history didn’t happen >the most oppressive and superstitious period in history was actually based
Any more chud horseshit ITT
for some reason Cinemaphile has become a frequent site of religious debate. there’s a number of popular atheism and religion bait thread formats including this one. posting gods not dead is one example
The issue with religion is not that it caused social stagnation or that it caused people to be more backwards. It's that it's a attempt at social control that has long outlived it's usefulness. Only one narrative will suffice.
Thats your evidence for "population control"? Do you know how much of the doctrine of christianity and the history of christianity you would have to ignore to believe what you just wrote? and what do you mean by "you"? I'm not christian you moron
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Thats your evidence for "population control"?
The most self evident one.
>o you know how much of the doctrine of christianity and the history of christianity you would have to ignore to believe what you just wrote
Like? All of it seems to make it pretty clear it's just population control.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Well, I completely disagree. I thought it would be self-evident that christians have been the most uncontrollable population yet.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Most uncontrolable
Lol. Do you seriously believe that? They are sheep, through and through. It wasn't until the actual atheist French revolution that they stopped being total sheep. China had massive peasant revolts centuries before then.
9 months ago
Anonymous
300 years before the french revolution english peasants (heavily devout lollards) murdered half the magistrates in london and got the king to back off on the statute of labour laws
9 months ago
Anonymous
Are you serious? The French Revolution is so fundamentally christian to say it is anything else is delusion.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>The French Revolution is so fundamentally christian
Do Americans literally know anything at all?
9 months ago
Anonymous
Roman pagans kept actual slaves kek. How were they more pro civil unruliness
9 months ago
Anonymous
no. you see, the romans had a religion based around worshiping the literal head of state and consistently write about how ungovernable and unruly christians are. so what they cleverly did to control people is get rid of their religion based around obeying the leader of the government and replace it with the religion of the people they hated for not following their rules. they then laughed and twirled their moustaches over centuries of repeated peasant revolts and political revolutions under christianity, having finally found a way to control the population.
9 months ago
Anonymous
> about how ungovernable and unruly christians are.
So ungovernable and unruly they turned Christianity into a part of the roman state apparatus.
> repeated peasant revolts
Fricking bugmen China and Japan had more peasant revolts.
>political revolutions
AGAINST Christianity.
Are you serious? The French Revolution is so fundamentally christian to say it is anything else is delusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Reason
Read a book, moron.
300 years before the french revolution english peasants (heavily devout lollards) murdered half the magistrates in london and got the king to back off on the statute of labour laws
>Back off >Literally had the power to do anything >Just made the king have some minor concessions.
It's amazing how sheep like you are.
9 months ago
Anonymous
it wasn’t a minor concession but a massive historic overhaul that let them negotiate with the nobility over wages and shit. it was a watershed moment that massively influenced western politics from there on. it’s very blatant you aren’t well read and are just responding to my descriptions rather than having your own knowledge on the subject
9 months ago
Anonymous
Again, the roman state apparatus pre christianity had people worship the emperor. How is placing an authority above any human being as the object of worship better for controlling them? And yes tacitus explicitly states he doesn’t like christians because they are unruly
9 months ago
Anonymous
They mostly worshiped dead emperors. As for how that is worse for population control: Because you can't just make shit up about what they did.
>nd yes tacitus explicitly states he doesn’t like christians because they are unruly
They are unruly because they refuse to accept Roman authority. They are total sheep to their own dumb little cult.
it wasn’t a minor concession but a massive historic overhaul that let them negotiate with the nobility over wages and shit. it was a watershed moment that massively influenced western politics from there on. it’s very blatant you aren’t well read and are just responding to my descriptions rather than having your own knowledge on the subject
It was a joke, one that would be largely ignored until the English Civil War. Which was heavily influenced by, you guessed it, anti Christian sentiment.
>it was a watershed moment that massively influenced western politics
It had zero effect on anything expect England. Even then, like I said above, it wouldn't be properly ratified until almost several centuries later.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>they mostly
No they didn’t >you can just make up
Yes you can, how much of a historylet are you? Do you think the egyptian kings really did all the shit attributed to them, or do you think they were assigned divine powers and deeds so that people would obey them? It’s the same with the cult around the emperor >they wouldn’t listen to civil authority because of their religion
Basically all you’ve said there and means nothing >dude the rebellion is the real slavery, they might oppose the state but they are totally submissive to their ideology
Doesn’t matter if they resist civil authority
9 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, they did. Read up about what the Roman cult was actually like.
>Yes you can
Anon, the Romans actually wrote shit down. Including political enemies of the emperor. Your average Roman citizen was way more aware of what the Emperors were like than your average Christian or Egyptian.
Though even the Egyptians were more willing to fight against authority than your average Christian sheep.
>>they wouldn’t listen to civil authority because of their religion
Which is why they merged their civil authority with the religion. After which they spend the next few thousand years being sheep.
>Doesn’t matter if they resist civil authority
Which they stopped doing the moment the authority became Christian.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>Your average Roman citizen was way more aware of what the Emperors were like than your average Christian or Egyptian
Source? And all three of these civilisations “wrote stuff down”, they also wrote propaganda. You are also contradicted here again with the middle ages were if people hated a king they were often just deposed and killed. If everyone believed the kings were perfect this would never happen. >even the egyptians were willing
Again with the complete bullshit claim kek. There are very few examples of this >merged their civil authority
To appease a very unruly population, the literal stated reason why >stopped doing
Literally posted examples they didn’t
9 months ago
Anonymous
>And all three of these civilisations “wrote stuff down”,
Way less than the Romans. Egypt also existed way longer than Rome did, meaning it was way easier to make shit up.
>You are also contradicted here again with the middle ages were if people hated a king they were often just deposed and killed.
Yeah, by the nobility. Peasant revolts were a meme.
>To appease a very unruly population,
Most of the population wasn't Christian until after it became the state religion.
>Literally posted examples they didn’t
Even ignoring the fact that's bullshit. Once. If that is your massive proof that Christians are not total sheep, it's pathetic.
You very clearly have no actual historical background since you never actually state anything specific. Name events or figures that represent these claims.
Events and figured for what claim exactly?
and paganism led to christianity, they’re the same. and capitalism led to communism, they’re also the same
No, Christianity was a rejection of paganism. Communism was a rejection of capitalism. Secularism was the result of Protestantism.
9 months ago
Anonymous
You very clearly have no actual historical background since you never actually state anything specific. Name events or figures that represent these claims.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>english civil war >anti christian
you can’t be this moronic can you? the roundheads were MORE devout than the royalists. their entire thing was based on radical protestantism. holy frick you’re dumb as hell
9 months ago
Anonymous
>radical protestantism.
Which was basically just a form of secularism. Protestantism basically just is secularism anyway.
9 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah these people basing their entire belief system on the bible and the existence of God were just secular, for sure
9 months ago
Anonymous
Anon, Protestantism directly led to secularism. It's why modern American Christianity is basically godless.
9 months ago
Anonymous
and paganism led to christianity, they’re the same. and capitalism led to communism, they’re also the same
9 months ago
Anonymous
Protties are like atheists who haven't yet rejected the Bible.
>Reject Papal authority >Reject church doctrine, make up your own doctrine bro :^) >Reject the divine right of kings, peasants and kings are equal, we need a parliament brooo
(all protties are at least here) >Reject organised religion
(arguable most protties are here) >Reject any form of religion, just believe in God/a supreme being bro
(deists were there, "spiritual" morons too) >Reject that God exists
(atheists are here) >Deny biological reality, nature is wrong, fight nature
(trannies and feminists are here)
it's all a big pipeline
>repression
Originally, the script said israelites, but they had to change it to Christians because people were agreeing too much that their lives would be better without the israelites.
But the Dark Ages were caused by constant invasion from the east and north of non-christian peoples and are named so because compared to earlier or later, we have a gap in written records, not technological advancement, due to the fall of the Roman empire which meant everything got really decentralized.
And in reality: >In this universe germanics never emerged from their scandinavian shitholes and marched south being menace upon civilization ever since. >Thus there were no germanic dark ages, no viKANGZ, no heresy, no 30-years war, no world wars etc etc
Atheists are part of a new religion
they worship idols. George Floyd is their Barabbas. If they don't believe they have a religion tell them you don't believe that carbon dioxide is a bad thing and there is no problem with the climate changing
see them treat you like a heretic
It certainly gets a lot of (you)s from seething christchuds! lol pls upvote XD
totally not mad
AAAAAAAAHHHHH GOOFY DEGENERATE CHILDREN ONLINE ARE DAMNING THEMSELVES TO HELL AND THERES NOTHING I CAN DO AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH
Most racist moment in tv
He said Dark AGES not dark people of color...
That scene implies that only White people can progress civilization. All of the non-White civilizations never advanced to that level despite being not being Christian.
Remove all white people from history. And enjoy your mud huts.
>no white people
>Columbus never "discovers America"
>Native Americans never get decimated by european diseases
>Spaniards don't exist and therefore never destroy the Aztec Empire
>Mesoamerica nahua peoples flourish
I fail to see how this is a bad thing
I would fricking kill to see what the flying frick the Aztec Empire would have turned into if left to their own devices. Wiping it out is the single greatest crime to fun in human history.
We could have lived in a world where we had actual televised human sacrifices.
they’re called cartel liveleak videos
It's true and Christcucks always crumple like paper when they are face with the ultimatum: Either Europeans we're fine without Christianity or defend hundreds of years of shitskin lack of progress despite being Christians.
Europeans are not fine without Christianity. They were a Aztec tier society filled with depravity and human sacrifices. Most non European progress was the result of European interference.
The Roman empire conquered the relevant part of the world during antiquity when they were pagan. Nice try christcuck homosexual. Unless you want to become the world's biggest leftist and explain why Christianity didn't uplift shitskins without admitting race matters, then shut the frick up.
>The Roman empire conquered the relevant part of the world during antiquity when they were pagan.
Correct. Not West Europe, because it was a shitty backwater.
>Unless you want to become the world's biggest leftist and explain why Christianity didn't uplift shitskins without admitting race matters, then shut the frick up.
Race isn't even real.
race does matter which is another reason atheists suck
Race isn't even real. It's a made up concept with no bearing on reality.
It's wrong, and I say that as someone who isn't a christcuck.
The church was hugely responsible for preserving knowledge through the dark ages. That's why latin has become the lingua franca for much of science, because the copies they held were transcribed in the tongue.
You can't explain history to people who have none. They just make it up and decide it's fact
>The church was hugely responsible for preserving knowledge through the dark ages.
Because they’re the only ones who were allowed to do it.. they ran the universities moron.
Then there’s how much history they actually destroyed. Christgolems are single-handedly responsible for our limited knowledge of prechristian Europe particularly outside of Greece and Rome. The same with Native American culture.
Except he’s wrong and you’re moronic.
no you’re the moron here
>only ones allowed to do it
should be easy for you to prove some sort of prohibition on non clergy learning then. for non morons, the reason should be obvious, and it’s that like in almost every era of history only the nobility could afford to educate children, so the priestly class were obviously mostly noble. it had nothing to do within restriction to education unless you count finance as a restriction, but that was always the case before christianity too
> should be easy for you to prove some sort of prohibition on non clergy learning then.
All schools were explicitly religious institutions. If you don’t understand that the university is where scholarly research was done and they were 99.99% Christians. You would have needed fluency in Latin. It was literally only clergy and the nobility, as you admit, who were also almost entirely, Christian. If you don’t think that’s gatekeeping, you’re moronic, which you are.
>only the nobility could afford to educate children
so again, it was reserved for nobility, who again were 99% Christian, and the professional Christians, who were according to you, nobility.
>It was literally only clergy and the nobility, as you admit, who were also almost entirely, Christian. If you don’t think that’s gatekeeping, you’re moronic, which you are.
lmao how does this logic work out?
>everyone was christian, so that meant non christians were barred from education
there weren’t any. again, you can apply this exact same standard to the antique world
>everyone educated was an aristocratic pagan, therefore only pagans were allowed an education
>all schools were explicitly religious
you could learn a litany of secular trades at places like oxford. law for one, since most clerks in england studied there. it wasn’t just a place for teaching theology and you did not need to be clergy to go there to be educated. if you mean it was a christianised institution, so was literally everything in the middle ages in the same way every aspect of antique government was heavily ritualised around the state religion. this doesn’t mean there was some enforcement on being clergy in either case to learn, just wealth was needed. which was always the case before christianity existed - so how is the middle ages unique there?
>destroyed
What native american manuscripts did they burn, moron? They didn’t record their history and so, coincidentally, not much was recorded. What we do know was from western christians making an effort to preserve it. Same with the norse, snorri was fairly devout and is our source for most of their folklore
I would assume, being generous to him he is referring to - Meso-American manuscripts that were in fact very much destroyed. If I am being super generous he means the general attempts at stifling their oral culture and the transmission of their culture, but to pin that second one wholly on religion is stupid, religious actors certainly play a part, but Priests were also often the people who stood up to the horrible practices they saw being done to the natives.
>Because they’re the only ones who were allowed to do it.. they ran the universities moron.
They were in monasteries and that didn't prevent anyone else from writing things down.
This is the error atheists make, and Family Guy is making. They always compare religion to some theoretical perfect system. They never compare it to actual reality. They think 'if the church didn't preserve knowledge someone else would have.' No, they wouldn't have. The natural state of people is living like animals. Getting anything useful accomplished is a monumental uphill struggle. You can't just tear religion away and expect everything will somehow work out by itself.
>No, they wouldn't have. The natural state of people is living like animals.
Except we know they would have because they did. Is brain damage a prerequisite for being a christgolem? Why are all of you moronic?
Who was preserving classical manuscripts and copying them in europe outside of the church post the collapse of rome?
>post the collapse of Rome
So after christianity already controlled the western world. Is there a reason you ask such a moronic question or are you just trolling?
you literally just claimed other people were doing it in the “dark ages”, which is specifically post rome.
No, I didn’t, you absolute moron.
The guy you are replying to said if the church didn’t preserve them, nobody would have. You disagreed with that and said they did. But they didn’t. You then changed your stance and said the church was the only thing that could do it, which I guess was somehow meant to be a knock on christianity? Either way you’ve altered your stance from there to here
>You disagreed with that and said they did.
Because they did. Before the dark ages, not during it, which I never said despite you falsely attributing that made up, bullshit argument to me. Prechristian people DID keep records of history, and we know they did because some of it survives today, you lying idiot. Your entire argument is a lie, a deliberate misinterpretation of what I said.
>You then changed your stance and said the church was the only thing that could do it
No, I said the church, after it took power, was the thing that did it. Period. If you can’t understand the difference, rope
When did I imply people before christianity didn’t keep records? I even made this clear by saying christians copied records, mostly pre christian ones like aristotle and so on. What is relevant is that we have about 2 extant classical manuscripts, literally two, and every other bit of writing from greece and rome is down to medieval copies preserving them. So the idea that christianity somehow led to a collapse of written culture holds no water.
>When did I imply people before christianity didn’t keep records?
>They think 'if the church didn't preserve knowledge someone else would have.' No, they wouldn't have. The natural state of people is living like animals.
To which I responded
Please stop wasting my time.
Not me, but you’ve clearly misunderstood him anyway. This is what historians mean when they say “skin of our teeth” for this period, because if the monastic system had not existed post the collapse of rome we would genuinely have been fricked. If the church in that period didn’t do this, we would have lost the vast majority of antique writing that we have today and society would probably not have recovered even still.
>iPhone screenshot
Holy shit dude, you responded FOR that anon to my argument, continuing his line of argumentation, invoking his comments and my responses to them.
The rest of your comment is completely irrelevant.
You are shamelessly dishonest
I didn’t actually,
I just disagreed with this post. And that’s fine if you can’t refute anything i’ve said, but at least be honest about it
> “I didn’t respond to your argument with someone else and directly reference his comments and yours”
>“I just responded to this post *links to my argument with someone else*”
>specifically begins his posts with “I’m not that anon BUT WHAT HE WAS SAYING WAS..”
Why are you even doing this? Do you think you’re fooling anyone?
I didn’t link your argument with someone else. You responded to him saying something I thought was wrong and asked you to qualify your statement. Am I not allowed to challenge whatever bullshit someone happens to say unless i’ve been in the reply chain for half an hour already?
>Then there’s how much history they actually destroyed. Christgolems are single-handedly responsible for our limited knowledge of prechristian Europe particularly outside of Greece and Rome
Source for this claim? Christ chads are the ones who translated shitty nord scribbled, Christ Chad’s are the only reason you know who Odin is
>Source for this claim?
Elementary knowledge of world history, a diploma from a non-public high school
>can’t name one singular specific source
LOL
You just stated his premise as a counterargument yet you're calling him the moron. You fricking moron lmao.
Because that’s not what I argued against and you should walk in front of traffic. I added necessary context and then made my argument from there, but you know that, and your only hope lies in dishonesty.
You literally did, we just proved it and you admitted it.
Here’s the takeaways from this whole exchange.
>anon 1 says that without the church, other people wouldn’t have “preserved knowledge”
>anon 2 (me) says actually they would have, and we know they would have because they did and we have surviving examples of this, and we also have evidence that the Christian’s destroyed similar evidence en masse. obviously referencing pre-Christian peoples. BEFORE the dark ages
>1 or more moronic anons (you) respond to this argument and ask when in the dark ages, after the church took power, did these pre-Christian people copy/preserve/write manuscripts
Was your goal to make this conversation so off topic and so moronic that no one could even follow it? Because for anyone with two brain cells to rub together and an honest open mind, they know the truth is that you’re a liar.
That guy is still right. If the church hadn’t of organised document copying in that era literally nobody else would have.
document copying was being done in Toledo and Baghdad
>toledo
>not christian in 300+ AD
what?
What I mean is when Christians took back the land they found many copies of Aristotle in arabic. I should have said document copying during the islamic rule. of course the document copying couldve been because of the Christians beforehand and continuing the practice.
Same for Baghdad having Constantinopolitan influence
this is like way, way after the dark age period we are talking about. again, to make it clear, if christians were not copying documents in secluded monasteries post the fall of rome we would have lost a huge chunk of the classical canon because at the time nobody else was making copies. muslims doing this centuries later is not that relevant
agree with everything you said. Just adding that not some key literature was lost and the renaissance is from rediscovering the old greek literature in the west from places like Toledo.
>literally nobody else would have
Can you prove that? This is an unfalsifiable claim and all available evidence suggests otherwise. Thanks for playing.
It’s actually easily falsifiable, name a non christian and non monastic manuscript from western europe post the collapse of rome in the “dark ages”. There isn’t any
We have them from BEFORE THE DARK AGES, and the reason we don’t have any during the dark ages is because the Christians destroyed them and the Christians controlled scholarly research and the dissemination of information, which is what we’ve been talking about in this thread for the last two hours. Please have a nice day.
>christians destroyed them
Literal shred of evidence for this claim? They didn’t do this, at all. There are only two extant classical MS because of centuries of germanic barbarians (a lot of them le based pagans btw) looting libraries and burning cities to the ground. This is actually part of the reason monks were so desperate to copy them, you even have some like dunstan who risked their lives repeatedly crossing the sea and hordes of these roving pillagers just to rescue books. And now you’re claiming with no evidence they destroyed them. And it’s funny you brought that point up because you got BTFO here on it:
And simply stopped replying
>Literal shred of evidence for this claim?
There is so much and it’s so easily accessible with literally just a Google search that I really can only feel sorry for you. You’re so badly undereducated and ignorant. Here is a pretty comprehensive article from the Times with multiple references for you. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/08/books/review/catherine-nixey-darkening-age.html
I stopped replying to that anons post because I already answered everything he said and I challenge you to point out one thing which I didn’t already address in my previous response.
>paywalled israelite york times article
AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA
>being poor
Kek
>this easily disproves you
>just give money to a israeli publication to see my refutation
???!
quote the relevant parts and their source
>AHAHAHAHAHA
isn’t an argument, and if you legitimately don’t know how to get around it and view that article, you are moronic.
Pay for my subscription then moron
Actual homosexual lmao, I'm crying laughing
okay so you claim christians were destroying the classical manuscript they were desperately trying to copy after the fall of rome. you’ve sent me an article I can’t read without paying money to prove this happened
yeah maybe answer
>the different standards you apply to the pagan and christian education system despite them being almost identical
>how the medieval education system prohibited non religious learning when we have actual factual evidence it didn’t at all
Holy frick this is embarrassing
>here’s your evidence for my moronic claim bro
>just pay israeli journalists 5 dollars to see it
Just have a nice day
catherine nixey wrote this article and pretty much every medieval scholar called her full of shit for the book she’s shilling in it
not vouching for the validity of any overarching argument or claim she makes in any of her works, but she includes verified evidence and examples of Christians destroying pagan buildings, writings, works of art, etc. which is what the christgolem was asking for, evidence of this widely understood and talked about phenomenon.
ok list them then???
I understand the point of this game is to shift the focus of the argument away from what’s being said to attack to the character of the person or entity who published the evidence, but it’s literally not my responsibility to provide you with evidence, when someone tells you something you look it up and verify for yourself. This isn’t a debate, this is a Cinemaphile argument. Here’s a free article that references The NY Times one. https://churchandstate.org.uk/2023/01/christian-vandalism-of-the-classical-world/
this game? you made a claim, someone asked you to prove it, and you have for the 10th time refused to give a single tiny quote or anything indicating what you’re saying is true. it absolutely is your responsibility to provide evidence when you make claims
>you made a claim
Okay.
>someone asked you to prove it
I’ve linked to two separate articles, posted pictures, and given instructions on how to research this topic for yourself
>it absolutely is your responsible to provide evidence when you make claims
Of a widely acknowledged phenomenon? Something that gets taught in elementary and middle schools? No. I did anyway though.
>I linked a paid for article, I posted another massive article that I didn’t quote and just vaguely gestures toward saying it proves my point
not too smart are you
this article is bullshit like two sentences in
>romans had freedom of religion
no they didn’t. they literally prosecuted people for denying the state religion. this was before christianity
’s had freedom of religion
Except it literally doesn’t say that. It says they tolerated multiple religions, which is 100% true.
>https://churchandstate.org.uk/2023/01/christian-vandalism-of-the-classical-world/
This blog is run by Stephen Mumford who is a literal crackpot eugenicist arguing that Christians get in the way of "population control."
https://historyforatheists.com/2017/11/review-catherine-nixey-the-darkening-age/
>Catherine Nixey, The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World, (Macmillan, 2017) 305 pp. Her publisher’s blurb informs us that Nixey’s book tells “the largely unknown – and deeply shocking – story” of how a militant Christianity “extinguished the teachings of the Classical world” and was “violent, ruthless and intolerant” in an orgy of destruction and oppression that was “an annihilation”. On the other hand, no less an authority than the esteemed historian of Late Antiquity, Dame Averil Cameron, calls Nixey’s book “a travesty”, roundly condemning it as “overstated and unbalanced”. And Dame Averil is correct – this is a book of biased polemic masquerading as historical analysis and easily the worst book I have read in years.
>In Literary Review, University of Exeter medievalist Levi Roach’s review is rather more kindly than Nixey deserves, but Roach does not pull his punches when he focuses on the problems with Nixey’s book. “Perhaps most worryingly” he observes “Nixey ends up endorsing the long-debunked view of the Middle Ages as a period of blind faith and intellectual stagnation”. And he notes, with considerable understatement, “it is hard not to detect a degree of anti-Christian animus”. Averil Cameron was certainly able to “detect” Nixey’s clear and almost visceral anti-Christian bias. “Catherine Nixey is a lively writer and likely to go far,” she writes, “but unfortunately in her first book she has rather unimaginatively bought into the old ‘blame the Christians’ model. She drives it through with a steely-eyed determination, unrelieved by nuance or counter-argument.”
I’m not paying for that
KWAB
I don’t speak AIDS sorry
holy shit you're such a homosexual its unreal
>actually chud, grima rosenburg proved that christianity is evil. for the low low price of 10 dollars you can find out how I won this argument with you
I love it when midwits end their stupid little posts in some redditism like this
there aren’t dark age examples of non christians copying any MS in europe. and as was said, there are two extant antique MS and everything else we have is down to medieval copies. as for “destroying evidence” you will have to be more specific because I don’t know what you mean
>there aren’t dark age examples of non christians copying any MS in europe
That’s my point. I was talking about BEFORE. THE FRICKING. DARK AGES.
But I guess I should not be shocked, since you people believe in a magical rabbi.
and again, the post you were responding to was specifically talking about the dark ages. nobody is denying that literacy existed before christianity
No, you ape, the post I responded to
entertains a hypothetical where, in the absence of the church, would the period of the dark ages have seen non Christians “preserving knowledge” in place of the church. He said no, and I responded yes they would have, because before the church came to power, they already did and were doing this for thousands of years.
and you are wrong on this as has been tediously pointed out repeatedly. if there was the capacity for manuscripts to be copied outside of the church in that period of west european history, we would have at least one. we don’t.
>we would have at least one
Okay, I can see you’re just not getting it, but I have another one to approach this.
Why do you think we have them from before the dark ages, but not during?
Please stop being a dense motherfricker and address the argument at hand. It's not
>manuscripts from before the dark ages don't exist
or
>pagans are incapable of recording their own history
It's
>In the dark ages, Christians were the only ones copying those older manuscripts and if they didn't nobody else would. We can be confident in this because there's no counterexample (secular people/institutions in the dark ages in particular copying older manuscripts)
Is there a reason you’re not answering my question? I’ll ask it again; Why do we have them from before the dark ages and not during the time when the church held power and controlled academia?
I can answer this. You just need to pay $10 to ADL to read the article explaining it
We don’t moron, as i’ve said 50 times. We have two (2) extant classical manuscripts. Everything else is based on medieval copies. I’ve already explained why this happened (you ignored it) and it’s because of migrant barbarians burning and looting libraries across the remains of the empire. 99% of the time when we don’t have something it’s because some pagan vikang burned the monastery with the autograph copy
Post your GED.
Literally just do a Google search for examples of Christian’s destroying pagan relics, manuscripts, artifacts, etc. this is such common knowledge that you’re just embarrassing yourself
if it’s such common knowledge you could easily just post about it
I did, and the only way that article is pay walled is if you already viewed articles on their website, and you can literally use a vpn to get around it. And if you don’t like the New York Times, go to any legitimate database you want and enter the fricking words I told you to, or just go to Google and use the search bar.
>still not just listing examples and telling people to go read an entire book instead
Research articles are not books, and doing a Google search or looking through an actual scholarly database is not reading a book.
Jesus isn’t real, sorry dude.
>dude just search my own argument for me
You're a fricking moron
Too true. You can read about it here:
ziontimes.com/martinliarberg/howchristiansarethesourceofallevil
it’s just 20 bucks for access
Nobody tell him about Muslims doing the exact same thing
nice 2006 proto-reddit tier logic there OP
It's weird how a few episodes later Quagmire who's also voiced by Seth condemns Brian for looking down on religious people and he's in no position to judge them
It feels like he realized how smug he came across shoving his athiest thoughts onto everyone
You know they write the whole season first right? They don't write each episode every week?
Seth hasn’t done anything besides voice work for the show in decades. He certainly didn’t write the one in the OP. Also, that quagmire speech was moronic and you taking it seriously is dumb.
No because they dark ages were caused by Islam's war of conquest cutting off trade with Asia.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever thought that. Not only did - trade not stop (are you thinking of like, the immediate aftermath following the fall of the Mongol Empire?) Most historians are pretty locked in that the dark ages never existed, or at least - did not happen in the way people think. But, leaving that aside, "The Dark Ages" was always - the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of Barbarians kingdoms after. This is fricking Gibboh shit where he felt he needed to shit on Christianity because he was a big Enlightenment boy. The fact that much antique knowledge - was kept up by the church, still existed in the west even though they lacked the resources of empire, and it 100% certainly existed and was expanded upon in the Islam/Byzantine worlds didn't matter to people in the renaissance and enlightenment who had to make themselves feel self-superior to the time before.
the dark ages weren't dark at all from a historical perspective. i've heard of historians starting to write it off because its not as described, glad its catching on.
It's called the Migration Era now. We know so much more about what was going on between the fall of Rome and the battle of Hastings now than we did even twenty years ago. It's incredible.
i wasn't even aware the new shit had a term. areas in history were absolutely devastated by things that happened, but there wasn't really a loss of technology, it just was as prominent.
Dark ages were caused by a little ice age making food less abundant.
Christian monks preserved latin writings in the west and the Arab/Byzantine world preserved greek writings in the east
Ironically it was the fall of Constantinople which led a ton of greek works to be “rediscovered” in the latin west, like the Corpus Hermeticum thanks to Marsilio Ficino
Preserving older writing? Yes. Actually creating themselves? No, that is why it is referred to as the dark ages.
I was going to write a thoughtful educational reply but you’re a namegay and probably too stupid for it so frick off
Notice the massive gap of writing between Aquinas and Machiavelli/ Hobbes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_of_the_Western_World
The Byanztines wrote a decent amount.
Barbarians who sacked Rome were too busy establishing feudal monarchy bullshit to bother with writing
you’re basing this on a series of books sold in the 20th century lmao, that’s not an objective metric. notice they don’t have the guy who created the entire arthur mythos as we know it on there, maybe there were oversights?
>of the western world
lmao the edge of the world is not the adriatic sea
It was the dark ages because it was violence and feudalism. The empire fragmented into tiny states and kingdoms, there was poor cohesion and cooperation. Those are not the conditions to be making advances.
The Biblical/ scholastic tradition held back science quite a bit too.
The dark age was significantly less violent then Antiquity THOUGH. War was much more local and the deaths were literally millions less.
The rise of humanist scholarship ala Petrarch is 1 not new, but even if it was in the renaissance - it had nothing to do with "The dark Ages." People in Antiquity also did the rote memorization, and commentary rather than critique upon older works. That's not something that starts in medieval times. It was the "Dark Ages" because people pretended like they were rediscovering and reviving something. Its the myth that knowledge was lost, and the world was shrouded in ignorance and superstition. The fact that shit stuck around is in fact.
frick me - is counter to the point you are making.
yeah like dante and aquinas and chaucer and langland and the pearl poet and the ring cycle poet and snorri and boccacio and augsutine and anselm and malory and the vulgate cycle what a dearth of writing
I was going to call your post moronic but now I see you took the time to label it as such and I just didn't read it until afterwards.
They burned down Alexandria library and shut down greek universities also the whole Byzantine things is ridiculous rome never achieved anything close to what mediaeval Europe had in terms of tech the dark ages are a meme
There were no "dark ages" and technology did advance during that time. New plows, crop rotation, wind-mills etc...
meds and BBC
NOW
>meds and BBC
NOW
touch grass. take your meds. have sex. You are more deluded than the anything you replied yo could have said. Sorry your BBC fantasy fetish hasn't happened yet.
Arguably the worst period was due to disease, specifically the Black Death, rather than religion. You could make the case that religion prolonged the BD but it would be a weak case.
just imagine the woketard utopia
you walk out of your pod at 11am because no one works or does anything productive
you look up to see the sun blocked out, because "climate change"
after picking up the latest propaganda paper from the pre-approved box you take a look inside
"biden nominates asshomosexual woketard who rapes children to position with children"
and then i'll plow the sidewalk
>oh anon, quit being so drama-
Name one thing wrong with scientists exploring ideas just to understand how they would actually work. Which is what your picture is saying they are doing btw.
>would actually work
none of it works. earth has gone through so much climate change that isn't in the record and there is ZERO things humans can do about it.
if you dont realize they are lyijng to your face in the first place - they are trying to make their own jobs more prestigious by claiming to save the earth. they want so badly to be the person to say "stop eating meat"
ever notice how its only the west that needs to stop driving cars, having kids, no new industry growth? now look at the last time greta went to china or india to tell them to stop doing shit. its all a fricking scam.
"i wish the climate change would happen so the science could be proven right regardless of the consequences" - phil jones, PHD/IPCC/CRU
these buttholes dont care about earth at all. its just their job to talk down to others which is where we get HECKIN SOLAR ROADS from and other bonkers shit. yeah lets just block the sun, that seems like a great idea.
>Nobody works or does anything productive.
>Also they build a shield around the sun.
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
man thats a lot of words to say FRICK OFF (if you arent the cultist) but i agree otheriwise. it never stops and once you can see that, you can begin to de-program yourself
What shits me is when they depicte their ideal socieities they still have their propaganda everywhere even after they have won, it's 1 thing to have a flag here or there but they still have battle tier imagery when there is no more battle to fight, imagine if religions did that, a cross on the door of every home.
"if i said the climate changed, ok it has, but thats only 7 years of data" (about the trend going downward). - phil hones, phd/ipcc/cru
So a mezuzah?
Is this assuming the dark ages never happened because the roman empire never fell because of christianity?
If this were an endorsement of roman paganism that's pretty cool but I suspect it's more of a hatred of modern american christians and boy I wonder who would feel that way.
isnt it funny how its all in the name of "art" yet happens to be 100% satanic?
shouldn't you be at church bro, its sunday
How do we go from bottom pics to top pics?
execute people like
Totally obliterate religion.
To be sure. After a perfect world without religion has been created. Everybody who knows the concept of god, even if they are atheist, should be killed. There is no place for people with knowledge of religion existing.
you can start by killing yourself then
Sorry to say this but if every human society independently developed religion you can’t really escape it. You actually just hate human beings i’m afraid
>Independently
>He actually believes this
Lol. Most religious are just the same pagan nonsense with a new name. Eradicate that, and it won't come back.
even if you get a donkey to kick you in the head five times and become convinced that abbos somehow were connected to indo european religion, it wouldn’t explain how religion came to be. It’s still something every human culture shared and which sprang up before writing did
>it wouldn’t explain how religion came to be
Mostly stupid caveman looking at thunder and thinking Gods are responsible.
>looking at thunder
Think you might be the caveman there buddy
I'm an Atheist and I approve this message.
I want to go back to the moronic Christ-cucks who never understood my interests, rather than live with these moronic woke-gays actively destroying them all. Bring back religion. The masses need their opium.
The Dark Ages is a meme. It was not a time of scientific repression as people assume, it is called the Dark Ages because there wasn't much written works at the time. Ancient texts containing wisdoms that everyone pretends was lost were transcribed and copied by monks.
>the collapse of the western roman empire had no impact on europe goy
what collapse? It turned into the Holy Roman Empire.
>inb4 muh volitaire
HRE was a germutt cope, not a real country
>when germans, syrians and north africans became roman emperors it was fine but when a german unsurped Rome it's not fine
It wasn't even a proper country, but a meme germutt aristocrats circlejerk institution
And Ancient Rome wasn't?
No, not at all you mutted moron
Not really. The bishop of rome and the leader of the Roman Catholic Church literally declared them as the official successors.
The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire
I doubt that is even the point Seth was making. That at least would have been a tiny bit historically literate. Instead he probably just thinks technology, peace, and rationality is the default state of people but for Christianity and that we'd be living in John Lennon's 'Imagine' if we could just get rid of its vestiges. That is basically how all liberals see the world.
seth is a merchant who hates christians. him and his people murdered jesus. he'll never joke about that though - only safe anti-christian jokes are allowed.
Rosseau really ruined everything with that "noble savage" schlock, didn't he?
>he thinks Seth Macfarlane rights for Family Guy in any shape or form
Ohno…
Ohnononono…
AHAHAHAHAHA
i checked out on seth when he finally got the orville after begging paramount for 20 years to let him make a trek show. and he couldn't help himself, it became family guy in space. he's a hack with a little glimpse of brilliance here and there.
>mist
>
>how to btfo fedoras in a single image
it took over 30 posts for this to posted.
4coal is dead
XD
am i randun enouff (notice its spelled wrong XD) yet?
>you will never prevent the destruction of maldek
WHY LIVE
I don't get it
what about the christrian renaissance, christian age of enlightenment and Christian with a little israeli help modern science until very recently
how the frick do you measure "scientific advancement"
So how did the so called Christian dark ages affect/control China from progressing for 1000 years?
Dark ages only happened because german mudhutters sacked Rome i.e. the only advanced civilization in the West.
Byanztines kept the empire going but were tied down fighting Persians/Muslims in the East to advance further as a civilization
Can't read it because McDonald's won't let me open attachments on this devil site.
>Japan kills all their Christians and stays pagans
>No hyper advanced civilization
>Modern Japanese are a race of work slave bugmen who are literally dying out
So what happened?
I would trade my bwc to be a Japanese bug person any day just to get away from dumbshit liberals and live a comfy shinto life.
>Japanese Christians stay in hiding for 200 years
>Finally it's safe to come out
>The ~~*united states*~~ drops a nuke right on top of their village
Really makes u think
The Church is what brought Europe out of the Dark Ages…
Do you guys really need someone to explain to you that its a joke
How old are you?
82. Life long Christian.
show the future where israelites never existed
All of this happened because religion still exists. If religion was totally destroyed, it would not.
Archangel Michael's cute
It's really simple logic, and it's telling how these fart-sniffing "intellectuals" can't grasp it. We lost the technology to make concrete. Was it a conspiracy of oppression? No, the lack of a unified government did it. Here's how that shit happens:
Government gets complaints that the roads are fricked. They hire contractors to fix it. Contractors buy concrete from their supplier. The supplier buys it straight from the manufacturer. The manufacturer buys the ingredients to make it from the gatherer.
Government collapses. Now there aren't any jobs to fix roads. The contractors take smaller local jobs thatching roofs and building fences. The supplier isn't selling concrete anymore, so he starts stocking more wood and straw. The manufacterer isn't making concrete since the supplier stopped buying it, so they become a lumber company. The gatherer can't sell his concrete materials, so he starts farming instead.
It's now 200 years later. Some noble heard what Roman architecture used to look like, and wants part of his home made with concrete. But no contractors have ever worked with concrete. The supplier doesn't know where to buy any. The manufacturer wasn't alive when the workshop still made it and doesn't remember the recipe. The gatherer is now a farmer and only knows how to grow turnips. Concrete no longer exists anywhere.
It's important that people figure this stuff out, because it could very easily happen again. Do you think anyone's going to remember how to maintain our sewage system if the government stopped paying people to do it?
It's curious that nobody responded to this despite being one of the better rational insights into how this shit actually works
The absence of Jesus/Christianity changes so many things about history it's literally impossible to predict what could have happened so the screenshot is moronic in a variety of ways. Just to name a few
>no Crusades
>no Islam and subsequent wars of conquest as it grew out of a mixture of fringe Judeo-Christian ideas and the local Arab pagan religions. Modern Iberia/North Africa/Arabia would be completely alien to anyone from our world without it
>The new world might be colonized but a not insignificant part of the reason in our timeline was missionary work to the natives so the governing structures would be entirely different, and this assumes it was even discovered in the first place because for all we know Europe could have turned out like China who could explore the world but didn't really feel like it
>the English language itself is a clusterfrick of Greek, Latin, French, Germanic, and native British languages and that mixture is heavily dictated by the history of the region so it's almost certain alternate-timeline US spoken language would be unintelligible to us (again, assuming countries and history unfolded identically to us except without the most influential religion's effects)
I think the biggest influence of Christianity not existing would probably be that Rome would still be around in some form. Not to say it was responsible for the decline of the Roman Empire, it wasn't, but the rise of Islam and the religious divide was probably the main reason why Byzantium fell.
Byzantium wasn't Rome. The way I like to explain it is
>Rome = Lego
>Byzantium = Megabloks
>HRE = Bionicle
Sure Megabloks looks more like Lego than Bionicle does, but Bionicle is an actual Lego brand continuation whereas Megabloks is just a ripoff.
Byzantium wasn't Rome, but it was the only actual successor to the Roman Empire outside of arguably the Pope when he still had authority.
>the Pope when he still had authority.
There was one period when the Pope was approved by Byzantine Emperors, but afterwards the Pope literally appointed Charlemagne and the HRE, not Constantinople, as the successors of Rome.
The HRE and the pope fell out pretty quickly. There's also the fact that the actual founding of the HRE and the pope appointing Charlemange as Emperor was pretty far apart.
Byzantium was literally the eastern half of the empire and the citizens called themselves Romans all the way into the 1400s. HRE could only claim descent from Rome because the Pope decided to give the title of emperor to some Frankish king, it is in all other respects a French/German state
Because the actual question is about who was copying manuscripts IN the dark ages? Of course manuscripts from prior to it existed because that's what was being copied, nobody's disputing that. I really hope you're baiting at this point because I don't want to believe anyone can be this dumb naturally
>Because the actual question is about who was copying manuscripts IN the dark ages?
No, because we already know the answer to that is the church. So I asked you a question which you’ve dodged twice, so I’m gonna ask it again;
Why do you think we have them from before the dark ages and not the time when the church controlled academia? Don’t run.
I'm genuinely trying to figure out what your argument is at this point, so I'll list out mine, which isn't even opinion as much as it is historical facts, and you tell me which part you disagree with
>1. Non-Christians are capable of (and did) record their own history and literature
>2. Most of those original manuscripts were lost in various wars and viking raids
>2a. We have very few left that are not Christian religious texts
>3. During this, they were copied by Christians (monks and others) so we at least know what they said
>4. Nothing prevented non-Christians from doing (3) too but we haven't found any evidence of it happening despite a lot of modern interest in finding it
How about you just the answer the question you’ve dodged three times now?
>no Crusades
I disagree on this one. That psycho in Rome whether he was pope or pontifex was getting land in the middle east (preferably egypt) no matter what
>That psycho in Rome whether he was pope or pontifex
the title of pontifex has since Augustus Caesar been held either by the Roman emperor (who would instead command legions and call it a war) or the Pope himself so I don't know what you mean by this. Can you be more specific?
I want to disagree but I don't think I can, and now that I'm imagining livestreamed gladiator fights I don't want to anymore
the Pope controlled armies you know
Wait if human history isn't supposed to be viewed as dominated or manifested through the western lense, then why did nowhere else in the world end up like family guy suggests in the absence of Christianity. South Africa, Japan, India ffs, nowhere did human civilization advance while Christian Europe supposedly sat in squalor for a millennia according to these sillies. Hell, China and the Islamic empires dominated gunpowder and explosive chemistry longer than most of Europe was Christian, what's the excuse for the Confucianists having skyscrapers crumbling down less than 4 years after they get built instead of flying car green cities?
>nowhere did human civilization advance while Christian Europe supposedly sat in squalor for a millennia according to these sillies.
? They did advance like crazy.
>what's the excuse for the Confucianists having skyscrapers crumbling down less than 4 years after they get built instead of flying car green cities?
Mostly the fact that didn't happen.
>Mostly the fact that didn't happen
I'm genuinely asking for the excuse though. I mean that's as close as you're going to get to logic absolutist atheist society mostly untouched by Christianity at the global scale and they end up recessing tremendously a couple centuries in, then falling to the Khans, get btfo by colonization, and then get a pretty decent 20 year peaking rebound from the 1990s-00s before crashing themselves with slapstick levels of corruption probably back down to a barely industrial level if they don't fix their current trajectory. if Christianity is what held the west back, where are the flying cars from any other part of humanity that existed from 1bc on?
>I'm genuinely asking for the excuse though
Like I said, most of the world outside of West Europe did experience a large amount of growth.
>they end up recessing tremendously a couple centuries in,
Not really, no. They were weakened by internal strive. Culturally and scientifically they kept up growing and advancing.
>then falling to the Khans, get btfo by colonization
There is about 600 years between those two. Ming and Qing had problems, to be sure. But they were hardly entirely backwards states that had zero growth.
>mist
>be Christopher Latham Sholes
>invent the qwerty keyboard
>place 'i' beside 'o'
>delightfully devolish Christopher
Does Judaism exist?
No. israelites, as a group, are not actually real. It's a idea invented by the Romans to justify their actions in the middle east by claiming the people pushed a long dead religion.
Jesus wasn't real either. Christianity was actually a fringe cult that worshiped Julius Caesar. After the fall of Western Rome the papacy fabricated the idea of Jesus Christ.
Why do roman sources not say this then? Tacitus doesn’t seem to think they worshiped Caesar. It’s also worth pointing out that post Caesar the roman state religion began to deify the emperors anyway, so this cult would be superfluous
Most roman sources were fabricated by the papacy after the fact.
> It’s also worth pointing out that post Caesar the roman state religion began to deify the emperors anyway, so this cult would be superfluous
Christianity was born mostly because Emperors refused to retroactively deify Julius Ceasar.
If all those records were forged (even though there are copies of them we can actually date before the roman papacy existed and which were disseminated across mesopotamia) that just makes the early church one of the most competent entities in history. Since historical forgeries are usually very easy to notice and apparently nobody did
>that just makes the early church one of the most competent entities in history.
Very much so. Unsurprising considering the sheer amount of power they had.
>Christianity was born mostly because Emperors refused to retroactively deify Julius Ceasar.
Wtf he was literally deified during the reign of Augustus. Divus Julivs. Explain yourself
The deification of Julius Caesar was highly controversial. It caused a civil conflict within the Imperial cult. The defeated side eventually became the Christian cult.
>the roman state religion
did not exist until 380-390 and that was Christianity. there were many religions throughout the centuries in Ancient Rome
There was a state religion in rome. Paganism wasn’t some wishy washy vague nonsense but was he’s out organised and was extremely tied into how the state ran. People were still being executed for impiety and denial of the state religion pre christianity, socrates is a famous example of that.
*was an organised
>There was a state religion in rome
never official.
yes it was very organised I agree with you. Julius Caesar was flamen dialis which was siginificant. Pontifex was also key figure HOWEVER it was never the state religion.
People killed who held a different religious belief i.e. Christians were killed because they disturbed the order of Rome. It was not a religious cause but more "you got christians you got problems" (riots, uproar etc).
It mellowed around 3rd century once paganism became unpopular. Other religions started popping up too
tagging you in too 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome#Religio_and_the_state
>The official deities of the state were identified with its lawful offices and institutions, and Romans of every class were expected to honour the beneficence and protection of mortal and divine superiors. State cult rituals were almost always performed in daylight and in full public view, by priests who acted on behalf of the Roman state and the Roman people. Congregtions were expected to respectfully observe the proceedings. Participation in public rites showed a personal commitment to the community and its values.[70]
>The public Vestals prepared ritual substances for use in public and private cults, and held the state-funded (thus public) opening ceremony for the Parentalia festival, which was otherwise a private rite to household ancestors. Some rites of the domus (household) were held in public places but were legally defined as privata in part or whole. All cults were ultimately subject to the approval and regulation of the censor and pontifices.[71]
but it wasnt a state religion. you need to understand the gods were different where ever you were in the Empire. On this basis judaism, christianity and islam is the same religion.
>was funded by the state
>was tied to government offices
>disrespecting it was a criminal act
>"it wasn't a state religion lol"
>the gods were different where ever you were in the Empire.
Weirdos in Egypt also having this homie Hermanubis doing his own thing does not change the obviously public and political dimension of the Roman priesthoods in Rome.
just telling you a fact. Its all very complicated. Ive not argued here
again, socrates was put to death for not believing in the state gods. there was 100% a state pantheon in both rome and greece with rituals and festivals associated with it.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_Pontiffs
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_maximus
then wtf was all this
This is unironically dumber than flat earth.
The dark ages didn't exist, the first millennium occurred over ~300 years
Why didn’t the non Christian Chinese and Africans do this then?
Christianity ruined both China and Africa.
yes hyper advanced christians conquered both effortlessly in the 19th century because for some reason their lack of christianity made them technologically inferior despite the fact that christianity has the opposite effect according to you
> conquered both
They never conquered China and didn't even conquer all of Africa until a year or two before World War 2. They also never conquered Thailand, Japan, and Korean.
>they didn’t conquer them untill they did
>they didn’t do this other stuff you never claimed they did
>they never conquered china
they basically did, and with poppy seeds.
>all of africa
nobody wanted most of it
>thailand, japan, korea
all were feudal tier when euros showed up, they just couldn’t properly stage wars that far way realistically
>they basically did,
Ah yes, by that logic the Ottoman Empire basically conquered West Europe. Through a alliance with France.
>nobody wanted most of it
Yeah, they did. Even tried and failed to invade Ethiopia.
>all were feudal tier when euros showed up
90% of Europe was feudal tier going by that logic.
It’s amazing how you managed to be that dishonest and purposefully obtuse in every single one of your answers, genuinely have a nice day.
Source on this claim?
Not a argument.
>Source on this claim?
Read up actual Roman documents from the time.
>Read up actual Roman documents from the time.
You said they were all forged
schizo
That's why I said "Actual".
Do you unironically think all of the actual New Testament papyri and the Nag Hammadi codices that can be radiocarbon dated to antiquity were all just "forged"? What you're implying literally makes no sense.
Most of it was forged or heavily rewritten.
History is written by the winners, often retroactively. The lies are too fundamental as well. Any scientist that would try to claim they were fabrications would be executed.
My homie the shit is all RADIOCARBON DATED to have existed in its current form before what you're alleging happened happened
>RADIOCARBON DATED
Fake. Like I said, scientists can't tell the truth.
No that logic isn’t remotely similar. Chinas armies were defeated and exhausted, they had zero capacity to fight the british. That’s not the case with europe and the ottomans at all.
Abandoning the ethiopian campaign because they realised it was a worthless endeavour doesn’t mean they were incapable of defeating tribesmen.
And I don’t even know what you mean here. Japan for example was hugely technologically inferior when europeans showed up. We had literal guns.
>Chinas armies were defeated and exhausted
Not really, no. Nor does that mean you were conquered. UK weren't conquered because they lost in America.
>That’s not the case with europe and the ottomans at all.
Crusade disagrees.
>Abandoning the ethiopian campaign because they realised it was a worthless endeavour doesn’t mean they were incapable of defeating tribesmen.
Cope.
>Japan for example was hugely technologically inferior when europeans showed up. We had literal guns.
Japan has had guns for centuries, you moron.
>uk and america
do you just not know history or what? do you think america obliterated the UKs entire fleet and standing army and were poised to invade the country? that’s what happened in china. they had no fleet and no fighting force. the british could have done whatever they wanted but decided it would be a waste of money
>crusade
give me one example where the crusades literally depleted the entire fighting population of western europe? or where occupying muslims could have conceivably installed themselves in any place outside of spain?
>cope
ok, spear chuckers defeated modern infantry
>japan has had guns
not when the portuguese showed up they didn’t, not until the west gave them guns
>they had no fleet and no fighting force.
Their fleet was sunk but they had plenty of fighting force left. If they had wanted they could have kept the war going for years.
>give me one example where the crusades literally depleted the entire fighting population of western europe?
Not West Europe, but Crusade of Varna literally broke everybody in East Europe.
>ok, spear chuckers defeated modern infantry
Yes. Italy is just that shit.
>not when the portuguese showed up they didn’t, not until the west gave them guns
Portugal showed up centuries before the USA did, and they mostly sold them guns.
Kek proof they “Christ cuck” posters are just demented insane libtards and not epic pagan Nazi bros
Everytime some moron says the christians caused the dark ages, it all goes back to one seething pagan gay named Zosimus
because most writings of the time were lost and his were one of the few whose weren't so it gives us a skewed view of things because all his writings are constantly blaming the christians for everything bad(literally the /misc/ of his time swap out israelites with christians)
Family Guy is guttural dogshit, I mean its the Applebees of media - the most empty shameful shit you can consume.
Family Guy always spoke real truth. those guys knew what was going on with the world.
all you see is violence in movies and sex on tv and they stood for the good ol fashioned values on which we used to rely
Dumb esl poster
Who classified the Dark Ages to begin with? It sure wasn’t Atheists.
it was early humanists who mistakenly believed medieval caroline manuscripts were “lost roman knowledge” because they were written with a font similar to roman block capitals. that misconception led to enlightenment atheists claiming that society restarted when pagan documents were recovered, when really they were actually just medieval
So you’re telling me that it was in fact Atheists?
>Renaissance humanists = atheists
stop posting please
>Renaissance humanists != atheists
Just have a nice day already
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_humanism
>During the Renaissance period most humanists were Christians, so their concern was to "purify and renew Christianity", not to do away with it. Their vision was to return ad fontes ("to the sources") to the simplicity of the Gospels and rediscovery of the New Testament, bypassing the complexities of medieval Christian theology.[3]
"Humanism" was literally never about muh secular atheism until atheists tried to grift it as a dishonest workaround to not look like nihilists.
mistaken italian christians started it, but enlightenment atheists formulated the modern “age of backwardness because of christianity” thing based on what the humanists said
Mostly renaissance scholars.
The thing that people don't understand, at least nowadays, is that the dark age was a thing but it was not the same as the middle age. Dark Ages happened in plenty of cultures and times. Greeks had a short dark age after the Bronze age Collapse. Europe did experience a dark age after the fall of West Rome. Hell, you could make a pretty good argument it experienced a second dark age after the black death.
Are you sure you have your dates right? I thought bronze age collapse was during the minoan period
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Dark_Ages
It's insane how historically illiterate Americans are.
All they "know" is that the Holocaust was the only important event in human history and we need to be constantly reminded of it.
it was. it defined the modern world and modern politics. it also disproved forever the existence of god and showed how barbaric christianity really was. the holocaust was a massive turning point in people realising traditional ideologies didn’t fit humanity anymore
>showed how barbaric christianity really was
there is no way of knowing Hitler's true view of Christianity. He has publicly shared both sides. Holocaust was not a religious purge but ethnicity
the race lie and the religion lie have a lot in common. if religion went racism would probably die too
You can’t seriously believe this
religion taps into the low level tribalist mind. “good” and “bad”, absolutes and essentialism. your enemies are “bad” because they’re just inherently born with some sort of spiritual disease. so you have israelites, who have done nothing but contribute to western art, science and literature consistently for centuries, who are in fact over represented in the western canon. but then someone like martin luther gets upset that they won’t kneel down to his religion and says they’re inherently evil. boom. tribalism of racism justified with religion. and centuries later hitler ordered their demise
holy frick you are an idiot
if there is any one people who have contributed to civilisation the most it is Anatolians
the people of judea are not the same as israelites neither are they the same as hebrews. not to shit on israelites but they were irrelevant for most of history.
This is genuinely your average atheist these days kek
Do you think Coptic persecution is based on race as well?
>if religion went racism would probably die too
I mean the spartans held the same religion/mythological views as the people they believed not fit enough to live according to their eugenic standards
actual moron. never post again.
piece of shit chud cry more ahaha
remain delusional moron
NTA, but to a certain extent yes. It's the same kind of superstition born out of the same kind of ignorance. Both of them are also attempts at population control.
See, here comes an American now.
>the most documented genocide in history didn’t happen
>the most oppressive and superstitious period in history was actually based
Any more chud horseshit ITT
Holocaust and middle ages are both fake.
All history is fabricated. israelites are not real. Hitler was not real. Middle Ages was not real. Christianity was not real.
this image has to be one of the biggest baits on Cinemaphile. never have i ever seen someone post it and not garner 200+ posts
for some reason Cinemaphile has become a frequent site of religious debate. there’s a number of popular atheism and religion bait thread formats including this one. posting gods not dead is one example
Christcucks seething
The issue with religion is not that it caused social stagnation or that it caused people to be more backwards. It's that it's a attempt at social control that has long outlived it's usefulness. Only one narrative will suffice.
Everything you wrote is wrong. It is like you were taught wrong, as a joke.
Christianity is a form of population control. Self evidently so.
And what is your evidence?
>Literally call followers a flock
>Literally call priests shepherds
They openly call you cattle.
Thats your evidence for "population control"? Do you know how much of the doctrine of christianity and the history of christianity you would have to ignore to believe what you just wrote? and what do you mean by "you"? I'm not christian you moron
>Thats your evidence for "population control"?
The most self evident one.
>o you know how much of the doctrine of christianity and the history of christianity you would have to ignore to believe what you just wrote
Like? All of it seems to make it pretty clear it's just population control.
Well, I completely disagree. I thought it would be self-evident that christians have been the most uncontrollable population yet.
>Most uncontrolable
Lol. Do you seriously believe that? They are sheep, through and through. It wasn't until the actual atheist French revolution that they stopped being total sheep. China had massive peasant revolts centuries before then.
300 years before the french revolution english peasants (heavily devout lollards) murdered half the magistrates in london and got the king to back off on the statute of labour laws
Are you serious? The French Revolution is so fundamentally christian to say it is anything else is delusion.
>The French Revolution is so fundamentally christian
Do Americans literally know anything at all?
Roman pagans kept actual slaves kek. How were they more pro civil unruliness
no. you see, the romans had a religion based around worshiping the literal head of state and consistently write about how ungovernable and unruly christians are. so what they cleverly did to control people is get rid of their religion based around obeying the leader of the government and replace it with the religion of the people they hated for not following their rules. they then laughed and twirled their moustaches over centuries of repeated peasant revolts and political revolutions under christianity, having finally found a way to control the population.
> about how ungovernable and unruly christians are.
So ungovernable and unruly they turned Christianity into a part of the roman state apparatus.
> repeated peasant revolts
Fricking bugmen China and Japan had more peasant revolts.
>political revolutions
AGAINST Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_of_Reason
Read a book, moron.
>Back off
>Literally had the power to do anything
>Just made the king have some minor concessions.
It's amazing how sheep like you are.
it wasn’t a minor concession but a massive historic overhaul that let them negotiate with the nobility over wages and shit. it was a watershed moment that massively influenced western politics from there on. it’s very blatant you aren’t well read and are just responding to my descriptions rather than having your own knowledge on the subject
Again, the roman state apparatus pre christianity had people worship the emperor. How is placing an authority above any human being as the object of worship better for controlling them? And yes tacitus explicitly states he doesn’t like christians because they are unruly
They mostly worshiped dead emperors. As for how that is worse for population control: Because you can't just make shit up about what they did.
>nd yes tacitus explicitly states he doesn’t like christians because they are unruly
They are unruly because they refuse to accept Roman authority. They are total sheep to their own dumb little cult.
It was a joke, one that would be largely ignored until the English Civil War. Which was heavily influenced by, you guessed it, anti Christian sentiment.
>it was a watershed moment that massively influenced western politics
It had zero effect on anything expect England. Even then, like I said above, it wouldn't be properly ratified until almost several centuries later.
>they mostly
No they didn’t
>you can just make up
Yes you can, how much of a historylet are you? Do you think the egyptian kings really did all the shit attributed to them, or do you think they were assigned divine powers and deeds so that people would obey them? It’s the same with the cult around the emperor
>they wouldn’t listen to civil authority because of their religion
Basically all you’ve said there and means nothing
>dude the rebellion is the real slavery, they might oppose the state but they are totally submissive to their ideology
Doesn’t matter if they resist civil authority
Yes, they did. Read up about what the Roman cult was actually like.
>Yes you can
Anon, the Romans actually wrote shit down. Including political enemies of the emperor. Your average Roman citizen was way more aware of what the Emperors were like than your average Christian or Egyptian.
Though even the Egyptians were more willing to fight against authority than your average Christian sheep.
>>they wouldn’t listen to civil authority because of their religion
Which is why they merged their civil authority with the religion. After which they spend the next few thousand years being sheep.
>Doesn’t matter if they resist civil authority
Which they stopped doing the moment the authority became Christian.
>Your average Roman citizen was way more aware of what the Emperors were like than your average Christian or Egyptian
Source? And all three of these civilisations “wrote stuff down”, they also wrote propaganda. You are also contradicted here again with the middle ages were if people hated a king they were often just deposed and killed. If everyone believed the kings were perfect this would never happen.
>even the egyptians were willing
Again with the complete bullshit claim kek. There are very few examples of this
>merged their civil authority
To appease a very unruly population, the literal stated reason why
>stopped doing
Literally posted examples they didn’t
>And all three of these civilisations “wrote stuff down”,
Way less than the Romans. Egypt also existed way longer than Rome did, meaning it was way easier to make shit up.
>You are also contradicted here again with the middle ages were if people hated a king they were often just deposed and killed.
Yeah, by the nobility. Peasant revolts were a meme.
>To appease a very unruly population,
Most of the population wasn't Christian until after it became the state religion.
>Literally posted examples they didn’t
Even ignoring the fact that's bullshit. Once. If that is your massive proof that Christians are not total sheep, it's pathetic.
Events and figured for what claim exactly?
No, Christianity was a rejection of paganism. Communism was a rejection of capitalism. Secularism was the result of Protestantism.
You very clearly have no actual historical background since you never actually state anything specific. Name events or figures that represent these claims.
>english civil war
>anti christian
you can’t be this moronic can you? the roundheads were MORE devout than the royalists. their entire thing was based on radical protestantism. holy frick you’re dumb as hell
>radical protestantism.
Which was basically just a form of secularism. Protestantism basically just is secularism anyway.
Yeah these people basing their entire belief system on the bible and the existence of God were just secular, for sure
Anon, Protestantism directly led to secularism. It's why modern American Christianity is basically godless.
and paganism led to christianity, they’re the same. and capitalism led to communism, they’re also the same
Protties are like atheists who haven't yet rejected the Bible.
>Reject Papal authority
>Reject church doctrine, make up your own doctrine bro :^)
>Reject the divine right of kings, peasants and kings are equal, we need a parliament brooo
(all protties are at least here)
>Reject organised religion
(arguable most protties are here)
>Reject any form of religion, just believe in God/a supreme being bro
(deists were there, "spiritual" morons too)
>Reject that God exists
(atheists are here)
>Deny biological reality, nature is wrong, fight nature
(trannies and feminists are here)
it's all a big pipeline
www.historyforatheists.com
>repression
Originally, the script said israelites, but they had to change it to Christians because people were agreeing too much that their lives would be better without the israelites.
>mist
But the Dark Ages were caused by constant invasion from the east and north of non-christian peoples and are named so because compared to earlier or later, we have a gap in written records, not technological advancement, due to the fall of the Roman empire which meant everything got really decentralized.
It's stupid because it assumes linear progression and advancement of technology.
This is just false. A shit load of stuff was invented and improved during so called dark ages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology
And in reality:
>In this universe germanics never emerged from their scandinavian shitholes and marched south being menace upon civilization ever since.
>Thus there were no germanic dark ages, no viKANGZ, no heresy, no 30-years war, no world wars etc etc
Atheists are part of a new religion
they worship idols. George Floyd is their Barabbas. If they don't believe they have a religion tell them you don't believe that carbon dioxide is a bad thing and there is no problem with the climate changing
see them treat you like a heretic
For me it's Sarah Gadon
I love Sarah Gadon.