this is funny, although not 'true' as many argue here. Reducing complicated cultural concepts & two thousand years of history to a single thought is fair enough for a good joke as it is here, but honestly folks, it's not 'truth' :-)
The Fall of Rome and Economic collapse all throughout Europe >>caused<< the Dark Ages. Religion is what everyone looked to for support. I admit It may have prolonged the dark ages through suppressing technological advance, but then again, it was less Christianity and more the people in power at the time.
There really isn't any evidence that during the "Dark ages" technology was suppressed. The conflict between "science" and "Religion" is relatively new; almost all of the "scientists" in Medieval Europe were actually clergy. In essence, the Clergy was the seat /of/ scientific progress. Just look up Roger Bacon.
For example, in many ways even 10th century Europe was more technologically advanced than Rome. For instance, they had better furnaces (Catalan furnace, Stuckofen, etc), had better weaponry, especially swords, and they had more efficient agricultural processes. In fact, Rome itself was more handshy about adopting technologies, as evidenced by their hesitation to adopt the Germanic heavy plow.
@ANIOLATORV It's not stealing, it's just a representation in a different form. Just because you've painted a flower, doesn't mean you stole someones idea, it's just your own creation.
@callofdutycameron That explains why you couldn't complete a single sentence without using an expletive. Although I am an atheist, your claim is nothing more than a generalization. There are intelligent Christians out there, they just suffer from stupidity in one single area.
Some believe religion is contrary to science,wrong, The Catholic Church alone has had a science department , for 400 years. Their aim as stated,The aim of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is to promote the progress of the mathematical, physical and natural sciences and the study of epistemological problems related thereto.There are 92 apointed acadameans . Most are Nobel Laureates and prize winners, including Stephen Hawkings. also when you talk The Big Bang, that came from a Catholic Priest
The church had a keen eye on what science was allowed and what not. As soon as something was at odds with their claim to heaven and power, it was meant to be silenced. At least as long as the church was in thr driver's seat. So to portray the church as a driving force behind development is quite deceiving. The dark ages are called dark for a reason. For the church opressed knowledge and insights that were at odds with their biblical power trip.
I dislike Christianity as much as the next guy, but I respect it as well. It has the power to invoke inspiration in individuals like nothing else. Many famous artists used Christianity as the driving force behind their work. Despite the irrationality that defines the very nature of religion, one can only be humbled by it's amazing influential abilities. A wise man once said, "the most fearsome warrior is one who fights for his god."
"The most fearsome warrior is one who fights for his god."
Careful my friend. The most suicide bombers would agree. Such warriors are indeed fearful. Since they fight literally for no reason but for metaphysical dogmatism.
That's actually an extremely poor way of looking at the attitude. Religion is a form of language; it's used to generate understanding. Look at what the Middle Easterners are actually drawing issue with; they're actually issues that are very "worldly"; how do we organize our society, who or what should be organized, who are our enemies? They live in areas which have been raped by their own people and others for a very long time; and they're angry about that.
"The Dark Ages" is not a term that's actually used in Academic discussion anymore. The use of that term was actually based upon /our modern/ ignorance of the period itself. When we actually look at Medieval Europe, we see that the earlier period was unstable; which the Church was acting to solve, actually, and then in the later period we see intense cultural development; modern science, political thought, and so on actually has its roots in the Medieval Period.
Additionally, the scientific "silencing" you're referring to is a modern phenomena; the Medieval Church was actually the origin of scientific thought in the Medieval Period. The Reformation made the Church more kneejerk and anti science; but ironically scientific thought was supported by the Protestants. Remember, Copernicus ran into trouble with the Church not because of what he was saying, but because he did not have the evidence to support what he was saying.
@MightyJabroni church in the drivers seat? B4 the Vatican became their own state in 1929,many church leaders were appointed or forced by Rulers. Check history, many of them only lasted less than 1 or 2 years B4 the rulers caused their removal. Its unlikely the church had that kind of power, and likely was used as a whipping boy, to take the blame, But Jesus knew the church would suffer but prevail, " I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it
Are you kidding me? Jesus was always against institutional believe. He said that all belivers should make their hearts the only temple of God that truly matters. That he would not need praise in form of pompous temples of stone. How is the very concept of the church not blatantly at odds with that?
The church a whipping boy? More a whore who goes into bad with the powerful people!
@MightyJabroni Church oppressed knowledge? I allrerady proved thats a lie. Using Galileo as a crutch and stretched beyond truth,is not the real story. As I showed earlier, the church was responsible for the major portion of colleges and support for Science. Now how did Atheism support fare, NOTHING.
You don't prove jack shit. I don't even brought up Galileo. You talk a game here, as if Inquisition, witch hunt, crusades ...... all of it never happened. In the middle ages the church was an absolute powerhouse for centuries. They announced war and peace, excommunicated Kings, oppressed any other form of believe as fearce as possible .... do you see a damn pattern there?
You act as if the church has always been as it is today. Which is BS. For everyone to see.
A; The Crusades were actually a good thing. They were a response to hundreds of years of Muslim aggression against Christian lands.
B; Most inquisitions were actually pretty luke warm. The Spanish Inquisition; infiltrated by the Spanish Crown, is most extreme and quite distinct example.
C; ALL systems of belief oppress other systems of belief. I'd challenge you to find me a single system of belief which doesn't use some sort of force against others.
A: In the mind of some twisted natures any war can always become a good thing. The crusades were a political move by the church, because they could make many decisions in their favor, while a great deal of secular lords was fighting and dying far away. Hence they could not oppose the political moves of the church.
A; That opinion is not held by any major historians studying the Crusades; the Crusades did not see a significant enough number of the nobility to actually see the shift in power you're trying to suggest. And the shift in power you're suggesting never happened. You need to read up on the modern scholarship of the Crusades. Regine Pernoud and Runciman are good starting points. Again, you're overestimating the power of the Church.
B: What many people fail to realize is that the church was the moralistic instance of those times. So even what wasn't driven by the church itself was still driven and justified by the mindset that the church brought up. Another example therefore is the bloody conquest of America. The annihilation of the Indians and slavery had the blessing of thze church. It was regarded as positive to either covert these non-believing wild men …. or to just get rid of 'em.
B; The Christian attitudes were certainly dominant in that time; but the Church didn't dictate everyone's moral persuasions and their religious activities. For instance, there was a religious expression in cities of "Confraternities", where lay men would gather together for particular religious reasons; though they were approved and legitimized by the Church, they did not emerge from the structure of the Church.
Confraternities weren't enforcers. They were religious groups composed of laymen who wanted to express their religion in particular ways. We're looking at groups of bakers, tanners, bankers, etc, dedicating themselves to a particular set of rules and religious existence.
If you're trying to argue that all content within a society is based upon the pre-existing cultural content, then yes that's true; today as it was then. However, this is an /organic/ process, not a mechanistic one as you're suggesting.
Additionally, Christianity is inherently evangelical, so I would agree that converting the Native American population to Christianity would be approved. The genocidal tendency definitely doesn't exist prior to the Reformation though, and after that point you increasingly saw religion being subordinated to the whims of Nationalistic powers. This is especially true of Protestantism.
I tend to agree to that. Still the fact remains that the church moralized the cruelty which took place during the American colonialization. That's why I am heavily under the impression that the church went into bed with whomever it was beneficial.
Except that's not really the fact, because cruelty was often railed /against/ by the Clergy. Bartolomé de las Casas was a Catholic missionary who was known for being an advocate of Charles V's "New Laws" in Spain, which granted human rights to the natives and abolished slavery. He was also an outspoken critic of the atrocities being committed by the colonists. His main opponent was Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda; a secular man, with Humanist training.
I am aware that there were also some fine individuals in the church. But - like in so many other institutions - it was rarely seen, that those guys had the final say on anything. I guess the call for power attracts those the most, who are most eager to hear it. Sad but true.
C: That's true. Maybe you now get the idea, why atheists refuse such cruel mindsets. But still the fact remains, that in no other religion there was an institution formed, who had comparable power and organization like the catholic church. Not by far and large! So yes, the church is by all means highly responsible for the cruelty that took place many centuries in the name of god. Especially when the church actively promoted the majority of those things.
C; You don't need Catholicism to have such cruel mindsets, and in fact you're putting on blinders. Mao, Stalin, and other similar dictators were all Atheists; they saw millions of humans die in some of the worst atrocities known to human kind. Hitler could arguably be called a weird form of Atheist, as he shit-talked Christianity rather frequently. I'd label him as more Occultish than Atheistic though. You really can't say that atheists refuse such cruel mindsets.
"You don't need Catholicism to have such cruel mindsets ..."
Off course not. I am not saying that religious people are brutal/cruel by nature. The same goes for atheists. Ultimately being evil is the dark aspect of making own decisions and developing own morals. But my fundamental concern with religion is that it is so abstract that it can easily be abused for hatred. Religious hate is just as arbitrary and easy to promote as racism.
Any cultural ideology is going to inherently be abstract to some degree; you're treating a natural product of human culture as if it's exclusive of religion. For instance, look at what Nationalism today allows for.
Nationalism for me is close to racism. Off course religion doesn't have an exclusive patent on irrational hatred. But it is a top player nonetheless. ;)
Hitler indeed was hard to acknowledge as either an atheist or a catholic. He was catholic on paper. But being an atheist and openly admit it wasn't widely accepted back then. And if you look at the strange symbolism of the nazis ..... the swastika is as "Arian" as a sack of curry rice. ^^ He indeed was an occult nut.
Now here's a sticky issue, you say that the Church is responsible for the cruelty of the ages in which it held influence due to the layers of symbolic language and religious attitudes...but at the same time you want to say that it is /not/ responsible for the humanity and kindness that we saw during those periods. What about the brotherhood of medieval Europe that we so frequently saw? What about the increased living conditions of people in the Crusader States?
I highly appreciate your approach. You bring interesting facts to the table that seem to disprove many of my regards or at least let appear them in an other light. Are you an educated historian?
I see myself as humbled now and feel the need to question and review some of my state of knowledge on many things regarding the church history. Don't get me wrong - I certainly will not become a fan. For it is obvious that the church has a very bloody history.
I'm actually pursuant of a Ph.D in Medieval Studies. One of my areas of focus is in the myths people have about the period and about religious history in general. I also study Continental Philosophy, especially Gadamer, Heidegger, and so on.
Additionally, you're greatly over-estimating the power of the Church. For instance, the Church continually tried to curb violence between Christians. Did everyone bow down and submit? Nope. In the 10th and 11th centuries there was the "Peace and Truce of God"; this was attempting to limit the degrees of violence Christians would enact, and it wound up doing very little.
Over-estimating the power of the church? It was capable of appointing emperors and had direct influence on many political positions. Even on the access to said positions. In all of Europe there was a tax that went into the pockets of the church. The church even could ban Kings and the like (which they made use of). You guys keep talking as if the church stood innocent and ashamed on the sidelines. Which clearly was not the case.
Actually it really wasn't capable of appointing Emperors or kings; there was a concept in Medieval Europe called "The Doctrine of the Two Swords". Today we would recognise this as "Separation of Church and State". Mostly what happens, for instance in Charlemagne's case, is that they /already have/ that power; it is simply legitimized by the Church. That's the typical instance; The Church /legitimizes/ power, it didn't decide /who had/ power.
One of the best examples of the complex interaction is the Imperial power of Henry IV; the Pope couldn't declare their long time enemy simply "Not Emperor"; nor could they declare his son to not be Emperor either, even after Henry IV was excommunicated. It took Henry IV's own vassals, including his son, to force Henry IV to abdicate due to his unpopularity; but then his son immediately assumed the throne.
How were Emperors appointed? They were elected. At least in the case in the German Empire. There were three ecclesiastical electors, and then four secular electors; so at least superficially the Church has less than half of the say in who is or is not appointed. Mind you, the ecclesiastical electors would at times oppose the Papacy; they weren't papal dogs as later Protestant propaganda tried to suggest.
@MightyJabroni Stop referring 2 the Catholic church as "THE" Christian church- u need 2 say 'the officially sanctioned church at such & such a time in this or that country.' It didnt matter if a particular organization calling itself Christian was the most *Powerful* at a given time/place: True Christianity has existed & always will wherever even any smaller number of people have gathered in the name of it & practiced it: those r churches,too! Kings could kill church officials.
@MightyJabroni “The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient data in the late Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably all, other institutions.” (The Sun in the Church, Harvard University Press, 1999) There are many such articles as this, and the truth is out there . You just cant handle the truth.
The church never came clean with it's own bloody history. How it systematically destroyed any other form of believe in Europe and split up the people into believers and heretics. How it allowed the despiteful to buy their salvation for shiny coin (into the churche's pocket). How it burned men and women alike who happened to stand up to their tyranny.
"I do what the church has done for centuries. I just do it more thorough." (Adolf Hitler about his Holocaust).
@MightyJabroni Here we go again w/ the phoney-baloney attempt to link Hitler to Christianity in any way, shape, or form. Your comment started out ok except for referring to the Catholic church as "The" church. It was powerful at a time in history in a place in history. But its not & has never been "The" only Christian church. If you are saying that ALL institutions - religious or non-religious - & ALL nations should come clean about the bad parts of their history, who'd argue?
@zenalaus Well, Hitler was a Catholic, the first treaty he signed was with the Catholic church and the church made it mandatory to celebrate his birthday each year from the Pulpit, just to kick it off, but, you know, whatever floats your imaginary boat. You should try reading something else than the Bible.
@zenalaus There's nothing phoney about it. You are just ignorant of this fact or can't bring yourself to admit that you share the same faith as Hitler. The current pope was part of the Hitler youth! Is this another fact you're ignorant of?
Oh, and when Lemaitre had his Big Bang Theory acknowledged by the church .... that was in 1951. Long after the church had lost their iron grip on Europe. So that hardly does translate into the church being a driving force for knowledge. They just adapted to the times. But societal progress here in Europe was always against the resistance of the church. It even took those guys all the way until the 60s to acknowledge women officially as equal human beings ......
Alcuin of York, Robert Grosseteste, Albertus Magnus, Johannes de Sacrobosco, Duns Scotus, Roger Bacon, Henry of Ghent, William of Ockham, Nicolaus Copernicus, and the list goes on. All influential scientific thinkers; all clergy.
The inherent conflict between science and Religion is very much a post-Reformation attribute.
@MightyJabroni You want to talk progress and Europe since they lost some faith? Lets talk Britain, In the 2001 cencus 72 percent UK were Christian, 76 percent in USA. However from 1979 to 2005 half of UK stopped going to church. Since 1979 all UK Nobels dropped dramitically. In Chemistry the UK got 6 nobels but shared 4 with the USA, The US won 39 medals .
Oh and the church is the only reason for that? Things like economical power don't play any role? Since when is a correlation a causality? You draw a very vague and rosy picture here.
And your BS about "atheists never have done anything good": Bear in mind that from a historical perspective it isn't to long ago that it was regarded as disreputable to openly refuse faith. Faith was for many people a purely societal concession.
Oh and the church is the only reason for that? Things like economical power don't play any role? Since when is a correlation a causality? You draw a very vague and rosy picture here.
And your BS about "atheists never have done anything good": Bear in mind that from a historical perspective it isn't to long ago that it was regarded as disreputable to openly refuse faith. Faith was for many people a purely societal concession.
Oh and the church is the only reason for that? Things like economical power don't play any role? Since when is a correlation a causality? You draw a very vague and rosy picture here.
And your BS about "atheists never have done anything good": Bear in mind that from a historical perspective it isn't to long ago that it was regarded as disreputable to openly refuse faith. Faith was for many people a purely societal concession.
Oh and the church is the only reason for that? Things like economical power don't play any role? Since when is a correlation a causality? You draw a very vague and rosy picture here.
And your BS about "atheists never have done anything good": Bear in mind that from a historical perspective it isn't to long ago that it was regarded as disreputable to openly refuse faith. Faith was for many people a purely societal concession.
The USA has been one of the most Christian countries, and the Christian colleges are the best in the world, with the highest rated Science curriculem`s also. Also this "Christian country" has fostered Science. The US has more than twice the Nobel prizes than any other country and more patents than the next 4 countries combined. Why, because of the stability of our system, and our faith has promoted that. In God we trust.
This video is totally bogus. The facts are clear, Science took root because of the colleges, which primarily began through religion. 106 of the first 108 colleges were started on the Christian faith. By the close of 1860 there were 246 colleges in America. Seventeen of these were state institutions; almost every other one was founded by Christian denominations or by individuals who avowed a religious purpose.
@madcram lol? nah because the only Closed minded Religion is Christianity and every other one about the same bible .. so if these one never existed the other one would not oppressed science .. The Greeks were pretty Advanced in their technologies :)
The Greeks were also intensely religious; Sokrates was put to death for having heretical beliefs about the Gods and subverting the youth with them.
Buddhists have a history of waging "crusades" against others in the area, Chinese concepts of the divinity of Chinese society caused them to close down their society, and so on. All societies can get close minded; you don't need Abrahamic religion to do that.
Actually if you look at the modern research you see that the term "Dark ages" have been dropped almost entirely from academic discourse; Technology still advanced at a pretty decent rate in Europe and the Church was actually the home of the early scientific community in Europe. The Medieval Period was not the age of "darkness and ignorance" people have suggested. Just look up Roger Bacon.
Europe was the only continent to believe in Christianity and it was by far the most advanced of its time and still is. Christian nations are typically the most developed nations. How did Africa, East Asia, North and South America, and really anywhere else for that matter do without Christianity lol. Someone will probably reply to this post and point out that Japan is also up there.
@mrmittensworth24 japen was a buddist nation it is more atheists now not a lot of japen was ever christian. and those African country's are barley developed.
The indigenous religion of Japan is actually Shinto; not Buddhism. Buddhism was a later development.
The Christian Community in Japan was actually getting pretty sizable until the persecutions in the Sengoku Jidai. If it weren't for those, we'd probably be looking at a much larger Christian community in Japan.
One Problem. Christianity provided European nations an excuse to kill others and colonize. If It didn't, then people wouldn't have found so many ways to kill each other, and our technology would be less.
@TheGamehunter135 No it doesn't. Don't blame Jesus that SOME people don't 'get' Jesus's teachings or that some people have abused it - just like some people abuse power if they have it, some people abuse their nation's flag by 'wrapping' themselves in it, some people abuse money, etc. Do NOT try to blame REAL Christians for the actions of false ones. For ex, I don't see them talking about all of the abuse that has occurred in history by MALES precisely BECAUSE they are males.
isnt it interesting that any good comedy these days are non-religious, and the best ones are often sacrilegious? not surprising. religions are so stupid, its just too easy to make fun of them. and the comedic value is all the more boosted by the sincerity and ignorance of the common (sometimes "professional" as well) theist.
@zenalaus sigh... u theists are full of non sequiturs. how does what i said make u think cartoons are my role models? no, they are my entertainment. and how does that in any way relate to my name being unlucky gambler? seriously, how the hell do u people connect these random dots? i guess i shouldnt be surprised at this, after all, yall did connect the dots in the world in a certain way to draw up jesus.
@poisonstrudel 'Love others as you love yourself,' don't be prejudiced, be willing to be humble, etc. According to you that's the worst thing that has happened to mankind? Really? Interesting.
One thing is for sure. No department of science has systematically raped children, taxed your ancestors, denied your cosmic and evolutionary heritage or promised eternal fire on those brazen enough to question it.
@curlymolly70 What are you even talking about. Who or what is this 'one' that you keep referring to. If you're going to get on YouTube & make a comment, at least speak intelligibly.
@curlymolly70 Taxed your ancestors? Who taxed your ancestors? Jesus? As far as rape goes - and all violence in general including World Wars I & II - those were caused by men - not women. And so...I guess that means men should be outlawed, and not women? That means that women are science departments? What the heck is even your point?
@zenalaus actually the pope taxed them. and he sold papers that would forgive all there sins and let the go to heaven. and what do the world wars have to do with rape exactly? And what do you mean by woman are science departments?
@iloathbirdsss Is there an ancestor much worth mentioning who WASN'T taxed by SOMEONE? y r u referring 2 the Catholic church as if it is/was all of Christianity? Catholic indulgence-selling happened: such unChristian things caused TRUE Christians- like Martin Luther- to PROTEST. Thus 'Protestant.' U over-reach: All religion EVER did was bad? U'll say baloney like that, but w/ALL the bad that MALES have done in history (WorldWars,rape,etc) u wouldn't say 'ALL men have done is bad.'
@curlymolly70 I think you overlooked the legacy of scientific racism and the eugenics movement, both of which had what were considered unshakeable theories in their heydays. I'm pretty sure most Ivy League universities in the 1920's had eugenics departments. I'm by no means defending religion; I'm just saying both it and science have some blood on their hands, though religion's completely drenched in it I must say.
@eier Eugenics is often misunderstood, and tarnished by its original purposes. The fact that the word itself is synonymous with racism underscores your point, and mine.
Genetic engineering is just that, and we could build a better world with it, for us.
All of us.
Science is a method, only a man has hands.
Richard Fenyman, a man I greatly admire/respect, played bongos and celebrated as countless souls were vaporized, or worse, in Hiroshima.
@curlymolly70 And what, pray tell, were those original purposes? Something about preventing undesirable peoples from breeding and facilitating breeding among more desirable (usually Northern European) peoples?
ludicrus32 is correct i know my history and the church did not like some things but science and knowledge was never held back much buy Christianity, in fact its the governments of the time who stifled scientific knowledge,and advancement,as a example i did history in hi school and got good marks but because i was not deemed eligeable to receive a uai i was rejected from all the university's
@JHoward393 Don't know what Fallout New Vegas is, but if there was no Christianity, society would be more likely to be LIKE cheap, fast, selfish, materialistic, shallow Las Vegas.
@zenalaus Its a video-game from Bethesda Softworks. It takes place after a great war with China in 2076 and the result of the USA going to nuclear war with china leaves alot of the United States uninhabitable. Las Vegas didn't get hit as badly as the rest of the USA and is habitable to some degree. The people in the USA built fallout shelters and vaults to protect people from the radiation air after the war.
@zenalaus Some vaults, meanwhile, had dangerous radioactive toxic waste dumped by the Government at the time on top of where the interior of where the vaults were at the time. that radioactive toxic waste was leeching into the vault under 30 feet of topsoil turning the dwellers into Ghouls.
This is bullshit. First of all, the Dark Ages were cause by the fall of the Rome and the sacking thereof by Barbarians. For the next 400 years, the Church served as the only civilizing facet of society. Popes encouraged the building of universities, as science was seen as glorifying God by better understanding earth. Indeed, many of the finest scientists and the finest scientific institutions today are tied to a Church. This is why Seth McFarlane is a crappy cartoonist and not a historian.
Is that why saying the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe was considered heresy? Universities didn't exist in the 600's. In fact, the first university was Al-Azhar University in Cairo.
The first one in Europe, that wasn't a Cathedral School (This may be what you were meaning by the pope building universities, but they were for biblical scholars) wasn't made till 1088 AD In Bologna
@ahhaboom Actually, the Church did build Bologna University, in a joint partnership with the Holy Roman Emperor. Also, Al-Azhar started as a madrassa, not a university. It wasn't an actual seat of education until much, much later. Also, yes, the Church made mistakes. But every scholar of repute said that the sun revolved around the earth, so it was kind of hard to dispute. They were wrong, yes, but you can't blame the Church alone.
@ahhaboom Yeah, if you knew anything about faith you would realise that the Pope is near-demi god and did infact build the university. Science has proven this time and time again, if you look at any of the pictures taken during the building you CAN see the Pope doing most of the work.
@Blurtex33 Lol Pope is here to spread Jesus' faith, he is not a demi-god. And how in the world could pictures been taken in 1088 ?! Paintings ofc, but there is no proof in paintings...
You are either troll or really blind Christian. Real Christians don't fight over internet and they get their facts straight. If you are here to fight for your 'faith' first try to at least read a bible. I did in most parts and I don't even believe in god.
@ludicrus32 " For the next 400 years, the Church served as the only civilizing facet of society"- well thats on way to look at it. Of course we both know what actually ENDED the dark ages don't we? That was when philosophers started openly questioning religious dogma. I know that the church played a major role in academics, but this was mostly a monopoly on knowledge on their part, please don't try and act like this redeems the church from what it really was: a tool of oppression.
@seblasian The Church served as the only escape from the madness surrounding the Dark Ages. Later on, the Catholic Church became very corrupt, yes, but even those philosophers who spoke out against it were ardent Christians. Look at Martin Luther, for example. Even Galileo was a pious Catholic, even sending his daughter off to a nunnery. Just because the Church is imperfect does not make it evil, oppressive, or a hindrance to human progress. It makes it a human-made organization.
@seblasian Hmm, personally disagree here. I'm not a Christian, but as much as I hate to say it, it's a common misunderstanding. The Church has both spurred on and hindered the Renaissance and Enlightenment. But you can see its archaic mindset as a necessary transition. Without Christianity, and it's monks&books, there could be no Renaissance. It just had to be there for anything else. Call it what you will, all power has been used for good and evil before. The church is no exception.
@Altaront I agree but it would be nice if Religion and Science could stop opposing each other and realize they are just two different sides of the same coin.
@curlymolly70 You need to define your terms better sometimes. If you mean what I think you mean by story, are you REALLY dissing human HISTORY and ancient writings that belong to all mankind? History and science are PARTS of human life on earth. Nightshift's point is 100% obvious to anyone who knows how ridiculous it is to act like 'you can only have 1, not the other.' Of COURSE Nightshift didn't mean they were they Exact same thing. That's why Nightshift didn't SAY they were.
@Nightshift10000 So are you afraid of my comments or of the truth? , you commented, then so you blocked me on your channel? . So do I then consider all Atheists as cowards or what??? answer if you dare. Otherwise I will have my answer allready.
@Neodoxian Actually I would consider you arrogant and rather foolish to make any assumptions about Me being an atheist but since you christians have been so afraid of the truth that you revise your own history to make christianity and organized religion all together look squeaky clean I guess it doesn't really matter. I gave you my answer whether you carry on this conversation is up to you, I have no time for this. You must not believe your religion yourself to have to attack Me like this, But.
@Nightshift10000 Actually I was going to tell you why i do not adhere to the tenet`s of all you have defined me to be, and in many ways I see things the same as you, However since you blocked my answer you can kiss my ass. You painted me with your personal definition blindly, then ran, that is not only the ultimate arrogance, but also the cowards way out. You thought I would get the best of you, and that shook your confidence. End of story.
@Neodoxian Oh WOW, how Christian of you telling me to kiss your ass. You are still arrogant and more of proof that all christians like you resort to bully tactics when people will not listen to your nonsense. I simply try to take Thomas Jeffersons advise and take no notice of your religious intolerance and that's when you get aggressive, then again this is only a repeat of history itself, people question christianity, christians KILL and persecute people doing it. Whatever, So long.
@Nightshift10000 Wow indeed, you speak of intolerance when its exactly what you did to me. The definition is "lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc" You gave your 350 word lies, then shut down my capacity to answer on your info page. You cant handle the truth. THAT is intolerance. You say I am bullying you, With words? ? How old are you? Grow up.
@Nightshift10000 I dont think you really understand Jeffersons point or even what religious intolerance is. No one has the right to stifle anothers beliefs. its our constitutional right , and also was Jeffersons position.
@Nightshift10000 As far as killings, get your facts straight. in the 20th century alone millions of Christians have been persecuted and killed by Muslim groups and Atheist States , The USSR, North Korea and such. more than 75 out of 100 of every persons killed due to religious hatred were Christians. THAT is intolerance.
@Nightshift10000 In 2005 the FBI Uniform Crime there were 16,692 murders, 6000 were hate crimes that encompasses all racial,religious, sex orientation,ethnic and disability motivations. 1226 of those were anti religious killings, and only 4 were anti Atheism. Now tell me again how religion is more intolerant, hypocrite
So who is persecuted, apparently Religious are predominately attacked, not Atheists.
FBI, Crime in the United States, And Hate Crime Statistics, Table 2
@Nightshift10000 As I said before " Christianity is not the problem,the idiots who call themselves Christians and still ignore Christs words for their own analogy are the problem' ' If im wrong show me where Jesus told us to go to war, or kill, or in any way to commit the aggressive things you blame on Christianity. His main commandment was To "Love your neighbor as yourself" That was a declaration of peace, not war.
@Nightshift10000 Yes it would be nice. The only reason certain people oppose religion, and others oppose science, is because of their ego. It really is as simple as that, no dilly-dallying. Religion, or spirituality I should say, and science are looking for answers in two different ways. One through faith, and the other through observation, experimentation and prediction. Don't make human beings more complicated than they really are.
@Altaront I think we're on the same page here. I see it as a stage in human history in wich the church played a major role, for better and for worse. But I think to look back and glorify the church as anything more than a necessary evil is an insult to the progress we made since then.
@zenalaus Holy shit post-whore, get a life. This is the comments section, not the forums for the catholic church. Now, make "a" comment about the clip and gtfo.
@seblasian In the context of your comment, u need to stop referring to 1 denomination as "THE" church. You TOTALLY ignored ludicrus32's point of CHRISTIAN philosophers or ANY Christians THEMSELVES openly questioning THAT church at that time. Also, people who speak the way u speak NEVER - & I mean NEVER seem to take any notice whatsoever of the monumentally, exponentially greater amount of OPPRESSION that has gone on in human history at the hands of people who have NO true religion.
@seblasian In the context of your comment, u need to stop referring to 1 denomination as "THE" church. You TOTALLY ignored ludicrus32's point of CHRISTIAN philosophers or ANY Christians THEMSELVES openly questioning THAT church at that time. Also, people who speak the way u speak NEVER - & I mean NEVER seem to take any notice whatsoever of the monumentally, exponentially greater amount of OPPRESSION that has gone on in human history at the hands of people who have NO true religion.
@seblasian In the context of your comment, u need 2 stop referring to 1 denomination as "The" church. U Totally ignored ludicrus32's point of Christian philosophers or ANY Christian openly questioning That church at that time. I'm not defending ANY corruption, but people who speak the way u speak Never take any notice whatsoever of the monumentally, exponentially greater amount of Oppression that has gone on in human history at the hands of people who have No true religion.
this is funny, although not 'true' as many argue here. Reducing complicated cultural concepts & two thousand years of history to a single thought is fair enough for a good joke as it is here, but honestly folks, it's not 'truth' :-)
Keytaster 2 hours ago
I want to fly a Gundam in that universe
EgregiouslyPutrid 8 hours ago
So true
Alexwlee162010 9 hours ago
Lmao true
213SEMPERFI 15 hours ago
nice video
KINGOFDARKNESS48 19 hours ago
trueness
werty2238 1 day ago
God dammit Christianity. I could be watching 4D porn right now if it weren't for you tossers.
CronosXIIII 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm actually surprised. Family Guy was genuinely funny for 19 whole seconds. I love absurd humor :D
namelessfire 2 days ago
I'm actually surprised. Family Guy was genuinely funny for 19 whole seconds. I love absurd humor :D
namelessfire 2 days ago
The guy bottom me is delinquent
loung747 2 days ago
U all are fuckin nerds
nickstricklin715 2 days ago
The Fall of Rome and Economic collapse all throughout Europe >>caused<< the Dark Ages. Religion is what everyone looked to for support. I admit It may have prolonged the dark ages through suppressing technological advance, but then again, it was less Christianity and more the people in power at the time.
VictorieBelle 2 days ago
@VictorieBelle
There really isn't any evidence that during the "Dark ages" technology was suppressed. The conflict between "science" and "Religion" is relatively new; almost all of the "scientists" in Medieval Europe were actually clergy. In essence, the Clergy was the seat /of/ scientific progress. Just look up Roger Bacon.
Caliburnis 15 hours ago 3
@VictorieBelle
For example, in many ways even 10th century Europe was more technologically advanced than Rome. For instance, they had better furnaces (Catalan furnace, Stuckofen, etc), had better weaponry, especially swords, and they had more efficient agricultural processes. In fact, Rome itself was more handshy about adopting technologies, as evidenced by their hesitation to adopt the Germanic heavy plow.
Caliburnis 15 hours ago
this is actually a true fact if you look at it statistically... sadly family guy just stole this joke like all their others
ANIOLATORV 2 days ago 21
@ANIOLATORV It's not stealing, it's just a representation in a different form. Just because you've painted a flower, doesn't mean you stole someones idea, it's just your own creation.
CognitiveNetwork 1 day ago
@ANIOLATORV from what was this taken
Nashtak 1 day ago
@Nashtak Multiverse
InsideCellardoor 21 hours ago
@ANIOLATORV Like that SP episode Go God Go.
NeverAloneForever 7 hours ago
@ANIOLATORV It's not "stolen". Its just a very popular idea that uses very simple logic, not exactly stealing anyones intellectual property.
MrLukeroberts91 6 hours ago
So much wasted breath in the comments.
sandman178 3 days ago
LOL SO FUCKING TURE ALL CHIRSTINS ARE SO FUCKING DUMB!
callofdutycameron 3 days ago
@callofdutycameron That explains why you couldn't complete a single sentence without using an expletive. Although I am an atheist, your claim is nothing more than a generalization. There are intelligent Christians out there, they just suffer from stupidity in one single area.
ThaWalrus2 3 days ago
@callofdutycameron Did you say something's so 'TURE'? You callin' who dumb?
zenalaus 2 days ago
LOVE!
tengiscool 3 days ago
Christianity didn't stop the Chinese... what's their excuse?
pretranshuman 3 days ago
Some believe religion is contrary to science,wrong, The Catholic Church alone has had a science department , for 400 years. Their aim as stated,The aim of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences is to promote the progress of the mathematical, physical and natural sciences and the study of epistemological problems related thereto.There are 92 apointed acadameans . Most are Nobel Laureates and prize winners, including Stephen Hawkings. also when you talk The Big Bang, that came from a Catholic Priest
Neodoxian 3 days ago
@Neodoxian
The church had a keen eye on what science was allowed and what not. As soon as something was at odds with their claim to heaven and power, it was meant to be silenced. At least as long as the church was in thr driver's seat. So to portray the church as a driving force behind development is quite deceiving. The dark ages are called dark for a reason. For the church opressed knowledge and insights that were at odds with their biblical power trip.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
I dislike Christianity as much as the next guy, but I respect it as well. It has the power to invoke inspiration in individuals like nothing else. Many famous artists used Christianity as the driving force behind their work. Despite the irrationality that defines the very nature of religion, one can only be humbled by it's amazing influential abilities. A wise man once said, "the most fearsome warrior is one who fights for his god."
QuadriplegicSurgeon 3 days ago
@QuadriplegicSurgeon
"The most fearsome warrior is one who fights for his god."
Careful my friend. The most suicide bombers would agree. Such warriors are indeed fearful. Since they fight literally for no reason but for metaphysical dogmatism.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
*ups, fearsome I mean
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
That's actually an extremely poor way of looking at the attitude. Religion is a form of language; it's used to generate understanding. Look at what the Middle Easterners are actually drawing issue with; they're actually issues that are very "worldly"; how do we organize our society, who or what should be organized, who are our enemies? They live in areas which have been raped by their own people and others for a very long time; and they're angry about that.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
Of course. I never said that it was a positive influence ;)
QuadriplegicSurgeon 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
"The Dark Ages" is not a term that's actually used in Academic discussion anymore. The use of that term was actually based upon /our modern/ ignorance of the period itself. When we actually look at Medieval Europe, we see that the earlier period was unstable; which the Church was acting to solve, actually, and then in the later period we see intense cultural development; modern science, political thought, and so on actually has its roots in the Medieval Period.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
Additionally, the scientific "silencing" you're referring to is a modern phenomena; the Medieval Church was actually the origin of scientific thought in the Medieval Period. The Reformation made the Church more kneejerk and anti science; but ironically scientific thought was supported by the Protestants. Remember, Copernicus ran into trouble with the Church not because of what he was saying, but because he did not have the evidence to support what he was saying.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni church in the drivers seat? B4 the Vatican became their own state in 1929,many church leaders were appointed or forced by Rulers. Check history, many of them only lasted less than 1 or 2 years B4 the rulers caused their removal. Its unlikely the church had that kind of power, and likely was used as a whipping boy, to take the blame, But Jesus knew the church would suffer but prevail, " I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it
Neodoxian 3 days ago
@Neodoxian
Are you kidding me? Jesus was always against institutional believe. He said that all belivers should make their hearts the only temple of God that truly matters. That he would not need praise in form of pompous temples of stone. How is the very concept of the church not blatantly at odds with that?
The church a whipping boy? More a whore who goes into bad with the powerful people!
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni Church oppressed knowledge? I allrerady proved thats a lie. Using Galileo as a crutch and stretched beyond truth,is not the real story. As I showed earlier, the church was responsible for the major portion of colleges and support for Science. Now how did Atheism support fare, NOTHING.
Neodoxian 3 days ago
@Neodoxian
You don't prove jack shit. I don't even brought up Galileo. You talk a game here, as if Inquisition, witch hunt, crusades ...... all of it never happened. In the middle ages the church was an absolute powerhouse for centuries. They announced war and peace, excommunicated Kings, oppressed any other form of believe as fearce as possible .... do you see a damn pattern there?
You act as if the church has always been as it is today. Which is BS. For everyone to see.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
A; The Crusades were actually a good thing. They were a response to hundreds of years of Muslim aggression against Christian lands.
B; Most inquisitions were actually pretty luke warm. The Spanish Inquisition; infiltrated by the Spanish Crown, is most extreme and quite distinct example.
C; ALL systems of belief oppress other systems of belief. I'd challenge you to find me a single system of belief which doesn't use some sort of force against others.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@Caliburnis
A: In the mind of some twisted natures any war can always become a good thing. The crusades were a political move by the church, because they could make many decisions in their favor, while a great deal of secular lords was fighting and dying far away. Hence they could not oppose the political moves of the church.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
A; That opinion is not held by any major historians studying the Crusades; the Crusades did not see a significant enough number of the nobility to actually see the shift in power you're trying to suggest. And the shift in power you're suggesting never happened. You need to read up on the modern scholarship of the Crusades. Regine Pernoud and Runciman are good starting points. Again, you're overestimating the power of the Church.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@Caliburnis
B: What many people fail to realize is that the church was the moralistic instance of those times. So even what wasn't driven by the church itself was still driven and justified by the mindset that the church brought up. Another example therefore is the bloody conquest of America. The annihilation of the Indians and slavery had the blessing of thze church. It was regarded as positive to either covert these non-believing wild men …. or to just get rid of 'em.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
B; The Christian attitudes were certainly dominant in that time; but the Church didn't dictate everyone's moral persuasions and their religious activities. For instance, there was a religious expression in cities of "Confraternities", where lay men would gather together for particular religious reasons; though they were approved and legitimized by the Church, they did not emerge from the structure of the Church.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@Caliburnis
"though they were approved and legitimized by the Church, they did not emerge from the structure of the Church"
Yeah, but maybe that wasn't even necessary. Don't you think that many in the church welcomed such voluntary enforcers?
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
Confraternities weren't enforcers. They were religious groups composed of laymen who wanted to express their religion in particular ways. We're looking at groups of bakers, tanners, bankers, etc, dedicating themselves to a particular set of rules and religious existence.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
If you're trying to argue that all content within a society is based upon the pre-existing cultural content, then yes that's true; today as it was then. However, this is an /organic/ process, not a mechanistic one as you're suggesting.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
Additionally, Christianity is inherently evangelical, so I would agree that converting the Native American population to Christianity would be approved. The genocidal tendency definitely doesn't exist prior to the Reformation though, and after that point you increasingly saw religion being subordinated to the whims of Nationalistic powers. This is especially true of Protestantism.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@Caliburnis
I tend to agree to that. Still the fact remains that the church moralized the cruelty which took place during the American colonialization. That's why I am heavily under the impression that the church went into bed with whomever it was beneficial.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
Except that's not really the fact, because cruelty was often railed /against/ by the Clergy. Bartolomé de las Casas was a Catholic missionary who was known for being an advocate of Charles V's "New Laws" in Spain, which granted human rights to the natives and abolished slavery. He was also an outspoken critic of the atrocities being committed by the colonists. His main opponent was Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda; a secular man, with Humanist training.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@Caliburnis
I am aware that there were also some fine individuals in the church. But - like in so many other institutions - it was rarely seen, that those guys had the final say on anything. I guess the call for power attracts those the most, who are most eager to hear it. Sad but true.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
Bartolomé and Charles V were actually the official voice of the movement; the opposition came from local land owners and Humanists; secular groups.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@Caliburnis
So you say that the self-proclaimed humanists back then were basically anti-humanists?
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@Caliburnis
C: That's true. Maybe you now get the idea, why atheists refuse such cruel mindsets. But still the fact remains, that in no other religion there was an institution formed, who had comparable power and organization like the catholic church. Not by far and large! So yes, the church is by all means highly responsible for the cruelty that took place many centuries in the name of god. Especially when the church actively promoted the majority of those things.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
C; You don't need Catholicism to have such cruel mindsets, and in fact you're putting on blinders. Mao, Stalin, and other similar dictators were all Atheists; they saw millions of humans die in some of the worst atrocities known to human kind. Hitler could arguably be called a weird form of Atheist, as he shit-talked Christianity rather frequently. I'd label him as more Occultish than Atheistic though. You really can't say that atheists refuse such cruel mindsets.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@Caliburnis
"You don't need Catholicism to have such cruel mindsets ..."
Off course not. I am not saying that religious people are brutal/cruel by nature. The same goes for atheists. Ultimately being evil is the dark aspect of making own decisions and developing own morals. But my fundamental concern with religion is that it is so abstract that it can easily be abused for hatred. Religious hate is just as arbitrary and easy to promote as racism.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
Any cultural ideology is going to inherently be abstract to some degree; you're treating a natural product of human culture as if it's exclusive of religion. For instance, look at what Nationalism today allows for.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@Caliburnis
Nationalism for me is close to racism. Off course religion doesn't have an exclusive patent on irrational hatred. But it is a top player nonetheless. ;)
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@Caliburnis
Hitler indeed was hard to acknowledge as either an atheist or a catholic. He was catholic on paper. But being an atheist and openly admit it wasn't widely accepted back then. And if you look at the strange symbolism of the nazis ..... the swastika is as "Arian" as a sack of curry rice. ^^ He indeed was an occult nut.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
Now here's a sticky issue, you say that the Church is responsible for the cruelty of the ages in which it held influence due to the layers of symbolic language and religious attitudes...but at the same time you want to say that it is /not/ responsible for the humanity and kindness that we saw during those periods. What about the brotherhood of medieval Europe that we so frequently saw? What about the increased living conditions of people in the Crusader States?
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@Caliburnis
I highly appreciate your approach. You bring interesting facts to the table that seem to disprove many of my regards or at least let appear them in an other light. Are you an educated historian?
I see myself as humbled now and feel the need to question and review some of my state of knowledge on many things regarding the church history. Don't get me wrong - I certainly will not become a fan. For it is obvious that the church has a very bloody history.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
I'm actually pursuant of a Ph.D in Medieval Studies. One of my areas of focus is in the myths people have about the period and about religious history in general. I also study Continental Philosophy, especially Gadamer, Heidegger, and so on.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
Additionally, you're greatly over-estimating the power of the Church. For instance, the Church continually tried to curb violence between Christians. Did everyone bow down and submit? Nope. In the 10th and 11th centuries there was the "Peace and Truce of God"; this was attempting to limit the degrees of violence Christians would enact, and it wound up doing very little.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@Caliburnis
Over-estimating the power of the church? It was capable of appointing emperors and had direct influence on many political positions. Even on the access to said positions. In all of Europe there was a tax that went into the pockets of the church. The church even could ban Kings and the like (which they made use of). You guys keep talking as if the church stood innocent and ashamed on the sidelines. Which clearly was not the case.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
Actually it really wasn't capable of appointing Emperors or kings; there was a concept in Medieval Europe called "The Doctrine of the Two Swords". Today we would recognise this as "Separation of Church and State". Mostly what happens, for instance in Charlemagne's case, is that they /already have/ that power; it is simply legitimized by the Church. That's the typical instance; The Church /legitimizes/ power, it didn't decide /who had/ power.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
One of the best examples of the complex interaction is the Imperial power of Henry IV; the Pope couldn't declare their long time enemy simply "Not Emperor"; nor could they declare his son to not be Emperor either, even after Henry IV was excommunicated. It took Henry IV's own vassals, including his son, to force Henry IV to abdicate due to his unpopularity; but then his son immediately assumed the throne.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
How were Emperors appointed? They were elected. At least in the case in the German Empire. There were three ecclesiastical electors, and then four secular electors; so at least superficially the Church has less than half of the say in who is or is not appointed. Mind you, the ecclesiastical electors would at times oppose the Papacy; they weren't papal dogs as later Protestant propaganda tried to suggest.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni Stop referring 2 the Catholic church as "THE" Christian church- u need 2 say 'the officially sanctioned church at such & such a time in this or that country.' It didnt matter if a particular organization calling itself Christian was the most *Powerful* at a given time/place: True Christianity has existed & always will wherever even any smaller number of people have gathered in the name of it & practiced it: those r churches,too! Kings could kill church officials.
zenalaus 2 days ago
@MightyJabroni
Another example; The Pope tried to declare that Christians couldn't use the Crossbow against one another; did people listen? Nope.
The Church also tried to make people bathe less often for recreational purposes; did everyone just bow down to this? Nope. This was ignored.
The actual history of the Church in the Medieval Period is a back and forth motion of influence, especially between the Holy Roman Empire and itself.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni “The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient data in the late Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, than any other, and probably all, other institutions.” (The Sun in the Church, Harvard University Press, 1999) There are many such articles as this, and the truth is out there . You just cant handle the truth.
Neodoxian 3 days ago
@Neodoxian
The church never came clean with it's own bloody history. How it systematically destroyed any other form of believe in Europe and split up the people into believers and heretics. How it allowed the despiteful to buy their salvation for shiny coin (into the churche's pocket). How it burned men and women alike who happened to stand up to their tyranny.
"I do what the church has done for centuries. I just do it more thorough." (Adolf Hitler about his Holocaust).
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni Here we go again w/ the phoney-baloney attempt to link Hitler to Christianity in any way, shape, or form. Your comment started out ok except for referring to the Catholic church as "The" church. It was powerful at a time in history in a place in history. But its not & has never been "The" only Christian church. If you are saying that ALL institutions - religious or non-religious - & ALL nations should come clean about the bad parts of their history, who'd argue?
zenalaus 2 days ago
@zenalaus Well, Hitler was a Catholic, the first treaty he signed was with the Catholic church and the church made it mandatory to celebrate his birthday each year from the Pulpit, just to kick it off, but, you know, whatever floats your imaginary boat. You should try reading something else than the Bible.
Lessdeth14 2 days ago
@zenalaus There's nothing phoney about it. You are just ignorant of this fact or can't bring yourself to admit that you share the same faith as Hitler. The current pope was part of the Hitler youth! Is this another fact you're ignorant of?
personEks 1 day ago
@Neodoxian
Oh, and when Lemaitre had his Big Bang Theory acknowledged by the church .... that was in 1951. Long after the church had lost their iron grip on Europe. So that hardly does translate into the church being a driving force for knowledge. They just adapted to the times. But societal progress here in Europe was always against the resistance of the church. It even took those guys all the way until the 60s to acknowledge women officially as equal human beings ......
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni
Alcuin of York, Robert Grosseteste, Albertus Magnus, Johannes de Sacrobosco, Duns Scotus, Roger Bacon, Henry of Ghent, William of Ockham, Nicolaus Copernicus, and the list goes on. All influential scientific thinkers; all clergy.
The inherent conflict between science and Religion is very much a post-Reformation attribute.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
@MightyJabroni You want to talk progress and Europe since they lost some faith? Lets talk Britain, In the 2001 cencus 72 percent UK were Christian, 76 percent in USA. However from 1979 to 2005 half of UK stopped going to church. Since 1979 all UK Nobels dropped dramitically. In Chemistry the UK got 6 nobels but shared 4 with the USA, The US won 39 medals .
Neodoxian 3 days ago
@Neodoxian
Oh and the church is the only reason for that? Things like economical power don't play any role? Since when is a correlation a causality? You draw a very vague and rosy picture here.
And your BS about "atheists never have done anything good": Bear in mind that from a historical perspective it isn't to long ago that it was regarded as disreputable to openly refuse faith. Faith was for many people a purely societal concession.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
@Neodoxian
Oh and the church is the only reason for that? Things like economical power don't play any role? Since when is a correlation a causality? You draw a very vague and rosy picture here.
And your BS about "atheists never have done anything good": Bear in mind that from a historical perspective it isn't to long ago that it was regarded as disreputable to openly refuse faith. Faith was for many people a purely societal concession.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Neodoxian
Oh and the church is the only reason for that? Things like economical power don't play any role? Since when is a correlation a causality? You draw a very vague and rosy picture here.
And your BS about "atheists never have done anything good": Bear in mind that from a historical perspective it isn't to long ago that it was regarded as disreputable to openly refuse faith. Faith was for many people a purely societal concession.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Neodoxian
Oh and the church is the only reason for that? Things like economical power don't play any role? Since when is a correlation a causality? You draw a very vague and rosy picture here.
And your BS about "atheists never have done anything good": Bear in mind that from a historical perspective it isn't to long ago that it was regarded as disreputable to openly refuse faith. Faith was for many people a purely societal concession.
MightyJabroni 3 days ago
The USA has been one of the most Christian countries, and the Christian colleges are the best in the world, with the highest rated Science curriculem`s also. Also this "Christian country" has fostered Science. The US has more than twice the Nobel prizes than any other country and more patents than the next 4 countries combined. Why, because of the stability of our system, and our faith has promoted that. In God we trust.
Neodoxian 3 days ago
This video is totally bogus. The facts are clear, Science took root because of the colleges, which primarily began through religion. 106 of the first 108 colleges were started on the Christian faith. By the close of 1860 there were 246 colleges in America. Seventeen of these were state institutions; almost every other one was founded by Christian denominations or by individuals who avowed a religious purpose.
Neodoxian 3 days ago
@Neodoxian You're just wrong.
snaxlrod 3 days ago
@TheCyprusX He isn't Jewish. He was raised Irish Catholic. But he probably is a bit arrogant, if his behavior was the basis for Brian's.
eier 4 days ago
If it hadn't been Christianity, then surely Islam or Judaism would have played the role of civilizational fuck-up.
eier 4 days ago
Actually this is not true cuz some other religion would have oppressed science.
madcram 4 days ago
@madcram lol? nah because the only Closed minded Religion is Christianity and every other one about the same bible .. so if these one never existed the other one would not oppressed science .. The Greeks were pretty Advanced in their technologies :)
65465468 4 days ago
@65465468
The Greeks were also intensely religious; Sokrates was put to death for having heretical beliefs about the Gods and subverting the youth with them.
Buddhists have a history of waging "crusades" against others in the area, Chinese concepts of the divinity of Chinese society caused them to close down their society, and so on. All societies can get close minded; you don't need Abrahamic religion to do that.
Caliburnis 4 days ago
This sucks because this is very true. The dark ages really did stop scientific progress
Joshuwiii 4 days ago
@Joshuwiii
Actually if you look at the modern research you see that the term "Dark ages" have been dropped almost entirely from academic discourse; Technology still advanced at a pretty decent rate in Europe and the Church was actually the home of the early scientific community in Europe. The Medieval Period was not the age of "darkness and ignorance" people have suggested. Just look up Roger Bacon.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
Europe was the only continent to believe in Christianity and it was by far the most advanced of its time and still is. Christian nations are typically the most developed nations. How did Africa, East Asia, North and South America, and really anywhere else for that matter do without Christianity lol. Someone will probably reply to this post and point out that Japan is also up there.
mrmittensworth24 4 days ago
@mrmittensworth24 japen was a buddist nation it is more atheists now not a lot of japen was ever christian. and those African country's are barley developed.
lol479zzz 4 days ago
@lol479zzz
The indigenous religion of Japan is actually Shinto; not Buddhism. Buddhism was a later development.
The Christian Community in Japan was actually getting pretty sizable until the persecutions in the Sengoku Jidai. If it weren't for those, we'd probably be looking at a much larger Christian community in Japan.
Caliburnis 3 days ago
the sad thing is: it's probably true.
IchFickDeineExistenz 4 days ago
Oh Seth, how you make me laugh.
PivotalPlatypus 5 days ago
One Problem. Christianity provided European nations an excuse to kill others and colonize. If It didn't, then people wouldn't have found so many ways to kill each other, and our technology would be less.
STLConservative 5 days ago
this........... makes...........sense!!!!!
MyNameIsDerpityDerp 5 days ago
hmmm nah humans would have found another reason to fuck each other up
Ralokone 5 days ago
I hate to say it, but this actually makes sense.
TheGamehunter135 5 days ago 14
@TheGamehunter135 No it doesn't. Don't blame Jesus that SOME people don't 'get' Jesus's teachings or that some people have abused it - just like some people abuse power if they have it, some people abuse their nation's flag by 'wrapping' themselves in it, some people abuse money, etc. Do NOT try to blame REAL Christians for the actions of false ones. For ex, I don't see them talking about all of the abuse that has occurred in history by MALES precisely BECAUSE they are males.
zenalaus 4 days ago
wow i wana go there
EgoVanguard 5 days ago
isnt it interesting that any good comedy these days are non-religious, and the best ones are often sacrilegious? not surprising. religions are so stupid, its just too easy to make fun of them. and the comedic value is all the more boosted by the sincerity and ignorance of the common (sometimes "professional" as well) theist.
UnluckyGambler 5 days ago
@UnluckyGambler So your role models in life are cartoons? Maybe that's why you have to call yourself Unlucky Gambler.
zenalaus 2 days ago
@zenalaus sigh... u theists are full of non sequiturs. how does what i said make u think cartoons are my role models? no, they are my entertainment. and how does that in any way relate to my name being unlucky gambler? seriously, how the hell do u people connect these random dots? i guess i shouldnt be surprised at this, after all, yall did connect the dots in the world in a certain way to draw up jesus.
UnluckyGambler 2 days ago 13
Religion is the worst thing tlto happen to man
poisonstrudel 6 days ago
@poisonstrudel I agree 100 %
StarWarsFan443 5 days ago
@poisonstrudel 'Love others as you love yourself,' don't be prejudiced, be willing to be humble, etc. According to you that's the worst thing that has happened to mankind? Really? Interesting.
zenalaus 2 days ago
FUCKING GOLD!
TheJoshJman 6 days ago
One takes money, one makes money.
One takes lives, one saves lives.
One thing is for sure. No department of science has systematically raped children, taxed your ancestors, denied your cosmic and evolutionary heritage or promised eternal fire on those brazen enough to question it.
curlymolly70 6 days ago 10
@curlymolly70 Perfectly said my friend.
Egag642 6 days ago
@curlymolly70 What are you even talking about. Who or what is this 'one' that you keep referring to. If you're going to get on YouTube & make a comment, at least speak intelligibly.
zenalaus 4 days ago
@curlymolly70 Taxed your ancestors? Who taxed your ancestors? Jesus? As far as rape goes - and all violence in general including World Wars I & II - those were caused by men - not women. And so...I guess that means men should be outlawed, and not women? That means that women are science departments? What the heck is even your point?
zenalaus 4 days ago
@zenalaus actually the pope taxed them. and he sold papers that would forgive all there sins and let the go to heaven. and what do the world wars have to do with rape exactly? And what do you mean by woman are science departments?
iloathbirdsss 4 days ago
@iloathbirdsss Is there an ancestor much worth mentioning who WASN'T taxed by SOMEONE? y r u referring 2 the Catholic church as if it is/was all of Christianity? Catholic indulgence-selling happened: such unChristian things caused TRUE Christians- like Martin Luther- to PROTEST. Thus 'Protestant.' U over-reach: All religion EVER did was bad? U'll say baloney like that, but w/ALL the bad that MALES have done in history (WorldWars,rape,etc) u wouldn't say 'ALL men have done is bad.'
zenalaus 2 days ago
@iloathbirdsss Thanks. I mean, where do you even start with this guy?
curlymolly70 14 hours ago
@curlymolly70 I think you overlooked the legacy of scientific racism and the eugenics movement, both of which had what were considered unshakeable theories in their heydays. I'm pretty sure most Ivy League universities in the 1920's had eugenics departments. I'm by no means defending religion; I'm just saying both it and science have some blood on their hands, though religion's completely drenched in it I must say.
eier 4 days ago
@eier Eugenics is often misunderstood, and tarnished by its original purposes. The fact that the word itself is synonymous with racism underscores your point, and mine.
Genetic engineering is just that, and we could build a better world with it, for us.
All of us.
Science is a method, only a man has hands.
Richard Fenyman, a man I greatly admire/respect, played bongos and celebrated as countless souls were vaporized, or worse, in Hiroshima.
We are human, the follies are ours
curlymolly70 14 hours ago
@curlymolly70
Eugenics would never build a better world for ALL of us. Only SOME of us.
MMODoubter 11 hours ago
@curlymolly70 And what, pray tell, were those original purposes? Something about preventing undesirable peoples from breeding and facilitating breeding among more desirable (usually Northern European) peoples?
eier 59 minutes ago
It's likely we'd be a type 1 civilization if it wasn't for Christianity.
Infact, i'd bet money on that.
Milesofmachine 6 days ago
@Milesofmachine I am probably one of the few Halo geeks here that understand what a tier 1 society is.
telemarker93 6 days ago
how can they be thousands years ahead if dark ages only took place about a thousand, oh yeah i forgot they mess with the timeline in this episode
Golemoid 6 days ago
also Christianity and religion is not the problem is the people who bend and twist its values to suit there own needs
willam1992 6 days ago
ludicrus32 is correct i know my history and the church did not like some things but science and knowledge was never held back much buy Christianity, in fact its the governments of the time who stifled scientific knowledge,and advancement,as a example i did history in hi school and got good marks but because i was not deemed eligeable to receive a uai i was rejected from all the university's
willam1992 6 days ago
Sadly if there was no Christianity we'd all be like Fallout New Vegas.
JHoward393 6 days ago
@JHoward393 Don't know what Fallout New Vegas is, but if there was no Christianity, society would be more likely to be LIKE cheap, fast, selfish, materialistic, shallow Las Vegas.
zenalaus 2 days ago
Comment removed
JHoward393 1 day ago
@zenalaus Its a video-game from Bethesda Softworks. It takes place after a great war with China in 2076 and the result of the USA going to nuclear war with china leaves alot of the United States uninhabitable. Las Vegas didn't get hit as badly as the rest of the USA and is habitable to some degree. The people in the USA built fallout shelters and vaults to protect people from the radiation air after the war.
JHoward393 1 day ago
@zenalaus Some vaults, meanwhile, had dangerous radioactive toxic waste dumped by the Government at the time on top of where the interior of where the vaults were at the time. that radioactive toxic waste was leeching into the vault under 30 feet of topsoil turning the dwellers into Ghouls.
JHoward393 1 day ago
This is bullshit. First of all, the Dark Ages were cause by the fall of the Rome and the sacking thereof by Barbarians. For the next 400 years, the Church served as the only civilizing facet of society. Popes encouraged the building of universities, as science was seen as glorifying God by better understanding earth. Indeed, many of the finest scientists and the finest scientific institutions today are tied to a Church. This is why Seth McFarlane is a crappy cartoonist and not a historian.
ludicrus32 1 week ago
@ludicrus32 I just have to pick holes in this...
Is that why saying the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe was considered heresy? Universities didn't exist in the 600's. In fact, the first university was Al-Azhar University in Cairo.
The first one in Europe, that wasn't a Cathedral School (This may be what you were meaning by the pope building universities, but they were for biblical scholars) wasn't made till 1088 AD In Bologna
The pope most certainly did not build that.
ahhaboom 1 week ago 9
@ahhaboom Actually, the Church did build Bologna University, in a joint partnership with the Holy Roman Emperor. Also, Al-Azhar started as a madrassa, not a university. It wasn't an actual seat of education until much, much later. Also, yes, the Church made mistakes. But every scholar of repute said that the sun revolved around the earth, so it was kind of hard to dispute. They were wrong, yes, but you can't blame the Church alone.
ludicrus32 6 days ago
@ahhaboom Yeah, if you knew anything about faith you would realise that the Pope is near-demi god and did infact build the university. Science has proven this time and time again, if you look at any of the pictures taken during the building you CAN see the Pope doing most of the work.
Blurtex33 5 days ago
@Blurtex33 CAN NOT TELL IF TROLL OR STOOPID. HOPING TROLL, BUT NOT FIRST PERSON TO CALL POPE 'DEMI GOD'.
ahhaboom 5 days ago
@Blurtex33 Lol Pope is here to spread Jesus' faith, he is not a demi-god. And how in the world could pictures been taken in 1088 ?! Paintings ofc, but there is no proof in paintings...
You are either troll or really blind Christian. Real Christians don't fight over internet and they get their facts straight. If you are here to fight for your 'faith' first try to at least read a bible. I did in most parts and I don't even believe in god.
Michmarmol 5 days ago
@Michmarmol >Real Christians don't fight over internet and they get their facts straight.
No... No... nonono... no, no.
Blurtex33 3 days ago 2
@ludicrus32 " For the next 400 years, the Church served as the only civilizing facet of society"- well thats on way to look at it. Of course we both know what actually ENDED the dark ages don't we? That was when philosophers started openly questioning religious dogma. I know that the church played a major role in academics, but this was mostly a monopoly on knowledge on their part, please don't try and act like this redeems the church from what it really was: a tool of oppression.
seblasian 1 week ago 28
@seblasian The Church served as the only escape from the madness surrounding the Dark Ages. Later on, the Catholic Church became very corrupt, yes, but even those philosophers who spoke out against it were ardent Christians. Look at Martin Luther, for example. Even Galileo was a pious Catholic, even sending his daughter off to a nunnery. Just because the Church is imperfect does not make it evil, oppressive, or a hindrance to human progress. It makes it a human-made organization.
ludicrus32 6 days ago
@seblasian Hmm, personally disagree here. I'm not a Christian, but as much as I hate to say it, it's a common misunderstanding. The Church has both spurred on and hindered the Renaissance and Enlightenment. But you can see its archaic mindset as a necessary transition. Without Christianity, and it's monks&books, there could be no Renaissance. It just had to be there for anything else. Call it what you will, all power has been used for good and evil before. The church is no exception.
Altaront 6 days ago 2
@Altaront I agree but it would be nice if Religion and Science could stop opposing each other and realize they are just two different sides of the same coin.
Nightshift10000 6 days ago 2
@Nightshift10000 how so explain one says there is no god one says there is.
lol479zzz 6 days ago
@Nightshift10000 Are you fucking stupid? Religion is a story, science is a method.
What coin? Don't give me some bullshit about 'understanding'...
curlymolly70 6 days ago
@curlymolly70 You need to define your terms better sometimes. If you mean what I think you mean by story, are you REALLY dissing human HISTORY and ancient writings that belong to all mankind? History and science are PARTS of human life on earth. Nightshift's point is 100% obvious to anyone who knows how ridiculous it is to act like 'you can only have 1, not the other.' Of COURSE Nightshift didn't mean they were they Exact same thing. That's why Nightshift didn't SAY they were.
zenalaus 2 days ago
@Nightshift10000 So are you afraid of my comments or of the truth? , you commented, then so you blocked me on your channel? . So do I then consider all Atheists as cowards or what??? answer if you dare. Otherwise I will have my answer allready.
Neodoxian 6 days ago
@Neodoxian Actually I would consider you arrogant and rather foolish to make any assumptions about Me being an atheist but since you christians have been so afraid of the truth that you revise your own history to make christianity and organized religion all together look squeaky clean I guess it doesn't really matter. I gave you my answer whether you carry on this conversation is up to you, I have no time for this. You must not believe your religion yourself to have to attack Me like this, But.
Nightshift10000 6 days ago
@Nightshift10000 Actually I was going to tell you why i do not adhere to the tenet`s of all you have defined me to be, and in many ways I see things the same as you, However since you blocked my answer you can kiss my ass. You painted me with your personal definition blindly, then ran, that is not only the ultimate arrogance, but also the cowards way out. You thought I would get the best of you, and that shook your confidence. End of story.
Neodoxian 5 days ago
@Neodoxian Oh WOW, how Christian of you telling me to kiss your ass. You are still arrogant and more of proof that all christians like you resort to bully tactics when people will not listen to your nonsense. I simply try to take Thomas Jeffersons advise and take no notice of your religious intolerance and that's when you get aggressive, then again this is only a repeat of history itself, people question christianity, christians KILL and persecute people doing it. Whatever, So long.
Nightshift10000 5 days ago
@Nightshift10000 Wow indeed, you speak of intolerance when its exactly what you did to me. The definition is "lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc" You gave your 350 word lies, then shut down my capacity to answer on your info page. You cant handle the truth. THAT is intolerance. You say I am bullying you, With words? ? How old are you? Grow up.
Neodoxian 3 days ago
@Nightshift10000 I dont think you really understand Jeffersons point or even what religious intolerance is. No one has the right to stifle anothers beliefs. its our constitutional right , and also was Jeffersons position.
Neodoxian 3 days ago
@Nightshift10000 As far as killings, get your facts straight. in the 20th century alone millions of Christians have been persecuted and killed by Muslim groups and Atheist States , The USSR, North Korea and such. more than 75 out of 100 of every persons killed due to religious hatred were Christians. THAT is intolerance.
Neodoxian 3 days ago
@Nightshift10000 In 2005 the FBI Uniform Crime there were 16,692 murders, 6000 were hate crimes that encompasses all racial,religious, sex orientation,ethnic and disability motivations. 1226 of those were anti religious killings, and only 4 were anti Atheism. Now tell me again how religion is more intolerant, hypocrite
So who is persecuted, apparently Religious are predominately attacked, not Atheists.
FBI, Crime in the United States, And Hate Crime Statistics, Table 2
Neodoxian 3 days ago
@Nightshift10000 As I said before " Christianity is not the problem,the idiots who call themselves Christians and still ignore Christs words for their own analogy are the problem' ' If im wrong show me where Jesus told us to go to war, or kill, or in any way to commit the aggressive things you blame on Christianity. His main commandment was To "Love your neighbor as yourself" That was a declaration of peace, not war.
Neodoxian 3 days ago
@Nightshift10000 Yes it would be nice. The only reason certain people oppose religion, and others oppose science, is because of their ego. It really is as simple as that, no dilly-dallying. Religion, or spirituality I should say, and science are looking for answers in two different ways. One through faith, and the other through observation, experimentation and prediction. Don't make human beings more complicated than they really are.
GreaterDeity 6 days ago
@Altaront I think we're on the same page here. I see it as a stage in human history in wich the church played a major role, for better and for worse. But I think to look back and glorify the church as anything more than a necessary evil is an insult to the progress we made since then.
seblasian 5 days ago
@Altaront Excellent point about power.
zenalaus 2 days ago
@zenalaus Holy shit post-whore, get a life. This is the comments section, not the forums for the catholic church. Now, make "a" comment about the clip and gtfo.
TheFluffyWaffle 1 day ago
@seblasian *FACEPALM* THIS IS FAMILY GUY XD
Epicness456 4 days ago
@seblasian In the context of your comment, u need to stop referring to 1 denomination as "THE" church. You TOTALLY ignored ludicrus32's point of CHRISTIAN philosophers or ANY Christians THEMSELVES openly questioning THAT church at that time. Also, people who speak the way u speak NEVER - & I mean NEVER seem to take any notice whatsoever of the monumentally, exponentially greater amount of OPPRESSION that has gone on in human history at the hands of people who have NO true religion.
zenalaus 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seblasian In the context of your comment, u need to stop referring to 1 denomination as "THE" church. You TOTALLY ignored ludicrus32's point of CHRISTIAN philosophers or ANY Christians THEMSELVES openly questioning THAT church at that time. Also, people who speak the way u speak NEVER - & I mean NEVER seem to take any notice whatsoever of the monumentally, exponentially greater amount of OPPRESSION that has gone on in human history at the hands of people who have NO true religion.
zenalaus 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@seblasian In the context of your comment, u need 2 stop referring to 1 denomination as "The" church. U Totally ignored ludicrus32's point of Christian philosophers or ANY Christian openly questioning That church at that time. I'm not defending ANY corruption, but people who speak the way u speak Never take any notice whatsoever of the monumentally, exponentially greater amount of Oppression that has gone on in human history at the hands of people who have No true religion.
zenalaus 2 days ago
@ludicrus32 Scientists were burned at the stake for saying the earth went around the sun.....
DerrenBrown100 6 days ago