Where would we be without Christianity...? (i.imgur.com)

375 ups - 166 downs = 209 votes

108 comments submitted at 12:45:46 on Oct 1, 2013 by fuckheadfreddy

  • [-]
  • NotSureIfCaptionBot
  • 65 Points
  • 14:55:17, 1 October

I'm atheist, but I hate this chart. We don't know the units in which was the scientific advance measured.

  • [-]
  • WastedP0tential
  • 16 Points
  • 20:50:17, 1 October

In Mega-Tysons.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 7 Points
  • 15:49:43, 1 October

How about # of identifiable scientific principles discovered that have survived long term?

  • [-]
  • rasiisar
  • 5 Points
  • 19:50:09, 1 October

wouldn't work, lots of really important scientific discoveries have later proven not to be true, that doesn't diminish their importance to the field at the time. The best example of this was probably the plum pudding model of the atom, although not true, this idea radically improved the field at the time leading to some discoveries that have held up over time and eventually leading to its own disproval

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 3 Points
  • 21:49:53, 1 October

Well, then impact chaining is fine. Kepler's laws of planetary motion are redundant with Newton's laws, but were influential. So how about anything which had some ultimate impact on modern science?

So Peter Abelard's analysis of the limbo, Anselm's ontological arguments, etc, have no impact. But Ptolemy's system and Philoponus' theory of impetus are fine.

  • [-]
  • qounqer
  • 5 Points
  • 02:38:15, 2 October

List of things wrong with this chart

  1. Dark age is a term made up by scholars in the renaissance and later mainly because they had a huge hard on for the Romans and Greeks, not because they where particularly "dark"

  2. The whole of western society's development can not be explained in a line graph

  3. Even if you actually think that circa 350-1450 ,a thousand goddamn years, where actually "dark" thinking it's in any significant way because of "jeebus" is fucking stupid

  4. Roman, egyptians, greeks, etc. all had their own religions filled with superstitious bull shit. Oh and people in the renaissance and enlightenment where mostly christian also.

  5. During this same goddamn period the evil Muslims with their own sky-daddy where pioneering everything from algebra to chemistry.

  6. Also most of what the roman and Greeks new about was completely shitty, we only remember the good stuff, really until the 1800's medicine was held back by roman and Greek concepts of humors, just as an example

  7. Saying Christianity makes people dumb and then posting shit like this is moderately funny

  8. Dawkins is so ashamed right now

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 0 Points
  • 04:04:26, 2 October

1) No, the term "Dark Ages" was coined by Petrarch in the mid 1300s because he had a hard on for Greek literature as compared with the literature of his culture.

3) Actually the real dark ages was between 570 and 1240 CE. From 350 - 570 CE, there were remnants of Greek influence still affecting things. And by 1240 CE, a lot of the Arabic sciences had been translated and disseminated throughout Europe. (Also, since the term was coined in the 1300s, it's kind of hard for it to refer to an age of time including 1450.)

4) Yes these ancient people did have their own religions. But their religion did not interfere with science in the same way that Christianity did and currently does.

5) Correct. The point of the slide is aimed very specifically at Christianity. Islam was much better during this period of time.

6) You are clearly unfamiliar with how science works. Actually every field of science is preceded by ideas that are incorrect, regardless of when they started. The only thing you are saying is that Ancient societies are old and were the first attempts at science.

7) If you say so. It's also totally true.

  • [-]
  • qounqer
  • 1 Points
  • 05:10:40, 2 October

Although most of what you said is correct, I think you're missing the point in what I was saying. This chart basically implies that the period from when Christianity was adopted by the roman empire to when logical scientists came about during the renaissance nothing happened.as.far.as scientific advancement. Wh at I'm saying is that stuff did advance, especially in the period after what you and I define as the closest thing to the dark ages (500-1200), and that even during that period, although much of the knowledge and technologies of the Romans where lost, this was due to a much broader number of reasons than just "christians do shitty things", wwhich although I will admit played a small role in this loss of learning, I think the huge loss in population due to disease and especially warfare, and the essential replacement of a largely roman culture in western Europe with that of a mainly Germanic one, which never made use of Roman technologies even when they where pagan, and simply didn't have the same desire for "scientific" learning that roman culture did, as well as the huge decline in urban population centers, that are almost required to maintain such a specialist population as scientists, and the reversion of most of the population to a subsistence lifestyle, all played a much larger role in western scientific advance then monks killing scientists.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • -2 Points
  • 17:18:16, 2 October

> Although most of what you said is correct, I think you're missing the point in what I was saying. This chart basically implies that the period from when Christianity was adopted by the roman empire to when logical scientists came about during the renaissance nothing happened.as.far.as scientific advancement.

Yes, that is actually the most correct part of the chart.

> What I'm saying is that stuff did advance, especially in the period after what you and I define as the closest thing to the dark ages (500-1200)

Such as? What advances are you talking about?

> and that even during that period, although much of the knowledge and technologies of the Romans where lost, this was due to a much broader number of reasons than just "Christians do shitty things",

Really? And did these effects not take place in the Arab territories at exactly the same time? Because the Arabs were in their intellectual ascendancy during this time.

> I think the huge loss in population due to disease and especially warfare, and the essential replacement of a largely roman culture in western Europe with that of a mainly Germanic one, which never made use of Roman technologies even when they where pagan, and simply didn't have the same desire for "scientific" learning that roman culture did

Oh really??!? You think this? What should that mean to me?

First of all: The population largely recovered after 800 CE. Science didn't. Secondly: Charlemagne was very interested in science, technology, and the education of his people in general. The point is that he never understood that Christianity's monasticism was antithetical to this, and thus he was essentially, driving in the wrong direction. His court received gifts of a technological nature from the Arabs -- he most certainly appreciated the value of technology, and he wanted it. But Hellenism had been eradicated, and Christianity had taken over all the schooling.

Furthermore your "theory" says nothing about the Byzantines who did not endure these "factors" in the same way. Why didn't they have any scientific or technological developments either?

  • [-]
  • qounqer
  • 5 Points
  • 18:12:18, 2 October

Okay so you are saying that Christianity held back scientific development, even though Muslims, who had just as restrictive of a faith, had what is essentially a developmental golden age. Or are you saying that it's only Christianity that inhibits scientific development? If you are saying that then why are western nations the most developed in the world. Its not like during the renaissance people stopped being christian, or even became less christian.

Also the population may have recovered, but the fact that people still where living an almost entirely subsistence lifestyle based on the two field system of agriculture, which means that half the land is being unused at any one time, seriously restricted the development of cities, which are pretty much needed to have significant advancement since are essentially pockets of non-productive specialists.

It wasn't until the development and spread of a three field system that any sort of significant surplus could be had, which allowed a much greater amount of "non-productive" specialists to develop, largely in cities.

Thirdly Charlemagne's interest in science and education was minor at best, and after his death his attempts at reform largely disappeared due to the apathy of his successors towards it, as well as the fact that what resources they did have where thought better spent on matters of a more pressing nature, such as their military.

Although the Byzantines managed to maintain their greco-roman culture, they still had to endure pretty much constant warfare with various invading peoples, from Bulgar, to Arabs, to Turks, and these wars where often total wars, with captured byzantine cities being put to the sword and burned and then replaced with the settlements of the invading peoples. BEsides this, even though Byzantine technology didn't advance in many areas other then warfare and some small advances in architecture, they still maintained most of the learning and technologies of their roman fore-fathers, it was simply because of the almost constant state of war that they where in that seriously prohibited their ability to engage in any large scale building or investment into anything but defense.

The entire theory that Christianity some how destroyed western learning and knowledge is based on a refusal to accept the much more serious outside factors during the period. The reason that 96% of the population was farming was because they had to so they could live another year. Trade had come to almost a stand still, and society became decentralized, not because of Jesus, but because of the rapid disintergration of the old Roman society, and its replacement with a brand new one, which had a much different value set then the roman one, with alot of death, destruction, and burning in between.

The reason you and so many other brave scientists believe that jebbus destroyed science during the middle ages is because of some asshole named edward gibbon who wrote a book called "the decline and fall of the roman empire" which popularized the theory the Romans fell because Christians didn't care about this world, and only care about getting into heaven, and this is mixed in with a whole bunch of racial theory's about how the Romans conquered the world because they where a superior breed of people and they fell because they had sex with to many barbarians and gave up on good old roman virtues.This theory was very popular during the 19th century and later because it mixed very well with the shitty racialist ideas they had at the time.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • -3 Points
  • 19:21:27, 2 October

> Okay so you are saying that Christianity held back scientific development, even though Muslims, who had just as restrictive of a faith, had what is essentially a developmental golden age.

Correct.

> Or are you saying that it's only Christianity that inhibits scientific development?

There are probably others; I am only saying that Christianity holds back scientific progress for sure. Islam does not (even though it seems to today).

> If you are saying that then why are western nations the most developed in the world.

Simple -- track the history of rationalism, humanism, and secular humanism. It is not necessary for an entire population to be secular, for it to enjoy the benefits of secularism.

Remember Christianity has a continuity from 80 CE, to 2013 CE, and is accountable for that period of time. Rationalism -> Humanism rose at the same time as the Renaissance. This corresponds to the cultivation of science. The trigger, which happened between 1000 and 1250 was the transfer of the sciences from the Arabic culture.

The reason why Europe over, say, China or the middle east, is more complex than that, but the point still relevant here is to understand that Europe was very far behind between 570 and 1240, when Christianity was in full swing.

> Also the population may have recovered, but the fact that people still where living an almost entirely subsistence lifestyle based on the two field system of agriculture [...]

Your bizarro excusism is just that. The simple fact is that eventually, economically Europe did recover just fine. They had plenty of capacity for recultivating the sciences if all it took was a stable healthy population and a school system. Because they had that. But before 1240 there was still no science or pre-science. Now why is that? You can't use the excuse of economic hardship because that does not apply to the later period.

> Although the Byzantines managed to maintain their greco-roman culture,

Uh ... excuse me? No, they specifically outlawed paganism during the 5th century CE. They went full Christian.

> they still had to endure pretty much constant warfare with various invading peoples, from Bulgar, to Arabs, to Turks, and these wars where often total wars, with captured byzantine cities being put to the sword and burned and then replaced with the settlements of the invading peoples

Uhhh ... yes. Specifically they were fighting with the Arabs. In other words the Arabs were burdened by these exact same wars. Territorial boundaries moved back and forth -- so its not like the Arabs always saw the better end of these wars. But note that during this time, the Arabs were in their golden period of intellectualism. So that's another excuse out the window.

> BEsides this, even though Byzantine technology didn't advance in many areas other then warfare and some small advances in architecture, they still maintained most of the learning and technologies of their roman fore-fathers, it was simply because of the almost constant state of war that they where in that seriously prohibited their ability to engage in any large scale building or investment into anything but defense.

Bull. Shit.

The Arabs were involved in these same wars, they had no problem cultivating an intellectual culture that was not expensive to begin with.

Diophantus was on the very cusp of developing algebra. Hero of Alexandria was on the very cusp of developing steam power. The Byzantines did nothing with this knowledge. The Arabs gained access to the Diophantus indirectly, and they developed algebra. They never gained access to Hero of Alexandria's Pneumatics, and in fact did not develop steam technologies.

> The entire theory that Christianity some how destroyed western learning and knowledge is based on a refusal to accept the much more serious outside factors during the period.

No, I am aware of these outside factors. They theory is built out of COMPARING the early Christian European medieval societies to 1) the Hellenistic society they came from, 2) the Arab society they were contemporary with, and 3) the Renaissance society that followed them.

In the case of "extenuating circumstances" you find that they are either insubstantial excuses (low populations only affected the western half for the earliest centuries), or that the Arabs were under the exact same conditions (plagues, war mongering).

Your excuses don't stand up.

  • [-]
  • anonlymouse
  • -2 Points
  • 11:51:31, 2 October

The only reason Islam was better was because it had less power at the time. All the scientific advances in the middle east were made by heretics and kuffar.

  • [-]
  • fuckheadfreddy
  • -42 Points
  • 15:31:45, 1 October

Your not a real atheist you christian apologist.

  • [-]
  • SauceBause
  • 15 Points
  • 16:07:08, 1 October

This is sarcasm right?

  • [-]
  • Clever-Username789
  • 14 Points
  • 16:07:44, 1 October

So you're saying a real atheist would accept a poorly drawn graph with no sources or literature provided to back it up just because it fits his labeled ideals? That's EXACTLY what atheism is all about /s

  • [-]
  • qounqer
  • 1 Points
  • 18:16:18, 2 October

lol nvm i actully think u r kool

  • [-]
  • stellars_jay
  • 2 Points
  • 00:20:53, 2 October

you're a shitty, obvious troll

  • [-]
  • Bacon-covered-babies
  • 27 Points
  • 16:00:21, 1 October

Good try, bad history. As another atheist writes... "And, almost without fail, someone digs up a graphic (see below), which I have come to dub "The Most Wrong Thing On the Internet Ever", and to flourish it triumphantly as though it is proof of something other than the fact that most people are utterly ignorant of history and unable to see that something called "Scientific Advancement" can't be measured, let alone plotted on a graph." http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 2 Points
  • 21:56:22, 1 October

Fortunately, very few historians have any sense for what science is. So most of them can be safely ignored.

Simple challenge:

  1. Find me one single scientific principle between the years 570 CE and 1240 CE contributed to science by a European Christian.

  2. Find me any 50 year period between 500 BCE and 2013 CE where nobody made any scientific/philosophical-prescience contribution.

  • [-]
  • paszdahl
  • 6 Points
  • 02:31:26, 2 October

> Find me one single scientific principle between the years 570 CE and 1240 CE contributed to science by a European Christian.

So I spent the last 10 minutes at a search prompt setting out to prove you wrong. Your challenge is harder than anticipated.

The closest I got to a counterexample would be Fibonacci, who appeared in the last few years of the time period you listed. His biggest achievement was importing the hindu-arabic number system. As far as original work goes, it may be hard to argue the Fibonacci sequence as a major scientific principle. So, props to you.

Edit: Albertus Magnus discovered the element arsenic in the 13th century. But again, not a "scientific principle" as you stated. In fact, Abertus Magnus may be a good example of a very smart man, with scientific interests and predispositions, whose thinking was severely affected by the church's status as an authority of knowledge at the time.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 1 Points
  • 17:42:08, 2 October

> So I spent the last 10 minutes at a search prompt setting out to prove you wrong. Your challenge is harder than anticipated.

I've spent the last 3 or 4 years looking for this. So don't be too disappointed that you didn't do better than me in 10 minutes. ;)

> The closest I got to a counterexample would be Fibonacci, who appeared in the last few years of the time period you listed.

Yes, but what fibonacci did was to be exposed the Arabic sciences, namely their numeric system. In fact in the 1100s in Sicily they had encountered and used even more of the Arabic sciences. But we understand exactly what's going on here.

This is entirely contingent on the Arabic sciences leaking into the Christian territories, and being considered by a handful of open minded people on the fringes of the Christian territories. This was happening from the years 1075 and onward in a continuous manner. It did not lead to real scientific thinking before 1250, because they didn't quite "get it" during this period. They were still learning. They were learning how to learn. And that's the point.

> Albertus Magnus discovered the element arsenic in the 13th century. But again, not a "scientific principle" as you stated.

Well no! That's actually a real counter example! Discovery of arsenic, means he understood that there is more than just fire, earth, water and wind. It is, indeed, not really science as we would recognize it, but just understand that it is a different thing, before the concept of chemical elements existed is definite scientific progress.

The reason it isn't a real counter example, however, is because he discovered this around 1250 CE. :) And that's actually how I picked the date of 1240 in the first place. I am just giving myself a 10 year margin of error, to make sure I've got this bracketed at exactly the right period of time.

  • [-]
  • Bacon-covered-babies
  • 1 Points
  • 03:01:07, 2 October

I think historians of science have a pretty good sense of what science is, considering it's their area of expertise. But that's just me.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 2 Points
  • 03:43:46, 2 October

I think it is just you. I've read material from some of these so called "Science historians" and they tend not to know thing one about science.

For example, they usually have a very hard time determining whether or nor Diophantus' Arithmetica or Al Khwarizmi's materials were the start of algebra. They say Robert Grosseteste made important contributions to science, when nothing could be further from the truth. He may have read al Haitham, but didn't get the point, and contributed almost nothing. They claim that the Christians preserved texts, when in fact, they discarded their own version of Euclid in favor of the Arabic version.

  • [-]
  • Bacon-covered-babies
  • 1 Points
  • 06:39:23, 2 October

Who have you read?

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 1 Points
  • 13:41:52, 2 October

I'm thinking mostly of L.D. Reynolds, N.G. Wilson, David C. Lindberg and Charles Haskins, as largely scientifically illiterate historians.

Among the historians who do understand science include George Saliba and Carl B. Boyer.

  • [-]
  • AssassinAragorn
  • 0 Points
  • 06:37:15, 2 October

You're so right! I've found that all of modern science is flawed from this experiment I did in my backyard because I did not obtain precisely -9.81 m/s^2 as the acceleration of gravity in my trials. If they're lying about something as fundamental as that, they clearly don't know how to science. Thank you for showing me how to properly go about the world! Having a casual interest in a topic clearly makes me more qualified than people with PHDs doing research in a topic!

  • [-]
  • itsasecretoeverybody
  • 1 Points
  • 17:28:51, 2 October

The fact that you are going throughout this thread to defend a fallacious graph that gets destroyed every time it is reposted and doesn't even have units on its y-axis is hilarious.

As for your challenge? It is flawed to begin with. Scientific principle =/= scientific progression. If it did, then the work of half the inductive scientists would be irrelevant. Francis Bacon, Linnaeus, Tycho Brae, Faraday, Halley, Mendeleev, etc. would all be worthless. Experimentation,classification, and application are also important to the sciences.

Science depends on the time period. Pre-Darwin, much of the biological sciences focused on classification. Most classical non-Greek astronomers, did not build models of the heavens, they just observed them. The early alchemists and metallurgists had no models, they just experimented and recorded results. Does that mean science didn't progress? No.

The Middle Ages were full of European technological developments. The developments mainly included labor saving devices like windmills and waterwheels as well as mechanical clocks.

They also had great development in building techniques. The great architecture of the Middle Ages was allowed by new methods of construction.

The Middle Ages also had developments in environmental protection. In Italy there were bans on fishing in certain months and limits on how many entrails you could discard. In England there were bans on coal and wood burning at certain times.

Metallurgy and identification of metals improve significantly during this time.

The European university system also arose during this time.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • -2 Points
  • 18:47:24, 2 October

> It is flawed to begin with. Scientific principle =/= scientific progression.

If you are not generating scientific principles, then you will not make scientific progress.

> Francis Bacon, Linnaeus, Tycho Brae, Faraday, Halley, Mendeleev, etc. would all be worthless.

False dichotomy. First of all, the observational results of these people are not the content of science. These people all made contributions by 1) having ideas (even if they were wrong; its ok -- science is self correcting) and 2) their observations led to people being inspired to develop ideas and therefore discover scientific principles.

Observation is important to science specifically in that it leads to the generation of ideas. If they did not, they would be irrelevant, and by themselves could not lead to progress of any kind. None of the examples you cite are isolated observations, their relevance is precisely because of the ideas and principles that soon followed from their observational work.

> Science depends on the time period. Pre-Darwin, much of the biological sciences focused on classification. Most classical non-Greek astronomers, did not build models of the heavens, they just observed them. The early alchemists and metallurgists had no models, they just experimented and recorded results. Does that mean science didn't progress? No.

First of all you are wrong. The reason why you would want to CLASSIFY animals is to try to generalize them. Ducks lay eggs, and pigeons lay eggs and in fact this leads to the idea that all birds lay eggs. So if you want to go domesticate a new kind of bird that's hard to catch, you can go look for their nest to go capture their eggs or something.

The reason why you model the stars is to figure out when the equinox or eclipse is going to be. Or to navigate ships by starlight. There were definite principles being developed here.

Metallurgists and alchemists were also clearly trying to make things.

There were principles behind everything these people were doing, regardless of how simple or complex they were.

> The Middle Ages were full of European technological developments. The developments mainly included labor saving devices like windmills and waterwheels

Ok, first of all, these things were all done as far away from the churches as possible. These were agricultural developments. So people on farms doing what they needed to do regardless of what the church was telling them. These developments were also quite trivial, and did not lead to any significant generalized scientific principles. Agricultural science of today, is basically disjoint from their developments.

> as well as mechanical clocks.

These were later, and largely follows from Arabic input.

> They also had great development in building techniques. The great architecture of the Middle Ages was allowed by new methods of construction.

There is no such thing as "great architecture" from medieval Europeans. Flying Buttresses was their inefficient "design" technique. By comparison, Islamic mosques are all dome shaped, which is far more efficient.

> The Middle Ages also had developments in environmental protection. In Italy there were bans on fishing in certain months and limits on how many entrails you could discard. In England there were bans on coal and wood burning at certain times.

What? How are these scientific principles? These are just laws enacted to break the "tragedy of the commons" conundrum that I think every ancient society that over-exploited their resources encountered. If, as a society, you don't solve this you die. So you are saying the medieval Europeans should be praised because they didn't die out as a society?

> Metallurgy and identification of metals improve significantly during this time.

I am unaware of this, explain.

> The European university system also arose during this time.

Yes, but these still did not teach a system of thinking. There were no courses in philosophy or science at all. They did not issue PhDs. They were heavily weighed down by teachings in "morals", and their mathematics did not proceed past the elementary school level of today. Their university, and what we think of as a modern university has nothing to do with each other.

  • [-]
  • itsasecretoeverybody
  • 4 Points
  • 20:38:15, 2 October

>There is not such thing as "great architecture" from the middle ages.

You sure are right. Yeah, because who needs Gothic and Romanesque architecture? What a bunch of dilapidated shacks, right?

Feel free to make that statement over on /r/architecture, I'm sure they will agree.

  • [-]
  • henry_fords_ghost
  • 1 Points
  • 09:26:15, 3 October

Theres no domes, you idiot! everyone knows that domes are more efficient!

  • [-]
  • _FallacyBot_
  • 0 Points
  • 18:48:04, 2 October

False Dichotomy: Presenting two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

^^Created ^^at ^^/r/RequestABot

^^If ^^you ^^dont ^^like ^^me, ^^simply ^^reply ^^leave ^^me ^^alone ^^fallacybot ^^, ^^youll ^^never ^^see ^^me ^^again

  • [-]
  • Cricket620
  • 28 Points
  • 15:24:43, 1 October

This is bad and you should feel bad.

  • [-]
  • thejustducky1
  • 0 Points
  • 00:27:54, 2 October

Like... Bad?

  • [-]
  • Cricket620
  • 1 Points
  • 13:58:22, 2 October

Like... Superbad.

  • [-]
  • djangosp2
  • 4 Points
  • 19:04:28, 1 October

The early Islamic Empire should be in there. They did quite a bit actually.

  • [-]
  • Sqeaky
  • 1 Points
  • 00:17:44, 2 October

Until al-ghazali single handedly destroyed islamic science by teaching that God does fiddle the knobs in the lab. (and nnumber are bad, empiricism is bad, etc...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali

  • [-]
  • im_buhwheat
  • 3 Points
  • 23:14:18, 1 October

Evidence...

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/kansas-republicans-creationists-oppose-new-science-education-standards/

  • [-]
  • Khundes
  • 6 Points
  • 17:55:34, 1 October

Inaccurate. Science took a leap behind because of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the division and isolation of knowledge in smaller units, incessant wars and squabbles which then led to stagnation.

We should be better than that. Blaming christianity for this is equivalent to christians blaming video games for violent crimes. It's unrelated.

(However, christian absolutism DID cause a lot of internal strife for the Roman Empire which probably hastened its demise. Hard to say because the Roman Empire fell due to many reasons, not the least of which being Gothic invasions, which have nothing to do with christianity)

  • [-]
  • shouldbebabysitting
  • 4 Points
  • 19:26:49, 1 October

James Burke in the book / BBC series The Day the Universe Changed documents the chilling effect medieval Christian teachings had on science. Christian philosophy wasn't blameless for the dark ages.

  • [-]
  • Khundes
  • 0 Points
  • 01:35:10, 2 October

Oh I agree, Christianity played a big role in restricting the growth of science, but my comment was targeted at the initial drop indicated in the graph. The drop was not caused by Christianity directly.

Also this reminds me, technology prospered in the Middle East, where Islam was prevalent, until the Mongols came and burned Baghdad to the ground.

  • [-]
  • shouldbebabysitting
  • 2 Points
  • 02:44:17, 2 October

Gibbon ( the decline and fall of the Roman empire ) and Burke ( The Day the Universe Changed ) would disagree. They suggest that the Christian ideal of spending your life preparing for the afterlife because your soul was eternal was corrosive to society.

  • [-]
  • jiohdi1960
  • 2 Points
  • 16:51:43, 1 October

The Discoverers is a non-fiction historical work by Daniel Boorstin published in 1983 - he was the Librarian of Congress for many years and his book demonstrates how science was styfled for 1000 years by the dominant catholic church until the plagues gave people enough mental ammunition to doubt the church's guidance openly and start true scientific inquiry.

  • [-]
  • Ajellsmay
  • 2 Points
  • 02:58:38, 2 October

See, now these are the things I am fascinated by. Seeing how during a historical period, people believed in an invisible magic man in the sky that solves, and creates, all of your problems. Now look where we are. And to that, I flip the bird to you, Dark Ages!

  • [-]
  • NuggetandSkull
  • 3 Points
  • 18:00:50, 1 October

This graph is pretty weak. We have no clue how different the world could be if no religion existed in the same way that we wouldn't know how the world would be different if literally everyone shared the exact same religious belief. We can make inferences but for all we know we may have plateaued for a while, or even regressed anyways. People are different in every facet of our being. There will always be people who are against advancement to preserve sameness, regardless of belief.

Stop posting this shit chart.

  • [-]
  • kreuzer007
  • 3 Points
  • 23:26:35, 1 October

this is just silly. we don't need fake graphs to prove religion is bad.

  • [-]
  • radicalpastafarian
  • 6 Points
  • 15:06:51, 1 October

What you don't seem to realise is that during this giant drop off in scientific learning and moving forward as a culture during the "Dark Ages" which people so often blame Christianity for, there was a massively virulent disease sweeping all of Europe, killing people by the hundreds of of thousands. The bubonic plague, or Black Death, caused mass hysteria which did lead to a surge of religious fanaticism, because let's face it this was still a scientifically primitive culture that didn't even know what the cell was yet let alone what could cause such a violent plague. So they called it the wrath of god and appealed to their god with zealotry. Had the bubonic plague not been killing literally millions of people, there would certainly have been a continuous trend of rising scientific advancement, but when everyone, including all your great or potentially great thinkers, are dying within days of having a light cough...well no that's not the best way to continue the trend.

Though we often see it that way the Christian Church has not always been a huge antagonist to Science and Scientific advancement. Some of our greatest early scientific discoveries were made by men of the cloth, and the Church was often the patron of scientific thinkers and researchers.

  • [-]
  • Esc_ape_artist
  • 6 Points
  • 16:25:25, 1 October

Don't know why this is being downvoted, it's essentially right. The church saw an opportunity and moved in to take it, just like today. In some areas, the churches maintained knowledge, albeit selectively, and saved it for future generations.

  • [-]
  • im_buhwheat
  • 3 Points
  • 23:07:15, 1 October

They did not save it for future generations, the fucking suppressed it. Knowledge is the enemy of religion.

  • [-]
  • Esc_ape_artist
  • 1 Points
  • 05:32:41, 2 October

Please note where I said "selectively". They most certainly did suppress or eliminate that which they disagreed with.

  • [-]
  • frystes
  • 3 Points
  • 20:36:19, 1 October

Noop; they saved it further their own power; and their's exclusively. The church of that era did not shared power.

The romans had basic knowledge of medical science like the fact that if somebody loose all his blood, he dies and surgeons of that era were sufficiently qualified to operate on a lot of trauma (because it kept the legions alive and citizen well; and workers well are good workers).

"Medieval science" erased most knowledge ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting was a common practice of that era ; no comment. ) because it left the churche as the sole depository of scientific knowledge and gave them total monopoly. Basically the era's oligarch club. Which brought us back a good thousand years. It's not called the fuckin dark ages for nothing, because 99.99% of the population had access to nothing.

It's like currently when you see african tribals compared to nasa scientists. Except imagine the whole planet is only tribals weather-gods-worshipers and there's like a few thousands people (church and nobility) in power looking down with it at those "lowly peasants". "Divine right feudalism" as it's worst. Makes me want to shake my head. It's just a sad logic.

  • [-]
  • Esc_ape_artist
  • 1 Points
  • 05:34:49, 2 October

Please note where I said they took advantage of the situation.

  • [-]
  • pixlepix
  • 2 Points
  • 00:17:03, 2 October

The part about the black death is simply not true. Look at the dates of the black death vs the Italian renaissance. The plague happened just before and even right up to the renaissance. In fact, the plague actually was a key factor in the renaissance, as the economic pressures created from a drastic population drop lead into the demand for luxury goods. In addition, the power of the church drastically declined during the era of the black death, as a result of the defeat of Pope Boniface and the Great Schism of the pope.

  • [-]
  • BowlEcho
  • 2 Points
  • 04:52:35, 2 October

Came here to say this. Totally wrong re: the Black Death. Also, calling these the "Christian Dark Ages" is absurd. The dark ages (actually called the Middle Ages) are largely a result of the collapse of the Roman Empire. The church was only one of the power sources that filled that massive vacuum, and it was not the bloodiest by a long shot. Get your shit straight folks. Don't just study history enough to confirm your own biases and then stop. That's the Christian approach to debate.

The truth is that we are talking about a very long, very complex era in human history. Give it the treatment it deserves.

  • [-]
  • Sqeaky
  • 2 Points
  • 00:21:43, 2 October

Romans had bathhouses and practiced basic hygiene. Note how the arabian parts of the world during the plaques did not suffer the atrocious death rates becuase of similar basic hygiene. The church was not big on clean.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 4 Points
  • 15:51:10, 1 October

Oh yes, we are well aware of this plague. But this plague also affected the Arabs who lived right next door. But the Arabs cultivated quite an impressive scientific culture during most of the (European) Dark Ages.

So why did this plague destroy all scientific thought for centuries after it was over in one culture, and just was a temporary nuisance to the nearby culture?

  • [-]
  • Sqeaky
  • 2 Points
  • 00:23:09, 2 October

basic hygiene....

probably based on empiricism.

  • [-]
  • Ioxvm
  • 5 Points
  • 15:22:16, 1 October

The church was then and still is now, very anti science. You should probably read up on the excommunication of Kepler, Copernicus etc. The reality of it is that if you went against the churches teachings or edicts, they would not only kick you out of the church, which is career ending, sometimes they would just straight up KILL YOU for going against the church. Nobody saw the Spanish Inquisition coming! TO THE COMFY CHAIR!

  • [-]
  • radicalpastafarian
  • 2 Points
  • 15:55:37, 1 October

I am sorry that you don't educate yourself further than just enough to fuel your contempt of the church, and I do say all of this as an atheist.

  • [-]
  • DiggSucksNow
  • -3 Points
  • 17:46:29, 1 October

>The church was then and still is now, very anti science

The Catholic church was very anti-science. Other modern churches are very anti-science. The Catholic church is not now anti-science, as long as that science has nothing to do with abortion or homosexuality.

  • [-]
  • shouldbebabysitting
  • 5 Points
  • 19:21:50, 1 October

You mean like when the Pope met with Stephen Hawking and said he (and other scientists) shouldn't go looking into the origin of the big bang?

The current cosmological model works with Let there be Light so the church doesn't want any further investigation. If the Pope had the power he wielded 800 years ago, I have no doubt that the "request" to stop investigating would have been a threat.

See A Brief History of Time.

  • [-]
  • DiggSucksNow
  • -2 Points
  • 19:40:10, 1 October

You left out the part where he was able to hear that because Hawking attended a conference on cosmology at the Vatican. That was also, what, 2 (3?) popes ago, depending on when it happened.

I'm no fan of the Catholic church, but FFS, the Vatican has an observatory. A previous pope telling people not to investigate before the big bang hardly lines up with an institutional embrace of science (again, except for their views on gay people and zygotes).

  • [-]
  • shouldbebabysitting
  • 4 Points
  • 20:11:03, 1 October

> You left out the part where he was able to hear that because Hawking attended a conference on cosmology at the Vatican.

Hosting an event only to tell the researchers to stop what they are doing isn't pro-science. Pope Urban VIII hosted many scientists too before putting Galileo under house arrest. Yes, the pope requesting Hawking to stop was decades ago but it is not ancient history like was implied.

> institutional embrace of science

As long as it lines up with their current dogma. This is no different than 400 years ago except they no longer have the power to arrest and kill dissenters. The church had observatories then too to correct their calendars. When science is only used to confirm a religious text, its not science.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 4 Points
  • 21:58:44, 1 October

You are incorrect. The position of the Catholic church is that scientists not discuss what happened before the big bang. The Catholic church also denies that science of the AIDS virus, and the effectiveness of condom use in stopping it.

The Catholic church CONTINUES TO BE anti-science right to this very second.

  • [-]
  • DiggSucksNow
  • -2 Points
  • 22:06:05, 1 October

>The position of the Catholic church is that scientists not discuss what happened before the big bang.

The only information I have close to this is that it was the opinion of a pope decades ago. Do you have any references to official statements from the Catholic church that says this is official church doctrine?

>The Catholic church also denies that science of the AIDS virus,

You'll have to help me out with a link here. I've never heard such a thing.

>and the effectiveness of condom use in stopping it.

All they argued was that they weren't 100% effective, which is correct.

  • [-]
  • Sqeaky
  • 2 Points
  • 00:26:44, 2 October

> All they argued was that they weren't 100% effective, which is correct. Cleary their intent was not to innocently inform. They want to enforce abstinence, which by they core tenants(jesus, mary, birth, yadda yadda...) desn't work and basic observations on human behavior has been demonstrated it as even less effective.

  • [-]
  • DiggSucksNow
  • 0 Points
  • 00:33:40, 2 October

It's certainly true that they have been against birth control for most of their history (because birth control denies the world more Catholics), but they are not currently (as of the previous pope) against using it to reduce the spread of HIV.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 2 Points
  • 22:31:39, 1 October

> The only information I have close to this is that it was the opinion of a pope decades ago.

Yes, this is the same information I have. And it is sufficient. Or do you not know how the authority of the Pope works for Catholicism?

> Do you have any references to official statements from the Catholic church that says this is official church doctrine?

What? Pope John Paul II said it. No pope that followed him rescinded it. End of discussion.

> > and the effectiveness of condom use in stopping it.

> All they argued was that they weren't 100% effective, which is correct.

Well no, the Catholic church says no to contraception in general:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2370

  • [-]
  • DiggSucksNow
  • -1 Points
  • 22:57:35, 1 October

>Yes, this is the same information I have. And it is sufficient. Or do you not know how the authority of the Pope works for Catholicism?

I do! :) So you're saying he was speaking ex cathedra? Did he or anyone say that he was?

>What? Pope John Paul II said it. No pope that followed him rescinded it. End of discussion.

That isn't how it works. He apparently said it privately to gathered physicists, many of which, presumably, weren't even Catholic.

>Well no, the Catholic church says no to contraception in general:

Thank you for playing.

  • [-]
  • spitz
  • 1 Points
  • 22:25:14, 1 October

>Though we often see it that way the Christian Church has not always been a huge antagonist to Science and Scientific advancement.

This is misleading. The church isn't antagonistic towards science, it's antagonistic towards what challenges the church. There are plenty of discoveries that can be made which the church may consider irrelevant, but when the relevance of their religious claims comes into question, they will challenge it. At most, they will only begrudgingly reinterpret their doctrines if support for the scientific claims becomes overwhelming, but at that point they are still maintaining the image that the church itself is beyond criticism and a source of truth. The church can criticize any claim from a religious perspective, but the strongest criticism of religious claims only allows them gain a better understanding of why the religion is correct and will still be relevant when another claim needs to be challenged in the future.

Men of the cloth can make discoveries, but that too is twisted into an accomplishment of religion; in reality, the accomplishments show the merits of applied science. The conflict between science and the church can be seen in the complete absence of religious claims that have been supported by science, the religious claim that such support is not necessary, and the promotion of religious relevance to scientific claims that don't have anything to do with their religion.

claim it's not religious: they'll say it is or it's wrong.Claim it's not scientific: they'll say it's fine if it's religious. Takes credit for everything, gets in the way of anything, contributes nothing.

  • [-]
  • _Z_E_R_O
  • 3 Points
  • 16:09:43, 1 October

What this graph fails to mention is that every single one of the so-called advanced ancient cultures was religious. It also doesn't take into account non-western scientific achievements that were going on in Asia and the Middle East.

  • [-]
  • wag3slav3
  • 2 Points
  • 18:10:15, 1 October

History is made by those who weren't purged for claiming to not be christians.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 3 Points
  • 22:08:52, 1 October

You are perfectly correct. The graph is specifically and correctly targeting Christianity. It also does ignore the great contribution of Arabs during the Dark Ages period. However, Europe is a big place, and that entire population of people did stop all scientific cultivation during the dark ages. So there is some graphic that could be made that would be related to this.

I would invite you to consider that towards the end of the Hellenistic period, they had Diophantus' Arithmetica (which was just on the brink of being Algebra), the Anikhythera device, and had just constructed the Aelophile.

Had they been able to continue, in short order they may have had algebra, then boolean algebra, general mechanical calculators, and steam based power. They only needed telecommunications, and they could have implemented reddit themselves.

  • [-]
  • DiggSucksNow
  • 3 Points
  • 17:41:29, 1 October

The Dark Ages happened because Rome collapsed.

  • [-]
  • Sqeaky
  • 2 Points
  • 00:19:06, 2 October

Which failed because of lack of innovation because of something...

  • [-]
  • DiggSucksNow
  • 0 Points
  • 00:28:52, 2 October

If you know the one single reason why Rome collapsed, you should really inform the academic world. They seem to be convinced that it had multiple root causes. They'd sure benefit from your insights.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 1 Points
  • 22:13:49, 1 October

Correct -- but Rome collapsed because the Romans turned Christian.

Furthermore, during its history, the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire have been devastated, but then recovered. That's really the story of the Roman Republic/Empire -- they were really resilient. They couldn't really collapse because their resolve seemed to be infinite.

The only thing that could kill the Roman Empire was a change in the character of the people within the Roman Empire. Which is exactly what Christianity was.

  • [-]
  • DiggSucksNow
  • 0 Points
  • 22:58:16, 1 October

>Rome collapsed because the Romans turned Christian.

[...]

>The only thing that could kill the Roman Empire was a change in the character of the people within the Roman Empire. Which is exactly what Christianity was.

Citation Needed.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 3 Points
  • 01:55:47, 2 October

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BattleofAllia in 387 BCE, Rome was sacced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecondSamniteWar#Second.28orGreat.29SamniteWar.28326to304BC.29 in 321 BCE, the Roman army was routed and forced to accept humiliating terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PyrrhicWar#Battleof_Asculum of course we get the term "Pyrrhic victory" from the fact that losing a battle against the Greeks was insufficient t defeat the Romans in the long run.

There there is the matter of Hannibal pissing them off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BattleofCannae , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal#SecondPunicWarinItaly.28218.E2.80.93203BC.29

The point being that total defeats didn't lead to the collapse of Rome. Rome just recovered. Because Rome always recovers.

And of course, after being sacced in 489, the Western Roman Empire never recovered.

  • [-]
  • DiggSucksNow
  • 0 Points
  • 02:20:38, 2 October

In all of that, where's your evidence that Christianity caused Rome to fail? As I said elsewhere, if you know the one single reason why Rome fell, you had better contact all those confused historians who see it as having many causes.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 2 Points
  • 03:54:21, 2 October

What is the point in talking to historians who have an agenda, and who largely themselves are religious?

The evidence of Christianities pernicious effect, comes from their deliberate attack against "Paganism" which meant the Hellenistic tradition. In 451 CE, Emperor Marcian literally decreed that those practicing paganism would be put to death. A group of Christians who tried to cultivate the Greek sciences known as the Nestorians, we all but exiled as a result of emperor Zeno closing down their school in Edessa from teaching a heretical form of Christianity.

The Christians took over the Greek territories. Right up until about 3-5 centuries CE, the Greeks had Diophantus' Arithmetica, the ability to construct the Antikhythera device, Ptolemy's Almagest, Hero's Aeolophile, and a complete Euclid's Elements with proofs. But the time the 5th century rolls around all of that is gone.

If that's not enough for you read up on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Palimpsest . Why in the hell would anyone *ERASE* Archimedes work, which is an attempt at deriving integral calculus? This work fetched over $2 million dollars at a recent auction. But was not worth more than the paper it was written on by the idiotic Christian monk who wrote his prayers on top of it.

Oh and BTW, what you are doing? It's called shifting the goal posts. Of course, I am good enough to deal with that anyway. But you come here empty handed and completely ignorant.

  • [-]
  • DiggSucksNow
  • 0 Points
  • 04:21:09, 2 October

>What is the point in talking to historians who have an agenda, and who largely themselves are religious?

Yeah, the whole world contains only Christian historians. Does anybody but you believe what you're saying?

>The Christians took over the Greek territories.

That seems like an oversimplification. Isn't it more accurate to say that the Greek territories collapsed, and then over time, Christianity became the dominant religion there?

>Why in the hell would anyone ERASE Archimedes work, which is an attempt at deriving integral calculus?

Because one or more idiots in the 13th century didn't know what it was and ran out of paper to use. Are you suggesting that the Catholic church decided to suppress Archimedes' work by re-using the paper containing his writings? Wouldn't it have been easier to burn it?

>BTW, what you are doing?

Trying to respond to your tangents.

>It's called shifting the goal posts.

As far as I can tell, we're still talking about your (possibly unique in the world) claim that Christianity is solely responsible for the collapse of Rome, for which you've shown no causal relationship. The goal here is for you to provide evidence showing cause and effect, which you have not done. At best, you have some correlation, but there's also a correlation between the number of active sea pirates and global temperatures.

>But you come here empty handed and completely ignorant.

That is called projection.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • -2 Points
  • 16:58:23, 2 October

> Yeah, the whole world contains only Christian historians.

You don't logic very much do you? No, Indian historians are not typically Christians, and I am not claiming they are.

>> The Christians took over the Greek territories.

> That seems like an oversimplification.

It's comprehensive, precise and inclusive of the entire status on the issue.

> Isn't it more accurate to say that the Greek territories collapsed,

What does it mean for a territory to collapse? That's not even English.

> and then over time, Christianity became the dominant religion there?

Well, that's not what happened. The Greeks were what they always were and continued in Hellenistic activities for as long as that culture existed. Hellenistic culture cannot just be removed -- it wasn't! It has to be replaced by something. To suggest that it just removed, would be like saying that you should stop listening to music altogether before the next genre of music is developed so that you can start listening to it.

Specifically -- up until the year 80 or so, Hellenism was basically 100% in Greece. But Paul wrote up this silliness about a guy named Jesus, and over time Christianity evolved as a sect of Judaism then its own religion. By 570, these same people were 100% Christian. So. What were the intermediate points? In 300 or so, there was a Christian emperor for all of the Roman Empire, but Diophantus had just written up Arithmetica. So we imagine at this point, maybe it was around 50% : 50% between Hellenism and Christianity. So this is just direct replacement -- Christianity, pushed out Hellenism directly, over time.

Your stupidity is fully exposed.

  • [-]
  • DiggSucksNow
  • 3 Points
  • 17:05:01, 2 October

>You don't logic very much do you? No, Indian historians are not Christians, and I am not claiming they are.

You have a hypothesis that Christianity caused the fall of Rome, and when I suggested you correct the historians who believe otherwise, you fell back to "What is the point in talking to historians who have an agenda, and who largely themselves are religious?" The only way that could prevent them from accepting your ideas is if they were Christian. What pressure would there be on Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims to deny evidence that Christianity caused Rome's collapse? You're not even considering the ramifications of your own statements.

>It's comprehensive, precise and inclusive of the entire status on the issue.

Go collect your PhD in history, then. You've managed to figure it out when nobody else did, even without any evidence. You're truly insightful.

>What does it mean for a territory to collapse? That's not even English.

If you understand that a nation or a state can collapse, why can't a territory collapse? Maybe you should say what you think collapse means.

>Your stupidity is fully exposed.

My only stupidity is continuing to converse with you as if you aren't a loony.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • -2 Points
  • 18:23:06, 2 October

> You have a hypothesis that Christianity caused the fall of Rome,

No, my hypothesis is that Christianity prevented Rome's recovery, intellectual or otherwise. The Roman Empire fell many times. One of the real lessons of the Roman Empire was its ability to recover from absolute defeats. Also the intellectual culture of the Greeks (which eventually came under the control of the Roman Empire) was largely unaffected by any of these events. Christian historians claim otherwise, because they think Hero of Alexandia, Diophantus, and Ptolemy didn't exist.

> and when I suggested you correct the historians who believe otherwise

Oh actually I have. They just don't hang around here on this sub-reddit.

> you fell back to "What is the point in talking to historians who have an agenda, and who largely themselves are religious?"

Well that's been the outcome of my attempt at correcting them. I'm just telling you, in case you are interested.

> The only way that could prevent them from accepting your ideas is if they were Christian.

Well that's the default reason. But for some reason there are also atheist historians who defend the thesis that Christianity had only a beneficial effect on the intellectualism of Europe during the dark ages.

> What pressure would there be on Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims to deny evidence that Christianity caused Rome's collapse?

None. And they don't deny it.

> You're not even considering the ramifications of your own statements.

What are you talking about? Where do you think I get half my information from? I need to consult historians who are NOT biased to understand what is going on in history.

This is why you cannot ask an Israeli archeologist whether they think the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians before their so called exodus. (You can, of course, ask for their evidence then critique it, of course, which is exactly what I am doing.)

> Go collect your PhD in history, then.

How would that help? Ph.D.'s don't seem to help historians with understanding history.

> You've managed to figure it out when nobody else did, even without any evidence.

1) I have plenty of evidence. You're just not asking the right questions. 2) I am NOT the first person to figure this out. Most historians that are not European/American and not Christian and who have nevertheless looked into this issue already know this.

  • [-]
  • safety_otter
  • 1 Points
  • 17:53:10, 1 October

...and rome collapsed because they fed christians to lions. Source: My 3rd grade sunday school teacher

  • [-]
  • DiggSucksNow
  • 5 Points
  • 18:01:14, 1 October

"And the LORD said:

I won't stop you from feeding a lot of my followers to lions, but I will, over a very long period of time, let your civilization fail from within, while I do nothing."

  • [-]
  • Boofe_kur
  • -1 Points
  • 21:42:12, 1 October

Thank you for pointing this out. There is literally dozens of "dark ages" throughout history. This is merely the most modern one in European history.

  • [-]
  • souldad57
  • 2 Points
  • 19:02:30, 1 October

There is a flaw with this; The assumption is that Christianity caused the Dark Ages. This is not true. The Catholic Church did however stunt science and reason during this period.

  • [-]
  • shouldbebabysitting
  • 2 Points
  • 19:28:49, 1 October

Well it is the conclusion of the book "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Gibbon.

  • [-]
  • souldad57
  • 1 Points
  • 19:48:31, 1 October

I guess I am just splitting hairs. Yes, the collapse of the Roman Empire precipitated the Dark Ages, and The Church capitalized on and extended the situation.

On a related note; The documentary Constantine's Army is relevant and really interesting.

  • [-]
  • Illusive42
  • 1 Points
  • 14:40:57, 2 October

This chart depicts the "dark ages" incorrectly. In reality alot was discovered during that timeframe. In fact we have muslims to thank for much of it, also alot was discovered in and around nordic countries as well (norway, sweden. denmark). "The dark ages" were not dark for the entire world, just a few countries.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 1 Points
  • 17:29:32, 2 October

What discoveries were made in nordic countries during this time?

  • [-]
  • duddenmadder
  • 2 Points
  • 19:48:06, 1 October

As a Christian, I like it when Atheists dislike this graph.

  • [-]
  • coleki
  • 5 Points
  • 23:28:24, 1 October

As an Atheist, I dislike this graph, but still agree with its general sentiment.

  • [-]
  • im_buhwheat
  • 4 Points
  • 23:12:45, 1 October

As a christian you are part of the problem.

  • [-]
  • connedbyreligion
  • -3 Points
  • 21:16:26, 1 October

We do. Christianity is only really responsible for the relatively recent anti-science shit.

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 6 Points
  • 22:17:58, 1 October

Christianity was not responsible for burning Michael Servetus at the stake? They weren't responsible for burning Giordano Bruno at the stake? They weren't responsible for censoring Copernicus, then Galileo?

  • [-]
  • Grzechooo
  • 0 Points
  • 18:15:15, 1 October

Repost.

  • [-]
  • svenniola
  • -1 Points
  • 17:50:09, 1 October

have you researched the religions christianity replaced?

even islam is an improvement to those bloody horrors of antiquity.

we can be thankful for at least that. (as in, you really, really , really would Not have liked the previous religions.)

  • [-]
  • Arohtu-Danee
  • -1 Points
  • 19:05:00, 1 October

congratulations! you are the one millionth poster of this image! click here for your free fedora!

  • [-]
  • stellars_jay
  • -3 Points
  • 00:21:20, 2 October

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1ggi0i/daethinkjijisliterallyworsethan_hitler/

oh look, an obvious troll

nice of the MSF brigade to post and then upvote this shit

  • [-]
  • thefrdeal
  • 0 Points
  • 20:03:03, 1 October

Lol what a troll post. No units on the y axis.

Also, Christianity didn't cause the Dark Ages singlehandedly.

  • [-]
  • coleki
  • 0 Points
  • 20:05:49, 1 October

Probably creating better (read: not useless) charts, that's where.

  • [-]
  • pixlepix
  • -1 Points
  • 22:20:18, 1 October

Lets be clear about something. First of all, you are ignoring the huge scientific force of the muslim empires. Mainly, Christianity didn't cause the dark ages. If anything, christianity made them a hell of a lot better.

  • [-]
  • Biff_Tannen___
  • 0 Points
  • 17:04:59, 1 October

Sure we lost science, but the art produced in that time...

  • [-]
  • f0rmality
  • 2 Points
  • 19:53:47, 1 October

I'd rather lose the art if it means we lose the christians too

  • [-]
  • night1101
  • -2 Points
  • 19:31:14, 1 October

http://www.cracked.com/article201866-ridiculous-myths-about-middle-ages-everyone-believes.html

The opposite is apparently true

  • [-]
  • websnarf
  • 5 Points
  • 22:23:51, 1 October

"Scientific progress was dead" is not the same as "they thought the world was flat".

Furthermore they did NOT preserve books of a scientific nature. While the Greeks nearly achieved algebra, the early Medieval Christians where completely incompetent of mathematics, unable to fill in the missing proofs from Euclid's Elements.