Can we have a cringe thread? Post stuff that makes you cringe because of how incorrect it is

It's totally right though, the church supressed knowledge and science. They destroyed Roman technology because they were afraid it would disprove their religion. It was only during the enlightenment, when people discovered reason, logic, and atheism, that humanity was finally able to acheive more science.

You stupid stupid man.

Go away you memeing shit

I wish stupidity were a bannable offense.

How about you kys faggot

Reddit is a goldmine for this stuff

>poland is like the middle east

they btfo one gay pride parade and suddenly everybody is mad.

This, egyptians were also in full decline during from 1100BC onwards. Greek period sure, but only because the graph masks the long greek dark age and makes little mention of the post diadochi stagnation period. The romans fucking plateau'd as well in the mid/late imperial period. And then the fucking meme that we went back to pre-new kingdom standards because Rome collapsed under its own weight and muh ebil church, seriously wtf? It literally was the monasteries and scholastic philosophers who preserved ancient texts, translated them and incorporated them into christian thought. Sylvester II, the fucking pope ordained in 999 literally was a proto-humanist who travelled to cordoba to collect texts and learn from islamic scholars. The very concept of "universities" was conceived during that period. And like other anons mentioned, what about the abassids who did the same during the 800AD period and kickstarted their own golden age til they got btfo by mongol dick and the house of wisdom was burnt down? Thankfully they passed the torch back to the venitians and italian city states before entering their own "stagnation" period. Even then the ottoman still had another renaissance of their own.
Knowledge is hardly ever lost and the great tragedies like the burning (s) of alexandria, ashurbanipal's library or the hayt al hikma library of baghdad occured when civilisations were at their peak, AND they still continued to exist, thrive and innovate afterward.

NewAge fedoras are the purest form of cancer and rely on retarded adhoms even more than their targets. Bunch of cunts.

Lmao I can't wait for this >muh materialistic objective reality bullshit to finally subside

I fucking cringe every time Neil Tyson or Bill Nye talk about philosophy

One of their guys also went up to either their parliament or the EU one and said women were dumber than men.

THIS THIS THIS

but not only that, the catlick vampires also tried to blot out the sun by using smoke produced by a HYuge pyre that used scientific treaties made by ancient pagan female Scientists and eidetic nordic semen shamans as fuel
this plan was successful in shutting the World from the Sun and Science for thousand years which is why everything was Dark and called the Dark Ages
NOW YOU KNOW

>Lmao I can't wait for this >muh materialistic objective reality bullshit to finally subside
Why wait? You can just believe really hard that it already has subsided, and nobody can tell you otherwise because reality doesn't exist.

Korwin did nothing wrong

probably just a poland cannot into space joke
Yeah but it'll be replaced with something just as bad, like /pol/-tier DEUS FUCKING VULT "Christianity"
Now you're getting it.

>States a fact

And your point is...?

...

...

Every time I see it I can't help but think of how many problems there are with it.

How do you quantify scientific advancement?

Where is the Greek dark age?

Do they not know about the university system in the Middle Ages?

Do they not know that issues between religion and science didn't exist until Bruno and Copernicus?

>How do you quantify scientific advancement?
Inventing stuff?

>Do they not know about the university system in the Middle Ages?
They only taught theology because Augustine of Hippo said that was all you need to know

>issues between religion and science didn't exist until Bruno and Copernicus?
Why?

Issues between religion and science didn't exist until Kent Hovind, tbqh.

>They only taught theology because Augustine of Hippo said that was all you need to know
HAHAHAHA

>The "Dark Ages", as historians understand it, were a 200 or so year period after the fall of the western European empire where statehood was not the norm and intra-communication became very difficult because of less sophisticated infrastructure. This ended with the Carolingian Renaissance.
historians are starting to not even use the term "dark ages" anymore. it does more harm than good for understanding

>However, in the later 20th century other historians became critical even of this nonjudgmental use of the term, for two main reasons.[10] Firstly, it is questionable whether it is ever possible to use the term in a neutral way: scholars may intend this, but ordinary readers may not so understand it. Secondly, 20th century scholarship has exploded understanding of the history and culture of the period,[42] and so it no longer so 'dark' to us. To avoid the value judgment implied by the expression, many historians now avoid it altogether.[43]

>The medieval period is frequently caricatured as supposedly a "time of ignorance and superstition" which placed "the word of religious authorities over personal experience and rational activity."[44] However, rationality was increasingly held in high regard as the Middle Ages progressed. The historian of science Edward Grant writes that "If revolutionary rational thoughts were expressed [in the 18th century], they were made possible because of the long medieval tradition that established the use of reason as one of the most important of human activities".[45] Furthermore, David Lindberg says that, contrary to common belief, "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led".[46] Lindberg recognizes, however, that the late medieval rejuvenation of science and scholarship was due in large part to the new availability of Latin translations of Aristotle during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.[47]

>The caricature of the period is also reflected by more specific notions, such as the mistaken claim first propagated in the 19th century,[48][49] and still common in popular culture, that everyone in the Middle Ages thought the world was flat.[49][50] In fact, lecturers in medieval universities commonly advanced the idea that the Earth was a sphere.[51] Lindberg and Ronald Numbers write: "There was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[52] Other misconceptions such as: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy", are cited by Numbers as examples of myths that still pass as historical truth, although unsupported by current research.[53]

I don't know why this is especially fucked. Anyone feel like explaining to someone who didn't study ancient history?

First of all it was the Church which founded all the places of learning and which maintained a class of intellectuals that could become academics. Without the Church there simply would not even have been any sort of setting for philosophy or science, and probably reading and writing would have been forgotten completely.

But beyond that, Catholic philosophy was absolutely central to the development of Western science, and in particular to that of the scientific method. To sum it up really quickly, the Catholic world view was that all the universe was created by a benevolent creator. This creator also gave us the capacity for reason. Being benevolent, he would not have given us that capacity while making his universe irrational. Therefore the universe works according to rational laws, like a mechanical clock made by a clockmaker, and we are meant to use reason in order to understand those laws. Far from having anything to fear from reason, the Church should see it as the most reliable way of arriving at the truth, including the truth of Christianity.

This philosophy only emerged progressively, but by 1100 it was completely accepted by the Church, and laid the foundation of scholasticism. From then on all thinkers at the cathedral schools and universities had to be highly formed logicians, and natural philosophy (that is to say science) became the second most prestigious field after theology. All the precepts of the scientific method were born out of this. The belief in a logical universe governed by rational laws. The belief that all the universe can be translated into the language of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly the concept of the scientific theory.

This came about most prominently in 1277, when the Church intervened directly into academia by banning the teaching of Aristotelian physics as indisputable fact at the University of Paris. Not only did this free up scientific thinking which had previously been shackled to academic dogma, and make it possible for people like Buridan and Oresme to reinvent physics and math (laying the foundation of modern science), but this and the general attitude of the Church towards science also forced scientists to be a lot more careful about making claims. Instead of claiming guesswork as absolute truth the way the Greeks did, they had to be much more humble and disciplined, and any claim had to be considered mere theory, that is to say one of several possibilities, which can be held as true in practice if it is supported by evidence, but which can never become dogma and can always be put back into question again based on new evidence. This is the key to the scientific method and to the perpetual cycle of questioning things again which made the scientific revolution possible.

Historians aren't "starting to", it's been avoided even in the main stream for quite a while now.

Heres a more accurate depiction of progress of civilization. As much as I hate to admit it, Rome died after 117 AD and thats it.
>Progress cannot be quantified so not really accurate at all

In other words, it WASNT CHRISTIANITY that killed civilization. This is coming from an atheist.

The romans had treadmill cranes iirc.

Israel is a world leader in fundamental scientific research as the percentage of Israelis engaged in scientific and technological inquiry, and the amount spent on research and development relative to its gross domestic product is one of the highest in the world.[1] Israel ranks fifth among the most innovative countries in the Bloomberg Innovation Index.[2][3] Israel ranks thirteenth in the world in scientific activity as measured by the number of scientific publications per million citizens.[4] It also has one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed.[5] In 2009, Israel's percentage of the total number of scientific articles published worldwide was almost 10 times higher than its percentage of the world's population.[6] The high technology industry has been successful due to Israel's disproportionately high number of engineers and scientists.[7] Israel has the highest number of scientists and technicians per capita in the world with 140 scientists and technicians per 10,000 employees.

>it's a "European Catholics think we're oh so enlightened" episode

>Inventing stuff?

You realize many inventions consist of minor improvements to an existing idea and can hardly be quantified discreetly?

>in the fourteenth century medieval thinkers began to notice that there was something seriously amiss with all aspects of Aristotle's natural philosophy
Wow, it only took them 90% of middle ages to start figuring out that 2000 years old ideology might not be perfect.

You're proving the point in OP's image.