Hmm

>One can only being doing one or the other

I like how africa is still africa in both slides.

heh

I'm going by a new rule for myself. Anything remotely related to Pisslam and their poopy Muhmmad piss be upon him that gets posted on here. I'm going to express my hate for Pisslam and the Muslim scum. Fuck Islam. I don't care about Islam or what it represents. They have no culture and I am proud not to care about their shitty religion. I'm proud to hate Islam and not know about it because I don't want to know about Pisslam and their followers. They follow the Korean which says kill all the infidels. So if there is a Islam thread on here, expect me to give my 2 cents on Pisslam. Fuck Islam. I hate Islam and all muslims. All muslims are terrorists. "Oh but it's the holiday season." Fuck Christmas. It's a cuck holiday to begin with. Peace on earth faggots? Well try saying that to the Muslims.

...

THIS

WOAH IMMA CONVERT RIGHT NOW

wtf i hate atheism now

We've always done both.

Behold: the warning signs of schizophrenia

That infograph barely scratches the surface
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientists

>Muslims were always doing religion. Islam by its nature is theocratic, and the concept of "secularism" is unable to exist within an Islamic framework, since Islam is inherently totalizing and political
Every sentence here is wrong.

An Islamic religion, that is its dogmas and practices, were not even fully formed for several decades if not centuries after Muhammad. And for a religion that was supposedly theocratic, there were very few if any theocracies in this period, with the only ones at all approaching actual theocracies like European Bishoprics being minor heresies and rebellions. 'Secularism' doesn't exist in an Islamic framework because that framework didn't have a place for sacred politics, leading to ironies of self-professed religious rulers who contravened Islamic morals and ethics and irreligious rulers who patronized religious courts.

Funny you should mention that, there's an anecdote by Usama ibn Munqidh where he meets Latin monks in the Crusader States and despairs that he doesn't know any Muslims who are even half as devout, but feels a little better after meeting some Sufis.

This must be from reddit

Implying you had any choice but being """catholic""" to survive as a scientist back then...

>"secularism" is unable to exist within an Islamic framework

That's a common mistake when coming from a background involving the nation-state and separation of church and state. Islam did have a concept of secularism, but it revolved around the separation of religious law and state.

The adoption of the nation-state in the Middle East fucked this up, since what used to be a polylegal and multiethnic system was replaced with the concepts of a supreme law and an ethnic-state.

>doing science
real life isn't a civ game

Noyce, good shares.

>Greek pagan named Hero look at steam
>"hmmm I can make an engine out of this"
>proceeds to make spinny ball

>Christians look at steam
>"hmm I can make an engine out of this"
>industrial revolution

>atheists look at steam
>"I don't feel like bathing this week"
>smelly

Rather than Busy with Religion/Doing Science divide, it was a matter of one side's middle and upper classes chasing profits from decentralized corruption and expansion of personal political power while the other looked to centralized bureaucracies and expanding personal fame from arts and academia.

The bulk of rich urbanites and minor nobles in Europe during the Middle Ages either expanded their fiefs or joined the Church to expand their legal privilege. Meanwhile their peers in the Middle East flocked to courts and schools to leverage their fame and education for prestigious jobs. The opposite is now true, with Middle Easterners squabbling within governments or radical movements for personal political power while Europeans are pursuing training and education for status and wealth outside of politics.

You sure as hell did not have to spend your life becoming a priest or a monk to do science and be an accepted member of a society.

>expecting a normie facebook meme argument to actually represent anything accurately

>christians
>literally burn everyone and everything that shows a sign of progress
>industrial revolution

>literally burn everyone and everything that shows a sign of progress

.t average liberal textbook reader, saw Monty Python once

The picture doesn't specify a religious divide. It's clearly a geographical one.

>entire region inhabited by caucasoids

What did they mean by this?

...

Fedora xD haha u wear meme hat xDDD

Geographic, not ethnic

Power of Cossacks right here

Racial, actually.

What's more funny than Monthy Python is that the Dark Age coincide with the hegemony of christianity over Europe, funny times when literacy was forbidden and reserved to the clergy. Really can't stop laughing...

>funny times when literacy was forbidden
So when Orthodox Christians had a special position called "reader" specifically designed to teach people to read, that was funny? When the RCC kept Latin relevant and taught it's educated men, that was funny? Well that's some kind of humor, but what's odd is you think because it was read in Latin that it was designed to oppress people. I swear, you leftfags are brainlets supreme.

>complain about le ebin fedora atheists
>act in a fedora-tier way

That's a funny looking district of ukraine

>get annoyed you're a fedora
>call your enemy a fedora

You sure showed me.

You are not enemy and it's just about hypocrisy.
If you complain about many atheists being smartass saying religious people are all stupid then it's hypocritical to say that religious people are the true smort peopl and fedorags are dumb and smellyXD

What don't you understand in "Dark age"?

That makes it even less correct, though.

>doesn't know anything about medieval history, the Christian church, or anything other than a misrepresented version of RCC
>thinks he knows about the dark ages

user, what if I said everything you know about enlightenment and the dark ages is constructed with a purpose. Kind of like how when Roman authors talk about foreign leaders they're taken seriously, but when those same Roman historians talk about British kings around the time of the conquest or especially before the Anglo-Saxons they're referred to as "myths". I won't deny that innovation on the whole during the period was not as good as the time period of Rome during it's time time, or what happened after the industrial revolution, but it's European Christian men who created the industrial revolution and brought the world together,and the beginnings of that period were in what you insist are the dark ages.

>. I won't deny that innovation on the whole during the period was not as good as the time period of Rome during it's time time, or what happened after the industrial revolution
Not him but even today most scientists and innovators are christian simply because...most people are still christians.
That doesn't mean the religion itself is somehow responsible for the achievements of all christians or that their religion is valided by what christians do.

I N

S P I T E
P
I
T
E

Your post is fair and even handed. Take this humble (you) in peace.

Pic related