How the Greeks' abandonment of religion led to science and technology

974. Thales was the first person in the world to discard divine anthropomorphization (the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, such as loves and hatreds, a beard or a penis), and was therefore the father of advanced abstraction, which is to say of modern thought. Instead of saying, "Zeus moved the clouds", he said "The wind moved the clouds!", and thereby launched a brand-new field of human endeavor called "science"! So next time some practically illiterate subhuman asks "What has philosophy ever accomplished?", a good reply would be "Uhhh, I don't know, maybe created science?", and seen aright all of the greatest scientific breakthroughs were either made by philosophers themselves or at least predicted and foreshadowed by them far in advance of the actual discoveries. In either case, the philosophers have been the only ones to properly grapple with the issue of the interpretation of these discoveries, i.e. how they fit in the context of all the rest of them, as a complete system of thought, as a philosophy; while scientists' attempts in this endeavor (which is essentially the pinnacle of thought) have always been at best mediocre, mostly pathetic, most recently seen with their decades-long complete failure to make heads or tails of quantum theory (with their most dominant interpretation, the Copenhagen one, being little more than a cope and dodging of the issue).

Meanwhile, it's worth noting that the vast majority of world population still identifies as believing in some anthropomorphized god, i.e. they have still not caught up with Thales and his revolution in thinking from 2,500 years ago, and this is what it means to be retarded. Declared atheists remain a tiny percentage of world population, and what a surprise, they are overwhelmingly clustered in high-IQ countries in Europe (mostly the north) and East Asia (the US doesn't even figure in the top 20). When Europe was at its weakest, meanwhile, during the Dark Ages produced by the Christian disease, science came to a standstill, and a little later the Muslims arrived at the gates of Vienna and threatened to wipe civilization off the face of the earth. Only the mightiest expenditure of European blood prevented that eventuality, and that's why you can read these words now on your digital computer screen in the comfort of your heated or air-conditioned home instead of living in a cave or a tent as a cowering slave to an inbred low-IQ Arab. Afterwards science thankfully recovered, with technology following suit, and that's why civilization is no longer in danger of being destroyed from low-IQ subhumanity no matter how many hours a day they spend praying that it will be. And seen aright, all religious people are praying that civilization be destroyed, and in low-IQ countries their neverending stream of invective against civilization rises up from their wretched temples and fills the air like a thick smog, choking the breath out of any thinking people that happen to pass by, and chasing them out of the area, creating entire regions of the planet that are essentially uninhabited and uninhabitable by human beings!

And this is where genocide comes in.

http://orgyofthewill.net/
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
When Europe was at its weakest, meanwhile, during the Dark Ages produced by the Christian disease, science came to a standstill, and a little later the Muslims arrived at the gates of Vienna and threatened to wipe civilization off the face of the earth. Only the mightiest expenditure of European blood prevented that eventuality, and that's why you can read these words now on your digital computer screen in the comfort of your heated or air-conditioned home instead of living in a cave or a tent as a cowering slave to an inbred low-IQ Arab.
The Dark Ages were not Dark. That's a word godless, atheist Enlightenment thinkers, who wanted to amp up their shitty secular humanist theories, called it. Try Cathedral, Forge, and Waterwheel for an explanation of how science was indeed marching along in supposedly backward Europe, let alone the fact the Catholic Church supported and fostered scientific investigation. Insofar as the Dark Ages were produced, they were produced by the failure of the Roman Empire, which had entered a long period of corruption and decay in common with most secular, materialist empires whether they had religions or not prior to the rise of Christianity. Indeed for the first roughly three hundred years of its life - i.e. throughout the period of the Empire's decay and fall - Christianity was being regularly persecuted by the Romans, who used it as scapegoats much the way current SJWs tend to use men as the scapegoats for everything wrong with civilisation when in fact the problem is the SJW religion.

It's also amusing that the moron who built that website claims a "mighty expenditure of European blood" prevented the conquest of Vienna. At least he didn't get boring and say it was a mighty expenditure of Teutonic blood, though I suppose a lot of blond, blue-eyed folks probably died during it.

In fact it was a mighty expenditure of Christian blood that stopped the march of Islam, since the Ottomans had been backing anti-Catholic groups throughout the area; i.e. the attempted conquest was mainly if not primarily a religious war. And it was a Catholic Christian army, under Jan Sobieski out of Poland -- staunchly Catholic for a thousand years -- that rode in to save Vienna, the first time camelfuckers learned what it was like to face a massed charge of winged hussars. It was Christianity that preserved men's freedom at Vienna, not nationalism, not some sort of distasteful patriotism.
 
Paracelsus said:
The Dark Ages were not Dark.
They were. The accomplishments of that age were a drop in the bucket compared to the accomplishments of the Greeks and Romans before, and the Renaissance after. That's why we call it a Renaissance. The stupid books you recommend are looking for needles in haystacks. Sure, SOME THINGS were accomplished in the Dark Ages. No one is saying that NOTHING was accomplished. Some things were accomplished in China too, but VERY FEW, LITTLE THINGS COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS AND FOLLOWING ERAS.

And of course Christians died in the wars with the Muslims lol. All of Europe was Christian by that point because everyone had been brainwashed during the Dark Ages with the Jewish religion. But in the following era people started swearing off Christianity, and that is what we call the Enlightenment.
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
kini said:
Sure, SOME THINGS were accomplished in the Dark Ages. No one is saying that NOTHING was accomplished.
Well, actually, that's precisely what that stupid website is saying. The bit you authored/posted says "Science came to a standstill."

Get that godless bullshit out of here. Go play with the other YeahScience bros over on reddit, we practice real thinking here.
 
Meanwhile you have completely ignored the subject of this thread which is that without the Greeks' abandonment of religion there would be no science and technology at all.
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
kini said:
Meanwhile you have completely ignored the subject of this thread which is that without the Greeks' abandonment of religion there would be no science and technology at all.
What I've chosen to do is demonstrate that since the guy who wrote that website has a fundamental and idiotic belief of the course of history, his ravings about how history might have gone without Aristotle et. al. are just a little bit pointless to listen to.

He has that well in common with Nietzsche, whose work that website plagiarises. Like a lot of women with absent fathers, Nietzsche took a shitty, Protestant childhood and projected it onto the whole world around him. He was ably assisted in this by being - unlike thinkers such as Wittgenstein - an academic for his entire life, which doesn't rather predispose his writings towards having real world value. Amusingly, he was what we'd call an incel: went to brothels, he was rejected for marriage three times by the same woman. (Even more amusingly, the woman who kept knocking him back seems to have the radical feminist idea that all sex was rape.)

So yeah, I've addressed the subject.
 
You're making shit up, gossiping like a girl, and avoiding the subject entirely.

100% manosphere faggot behavior in other words.
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
kini said:
You're making shit up, gossiping like a girl, and avoiding the subject entirely.

100% manosphere faggot behavior in other words.
Nope, just questioning the source of your shitty ideas. This isn't gossip, this is just saying that if your philosopher of choice had a mental breakdown and was institutionalised, one might want to query the quality of his works written ahead of being committed to the mental asylum. I particularly liked when he commanded the German emperor to go to Rome to be shot and summoned the European powers to take military action against Germany, that the pope should be put in jail and that he, Nietzsche, created the world and was in the process of having all anti-Semites shot dead. Nietzsche is called a lot of things, but never a historian, which is ironic if not dangerous since most of his chicken scratchings rest on a very warped concept of the previous eighteen hundred years of history.
 

Sherman

Ostrich
Doesn’t the Bible clearly state not to feed the trolls?

“But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer”. 2 Timothy 2: 16-17. NKJV

That’s exactly what happened. The thread was multiplying like a cancer.
 

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
People usually point to the Middle Ages as a theocracy but in Greek and Roman times religion was actually way more intertangled with society: there wasn't the same secular/spiritual divide that you saw later on. In fact, if I remember correctly the word "secular" didn't even actually exist until after Christianity came on the scene.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Easy_C said:
Holy crap we're getting a lot of anti-christianity trolls here lately. Wonder why.
That movement is well-funded and organized with groups like the CFI, they're very present in blue state metropoles and industries like tech and NGOs. I see and argue with a lot of them IRL.
 

Samseau

Owl
Gold Member
The easiest way to refute the "Dark Ages" myth is to point out that without Christianity, 95% of Roman and Greek knowledge would be lost. Very easy to prove, the Byzantine empire was literally a Christian preservation of the Roman empire. The pagan Romans had horrible civil wars that basically destroyed everything they had, they even burned down their own library of Alexandria (which is why our history does not go further back than what Christians have preserved).

A prime example of the HUGE amounts of lost knowledge from the Roman times is Plato's mention of the city of Atlantis. Atlantis was a real city, somewhere in the past, a highly advanced one who met a terrible fate, and that fate was recorded somewhere in the library of Alexandria. That was all burned to the ground around 380 AD, along with the rest of the degenerate Roman world. Christianity rose from those ashes, and is the only reason we have any knowledge of the past whatsoever.

The best argument for Christianity is history itself: Humans murder each other with such frequence and savagery that we only know history in terms of Christ-years. 0 AD is when history starts, and today, 2020 years after his birth, is just another day since then. Humanity has existed for at least a million years before Christ, so where is the history of this time? All gone, lost under wars of greed, lust, and base selfishness that is the pit of human nature.

Until Christ came and tamed our ugly souls, humans were perpetually destroying each other and preventing any kind of progress from occurring. Thus, the "Dark Ages" were actually the time when the house of man was built on a rock, and foundations for thousands of years of progress were planted.

Personally, I think we need another "Dark Ages" real soon, because it seems we've forgotten all the lessons taught to us by God thousands of years ago.
 
Revilo P. Oliver, a renowned Classicist and university professor with 30 years of experience, defines Greek religiosity like this:

In the Greek mind four distinct concepts took the place of what we regard as theology:
1) religion as a work of art, ie. the legitimate exercise of poetic fancy which produced the literary mythology;
2) religion as speculation by the human reason about natural phenomena - a concept already present in Homer, for which see R.K. Hack, The Concept of God in Greek Philosophy to the Time of Socrates;
3) religion as civic rites which affirmed participation in acommon polity but not a common faith; and
4) religion as an irrational emotional experience, particularly for those who chose to be initiated into one or another of the mysteries.
The four apparently diverse concepts were united by an underlying piety which is well described in Thaddeus Zielinski's Religion of Ancient Greece, and which developed historically in the way described in Gilbert Murray's Five Stases of Greek Religion.
It's easy to figure out that the Greek concept of religion was different than the Western concept of Christianity in the Middle Ages.

The "Dark Ages" thing comes primarily from the objective fact that the downfall of Roman Empire brough the decline of civilization, contributed to the loss of knowledge (architecture, art, weapons, siege engines, nautical technology, literature). It was correctly pointed out that Christian monks preserved a lot of ancient sources that would've been irretrievably lost, for example, under Islam (looking how the Library of Alexandria was destroyed and turned into a mosque) - yet, if the ancient order was preserved, I conjecture that a lot more sources would've been available to us. It's correct that a lot of modern scholars have an agenda in denigrating the times past, which is shown in unwarranted criticism of Christianity (the crusades being the most common example) but also of Ancient polities (for example, the widely-propagated myth of Greek and Roman acceptance of homosexuality is complete and utter bunk, visible to anyone knowledgeable with the works of philosophers, like Plato, and also laws, like in Athens that stripped citizenship of anyone participating in homosexual relationships, shown in "Against Timarchus", or like Roman law of Lex Scantinia). Medieval times have split the previously united world into petty fiefs where the power was concentrated in the hands of local strongmen with more or less valid heritage, with their own arbitrary laws and customs.

But, to be completely objective, one has to remember that Christianity also has its own bias and agendas and the whole issue of Roman persecution of Christianity is, although present, blown out of proportion. I don't want to get into this subject not to risk another warning, but it's important to remember that early Christianity was in no way united and centralized force - there were sects that practiced nudism (Adamites), prostitution (Simonians), quasi-communism (Carpocratians), or snake-worship (Ophites); sects like Ebionites or Nazarenes that were completely dominated by Judaic mindset, or Marcionites that were actively persecuted by what became the "mainstream", all of which fought for influence and domination between each other and the pagans. Christianity was, originally, a doctrine alien to the Western thinking, and its early theologians borrowed a lot from other religions, like Zoroastrian theodicy (conflict of ultimate good and evil), the Providence (animus mundi) from Stoic philosophy (which was the original source of Monotheism), the date of birth of Jesus was originally Mithra's, etc. Only during the Middle Ages, the Christian cult has developed the noble traits that always were inherent in Western spirit - bravery, courage, diligence, loyalty, civility, truthfulness - and praised in chansons de geste. Also it's important to remember that the American constitution was built on political philosophy and values borrowed directly from the Classics - to say that before Christ there was only chaos and no "progress" is completely absurd, as our laws and customs are based inherently in Greco-Roman world. We cannot say that it was a Pagan world, because, as I have said, their view on religion was completely different from ours, yet, their way of thought, their Western mentality, was exactly the same.

It's not my intention to attack Christianity; it's without a doubt that an established, well-defined religion is paramount in forcing the general population to subscribe to these aforementioned traits without devolving into chaos. Ancients have managed to do it through sheer civic discipline and education. The religion is actually a valuable addition, even if it comes from - in my opinion - poisonous roots. Lots of genius scientists, like Werner Heisenberg, followed it. The problem with modern Christianity is a different one, it's that its nature is being corrupted once again by various hucksters that allow Christianity to be mixed with indigenous cults and proclaim that Christianity is equal in merit with other faiths (oecumenism). It's important to remember that the civilization isn't self-perpetuating, and that the belief in Christian religion doesn't equal being civilized. There's a lot of nominally Christian cults in Africa and South America that have absolutely no connection with Western thought and civilization. OP, if he was more patient and less provocative, might have conveyed this message without lashing out (which is what I believe was initial intention). Low IQ foreigners don't become Westerners by sprinkling them with holy water and memorizing prayers.
 

Easy_C

Crow
Samseau said:
The easiest way to refute the "Dark Ages" myth is to point out that without Christianity, 95% of Roman and Greek knowledge would be lost. Very easy to prove, the Byzantine empire was literally a Christian preservation of the Roman empire. The pagan Romans had horrible civil wars that basically destroyed everything they had, they even burned down their own library of Alexandria (which is why our history does not go further back than what Christians have preserved).
Semantic point but important one for other reason: There's a significant amount of cumiform tablets that survived and were translated.
 

bucky

Pelican
kini said:
Meanwhile you have completely ignored the subject of this thread which is that without the Greeks' abandonment of religion there would be no science and technology at all.
Imagine hating Christianity this much, to the point that you lose sleep at night over it and join this forum to post drivel like this, knowing you'll be banned immediately.

I feel bad for people like this. I find that their hatred often comes from unfortunate interactions with bad Christians early in life.
 

Eusebius

Hummingbird
Gold Member
The burning of the library of Alexandria as some sort of cataclysmic loss of ancient knowledge is nonsense. The library declined over centuries, there were a number of fires and untoward events, but the lesson is not one of a single event which caused loss of the ancient world's knowledge. Much less loss of "the secrets of Atlantis". Read some real history books instead of watching the history Channel or whatever vectors spread these junk ancient history quasi-facts.
 
Your reading comprehension is failing, I've used the destruction of library of Alexandria as an example of islamic attitudes towards the Ancients and sources of knowledge that aren't religiously mandated, as opposed to the Christian scholars actively preserving the knowledge.
 
Top