There is a clear phase in our history which was long and no progress was made "Dark age". In that time religion already existed right?
So what was the speciality of christianity apparently bootstrapping everything else? You could only be religious if you had resources to do so. Could have been filled with something else instead.
Napoleon wrote somewere (i read that in a museum) that education is ncessary to fight religion.
We do not know if it hold us back or not, but it also didn't push us through phases like the dark age.
But religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible. Like paying 5 silver for raping a woman and having to take her as abride.
The allegedly lack of progress during the "Dark ages" is a narrative constructed later on, during the Illustration/Enlightenment era. Just to mention an example, alchemical research was verly prolific in that time, and it was the basis for what we now call chemistry and pharmacology.
Yes, it does feed a spiritual need but is's absolutely about control. The current US administration is guided by Project 2025 which wants God to govern (so to speak).
I spend a lot of time thinking about religion, and most of that is anger/fear over the religious zealots who want to control everybody else.
Historians are nowadays equivocal in saying that the "dark ages" is really a misnomer. It's the middle ages and it was more marred (in Europe) by several powers warring with each other than by any religious "darkening".
> But religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible. Like paying 5 silver for raping a woman and having to take her as abride.
well, now you're just revealing that you don't understand the religion of Christianity at all
I got indoctrinated by the christian church as a very young age.
This is control.
I only started to question this when I was 14 and i do remember that I had the empiphany that its okay that i might go to a hell. Then i questioned what hell would even be.
Christianity literaly controlled me through this garbage.
And its also the fault of Christian priests that apparently 'i don't understand the religion of christianity'.
Ah yes the 5 silver is a old testament thing, plenty of weird stuff in the new testament as well.
And lets not ignore the basic fact, that for Christians woman are second class citizen.
I just stoped accepting to be that ignorant and I prefer to see woman as equal, also homosexual people and co. The bishop of passau, btw. is not. He doesn't like the 'different'.
> There is a clear phase in our history which was long and no progress was made "Dark age".
The Dark Ages are kind of a myth. The Eastern Roman Empire (aka. Byzantine Empire) existed through the whole time period up to the beginning of the Renaissance. And while some parts of Western Europe were "dark" (mainly due to Viking and Islamic invasions), Western Europe wasn't and isn't the whole world.
The Dark Ages are dark, because they lack surviving written record; ironically due to advancements in writing technology, where people would begin writing on hides instead of papyrus or chisel stone; this made writing a lot faster, but also had a far shorter life span, particularly because people could wipe the hide clean (after the text was of no use), and then rewrite on it.
Conversely, a lot of the writings of the Antiquity are preserved, in large part due to Middle Eastern scholars. The Dark Ages aren't a myth, but rather what is meant by "dark" is misunderstood.
Your understanding of history, here and downthread, is fascinatingly selective, and, as far as the historical consensus goes, very mistaken.
The Dark Ages refer specifically to Western/Central Europe, so without Byzantium. Byzantium and the Islamic kingdoms were very much thriving, intellectually and culturally, in that period.
Equally, "parts of Europe" weren't dark because of "Vikings and Muslims": the reasons were multiple, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to infighting, to poverty, and to religion.
From your comments elsewhere however I understand you simply have a very caricatural view of Muslims and use them as a historical scapegoat.
The invention of the "dark ages" is really interesting, and afaik it was created in order to create a "this time it's different" sense of ahistoricity. Very similar to the "year zero" idea in communism, and even the current AI hype cycle.
What do you mean?
There is a clear phase in our history which was long and no progress was made "Dark age". In that time religion already existed right?
So what was the speciality of christianity apparently bootstrapping everything else? You could only be religious if you had resources to do so. Could have been filled with something else instead.
Napoleon wrote somewere (i read that in a museum) that education is ncessary to fight religion.
We do not know if it hold us back or not, but it also didn't push us through phases like the dark age.
But religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible. Like paying 5 silver for raping a woman and having to take her as abride.
The allegedly lack of progress during the "Dark ages" is a narrative constructed later on, during the Illustration/Enlightenment era. Just to mention an example, alchemical research was verly prolific in that time, and it was the basis for what we now call chemistry and pharmacology.
And agricultural practices which enabled the future flourishing of Europe.
> religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible.
thank God the world has moved past this kind of 2010s New Atheism.
Oh, the irony.
Yes, it does feed a spiritual need but is's absolutely about control. The current US administration is guided by Project 2025 which wants God to govern (so to speak).
I spend a lot of time thinking about religion, and most of that is anger/fear over the religious zealots who want to control everybody else.
9 replies →
Historians are nowadays equivocal in saying that the "dark ages" is really a misnomer. It's the middle ages and it was more marred (in Europe) by several powers warring with each other than by any religious "darkening".
> But religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible. Like paying 5 silver for raping a woman and having to take her as abride.
well, now you're just revealing that you don't understand the religion of Christianity at all
I got indoctrinated by the christian church as a very young age.
This is control.
I only started to question this when I was 14 and i do remember that I had the empiphany that its okay that i might go to a hell. Then i questioned what hell would even be.
Christianity literaly controlled me through this garbage.
And its also the fault of Christian priests that apparently 'i don't understand the religion of christianity'.
Ah yes the 5 silver is a old testament thing, plenty of weird stuff in the new testament as well.
And lets not ignore the basic fact, that for Christians woman are second class citizen.
I just stoped accepting to be that ignorant and I prefer to see woman as equal, also homosexual people and co. The bishop of passau, btw. is not. He doesn't like the 'different'.
Christians seek to control even non christians
> There is a clear phase in our history which was long and no progress was made "Dark age".
The Dark Ages are kind of a myth. The Eastern Roman Empire (aka. Byzantine Empire) existed through the whole time period up to the beginning of the Renaissance. And while some parts of Western Europe were "dark" (mainly due to Viking and Islamic invasions), Western Europe wasn't and isn't the whole world.
The Dark Ages are dark, because they lack surviving written record; ironically due to advancements in writing technology, where people would begin writing on hides instead of papyrus or chisel stone; this made writing a lot faster, but also had a far shorter life span, particularly because people could wipe the hide clean (after the text was of no use), and then rewrite on it.
Conversely, a lot of the writings of the Antiquity are preserved, in large part due to Middle Eastern scholars. The Dark Ages aren't a myth, but rather what is meant by "dark" is misunderstood.
1 reply →
Your understanding of history, here and downthread, is fascinatingly selective, and, as far as the historical consensus goes, very mistaken.
The Dark Ages refer specifically to Western/Central Europe, so without Byzantium. Byzantium and the Islamic kingdoms were very much thriving, intellectually and culturally, in that period.
Equally, "parts of Europe" weren't dark because of "Vikings and Muslims": the reasons were multiple, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to infighting, to poverty, and to religion.
From your comments elsewhere however I understand you simply have a very caricatural view of Muslims and use them as a historical scapegoat.
The invention of the "dark ages" is really interesting, and afaik it was created in order to create a "this time it's different" sense of ahistoricity. Very similar to the "year zero" idea in communism, and even the current AI hype cycle.