>I always just thought it was something for children to do. Keep em busy. Tell em stories while they tying sticks together.
>CLOSEUP OF CROSS MADE OF TWO STICKS TIED TOGETHER
you can't be fukking serious... there are people who literally think fukunaga was responsible for true detective being good? give me a break
Other urls found in this thread:
Shut the fuck up Pizza s2 was trash
based religitards btfo
Rust is just like me!
that's true though
admit this camera work in question is hack trash
>but muh tracking shot
wankery that doesn't actually improve scenes
technically everything we experience rewrites pathways in the brain. religion probably sharpened them hundreds of years ago
>technically everything we experience rewrites pathways in the brain.
There's no reason to believe religion does that in a positive way. It actively shuns asking questions.
Thats actually atheism.
> Universe is causal
> Matter is contingent
> ....
> The universe and space was made in and of itself
At least religious people are honest about what is miraculous.
i specified hundreds of years ago. monks in monasteries were smarter than average folk
>implying atheists claim to know how the universe came in to being
nice strawman, kiddo
Claiming that you know that you don't know is a type of knowing.
that's easy, it was john cena's doing
They sure seem to tell other other people how it couldnt be anything outside the bounds of their logic.
They could read and all that meditation/prayer made their minds clearer. That's about it. If they used their energy on critical thinking instead of praying all day they would have been much more useful.
Catholic scientists, both religious and lay, have led scientific discovery in many fields.[4] From ancient times, Christian emphasis on practical charity gave rise to the development of systematic nursing and hospitals and the Church remains the single greatest private provider of medical care and research facilities in the world.[5] Following the Fall of Rome, monasteries and convents remained bastions of scholarship in Western Europe and clergymen were the leading scholars of the age - studying nature, mathematics and the motion of the stars (largely for religious purposes).[6] During the Middle Ages, the Church founded Europe's first universities, producing scholars like Robert Grosseteste, Albert the Great, Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas, who helped establish scientific method.[7] During this period, the Church was also a great patron of engineering for the construction of elaborate cathedrals. Since the Renaissance, Catholic scientists have been credited as fathers of a diverse range of scientific fields: Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) prefigured the theory of evolution with Lamarckism; Friar Gregor Mendel (1822–84) pioneered genetics and Fr Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966) proposed the Big Bang cosmological model.[8] The Jesuits have been particularly active, notably in astronomy. Church patronage of sciences continues through elite institutions like the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Vatican Observatory.
tbqh if it weren't tracking rust it would be a better scene
>see the niggers outside chimping out
>see the three way shootout between niggers, crackers, and cops
You don't know anything about Atheism, do you? You just listened to what other Christians think of Atheists say, didn't you?
Yeah, because knowledge brings you satisfaction.
Religious people seek wisdom; something atheists will never understand.
pure semantic wankery
strawman
No shit they lead the way because everyone was fucking Christian in Europe. Great argument buddy.
>semantic wankery
Not really, it's just logic. You're making an epistemological claim.
Half of the people mentioned are priests. A priest thought up the big bang theory. Doesn't sound like they were laying around doing nothing.
strawman is the fedora of atheists.
>because knowledge brings you satisfaction
>something atheists will never understand
If you're going to talk about Atheists like you know them, you probably shouldn't.
>There's no reason to believe religion does that in a negative way. It actively promotes asking questions.
FTFY
You're opinion is not fact despite how you FEEL about it.
Great argument buddy, you flip flop from one thing- are proven wrong- and then flip flop to something else.
That scene actually made me cringe, i could hear the sound of millions of fedoras tipping at once
proposing a hypothesis isn't actually a scientific contribution
You have your false opinion, and this nonsensical post shows that nothing I say will change it.
>theoretical physics is useless because induction is just creating hypotheses
Are you a fucking retard?
Mad bcuz butthurt
>proposing a hypothesis isn't actually a scientific contribution
>HURRRRRRRRRRR
Phahahaha wow look at this fucking retard. Did you forget to take your retard pills today?
>PROPOSING HYPOTHESIS AND THEORIES ARE NOT SCIENCE GUISSSSSSSSE
Yes, I know that I don't know. You've proven that I am a conscious human being. What's your point again?
>Not really, it's just logic. You're making an epistemological claim.
But how many more people would have been doing shit if they were basing their culture around Socrates or Archimedes instead of some dunecoon stories?
Nothing you said proved what I said wrong. You just didn't understand my points because you're mentally challenged.
You two seem to know them.
How can i find out what atheists are like if they dont reply with anything other than strawman and 'you dont understand atheism'?
Its just a way of avoiding a question.
>pizza kept rust & marty literary rights
>could write td novels after he loses hbo job
>pizza said he would be open to making a sequel/prequel to s1 if matt or woody were up for it
>matt says he wants to play rust again
more true detective fucking when robert downy jr let pizza out of your sex dungeon
>rust during his undercover stint
>optimist rust & marty going after the men in the tape and tuttles
>literally just police procedural case of the week shit between the main case & rust quitting
>But how many more people would have been doing shit if they were basing their culture around Socrates or Archimedes instead of some dunecoon stories?
Plenty of Christians philosophers and theologians studied both Plato and Socrates. Also, Plato and Socrates had "dunecoon stories" of their own.
>But how many more people would have been doing shit if they were basing their culture around Socrates or Archimedes instead of some dunecoon stories?
>Acquinas didn't base his entire metaphyiscal foundations on Aristotle
Nothing you said proves what I said wrong either and there's more contributions to science and society coming from Christians and the Church than atheists. That's a measurable FACT.
Ladies and Gentlemen, behold the intelligent being that is the atheist, so superior in knowledge that we can't even fathom his nonsensical points.
The problem with atheists is that any other belief system can get into the mind of their opponent in order to gauge their argument and respond. Atheists lack empathy and therefore can only condescend and insult. Everything must fall into the narrow confines of their logic.
In other words; autism.
What? Religion is the death of curiosity, it answers questions in an uncritical way and tells people not to challenge orthodoxy
... it is
The other guy's trying to argue that all Christians are dumb, and you're trying to argue that Atheists are dumb. In short, you're both being dumb
>That's a measurable FACT
Kek. Sure, don't bother with a source, user
>you can't explain how matter came to exist in the first place
>therefore you have no option but to accept that my God is real, while also rejecting all the other religions' slightly different creation stories
Religious apologetics in a nutshell
Atheism is the lack of belief in illogical things, its basing your beliefs in scientific inquiry and observation, and admitting you don't know things where not enough evidence has been found yet rather than saying a magic space man did them
>What? Religion is the death of curiosity, it answers questions in an uncritical way and tells people not to challenge orthodoxy
Clearly you have a limited world view on the matter and are making sweeping generalizations based on your limited and probably very local personal experiences.
thread is a false flag to incite holy war between godcucks and spaghetticucks
>but they studied the Greeks
Sure they did, but mostly in the realm of philosophy and only to further their own theological studies. They still considered the Bible to be above all of them.
>and there's more contributions to science and society coming from Christians and the Church than atheists. That's a measurable FACT.
I never claimed otherwise you retarded cunt. Try to keep up. I said history would look very different if we started doing this whole scientific method thing from the start.
>into the narrow confines of their logic.
You mean logic.
Now you're presuming to know the mind of every Christian philosopher and scientist. Just fuck off
So you don't believe in the theory of evolution, WHAT AN ENLIGHTENED ATHEISTTTT
>its basing your beliefs in scientific inquiry and observation
The original defintion of atheism only regards a lack of belief in God. You added the science bit to make yourself feel special and above others.
Care to actually offer a substantiated argument rather than just attacking me personally?
>implying accepting the epistemological premise of the scientific method isn't a form of belief in itself
You understand that science is inherently not "logical", relying on inference and not deduction
i accept all slightly different creation stories. multiverse. telic recursion. check mate
>probably aliens out there
>NO such thing as magic space men
>So you don't believe in the theory of evolution
What? How did you possibly draw that from my post?
>implying everything Rust said was supposed to be taken 100 % literally
>implying Rust was a direct mouth for either Pizza or Fukunagga
>I said history would look very different if we started doing this whole scientific method thing from the start.
Atheist were too fucking retarded to come up with it so they needed the enlightened Christians to discover the Scientific Method.
It's your fault for being so stupid.
Your argument holds no water when you look at all of the scientific and philosophical advancements brought on by Christian figures.
>Sure they did, but mostly in the realm of philosophy and only to further their own theological studies
Why did Aquinas study metaphysics when it has nothing to do with the bible?
> I said history would look very different if we started doing this whole scientific method thing from the start.
Well that was only fleshed out by Francis Bacon, and he was Christian, so how can you prove the discovery of the scientific method was possible without religion
it was the old black guy from the wire quoted, not rust
fukunigger literally aimed the camera at that cross when he said that
Atheism is lack of belief in religion and mythology, not simply the christian god
I suppose you would also technically be an atheist if you didn't believe in anything at all, but I don't really know how that would work, in a practical setting you either believes in the myths you are told, or you believe only that which evidence supports (which is what science is)
No, thats not true at all. You are just making shit up now. Science is the application of logic to the observable universe
Do you believe that there are multiple genders?
Everyone else already did by pointing out the contributions of Christians and Christian institutions to science and their ongoing contrcontributions to this day.
Yet you make sweeping generalizations about how religion forces the mindset of not asking questions and not furthering knowledge. You're wrong, and it's not an attack on your character to call you a retard. You are infact a retard.
tfw we deserve a better world
No one was allowed to be an atheist because retards like you would kill them.
If you're using that logic nothing the Greeks wrote had anything to do with the bible specifically. But of course metaphysics can be used when contemplating biblical notions of Creation and being.
FEDORA TIPPERS ETERNALLY BTFO
wow another thread on Cred Forums about religion and science.
will this one be any different from the other hundreds of threads like it this month alone?
no
Science can never answer why things are the way they are.
Science is in the business of 'how'.
The problem is that atheists think both are the same thing.
yeah, two
You cannot logically deduce anything via sense-experience, you can only deduce things from axioms. You need induction to form scientific premises, which is not formal logic
...
Oh my fucking god. There's not way to "prove" it without creating an alternate universe.
Your argument is basically that only a Christian could have come up with the scientific method, because a Christian came up with it. Do you have any idea how fucking retarded you sound.
Not that saying there are "probably aliens" is not the same thing as saying "there is a god"
The fact that life exists on earth, and evolved very early on in the planet's history suggests that life isn't that tough to evolve on a wet rocky body in space, of which there are many billion in existence, strongly suggests there is other life in the universe. saying there are probably forms of life on other celestial bodies is a very logic statement that is supported by evidence unlike the claim that there is definitely a fucking god in space and a devil in the middle of the earth because some children's fairy tale book some middleeasterners wrote a long time ago says so
Except Aquinas wrote about things that were explicitly unrelated to the bible, so how do you explain all philosophical inquiry done by all Christian philosophers as relating only to their theological inquiries?
I mean fuck, this is such an easily disproven argument that it's hardly worth going over
>No one was allowed to be an atheist
Open a book once in a while instead of getting all your "knowledge" from posters on reddit
aquinas about to come up in this bitch and btfo you all
>Your argument is basically that only a Christian could have come up with the scientific method
I never said this, I said that the scientific method only came about because of Christian philosophical canon
You say it would've been better if society began with the scientific method, I'm saying that you can't know if it was possible to form the scientific method without christianity, so you're whining about nothing.
Well thats just framing and story telling man. The guy is saying something and it's backed up by what is shown on screen. I guess it should have been disconnected and while Lester Freamon made that quote, Fukunigga should have been slowly panning out the window over a cane field or something.
Because you know organized religion is fucking dogshit and Christ even warns against the evils of organized religion in the Bible.
>No one was allowed to be an atheist because retards like you would kill them.
When and where are you referring to?
You get the world you deserve, Ray. Some times your best self is your worst self.
>No one was allowed to be an atheist because retards like you would kill them.
With or without religion, this would never have happened.
Just because some christian made some discovery once does not suggest Christianity was a net benefit for the rate at which discovery was made in European civilization. For most of the medieval period the muslim world was making way the fuck more discovery than the christian world, and China too.
It wasn't until the enlightenment when the power of the church diminished significantly that Europe started jumping ahead in the realm of science and technology to become the dominant force in the world. Meanwhile the Muslim's world's move to the opposite direction, the very direction for which you advocate was its undoing, and China moved toward strict communism (much later on) which is basically its own form of religion fucking all of them over
he isn't talking about christianity/crosses. he's talking about the dumb stick art the serial killer makes
showing that cross at the same time is just fukunaga being a cheeky cunt making his "hot take"
>literally admitting it's a delusion while arguing that it's a necessary one
feel free to have as many coping mechanisms as you'd like
...
>I'm saying that you can't know if it was possible to form the scientific method without christianity, so you're whining about nothing.
There's literally no reason to believe otherwise. Archimedes had no problem doing shit very close to the scientific method without any Christianity.
I'm not much into studying soft sciences, they aren't really science at all
Well your argument is unknowable so you're basing this on conjecture
I thought you were an atheist?
Stan had a heart of solid gold. Caspere knew this
dude, just because a christian guy did something doesn't mean he did it because of Christianity. n the vast majority of cases it was in direct opposition to the will of the church
You're unable to present a single reason why Christianity is required for the scientific method. The burden of proof is on you. Otherwise you have to admit my logic is sound.
>in the vast majority of cases it was in direct opposition to the will of the church
Oh I'm gonna need a source for this one please
>Christians did fucking nothing!
>Well, they did t, u, v, w, x, y, and z
>Well, someone else could have done t, u, v, w, x, y, and z!
But they fucking didn't. The Romans didn't, the Greeks didn't, the Africans didn't and the Chinese didn't. Christians did.
>Religion is the death of curiosity
>For most of the medieval period the muslim world was making way the fuck more discovery than the christian world, and China too.
The fact that the Muslim world was a leader in scientific advances for a period in history is just another point against your idea that religion discourages curiosity. Well done, lad.
>You cannot logically deduce anything via sense-experience
Thats just a bullshit claim.
I don't even know how to respond, you are just saying a bunch of words trying to sound fancy that do not actually mean anything
I'm saying the development of the scientific method was based on Christian philosophical canon, and you don't know whether it would have risen without it
I'm not saying it couldn't have I'm saying you can't prove it would have.
where's the cough syrup, qualudes, and jameson?
>you are just saying a bunch of words trying to sound fancy that do not actually mean anything
No, they're pretty basic terms. Sorry you're too busy polishing your fedora collection that you never bothered to read some basic philosophy.
It's a fact that science is not based on logic. If you think it is then you don't understand what logic is.
>you are just saying a bunch of words trying to sound fancy
Ladies and gentlemen, atheists.
Look at all scientific inquiry ever between the fall of Rome and the industrial revolution
The church was always on the "guys, Jesus did this, don't suggest anything contrary under any circumstances", only changing their stance on any issue once the evidence became so strong and well known that even commoners took it for granted. Note the church still literally believes that the communion literally transmogrifies to the body and blood of Jesus during mass
Meh, whatever, as someone who was raised Methodist I'm more offended at the moronic stupidity hurled around this thread than I was by any one scene in True Detective.
Organized religion is a tool to control the masses.
Not really, the muslim was secularly run during that period. Once it devolved into theocracy everything went to shit
Your point? Are you saying this is the best possible universe? Kill yourself.
No, it cannot ever be "proven" because it would require constructing a completely new universe. Congratulations on pointing out the obvious. But it can be argued, through logic and reason. Ever heard of them?
>It's a fact that science is not based on logic
This is certainly not a fact, you are gonna need to support that claim quite a bit to pass something so ridiculous
The point is that Christianity, aka religion, wasn't and isn't this opposition to science or knowledge like how it is being claimed.
Being an atheist only means you don't believe in God.
Right, so religion isn't the death of curiosity, ideological totalitarianism is.
well most of the time the chinese did, we just don't give a fuck about eastern history
I want you to describe what you think "logic" is, because you clearly are very confused about it.
>wasn't and isn't this opposition to science or knowledge like how it is being claimed.
But it very much fucking was. Just look at the incredibly slow rate of scientific advancement between the fall of Rome and the modern era, and then how fucking quickly it began advancing once the west secularized
>But it can be argued, through logic and reason
How can you use logic and reason to support the premise that the emergence of the scientific method was possible in an atheistic world?
At least I accept that that's wholly unknowable.
You're starting to sound like a christfag now.
He's being retarded. Move along.
Did it trigger you hard?
Your 'devastating' point against Christians is that they didn't create literally the best possible universe ever? You must be fucking retarded.
>ideological totalitarianism is.
thats what religion is. Religion is saying you believe something because tradition and not being open to describing the world with evidence base inquiry if it contradicts your religion's chosen dogma
>The church was always on the "guys, Jesus did this, don't suggest anything contrary under any circumstances",
This is patently false, stop basing your worldview on Cred Forums memes.
>note the church still literally believes that the communion literally transmogrifies to the body and blood of Jesus during mass
You fucking idiot, the substance of the blood change, not the accidents.
Logical thinking is basing your knowledge of how the universe works on observation and reproducible experimentation. Its not believing something just for the sake of belief in the face of the available evidence
Religion is not inherently ideological totalitarianism. Again, I refer to the many examples of Religious figures that contribute to the advancement of science and philosophy mentioned in this thread as evidence.
What the fuck do YOU think logic is, Aristotelian categories? You know philosophical skepticism is not a belief system in itself, but a thought experiment about falsifiability, right? That's why science requires that other people can replicate your experimental results. Your individual sense-perception might not be "accurate" but when you have a thousand people do the same rigorous experiment and get the same results thats pretty fucking logically rigorous you goddamn dipshit
>Logical thinking is basing your knowledge of how the universe works on observation and reproducible experimentation
Uh, no, that's inductive reasoning. You know fuck all you moron.
I was going to say I can't believe how retarded you are but I can believe it.
I'm sure the collapse of society, the move to feudal lords and lack of education for the masses had nothing to do with the lack of progress. Nope, RELIGION IT WAS RELIGION.
>The Romans didn't, the Greeks didn't, the Africans didn't and the Chinese didn't
What are you talking about, senpai? All those civs did a fuckton of shit.
Shit, almost everything we have is based on everything they did.
>logically rigorous
This doesn't mean anything, something's either logical or not, there's not grey area.
And religion is based on logic? O I am laffin. I mean you can make the case that all sensory experience is subjective and that there's no way to prove an objective reality, therefore render the whole argument for or against God impossible. But don't try to pull a Gödel.
>And religion is based on logic?
I don't remember saying that?
>the move to feudal lords and lack of education for the masses
This was very clearly caused and supported by the church. The church had no fucking interest in commoners gaining the ability to read and write, and the church was instrumental in giving feudal lords the legitimacy to rule
>How can you use logic and reason to support the premise that the emergence of the scientific method was possible in an atheistic world?
Because nothing about atheism clashes with the scientific method?
>At least I accept that that's wholly unknowable.
It's "unknowable" in the sense that it's "unknowable" whether peasant #1 killing peasants #2 in 2000 BC China had anything to do with Napoleon's rise to power is "unknowable". But there's no reason to believe there is.
The point is the world could be better if the scientific method was started earlier, and religion is the enemy of the scientific method.
If you had actually studied formal logic you would know that something can be logically consistent without being factually correct.
Moving the goal posts buddy, so what super specific definition of logic are you choose for the sake of this thread?
>Because nothing about atheism clashes with the scientific method?
When exactly do you use the scientific method to prove an unfalsifiable claim?
>And religion is based on logic?
PRETTY sure he never said that. Nice try though.
Inductive reasoning is logic
That's logical consistency, not "logical rigorousness"
Logic is not a natural thought system for people. The human brain has strong, often overpowering, biases for magical/irrational thought.
So repeated experimentation is often the only way to maintain logic.
Induction.
Not in the least.
>maintain logic
What does this even mean?
You are using technical niche descriptions of the terms while the rest of us are using standard english
You are just trying to create a silly semantic argument by using worlds differently than everyone else
>This was very clearly caused... By the Church
Yeah I'm sure those barbarians, foreign invaders, and unstable leadership coupled with ill fated political manouvering had nothing to do with it.
RELIGION RELIGION IT WAS THE CHURCH THE CHURCH DID IT
>it's a philosophers think they should have a say in scientific matters
Name 3 things philosophers have contributed to society in the last 100 years.
Their methods are literally avademic wankery with no use in the real world whatsoever.
So how is that not a "grey area?" A proposition can be consistent, but not valid, or not consistent and not valid, or consistent and valid.
The fuck? I didn't say the scientific method should be used on matters of philosophy.
>You are using technical niche descriptions of the terms while the rest of us are using standard english
But I thought atheists were super clued up and intelligent? Surely you'd understand these very, very basic philosophical terms, especially if you got into an argument about the history and philosophy of science?
>You are just trying to create a silly semantic argument by using worlds differently than everyone else
Well seeing as you say that you don't understand what the words mean, how can you prove that I'm wrong
And yes, it is semantic, because it's about words, and words matter.
God damn atheists are stupid.
>Name 3 things philosophers have contributed to society in the last 100 years.
Just War Theory
Biomedical Ethics
Neoliberal economics
The barbarians were not feudal, nor were they christain at first. Feudalism arose as they converted to christianity and adopted more roman ways
Also, you are conflating a bunch of stuff there. The dark ages were not caused by the fall of Rome, they were directly caused by the rise of Christianity as a political force
DA FUCXKK
Try reading and understanding where you went wrong, you keep "implying" things and making what people say to be completely different in whatever mental gymnastics you choose to apply.
well they can understand the real world rather well
i can see a use in that
>Surely you'd understand these very, very basic philosophical terms
Who gives a fuck about niche philosophy terms? No one serious about their own education would wast precious time taking a philosophy class in the modern era. It serves no purpose at all, probably even less useful than an English class
>doesn't understand the argument
>YOU'RE JUST USING FUNNY WORDS TO DISTRACT ME REEEEE
Holy shit
Pretty shitty when you consider stuff like polio vaccination, penicillin and antiretroviral therapy.
No, you are using words differently than their common english definition to try and move the goal posts
>lol I didn't even care anyway
Were it not for neoliberal economic policies then all those vaccines and shit wouldn't have the free global distribution systems they have currently. It's not a fucking contest.
What unfalsifiable claim are you talking about that I purported the scientific method should be used on? Use your time explaining, not being snarky you mongoloid.
You don't even know what you're talking about and you're moving the conversation/goal posts into an area that isn't on topic.
The Church didn't create the collapse of society or the foreign invaders.
You know you can just read about this stuff, you don't need to take a class
lol at trying to credit capitalism to modern philosophers
Too bad they can't.
Otherwise the most important question philosophers need an answer to wouldn't be "Do you want fries with that?"
Well things like the theory of price signals were only properly formulated in the past 100 years and Hayek was more a philosopher than an economist
Devoting your life to a trade craft is really boring. Philosophy lets you expand the borders of your mind.
Also, shitpost fantastically on /lit/.
>The Church didn't create the collapse of society or the foreign invaders.
no, the church didn't cause the collapse directly, but they are the ones that took the power that the collapse left vacant, and they set up the feudal system in its wake
The whole foreign invader line of thought is mostly bullshit, the Goths were hardly even foreign having made up a huge chunk of the roman military for generations before the collapse, the Goths were just as Roman as any other group living within the Empire's boundaries
What would the point be though. What would it teach me of any value? It serves no purpose now that we have actual science, philosophy is an artifact of a time before we much about the observable world
Not the same person you stupid retard.
But anyway, claiming that the scientific method clashes with the Church or Christianity is plainly and simply wrong.
In philosophy "modern" goes back to the 1600s so yeah that's entirely accurate
or you could major in STEM like a fucking adult
>Philosophy lets you expand the borders of your mind.
No, science classes do this, philosophy is just a fake science class for english majors to take
My apologies. Usually when I come across people who try to flaunt the superiority of epistemological arguments they attempt to use those "logical" arguments to prove the existence or necessity of a God. Hence why I mentioned Gödel.
I think you are taking a much broader definition of philosopher than was previously being used
Yeah, again, you don't have to take a class to learn about philosophy
>STEM like a fucking adult
Every STEM kid I ever saw (because let's be honest, I never interacted with them and neither did anyone else with self-esteem) was a pathetic looking man-child who couldn't hammer a nail to save their life
>But anyway, claiming that the scientific method clashes with the Church or Christianity is plainly and simply wrong.
What? They are directly opposed. Religion is about belief without and often opposed to the evidence, science is about belief based on evidence
>no, the church didn't cause the collapse directly
Not even indirectly. K cool.
>The whole foreign invader line of thought is mostly bullshit
Wrong. They were second class citizens and given land on the borders so that they would serve as a buffer incase of invasion. They were never really Romans hence why they were so eager to rebel. That's not even including the poor way they were treated regarding crops which lead to malnutrition and statvation in times of crisis. They were always the first to bleed. They were foreigners. Open a history book.
Did you not even go to college?
Are you seriously saying the english/art or philosophy major kids are better at hammering nails?
and you didn't interact with STEM people? At any legitimate school they make up a huge portion of the student base, especially the males. Your entire described experience sounds like it was formed by someone who has never even seen a university and is just guessing what they are like its so odd
The sun and the moon are opposed yet Religion acknowledges both. Your argument is retarded and presumptuous.
>They were never really Romans hence why they were so eager to rebel.
Actually the mostly just rebelled because a charismatic leader wanted a higher rank in the military. It was just a civil war for political power, not a rebellion in any modern sense of the term. They were not trying to take down the empire at all they were fighting within the empire
um, what does that have to do with anything?
I majored in english and now have my own business with my buddies from undergrad building and repairing furniture (aka hammering nails). My apartment building was just bought by a new landlord who is some kind of computer programmer or some bullshit like that. When one of our windows got broken he LITERALLY said to me "I have to call my dad." Dude is 40 years old. He's a fucking dink who can't do anything except type computer codes, just like every autistic STEM fucker who can't do anything beyond their hyper-specialized and totally boring field.
Are you fucking stupid?
Even if things are opposed or opposites does not mean they clash in practice.
Autism.
Anecdotes!
bad shots dont trigger me, they disgust me
>we don't know how it all began
>God done it! He loves me and cares whether I get a promotion too!
>that's bullshit
>muh epistemology
Fuck off with your mental gymnastics.
Of course, it's entirely possible that some of these scientific geniuses were atheists but couldn't admit it because they would've had a fucking horrible time and not been allowed to do any more science
They also forced tithing for hundreds of years, essentially stealing resources from everyone. No wonder they were in a good position to read books and come up with theories while everyone else ploughed fields.
Piss off eh
It's entirely possible they were also aliens disguised as men, the possibilities in this regard are endless.
We're not discussing the morality of the situations in ancient Rome or the Middle Ages so it seems like you have run out of things to say.
my personal belief is that theres only one way universal laws can be (lightspeed etc.) without fucking everything up and since "nothing" cant exist on the most basic level the universe was forced to be what it is.
Of course i cant back up any of my claims so im not better than any religious person