Like family guy or not

Actually it would be the world without dirty jews since christians and muslims are types of dirty jews.

...

>No Christianity
>No crusades
>Europe taken over by Islam
>No Western civilization
>No USA
>Europe is just as shitty as the Middle East was 200 years ago.

It should have been
>We're in the same time but in the universe Hitler won thus humanity is 200 years more advanced

Are they trying to say white people are wholly responsible for everything good in life?
That the rest of the world just stopped advancing too?

>1000 years
>christianity
>not the fall of the roman empire and taking up fuedalism

It's just jokes buddy

Religion preserved science, senpai. Before they turned into what they are now.

All scientific advancements stemming the church is kind of common sense when you realize the church had almost all of the power. It makes even more sense when most of those advancements were done with the intention of spreading the church (or having the appearance of being for that so it got funded)

The church wasn't some bastion of information and it wasn't an evil, prohibitive force. It just was.

I liked that episode mainly because I loved Sliders.

Any good shows that revolve around alternate realities?

There are points both ways. The Church certainly suppressed many scientific endeavors, but supported many as well. Most of the great Universities were founded by the Church. Many would attribute Humanism to a desire to the belief that bettering humanity was service to God.

The fall of Roman Empire, and the loss of its support of learning and communication had far more to do with the coming of the dark ages.

youtube.com/watch?v=qz77atYHTOA

India is a good example of society without Christianity

Yeah.

It's not like the Papacy provided funding and resources to further medicine, science, culture and art for over a thousand years.

Anything even vaguely resembling a step back in scientific progress was caused by the collapse of large, wealthy empires that were willing to give patronage to academics rather than any rise in Christian faith.

>nothing produces nothing
What produced G*d then?

Geography and other fields were stunted due to people being unwilling to challenge the popular belief in the church. Just because they didn't necessarily prosecute people who did research doesn't mean they didn't stunt scientific advancement in other ways. Uniformitarianism for example was rejected because it went against the church's beliefs. It wasn't until later when the church's influence wasn't as strong when that idea was picked up and gained traction.

No christianity means no western society which means no advancement

>I thought this was common knowledge.
And you were correct, it was.
But nowadays common knowledge is pretty much limited to what you can get from social media and reddit.

[citations needed]

That just means he's smarter than most kids on the shortbus. What else is new?

Not even he knows

>no Christians
>no church to save the Roman empire
>no church to push back the muslims
>no church to unify nations under one government
>no church to pacify the colonies
Sure sounds great

Pretty much this , if you dont understand this you are clearly retarded

Yeah the voyage to the new world wasn't funded by Catholics or anything.

Dank.

you can.

without:
morality,stability, unity, family, public relations, national identity, purpose, rituals, (etc.)

that christianity brought you would have NEVER goten that thing that you call "progress".

you can argue that you could.
but to that i will say that you are a retard who is not able to relate with the people of the past

(who only knew that they will die and that life is savage and unjust)

>Christianity never existed
>somehow all europeans became atheists 2000 years ago
>'pagan religion wouldn't existed'
>'islam wouldn't be the religion of europe'

i know... makes me wanna scream... so much lost

600 years after the middle ages began.

Whats your point burgerbro?

Wrong question. God is not bound by time like we are. We see things come and go, and we come and go ourselves. Not so with God. God sees the beginning and end of all things at the same time, not just a slice of time like we do. There is no "when" where god is, so the idea of "where did God come from" does not make sense.

So, if "where did God come from?" is the wrong question, what's the right one?

I don't know.

No, that would be the world without niggers.

I hate Islam but at least they built Dubai.

Niggers have accomplished nothing.

They are a drain on the US and the Earth.

Whenever I see this image I think that the comparison is almost as striking as how much more advanced American animation would be if Seth had never been born.

t. animator

honestly it's more like we would be in space already without jewish usery. usery is abuse. abuse is not progress.

>I agree that Christianity halted Scientific progress,
This is wrong tho. The Byzantine Empire was hardly scientifically backward. Similarly, many of the fathers of modern science were Christian. Often fervently so.

Whatever keeps your fedora on while you sleep though.

The Catholic Kings thought they were opening a new route to the Indias, so...

>everyone would be moslem because there were no Christians to fight them

wat am I looking at.

If you genuinely believe Christianity had a net negative effect on society instead of a net positive you are letting your own theological and philosophical beliefs get in the way of objective truth.

You would be laughed out of the room by historians.

It would actually be interesting if Christianity never spread as a thought experiment.

More than a few problems the roman empire faces during its most crucial years as an empire in crisis had some of its roots in Christian versus pagan fighting.

If there never was the new cult Christianity might Rome have reestablished it's dominance over its territory?

Courage could beat the fuck out of Brian

kek

sounds like something a kike would say, you dirty goy.

That is complete horseshit.

The "Christianity played a part in the fall of Rome" meme needs to end.

Rome collapsed due to economic problems and multiculturalism.

Yeah people forget that there was a lot of scientific study being done during the middle ages by basically monks.

Shit most of the early advancements came from religious people which were shit down by the Church because they were against the mainstream teachings.

The only difference between this confrontation of the "establishment" against new ideas are only different from the ones in modern times because when the church did it, it usually ended up with the other party in a dungeon or burned alive in the most extreme cases.

I don't think Christianity hampered scientists.
I'm saying you talking about something that happened 600 years after the middle ages began doesn't help your argument you fucking moron.

God have mercy on your soul.

Oil is not an accomplishment.

Are you implying they wouldn't have made scientific achievements if they weren't christian? Like their belief in a god was directly giving them advanced scientific knowledge or some shit? This is the dumbest common argument christcucks have.

CHRISTIANS BLOWN OUT IN THIS ONE IMAGE! HOW WILL THEY EVER RECOVER

Name one prospering and succesful civilization that had no sort of religion. Yep, you guessed it, it doesn't not exist, in order for a civilization to prosper and be succesful you need religion, doesn't matter that you don't believe in a superior being, the fact is that you believe in something, even if you're the atheist retard, you believe in science, yet does that make the greater scientists better than than others, and therefor are they godlike ?

>Being this dense

>Geography and other fields were stunted due to people being unwilling to challenge the popular belief in the church.
I'm pretty sure it had to do with fighting Muslim conquerors on three fronts with a Mongol Empire knocking on the door in between. The idea it was a widely held belief the Earth was flat is a myth. No, they were busy worrying about being slaughtered and their women raped, not falling off the side of the planet.

Do you think shutting down the philsophical academies of Plato and Aristotle did not hamper the development of science?

>People that don't understand history and the reality of human existencebelieve this shit

People were never dumb, or kept dumb. People were never "in the dark". Scientific advancement did not stagnate except in irrelevant holes, cut off from cities.

The simple truth of the matter is life was hard, you had to put in labour for 12 hours a day or more to simply not starve, on a good day. Spare time as a concept did not exist. The common man did not have time to consider anything more than his tools and his trade. The church did not repress knowledge, there simply wasn't the time or the affluence to teach every contry bumpkin more than functional literacy (which they did still try to do).
It's perfectly natural that only the wealthy had the time to receive an education, and even this was extremely narrow, like not teaching an accountant the ins and outs of what little biology there was.

Griping about meaningless peasants not being taught algebra or Latin is on the same level as women griping that they had to stay at home in the 1800s.

Without Christianity there would be no demand for Gutenberg's printing press.

>African proto-kangdoms

>the colapse of the roman empire never happened
(you)

You mean while they studied the philosophers in monasteries all across Europe? Or when their work could be printed thanks to Gutenberg?

>humans lived in caves and threw spears and went on to become the dominant species of the planet
>therefore we as a people in the current year need to live in caves and throw spears to further advance our society
Religion was a tool to give poor third worlders hope to keep living so they wouldn't just kill themselves from being slave driven. It's not necessary any more.

Uh, fields like Geography and especially Geology were pretty much founded by devout Christians who were trying to make sense of the world using the information available to them at the time. Sure their hypothesis were proven wrong when new information became available, but that new information is only available to us because they created the field of study.

fuck yourself
organized Christianity was taken over by the jews over 1000 years ago
however jesus was anti jew and that is the deeper message
yall talk shit on Christianity, like what the fuck do you know?
what the fuck can you do?
not shit compared to the accomplishments of the rotten and decadent christian churches.
fuck you op
jesus says fuck you

Id say the Abrahamic religions as a whole were very anti science until they started to infight with each other (Reformation wars) and science started to occur under their noses.

>Priest: the skies red
>man: but when i look at it its blu-
>Priest: FUCKING HERETIC!

Was it completely hindered at any one point? no. But the fact that for a time the word of whatever holy book was the flavour of the month was taken as 100% factual stifled creativity and inference.

Once the cat was out of the bag (science was actually helping humanity at an exponential rate; far greater than religion could) they couldnt do anything to stop it lest they see less and less congregations to their particular church.

Of course not, but the idea that the Church sucesfully halved all scientific advancement until (say) Galileo or Newton is fucking retarded. Newton himself said that he only achieved so much because he was standing on the shoulders of giants, most of which developed all their research in a time where the church would burn all scientific studies, if we were to the hypothesis most retards use. Specially when you read that the way knowaleadge use to be past down during those times were on churches that worked as schools and sometimes even universities. Do you even know why the Prime meridian was in Greenwich or why there were several ways to establish the prime meridian?

Edgy. Are you one of those faggots who thinks we'd have floating cars if it weren't for that ebul religion?

Monks learned Latin so they could read the bible, this literacy allowed them to read Roman texts. Some monks learned Greek, and could read Greek texts.

One thing atheists completely ignore is how few people could actually read and Christianity allowed a common basis for language because it forced them all to adhere to the classic languages of the Bible such as Latin or Greek.

Don't forget that Gutenberg's major profit incentive was mass producing bibles for the masses.

It's not that their belief directly gave them advanced knowledge, it's that their belief gave them the curiosity to study what they perceived as God's creation to better understand Him, and that the institution of the Church gave them the funding and skills (reading, writing etc) which enabled them to be scholars.

But that wasn't your argument, idiot. You didn't say 'religion didn't halt scientific advancement', you literally said 'hurr religion is gud coz famous scientists were religious must've been the power of god that made them smart really makes u think heh'.

what is the imprisonment of many philosophers and scientist of the dark ages?

Thanks alex, I'll continue the streak and take Stupid Arguments for 1600$.

Then why is china not even a few hundred years ahead of us, they lacked christianity?

>Let me make retarded unverifiable claims and assert it as fact

You know, if Gandhi never existed then AIDs would have never been invented.

To add on this

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex

>A codex (from the Latin caudex for "trunk of a tree" or block of wood, book; plural codices) is a book constructed of a number of sheets of paper, vellum, papyrus, or similar materials, with hand-written contents.[1] The book is usually bound by stacking the pages and fixing one edge, and using a cover thicker than the sheets. Some codices are continuously folded like a concertina. The alternative to paged codex format for a long document is the continuous scroll. Examples of folded codices include the Maya codices. Sometimes people use the term for a book-style format, including modern printed books but excluding folded books.

>The Romans developed the form from wooden writing tablets. The codex's gradual replacement of the scroll—the dominant book form in the ancient world—has been called the most important advance in book making before the invention of printing.[2] The codex transformed the shape of the book itself, and offered a form that lasted for centuries.[3] The spread of the codex is often associated with the rise of Christianity, which adopted the format for use with the Bible early on.[4] First described by the 1st-century AD Roman poet Martial, who praised its convenient use, the codex achieved numerical parity with the scroll around AD 300,[5] and had completely replaced it throughout the now Christianised Greco-Roman world by the 6th century.[6]

>The spread of the codex is often associated with the rise of Christianity, which adopted the format for use with the Bible early on

Yes that's right, Christians literally invented books

Modern Science has deeply-nestled roots in the Christian approach of "understanding with more insight and wisdom the inter-workings of God's Creation".

The timeline of scientific progress based solely on a Christian sense of awe and wonder is directly responsible for the Dawkins' and NDT's we see today.

Charles Darwin was a Christian with a relationship to God that soured over time. He lost 3 of his children at very young ages to ill health. It could be argued that this was brought on by him marrying his cousin, but it didn't matter. He became bitter to God and often skipped church later on in his life.

scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/
I realize that they tried to make sense of the Earth, however their biblical lens they did that with caused the line of thinking to revolve around the Bible. That's why it took centuries for the idea of a young Earth to stop being the norm after they discovered evidence against it, among other things.

>>Let me make retarded unverifiable claims and assert it as fact
What the fuck do you think Family Guy is in the first place? Especially when Brian the liberal cunt is talking?

it didnt force anyone to do shit. converted germanic peoples did not learn greek or latin, they retained their native languages. there is literally no positive justification for the spreading of a judeo christian sand nigger religion. it is literally a form of population control spread by the romans, and i give them credit as they were very effective at converting people, even the unconquered countries that included Britain and northern europe, eventually converted by their own choice just to be able to do business in the roman empire

Christianity is the reason Muslims couldn't take over Europe. It also inevitably caused Germany to adopt and evolve past tribal warfare.

Not sure if Japan would've taken over Asia without "British" technology.

Jews would still be around trying to secretly fuck over everyone since they're one of the oldest religions.

False beyond reasonable doubt. Islam is product of the Exodus.

Jews killed Jesus for trying to teach common sense.

Catholicism is a byproduct of Jews who were too scared to abandon Judaism completely.

Islam was never a religion of peace. It was a front created to start conflict so Jewish people could thrive from it.

Inject a little false information into a society, let it become ravaged, and overtake it. The usual Jew tactic.

Unfortunately for the Jews, their little scheme flopped. They tried to use Catholics to eradicate Muslims completely but even they were unwilling to go that far.

Now the world has to deal with a religion of rats and cockroaches.

Provide a list. Names, dates, country, occupation.

India is a literal shithole though.

Post the REAL one. Starting with the fingolian hyper war.

you failed to rebuttal one single point he made

you just threw some random ass examples to divert the conservation without actually providing any counter-argument

in short suck a dick

>people only cared about being able to read because of the bible
Yeah you're retarded.

People's curiosity of the world is what spawned religions in the first place you tard. Do you think abbos invented a giant rainbow serpent because their dreamtime gods told them about it or because they were looking for a way to explain rainbows? And did their stupid shit help them become an advanced scientific civilization? No it did not, because they are subhuman.

the knowledge you seek is here hans

...

>converted germanic peoples did not learn greek or latin, they retained their native languages

The ones that become monks did, and it allowed them to communicate to other monks through the continent.

>american is too retarded to understand analogies
Sorry I didn't go for a third-grader tier explanation but I was just assuming people in here would be over 18 years old.
>over 18 years old
>still believes in imaginary friends
Oh...

You have not addressed the fact that the institution of the Church is what allowed people the time, funding, and education to be scholars. You tard.

>Yeah you're retarded.

Do you have any fucking arguments against this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_Christianity_in_civilization

>The cultural influence of the Church has been vast. Church scholars preserved literacy in Western Europe following the Fall of the Western Roman Empire.[1] During the Middle Ages, the Church rose to replace the Roman Empire as the unifying force in Europe. The cathedrals of that age remain among the most iconic feats of architecture produced by Western civilization. Many of Europe's universities were also founded by the church at that time. Many historians state that universities and cathedral schools were a continuation of the interest in learning promoted by monasteries.

> Many historians state that universities and cathedral schools were a continuation of the interest in learning promoted by monasteries.

Why are atheists so fucking ignorant about European history?

No you fucking idiot. I said that it came from religious people. I didn't said that being religious had anything to do with their knowledge but rather that they found a way to mix both aspect of their lives. There are several cases, even on modern times that see the same, people that have strong religious belief but that doesn't affect their work as scientist.

Shit Newton was a fucking autist that study the bible in an obsessive way and most of his writings on it are fucking absurd.

Again, read what I said, most of the scientist of the middle ages were religious people. And there is a correlation there, they had to be in that time because the people doing the teaching were mostly religious people and the ways to reach old books or understand their language were also obtainable on churches or cathedrals.

think again, even your beloved cave men had religion of some sort, or do you honestly believe that they made all the cavepaintings and sacrificing cause they were bored ?

>Be of Irish/Celtic decent
Dank.

Well, would you rather a false hypothesis which took a long time to debunk but which laid the foundation for future knowledge, or no hypothesis at all?

>Why are atheists so fucking ignorant about European history?
Because they serve the Jew and hate European culture, history, and heritage.

He meant to say "no kikes" thereby avoiding the superstitious retard child mutilating abrahamic dick cutting blood trilogy.

I forgot to elaborate.

India was fine until Brahmanism, much like how Middle East was fine until Muhammadanism.

Both religion started because of false information.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university

>A medieval university is a corporation organized during the High Middle Ages for the purposes of higher learning.
The first Western European institutions generally considered to be universities were established in Italy, England, France, Spain, and Portugal between 11th and 14th centuries for the study of the Arts and the higher disciplines of Theology, Law, and Medicine.[1] These universities evolved from much older Christian cathedral schools and monastic schools, and it is difficult to define the exact date at which they became true universities, although the lists of studia generalia for higher education in Europe held by the Vatican are a useful guide.

>"The word universitas originally applied only to the scholastic guilds— that is, the corporation of students and masters—within the studium, and it was always modified, as universitas magistrorum, or universitas scholarium, or universitas magistrorum et scholarium. In the course of time, however, probably toward the latter part of the 14th century, the term began to be used by itself, with the exclusive meaning of a self-regulating community of teachers and scholars whose corporate existence had been recognized and sanctioned by civil or ecclesiastical authority."[2]
From the early modern period onwards, this Western-style organizational form gradually spread from the medieval Latin west across the globe, eventually replacing all other higher-learning institutions and becoming the preeminent model for higher education everywhere.[3]

Western supremacy is entirely based on Christianity.

nah you guys are wrong, the correct answer is
if there was no jews the world would be a better place, just imagine a rome that doesnt have to take care of the jewish bitcheness or the religions that they created (christianity and islam)

If Christianity didn't exist we would still be sacrificing goats to the gods.

not even religious
you're making false assumptions now
if you're going to shit talk
at least come up with something better than

>hurrr durrr what are you 12?

you dolt

Goats are Satanist animals.

>only christian institutions helped people become scholars
>if christianity didn't exist there would literally be no scholars because humans cannot comprehend education without christianity and so we would all be abbo-tier
Yeah you're fucking retarded.

See above. Sure christianity did good in the past, I'm not denying that, but you're absolutely delusional if you think christianity invented the concept of altruism and education.

What's your point? Abbos are religious but they only invented a stick by the time they were conquered. Religion doesn't mean shit. What matters is inherent intellect. Might as well say wearing hats is a core requirement of being intelligent because some famous scientists wore tophats in the past.

No you fucking fedora. The cause of this "Dark Age" was the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and the waves of invasions and raiding that followed it. Without the larger economy and administrative infrastructure of the Empire to sustain them, trade systems, large public works and educational systems all collapsed, contracted into local versions or died out in western Europe. And waves of invasions by various Germanic peoples, Avars, Moors, Magyars and Vikings made mere survival a higher priority than things like preserving books or maintaining road systems.

The idea that Christianity caused or significantly contributed to the fall of the Western Empire has long since been rejected by modern historians. It clearly wasn't a significant factor, since while the Western Empire collapsed, the equally (or even more) Christian Eastern Empire continued for another 1000 years without collapsing and without any "Dark Age"

Why are you even on a Christian board?

>the church held science back

The church held europe together after the collapse of rome. The spanish gave it a bad name with their fucking inquisitions.

What kind of response were you expecting to get when all you wrote was "uhmm i didnt understand ur arugment so suck a dick xD". Write shitty posts get shitty replies, americuck.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that christianity is at fault when discussing about the dark ages. The fall happened due to pagan massimmigration to the Roman world which was growing more and more economically and politically unstable and unequal.

If Christianity is at fault for the dark ages then Islam is at fault for the US housing bubble bursting and financial crisis that followed. The argument is retarded though immigration and religion are playing part in both cases as a further destabilizing factor.

Please name an ancient scholar who did not adhere to, or was not funded, supported, or advertised by a religious institution.

I would have rather had a false hypothesis that wasn't grounded in a religious belief. The problem wasn't that the hypothesis "took a long time to debunk", it was that it was debunked early but remained the popularly held belief because it was attached to the church. If the young Earth hypothesis wasn't associated with the church then the hypothesis would have fell out of favor much quicker.

>mfw all the books that were lost in this pic are dumb bible books and nothing important

Tell me, what were Germans doing before Christianity? What were the Anglos in Britain doing before Christianity?

Christian culture is what made Europe supreme, Europeans have an average IQ of 100 compared to East Asians who have an IQ of 105, however our societies managed to surpass them and that is because of culture.

The idea that we wouldn't have altruism or education without Christian is a strawman argument.

btw I do see your point that without the church there would have been no original hypothesis. I just wish it wasn't church related, like if someone in Asia had hypothesised this I don't think it would have had the same problem.

>searches wikipedia under atheism
>only truly atheistic civilization is a an african trime
>tfw no wheels

Seth mc farlane is a faggot who has no idea about history or atheism.

Also
Science right here cunts:
www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/ShariffNorHenReligionChapter_final sep26.pdf

fuck im shitposting so hard today.
tribe*

Confucius.

>The idea that we wouldn't have altruism or education without Christian is a strawman argument.
Then you concede to my point that there would be no significant difference if christianity didn't exist. Once again, my point is religion is not the core aspect of what makes successful civilizations, it is, like you said, race and culture. This is why I keep bringing up abbos, because they are an example of how religion did fucking nothing for them, because they are literally subhumans, and THAT is what separates us from them.

Yeah money doesn't matter, yet he won't redistribute his own wealth.. socialists are hypocritical fucks

>The idea that Christianity caused or significantly contributed to the fall of the Western Empire has long since been rejected by modern historians

Some including I who am currently getting my masters in history would even argue that the adoption of christianity as a state religion slowed down the process of the Empire crumbling down. It did not stop it but slowed it down for a brief moment.

But the issue with that is, I don't believe such a hypothesis would have existed. These men were only motivated to study the Earth because they wanted to understand its creation in a Biblical context, and they surely would not have had the time or resources to do so if it weren't for the institution of the Church.

No, you would still be living in forests pracitising pagan rituals, lmao. This Jewish cultural marxist crap has infiltrated the core of society, we are truly living in the end of times. We will enter another dark ages.

Judaism came before Christianity. So you'd have to get rid of Abraham. The problem there is that story is a polemic on child sacrifice. Damn pagans would be here. Where is the logic here other than anti Christianity?

...

>Then you concede to my point that there would be no significant difference if christianity didn't exist.

What is Christianity if not culture? Religion is culture

It's like they want everyone to be like, "useful idiots" or something.

Confucius adhered to the religious belief of ancestor veneration, his teachings come from a religious worldview and discuss many spiritual elements including the afterlife, and he was promoted as a deity in Taoism.

Why arent china japan and korea 1000 years more advanced than the west?

Atheists blown the fuck out.

This fucking guy
>FDR defeated the Nazis
>Senator Sanders understands that today, [the Nazis] are climate change
Americans are FUCKED

see: Maybe you're right though. Although idk how motivated other societies were at understanding the Earth. I doubt the institution of the church was the ONLY thing that motivated people to do that.

Jews worships goats.

Islam is product of Jews, who also worship goats.

Connect the dots.

IQ has no value outside its context.

India and East Asia values success through mimicry. When faced with creativity they crumble.

Give an "East Asian" an IQ test not directed towards their "talents" they will fail or cheat.

During WW2 Japan took over much of Asia easily because they were creative.

America jokes that we "bombed some sense" into Japan, but all we did was force them to stop wasting their talents expanding their civilization.

Better goats than children.

>implying religion of any kind is at fault for the lack of technological advancement in society, instead of the wealth globalist elite

two words

hydrogen
engine
dumbass
>ok maybe 3

...

Correction: sacrificing goats is better than sacrificing children or strapping bomb vests to them.

And religions differ, so it's inaccurate to say religious culture made all the difference when once again, abbos had the same. The aspects of christianity which you claim to have helped the west advance are what you would truly call culture. For instance, if christianity didn't exist you would simply say white societies have an altruistic culture, and so on.

I wasn't aware that respect for your ancestors was a religious belief. But I guess you're just trying to play around with semantics now by conflating religion with spirituality. Also being promoted by Taoism doesn't retroactively make him religous.

Tell me what were Germanics doing before Christianity? How did Romans view Germanics?

Obviously I can't say I'm 100% positive that it's the only reason, but I do feel like any such hypothesis would have come from a religious/spiritual background regardless of society. If your entire life revolves around production and survival, you don't bother to think about deep questions concerning the world around you - you learn what you need to know to survive and you don't bother with the rest. When you introduce the concept of spirituality - "a higher purpose", "there must be some mystery behind everything" - is when you start studying the seemingly useless, and that's when you advance.

Seems to me your view of religion is that only Western/Abrahamic practices count.

Spirituality = religion.

It is very arrogant to state that through genetic causality Europeans were destined to progress a certain way.

What were Europeans doing during the age of the Babylonians, Sumerians, Egyptians?

You mean european and american contractors built Dubai

Christianity may not be perfect BUT if it never existed who would oppose Islam? Well maybe the Pagans would have a pretty good chance.

like it or not the bible is the final redpill on the jews

>now by conflating religion with spirituality.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

>The meaning of spirituality has developed and expanded over time, and various connotations can be found alongside each other.[10][11][12][note 1] The term "spirituality" originally developed within early Christianity, referring to a life oriented toward the Holy Spirit.[13] During late medieval times the meaning broadened to include mental aspects of life, while in modern times the term both spread to other religious traditions[14] and broadened to refer to a wider range of experience, including a range of esoteric traditions.

We don't need a church to unite people, we have corporations to do that.

>hurr I'm a christian and can google names of medieval scientists

He fails to mention the church burnt any text that weren't religious texts for 300 years.

Funny, because Jesus is mentioned in the Quran and yet they refuse to acknowledge his teachings.

Taoism is radical Buddhism the same way Muhammadanism is radical Judaism.

Confucius was basically the equivalent of Chinese Jesus.

Tacitus had a pretty low opinion. By the time of the fall the germanics had been introduced into the Roman army. Eventually the areas around Germany became part of the Holy Roman Empire. While this was good, the Romanization of Germanic culture could be seen as a bad thing in the long run. Nazi red banners and the strait winged eagle were akin to the older Roman Empire pre-Christianity rather than the more folkish ways of the germanics and Christian Germans.

Religions believe in a god and have a structured belief system. Believing in ghosts doesn't make you religious. We have those two different words for a reason. Pick up a dictionary.

>It is very arrogant to state that through genetic causality Europeans were destined to progress a certain way.
Explain abbos then. Or even just niggers. You're starting to sound like a KANG now.
>we coulda been kangz n wizzards n shiiieett but whitey kept us down

You just proved my point by quoting a paragraph which explicitly states that spirituality is different from religion. And you're somehow oblivious to the fact that other races/cultures would've coined their own words for a similar/same meaning without having been exposed to christianity.

Christendom invented science. The beginning of science and all the principles thereof were created in Christian countries, by Christian scientists. Without Christians the rest of the non-Christian world would not even have the concept of science.

Archimedes?

its really around 2750
the dark ages didnt properly record time

not like it matters

>Explain abbos then

You keep references this fuckers, yet they couldn't even remember how to start fucking fires. Fuck off, abbos had the shittiest culture known to mankind.

>2016

>still attacking Christianity

This shit is just makes me cringe now.

>You mean while they studied the philosophers in monasteries all across Europe?

Mate they literally destroyed works to make prayer books

>The Archimedes Palimpsest is a parchment codex palimpsest, which originally was a 10th-century Byzantine Greek copy of an otherwise unknown work of Archimedes of Syracuse and other authors. It was overwritten with a Christian religious text by 13th-century monks.[1] T

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Palimpsest

They didnt, they preserved some plato but thats about it. They had to go to the Arabs to get Aristotle

I already hinted at it in my first post in this thread.

Before Roman/Catholic cultivation of Germanics, they were tribes.

You can't even say Germanic without referring to tribes.

Germanic tribes.

Wheel of Theodorus?

See pic related

>islam is the product of jews.
>two mostly monkey brother have an argument over how best to rule their nations
>one becomes the father of the jewish faith, and the other the father of the islamic faith

sounds like judism and islam are products of sibling rivalry, not so much that one bore the other..

>mfw hundreds of comments

Wow, you guys sure got trolled good.

i know you aren't serious but if you think about it this is the stupidest thing anyone has ever said

farmers almanacs are the one constant in all of written history, agriculture was literally the only thing that enabled civilization to develop, mathematics and all of recordkeeping evolved from needing ways to keep track of the harvest

if you think farmers weren't keeping track of the year you have a literally sub-elementary school level understanding of history

Of course I keep referencing them, because they were religious and you're telling me religion is what gave westerners an edge, and not fucking genetics. Would you say that if someone dropped a bible in abbo language and left them alone for a hundred years that they'd be more advanced because of superior christianity? Or would you just fucking agree with me already that it wouldn't have done shit because christianity doesn't do shit to improve scientific knowledge/discovery?

Greed* of the wealthy globalist elite

Modern science as in hypothesis, testing, conclusions, the scientific method. The method is the foundation of modern science, everything else is merely guess work.

WHAT IS THE CLASSICAL AGE WHAT IS GREECE. WHAT IS ROME. WHAT IS FUCKING THE WHOLE ANCIENT WORLD HOLY FUCK.

Very simple, no scientific method, no science. Anything else that came before was guess work. Science in the modern sense became a thing during the Enlightenment, starting around the 17th century. The four elements does not count as science. Even good guess work is just guess work, not counting as scientific research and process.

That graph always gets me. How is "scientific advancement" measured? Sagan-years? Fedoratips per second?

>Before Roman/Catholic cultivation of Germanics, they were tribes.

You can put pagan Romans with Catholicism like this and reference German tribes. Your history education has failed you.

The German tribes lived in large woods as many many tribes. Romans introduced statesmanship. Catholicism, much much later introduced monopoly on power and religion.

tell № of episode please

It's possible Muhammad was basically some buttmad Jew (or cast-out), but I'm leaning towards him being a brainwashed idiot who actually believe what he was saying.

A failed conspiracy plant.

>Christianity

Why is it always singled out?

Even with Christianity, the West was centuries ahead of any other religion.

really
can't you use your brain to piece the answer to this together?

maybe it was things like inventions, progress in quality of life, improvements in the way we understand the world, improvements in the way we build shelters and you know just general advancements of time

how dumb are you

You know that's bullshit, just stop.

"There are few explicit discussions of scientific methodologies in surviving records from early cultures. The most that can be inferred about the approaches to undertaking science in this period stems from descriptions of early investigations into nature, in the surviving records. An Egyptian medical textbook, the Edwin Smith papyrus, (c. 1600 BCE), applies the following components: examination, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis, to the treatment of disease,[2] which display strong parallels to the basic empirical method of science and according to G. E. R. Lloyd[3] played a significant role in the development of this methodology. The Ebers papyrus (c. 1550 BCE) also contains evidence of traditional empiricism."

There are plenty more.

You can't argue with the fact that the world would have been a better place if Seth Mcfarlen died in 9/11

They also genocided all minorities.

Disagree

I'm aware of too many normies who don't trust the Jew because of family guy for some reason

>progress of civilization telies only on the white man

>Would you say that if someone dropped a bible in abbo language and left them alone for a hundred years that they'd be more advanced because of superior christianity?

Of course they would, they wouldn't progress at a higher level than Europeans, but they would be better off.

>you're telling me religion is what gave westerners an edge, and not fucking genetics.

Strawman again, I'm thinking you probably have abbo blood yourself

See
>Christian culture is what made Europe supreme, Europeans have an average IQ of 100 compared to East Asians who have an IQ of 105, however our societies managed to surpass them and that is because of culture.

Superior genetics + superior culture = dominance

Civilization is based on passing down ideas to subsequent civilizations. Organized religion helped pass down the right ideas to create powerful societies, and Christianity in particular is one of the best organized religions.

Perhaps you could argue that Christianity is no longer necessary, but you can't deny that without it Europeans would not have advanced as far.

I never insinuated it wasn't.

Romans cultivated Germans. Romans adopted Catholicism, and so thus did the cultivated Germans.

Putting two-and-two together isn't your strongsuit.

Islamic countries were centuries ahead of Western development up until like the 1500s

Is this the power of the american education system?

>Of course they would, they wouldn't progress at a higher level than Europeans, but they would be better off.
Unless the bible has instructions on how to light a fire, I really doubt it. And since you're being this delusional there's no point continuing this argument.

Dead to the kike religions!

The European Gods will rise again!

Ave Europa!

Predecessors and parallels exist in the past, but it was standardized and done on a wide scale first in the nations of the West. Modern science was founded and divorced from philosophy in Christian countries.

Confirmed for abbo blood, guess you are just too retarded to understand.

>and Christianity in particular is one of the best organized religions.

Except for nobody agreeing with each other because you're arguing from a perspective of authority, not reason.

If Christianity is such a good organisation, you'd see little to no fraction and factions within it. There would only be the Catholic church, but this isn't the case.

It's a mediocre at best, situation between strangers to find some common ground, culturally and sociologically.

>thinks reading the bible significantly boosts IQ
>calls others retarded abbos
Okay kang.

>thinks literacy is not integral to the advancement of a society
>Australian education

>3399

also
>dead
Death*

So what you're saying is that the same exact THING AS SCIENCE existed, but because it wasn't called science then that it doesn't count? Do you understand how retarded that is?!? Think about it "Yeah that's not a sword it wasn't called a sword until 1200ad so even though it's the same thing that's not a sword its a Blargrufe." That's what you sound like.

We can because it's not true. Only people with an IQ under 80 would fall for this.

Similar, not the same. The idea of testing things existed before, but it was standardized and formulated into the method in Christendom. Furthermore, science became the huge thing that it is now with the scientific revolution that began our modern era in Europe around the 16-1700's.

>this is what Pagans actually think
Enjoy Islam.

>I never insinuated it wasn't.

My whole reply was that you didn't just insinuate it, you used it to argue your point.

>Putting two-and-two together isn't your strongsuit.

Pure projection from your part.

>Romans cultivated Germans.

Hardly at the beginning. Maybe at the end of the Roman era, but then we're talking about the middle to late Iron age. Your original argumentation mixed the early medieval period with the early iron age.

Wtf, I hate Christians now

You know the scientific revolution was a thing because Europeans RE-DISCOVERED ANCIENT GREEK AND ARABIC SCIENCES AND IDEAS. There was science before Christianity, there were spectacular inventions and scientific breakthroughs with astronomy, mathematics, and more for mankind before Christianity and you won't admit it for some strange reason. It is the same exact thing. Just because it isn't the what you want it to be called doesn't make the end result the same fucking thing.

Seth Macfarlane is a mouth breathing retard with a rubbery voice. It's easy to believe berniebro horseshit living in white af New England. Let him come to Chicago and get shot.

Dumb ass.

Only because they :
>literally took over Christian bread basket regions such as Egypt and our libraries.
>Literally ravaged, by continued assault, our maritime trade routes with relentless killings.
Not only that, they were literally the plug between west and east trade routes. They got so prosperous because goods have to go through them to reach us in Europe, so they just taxed as much as they wanted .

Fast forward to 1498 , the Portuguese establish the first "maritime route to India" and Muslim countries, deprived of their trade money , go to shit. (The Portuguese goods were as cheap as to go on sale for a tenth of the price).

In conclusion: Muslims lived on stolen knowledge and literally living in the right place to tax hike the west . As soon as we found a way around them , into the source (east), they decayed and became irrelevant.

Depends on what you consider Science I suppose. If you are separating lab science and things like geometry and engineering...then sure.

It should be "Rome never fell," but keep tipping that fedora.

>People's trying to find a common ground
>A bad thing
Top lel.

Also, every single religion has a shitload of branches. You're just a loud mouth ignorant.

Portugal understands.

which is why China has been on the forefront of technology and science for the last 700 years.

come on ausy you sound canadian, if they actually burnt all of these then the works of those scientists would not have survived

No they didn't.
They did burn some, but allot scientific and medical journals were transcribed and copied across medieval Europe, many without any connection to religion

>Mediocre =/= bad
Mediocre just means it's not very good.

>Also, every single religion has a shitload of branches. You're just a loud mouth ignorant.

You're arguing with me, but finishing of as a pleb would thinking you stated something profound about the opposition. The mere fact that religion, as an auktoritative based organisation has branches that disagrees with each other just proves it's false.
God as absolute authority should only carry one religion, one branch. However, it's all based on fiction.

Kek

Of course he'd create that. He's a closet FAGGOT

New Zealand """"education""""

Isnt that basically the same thing that steven hawking said about the universe? He said the Universe did not technically need to come from anywhere outside of the singularity, since before the black hole singularity reversed into the universe there was no time.
I don't know, Im not a science-whiz.

>implying most denominations aren't over petty shit
>implying humans can understand God
You atheists, I swear.

>>implying most denominations aren't over petty shit
>Creator of the universe has room for petty things

Look, the idea is that an almighty deity inspired his creations to write a life manual.
Assuming almighty means perfect you have to wonder why people ever get the instructions from a perfect being wrong and become petty towards each other over what they read.

we would probably have died out sooner.

They're still human and imperfect, writing about something so alien and different to them as to be beyond 99.9999% of our understanding.

This isn't hard, Sven.

>They're still human and imperfect, writing about something so alien and different to them as to be beyond 99.9999% of our understanding.
>This isn't hard, Sven.

It sure is, furthering this beyond just the flawed bible: How can a humans, as creations of a perfect being such as God be flawed in the first place?
How can perfection create something that isn't perfect in turn?
My answer is that it's all fiction and tall tales to explain the here and now. Also to reach for power over others, such as having popes, priests and the cloth generally.

I get it you swallowed this whole due to reasons, but it's nonsensical to anyone else not born into it.

>How can a humans, as creations of a perfect being such as God be flawed in the first place?
Because imperfection entered into existence, and life isn't supposed to be perfect anyway.

>How can perfection create something that isn't perfect in turn?
Because of the choice to do evil.

There are dozens of books on this. If you had read them you would know, but atheists don't read religious stuff which is why their knowledge of religion is so simplistic. You could have googled this and gotten answers.

>My answer is that it's all fiction and tall tales to explain the here and now.
Nobody cares what you think.

>but it's nonsensical to anyone else not born into it.
I wasn't.

First Reich

Fill in Blank

Third Reich

Yep. Lame

>Christianity haltef scientific progress
>he says, living in the most scientific nations in the world which, surprise, all come from christian history

If christianity was so detrimental, why aren't we ruled by Russia, China, Africa or Muslims? Oh wait because you're full of shit and christianity did great efforts saving and promoting great works, scientific progress and spread education.

Lets also not forget that Christian monks had a big role in maintaining scientific, historical and medical knowledge during medieval periods where no one else cared about these matters.

>TFW when clerics were the keepers of knowledge and science during the Middle Ages
>and thanks to them people can still read greek filosophers
>Shit ton of teological reserch, theories and ideas
>12-y.o. say religion is stupid because there's no beard guy on the cloud.

Yep. They literally dedicated their entire fucking life transribing as much knowledge as they could that would otherwise have been lost. Only to be shitposted about by teen edge lords a thousand years later

I would but the Christians burnt all the books besides the Bible.

The worst thing Islam has done in the last twenty years was not waiting for him to get on that plane on 9/11.

how do people with this line of reasoning explain the british empire?

Monty Python was more on the ball than that piece of shit.

>Because imperfection entered into existence,
Not possible if reality was invented by a being that is attributed to be perfect. You haven't challenged this so I guess you believe it.
>and life isn't supposed to be perfect anyway.
I agree with you from an atheistic standpoint, but not a theistic. It doesn't add up.

>Because of the choice to do evil.

Why is it so important to be able to do evil? It's all circumstantial anyhow.

>There are dozens of books on this. If you had read them you would know, but atheists don't read religious stuff which is why their knowledge of religion is so simplistic. You could have googled this and gotten answers.

So in other words I should educate myself?
You realise you sound like an SJW now, and just as moronic.

>Nobody cares what you think.

Yes, you do since you keep replying.

>I wasn't.

Well, by born with it I might as well call it tricked into it.

>Not possible if reality was invented by a being that is attributed to be perfect.
Illogical position.

>It doesn't add up.
It does, you're just seeing it simplistically.

>Why is it so important to be able to do evil?
Freedom. Justice will be done, in this or the next.

>So in other words I should educate myself?
Nothing wrong with educating yourself.

>You sound like a SJW,
Shh, butthurt.

>Yes, you do since you keep replying.
I corrected you.

>Well, by born with it I might as well call it tricked into it.
Not even tricked. I see atheism as an illogical impossibility.

that's mythology, not reality. in reality Judaism is old as dirt and with lots of old paganism in its roots, that the mythology itself deals with (golden calf and whatnot). Christianity and Islam both came much later, with Islam being practically modern in comparison to both its 'older siblings'. we know pretty much everything there is to know about mohammed, because he really was just a canny ruler cynically exploiting faith, and because the records of this survived to more modern times where history was so highly valued. in contrast, it's very clear the myths of Jesus are a conflation of many messianic personalities of a few hundred year period, and Moses is basically just a patriarch archetype / symbol of authoritarian elder/patriarch rule, and the events ascribed to him are archetypes of different human behaviors.

the only was to reconcile this would be a white supremacist how else do you account for whites dominating if isn't culture that was directly tied to religion check and mate liberal atheists

Now you're not arguing, just posing your statements.
I guess we're done here unless you want to elaborate your points.
Because your points tell the reader nothing new or of value - except for your personal opinions and that you seem tired of this but wish to have the last word.

If you have questions, let me know.

It's a popular misconception that the "dark ages" caused a massive drop in science, mathematics, and engineering. It was the opposite. Massive mathematics and engineering went into war machines, and a myriad of scientific experiments were done on the dead or dying. It was during the dark ages that "doctors" of the time did most of their experiments and examinations on the circulatory system in the human body.

The medical end had to be done in secret for fear of being lynched by the uneducated masses, but a lot of valuable medical knowledge was gathered during that time.

Humanity doesn't suddenly stop valuing violence and warfare for the sake of conquest and resources because you remove religion.

Mystery Niggas

The "Dark" Ages were a time of less scientific expansion (compared to the times around, it's not as if nothing was invented and not everyone was walking around dirty and stupid...like (((they))) try to show in most of the movies) mainly because of the constant islamic threat of invasion, not because of tha ebil christianity.

In a world where Christianity doesn't exist some other religion would've just replaced it.
It's in Human nature to believe in some form of God, even the Atheists deify their set of beliefs to some extent, they almost worship idols of logic and reasoning while not realizing they're the same as the religious people they hate.
Mankind is Religious- no matter what, man and religion are inseparable and mutually inclusive entities, it's a biproduct of the fact we are an intelligent species.
If we weren't an intelligent, emotionally responsive, reasoning species then we wouldn't have Religion- but we do.

Why are you americans so keen on destroying what build your society up?

/thread

>If you have questions, let me know.

Well, alright here comes another assembly of text

>>Not possible if reality was invented by a being that is attributed to be perfect.
>Illogical position.

You have to elaborate because you didn't finish this thought, and it comes off as just an emotionally response.

>>It doesn't add up.
>It does, you're just seeing it simplistically.

There is no reason to complicate things needlessly. Do elaborate otherwise.

>>Why is it so important to be able to do evil?
>Freedom. Justice will be done, in this or the next.

How is it freedom to cause evil? Justice has nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned, but you should again elaborate what you mean by this evil and justice.

>>So in other words I should educate myself?
>Nothing wrong with educating yourself.

I could tell you the same, since you finish off that atheism, i.e. rejecting theistic claims of supernatural beings is illogical, but fail to elaborate why.

>>You sound like a SJW,
>Shh, butthurt.

Wouldn't a butthurt person start using all caps and call you names? I've only written so far that you come off as moronic.

>>Yes, you do since you keep replying.
>I corrected you.

Do you really not see that replying is caring, regardless if you think you're correcting anyone?

>>Well, by born with it I might as well call it tricked into it.
>Not even tricked. I see atheism as an illogical impossibility.

Unfinished thought. Please elaborate how atheism is an illogical impossibility.

>You have to elaborate because you didn't finish this thought, and it comes off as just an emotionally response.
Basically, there's no reason for this to be the case. You're thinking that perfect HAS to make something deliberately perfect. This is not true. Perfection does not require creating something that would be as perfect.

>Do elaborate otherwise.
You're thinking that this world, which is finite, has to be perfect. It doesn't. This world is supposed to be one of learning.

>How is it freedom to cause evil?
People can choose to do evil. However, ultimately, they will be paid for their results. To not allow evil is to not allow people to choose to do evil would be restricting them of their right.

As God is Just, however, they will be made responsible.

>I could tell you the same,
But you'd be wrong. I am religious because I reject atheism. Consciously. I used to be an atheist. It is my education on the subject which makes it illogical for me to be an atheist.

>but fail to elaborate why
Unfortunately it would be hundreds of pages worth of stuff. There are books on the subject, however, if you are interested.

In short: nothing cannot come from nothing. The universe cannot come from itself.

Some try to move to "gravity" - bu that's something. Or "laws of gravity" - that's something, and laws don't implement themselves. If I have £1000, it won't make £2000 without something. If I have a ball, it won't kick itself.

Or "the multiverse" - that's something. All it does is make a "turtles all the way down" argument. Before "b- but God", God is an eternal and changeless being. Something uncaused and eternal, not affected by change does not need a cause of its own.

>Wouldn't a butthurt person start using all caps and call you names? I've only written so far that you come off as moronic.
That's SJW-y. You may as well use privilege.

>Please elaborate how atheism is an illogical impossibility.
See above.

except they are hiding the cure for cancer and many others.

its fucking clear as day.

Not true

>You're thinking that perfect HAS to make something deliberately perfect. This is not true. Perfection does not require creating something that would be as perfect.

I don't see how. If you're perfect, your unable to be flawed. Unable to make mistakes.
The only conclusion I can derive from this is that if there is a Christian God - this is a sadistic God because this God created us with the knowledge of all the suffering and torment that were to fall upon us one way or the other.
I'm not just an atheist in this case, but an anti-theist.
If Satan is real I'd be on board with him as well because God comes off as the oppressor in this scenario.

>You're thinking that this world, which is finite, has to be perfect. It doesn't. This world is supposed to be one of learning.

I don't follow your reasoning. What is finite with this world?

>People can choose to do evil. However, ultimately, they will be paid for their results.

Then how is this freedom? I'd call that false freedom. True freedom has to have no negative consequences.
There has to be no persuasion for you to act otherwise than 'evil' if you're truly free to choose.
>As God is Just, however, they will be made responsible.
But you never explain how God is Just or what you attribute evil to exactly be.
Do you mean God will punish men for killing babies by throwing them to a pit of fire? That's revenge, not Justice. Justice is giving these men a second chance to regret their actions. Is this what you had in mind?

>I used to be an atheist. It is my education on the subject which makes it illogical for me to be an atheist.
>In short: nothing cannot come from nothing. The universe cannot come from itself.

But why not? Because you equate the universe to that of a ball that can't kick itself? This is a very human way of seeking for arbitrary answers for difficult questions. Can I equate your text to: 'Every painting needs a painting'? Have you ever seen God create another earth?

Where's Vlad the Impaler

...

>Every painting needs a painting'?
*Painter

>Jesus
>Beta Cuck
Factually fucking wrong.

Monastaries actually preserved a lot of information and the church funded most scientific advancement
>muh gallileo
read up on the court case, he was a fucking cunt and deserved worse

Actually I can deny it, because Christianity actually made Europe more literate.

Atheism is like the libertarianism of religious belief.

"We could be to the stars by now if it wasn't for the state" I keep hearing stupid shit like this, and the arguments seem staggeringly similar.

I see naive kids saying this often. Christians destroyed and rewrote what was left from the Roman Empire, Greece, Egypt. Monks rewrote and corrupted history. Previous knowledge was stamped out and replaced with jewus, the learned and pagan were mass murdered, knowledge of the runes was a death sentence, etc. How is Christianity different from communism?

Who said it's a mistake?

this is a sadistic God because this God created us with the knowledge of all the suffering and torment that were to fall upon us one way or the other.
Not at all. Pain is temporary. God also came to Earth to suffer with us, and offer us the possibility to join with Him.

>If Satan is real I'd be on board with him as well because God comes off as the oppressor in this scenario.
You're seeing it too simplistically, though. You're seeing it in an atheistic sense. This could not be further from God. But then again, you're an anti-theist, so I'm not surprised, to be honest. Your opposition seems to be mainly emotional.

>What is finite with this world?
This world itself. It had a beginning, it will have an end. It is not perfect. None of it is supposed to be.

>True freedom has to have no negative consequences.
That's completely incorrect. You're free to do things and feel the consequences. If you do something without consequences, you're not free.

>Is this what you had in mind?
Both.

>But why not? Because you equate the universe to that of a ball that can't kick itself? This is a very human way of seeking for arbitrary answers for difficult questions. Can I equate your text to: 'Every painting needs a painting'? Have you ever seen God create another earth?
Because everything about the universe suggests it's impossible - and yet we're supposed to say it could do it once. That's illogical.

You know that, deep down. You're not an idiot.

>why aren't we ruled by 3 regions that do everything they can to kill their inhabitants
>implying China wasn't the best dynasty for eons

Define advancement for me. Can you quantify it? Also, is that a fedora tip for ants?

Judging by Dubai and the United Emirate States, I think the countries that are habitable would have really flourished.

Because a warrior would let himself be betrayed, tortured and humiliated? Jewus is the ultimate cuck for the slave-like goyim.

Thank God (pun not intended) someone else knows this.

If he could've calmed his tits he wouldn't have ended up the way it did.

HAH!

>>

"corrupted and rewrote"
Go back to bed you tinfoil-wearing Zeigeist-watching cuck

Reminds me of this

You think one super Church is better than having several smaller branches? Ignorance at its finest.

they confused christianity with islam again

He's a Swede, though; they love their big-government statism.

>Know for a fact India is a few 1,000 miles to the east before Alexander the ever went there.
>Hey, lets go west, it'll be quicker.

You must be a muslim rape baby to know so little about your own countries history

>Who said it's a mistake?

I do. We began with the argument that a God that is perfect shouldn't be able to produce a life manual that's open to various interpretations. One God, One Church, One Branch. That these people can disagree with each other on petty stuff offers proof that it's not the works of a perfect God.

>Not at all. /.../

Pain can last your whole life, as in damaging pain. So if you mean temporary as in death will release you, then yes. In all other circumstances No.
I really loathe the idea that God came to Earth to suffer with us. A suffering He created himself for no good reason.

>You're seeing it too simplistically /.../

Again I have no idea what you mean by simplistically. This seems to be a cup out word for you to avoid elaborating your own opinions.
This is not emotional for me so much as it is a matter of perspective. The way you've painted up God is as an sadistic oppressor without realising it. Naturally this is a bad thing and you wish it to go away, if it was real. I do not think God is real.

>This world itself /.../

Again I agree with you, from an atheistic point of view.

>That's completely incorrect /.../

You missed negative in my sentence, but I disagree wholeheartedly with you any way. Total freedom of action is not being persuaded by negative consequences. Any persuasion will affect your decision, thus not a free will decision.

>Because everything about the universe suggests it's impossible /.../
>You know that, deep down. You're not an idiot.

You seem to have missed my last sentence. Have you ever seen God (or a God) create another Earth, Universe or mankind? What's illogical is attributing an intelligence that's changeless and eternal to have created the universe. We just don't know the natural causes, yet. You're arguing a 'God of the gaps'.

>a warrior wouldn't sacrifice himself to save those he loves

Classic fedora

Cred Forums retards taking the bait as per usual

I'm arguing a perfect God wouldn't have allowed his life manual to be interpreterad in more than one way, i.e. the Catholic Church since it appears to be the first official big one.
I place no value on what is better, just that One God should have One Church under it.

I don't, but you're the one to talk. The UK is probably equal or more big-government than Sweden is.

>bait this stale
C'mon user

A broken record that builds propaganda machine of seth mcfarlane used to program the masses, whom are undereducated.
Family guy is used to form the opinion of 12-30 year olds and help program them to be Amoral
sexual deviants based on Seth's opinion of how the world works. The last person I would ever talk to for advice would be a film student.
Seth talks a big game about enlightenment, but I doubt he could do a simple math proof .

The old episodes where great however. Very cutting edge. Very Hilarious

Then explain to me why many of those texts only survived because CHRISTIAN MONKS devoted their lives to copying those non-religious texts?

I came here just to see how many times this was posted.

christianity is the foundation of western civilization.
If we didn't have it we wouldn't have fought the mudslimes. We wouldn't have fought the kikes.
The freedom you know today is thanks to christianity.

>le without christianity we would be insterstellar nao
I have bad news for you. The future is anihiliation and extinction. You should thank christianity that they halted this fate for an entire milenium. Without christianity the world would be now a god damn nuclear wasteland not a futuristic paradise.

Let me ask, who's helping settle the 'refugees' in the UK? Is it the churches? Because that's who's doing it here. Why don't you get educated goyim

wow you really made your point
my braincells are on fire

This

>We began with the argument that a God that is perfect shouldn't be able to produce a life manual that's open to various interpretations
Faulty premise.

>I really loathe the idea that God came to Earth to suffer with us.
That's your problem, though.

>This seems to be a cup out word for you to avoid elaborating your own opinions.
Not at all. It *is* simplistic, because you're looking at it from an angle not found by believers.

>The way you've painted up God is as an sadistic oppressor without realising it
If I have, then I'm at fault. It is the opposite.

>otal freedom of action is not being persuaded by negative consequences. Any persuasion will affect your decision, thus not a free will decision.
That doesn't make sense.

>You seem to have missed my last sentence. Have you ever seen God (or a God) create another Earth, Universe or mankind?
Why should I? That's not even a relevant question. Perhaps God has. Perhaps not. It has no bearing, though.

>We just don't know the natural causes, yet. You're arguing a 'God of the gaps'.
You're arguing a 'non-God of the gaps', actually. It's genuinely the opposite, a God of the gaps is the exact opposite of what I'm talking about.

This is why I say that you are looking at things simplistically. You are looking at God like Zeus.

It's also to do with your premise, faulty at its inception:

Premise 1: God is an explanation for how the universe works
Premise 2: Science is also an explanation for how the universe works
Premise 3: As science explains more, God explains less
Premise 4: Therefore, as science advances, God retreats.
Premise 5: Science is advancing.
Conclusion: God is retreating.

Premise 1: God must be the sort of person who would create universe “A”
Premise 2: Science demonstrates that our universe is universe “B”
Premise 3: Therefore, God did not create our universe.
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist

Nonsense.

[Running out of room.]

the real "dark age" was the fall of Rome itself, caused by multiculturalism

But most of us hate it.

Because churches have been infested by parasitical lefitsts who're trying to destroy it and idealised idiots.

No one?

The thing is.... the government and social structure was followed by the people because the kings and leaders had the "Divine Right" to be in charge.

Without these structures society would have had no organization and we would still have been split into a million different tribes and villages and slinging shit at eachother for 1000 years instead of organizing into civilizations

What. the. fuck.

How can you be such a retard? Science only survived the middle ages because the Catholic Church kept records, and monks like Mendel kept researching. Even the mudslimes did some sciencing during their "Golden Age"

Seth MacFarlane is a cuck and a puppet of the Jews

>Faulty premise.
I disagree. Perfection means perfect, as we all understand it. I guess you do not think your God is perfect.

>That's your problem, though.
Indeed. How would you interpret this in the case of freedom of will? Will I get punished for thinking it's a moronic and cruel way to go about by God?

>Not at all. It *is* simplistic, because you're looking at it from an angle not found by believers.
Thank you, finally some headway. I do realise you've swallowed this idea whole but as you notice, I have not. Still, a cup out word it remains but you don't see it that way.

>If I have, then I'm at fault. It is the opposite.
Again, you don't see it. But from the perspective of a non-believer I do. I'm not sold on the idea and probably never will be.

>That doesn't make sense.
Why does it not make any sense? One example I have in mind is this: eating fatty foods that are delicious. You know the consequences is that you'll get fat and get problems, so you refrain. This isn't freedom of will, you know the fatty food is bad for you. If you had total free will, the fatty food would only taste good and cause no negative consequences. This is my reasoning with this.

>Why should I? That's not even a relevant question. Perhaps God has. Perhaps not. It has no bearing, though.

It has, because unless you've observed it at least once it's a bad idea to assume it happened.
All I, as an atheist, can state is that we're here, and we do not know what caused our universe to spring into existence and I see no intent as you do by an intelligence.

>You're arguing a 'non-God of the gaps', actually. It's genuinely the opposite, a God of the gaps is the exact opposite of what I'm talking about.

If this is how you define natural causes, sure. 'Non-God of the gaps' it is.
I think your 'Premise' and 'Conclusion' was quite quaint.
You should elaborate why you think it's nonsense and God is not like Zeus.

nobody will take you seriously if your last conclusion is JEWS DID IT.

TRUTH

>I expect to be taken seriously on Cred Forums
lol :^)

also, prove that it isn't yet another way for the Jews that own the TV programming to subvert the masses away from something anti-degenerate like Christianity

Perfection means perfect, indeed, but there is no reason to think that a perfect being must create perfection either way.

>How would you interpret this in the case of freedom of will?
That you're wrong?

>Will I get punished for thinking it's a moronic and cruel way to go about by God?
That's not for me to decide.

>This is my reasoning with this.
But your reasoning doesn't work. These are here. We know better. If you misuse them, it's wrong.

>It has, because unless you've observed it at least once it's a bad idea to assume it happened.
And we don't know about other worlds. That's science's job to help us find.

>You should elaborate why you think it's nonsense and God is not like Zeus.
God is being. He isn't some created being in the universe. He is not a personification of nature. He is not temporary. He doesn't live in the universe. He doesn't eat or thrive on prayers or anything like that.

Here's a hint: the Cistine chapel drawings are just drawings.

So only Europe would be able to make technological achievements?

That's pretty racist

>Perfection means perfect, indeed, but there is no reason to think that a perfect being must create perfection either way.

Yes, there is a good reason. It's called being perfect. Unless you can demonstrate it being otherwise.

>That you're wrong?
Not very informative.
>That's not for me to decide.
But what do you believe?

>But your reasoning doesn't work. These are here. We know better. If you misuse them, it's wrong.

I disagree obviously, I think my reasoning does work and I explained it with the fatty foods. I do not get what you disagree with.
You don't demonstrate any of your points much.

>And we don't know about other worlds. That's science's job to help us find.

Sure, but what's your point?

>God is being. He isn't some created being in the universe. He is not a personification of nature. He is not temporary. He doesn't live in the universe. He doesn't eat or thrive on prayers or anything like that.

Am I correct you sum this up for you that God is everything? How come a God that is everything needs us to read his book and 'come down' to suffer for us so we can be with God - who is everywhere to begin with. See my problem with your reasoning here?

How advanced would the world be if Judaism died 3000 years ago?