Why do lefties say humanity would be way further advanced without religion?

bullshit.

What is the X axis?

>tfw Atheist communism fucked up half of Eurasia
>Religious Mohammedans ruined the other half
it's almost like things aren't black and white

Update your shit

Phaetan should have 10% more science.

Also they forget a lot of the renassiance progression was funded through the church.

the "dark ages" were caused by the collapse of Rome and Europe, not Christianity

Atheist here, but it's because they are historically illiterate, Europe as we know it today literally would not exist if not for Christianity.

"dark ages" are caused by the collapse of empires, wars and the spreading of disease.

All 3 things which would've happened with or without religion. Religion is just the excuse. It doesn't matter if you use ideology or religion to control the populace.

How do you explain the loss of 500 science points during Christian Dark Ages then?

BTFO

And even "dark ages" is a debunked historical theme. There were many advancements in this period.

this, very intollerant of them

Joke's on them, I'm not religious and if I had the power I'd have them gassed too.

Exactly, because the medieval times were full of scientists and doctors the church assassinated. Newton, Euler, Gauss, medical advancements etc were just rehashing ideas oppressed by religion.

Crusaders censored a bunch of inventors.

Copernicus worked for the church. So did Mendel. So did Newton. So did fucking Darwin. For centuries the church was the greatest patron of the arts and sciences in all of history and was directly responsible for the miraculous foundations of modern civilization.

Galileo got in trouble for being a brat. It was the official stance of the church that if empirical evidence of the natural world contradicted official biblical interpretation, they must have read it wrong.

Swede hits the nail for once.
On a personal level, it doesn't matter at all whether you're religious or not. You're not going to work better, atheists and agnostics have other coping mechanisms, you can still act for the greater good, etc.

ironically they know nothing about the foundations of higher education

Because they're uneducated and don't realize things like genetics, evolution, and scientific theory were all created by devout Christians.

Science will exist as long as white men have brown people to kill or escape from.

>Why do lefties say humanity would be way further advanced without religion?

The same reason adherants of any religion always claim that humanity would be way further advanced/better off if everyone accepted their version of the truth.

Leftism is hugely anti-scientific with regards to any area which may be politically controversial and upsetting to their worldview whether it's GMOs, significance of genetic differences between individuals and population groups, reality of gender differences, climate science which doesn't fit the "more government power, only us good people can save the Earth by making others pay more taxes" narrative, which economic and political systems provide foundations for freest and richest nations etc etc

>500 science points

dude what?

Many of them do, but they are liars trying to change history for their agenda.

you can also call it death by mass immigration

I know right? It's like, as if society would be better without all the jews and muslims, fucking leftists.

>Leftism is hugely anti-scientific with regards to any area which may be politically controversial
That isn't leftism, just a tendency of modern left wing parties.

By religion, they mean Christianity because they want to destroy our society and it's values. Hint: At the same time, they praise Islam.

>I am a REAL left winger!!!

Fuck off, Sargon of Mossad.

The fact that science progressed under Christians doesn't mean it wouldn't have progressed more without them.
I'm not saying that it would, just that your statement isn't an answer to OP's question.

>ironically they know nothing about the foundations of higher education

wtf im a #muslimmissile now

Why is it always up to the white man to make scientific advances? Couldn't some other races made some advances?

Stupid meme. Christianity created modern science. The mudslimes enslave poo in loos then claim they invented numbers.

On point. Btw radical lefties actually encourage religion though. It's just the normie burnouts and fedoras who badmouth religion

Because you need to be religious to be right-wing.

No religion = no rightwingers.

no rightwingers = leftwingers win by default

>Newton, Euler, Gauss
First two were devout Christians, all of them were outspoken anti-atheists.

The scientific method was eventually discovered through the monastic culture of learning about the world to "become closer to God". All the great scientific minds were theists looking to understand "God". Atheism is a christian concept developed in the christian age of enlightenment. Christian materialism created a testable worldview where we could go to the moon.

>Why do lefties say humanity would be way further advanced without religion?

For the same reason righties say humanity wouldn't have advanced at all without religion.

Because no one really knows what would've happened

>Stupid meme. Christianity created modern science.

The topic wasn't modern science, it was foundations of higher education.

Since you can't take a joke, let's go full autist and clarify that European academy started with Plato's University of Athens. Plato wasn't a Christian.

They do believe this. The "Alt-right" is the proof that they are wrong. Alt-right could just be considered the non-religious right. It's really a backfire of their own ideology.

>Atheism is a christian concept

Read this quote:
“Doth some one say that there be gods above?
There are not; no, there are not. Let no fool,
Led by the old false fable, thus deceive you.”

Does that sound like some medieval LARP fedorafag from tumblr?
Maybe, but it's from Euripides who lived 480–406 BC.

How can atheism be a Christian concept when it's been around long before Christianity?

Atheist right wing here
Do you are wrong

The quote is translated into english and then further translated as we map the concepts he was trying to convey into our modern, christian way of thinking.

>He has been described as 'the poet of the Greek enlightenment' and also as 'Euripides the irrationalist';[nb 2] as a religious sceptic if not an atheist, but on the other hand, as a believer in divine providence and the ultimate justice of divine dispensation.

He was a theist that believed in the divine."There are no gods above" needs more context from the time to know it's meaning, maybe he was annoyed with people representing divinity with flawed people they called "gods" like the Greeks did.

>The original Right in France was formed as a reaction against the Left, and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.

> the right-wing originated with traditional conservatives, monarchists and reactionaries,

> the main line dividing Left and Right in France was between supporters of the republic (often secularists) and supporters of the monarchy (often Catholics)

>Government support for an established religion was associated with the original French "right wing

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

Self-proclaimed Atheist rightwingers are like "true conservatives", anything but.

They don't have a clear understanding of history. They conflate Renaissance secular humanism with modern day secular humanism.

The Renaissance secular humanists were Christians, but they believed that there were social spheres outside of the the Catholic Church. That you could both believe in God and have a civic culture that pursued art, philosophy and politics.

Modern day secular humanism has become a synonym for agnostics and atheists. Something for people who believe in no higher power than that of humanity as a whole.

Plainly bs. There are plenty of christian scientists, like Thomas Aquinas, who were not persecuted for studying the natural world. And there are examples of pagan scientists, like Hypatia of Alexandria, who were persecuted not over science but because they were constantly engaged in pagan rituals and summoning spirits. It's almost as if a religion cares about religion.

>Galileo got in trouble for being a brat.
The Jesuits had it out for him. They twisted his words around.

This was one of Gibbon's theses in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The monks sidetracked large numbers of otherwise productive men into living as hermits in monasteries. Otherwise intelligent and well educated men were put on a path towards never having children.

They usually refers to the supposed ''dark age'' which instead of being plagued by religious ignorance was plagued by other forces.

Such as mudslime attacks and disease.

>How can atheism be a Christian concept when it's been around long before Christianity?

>Why do lefties say humanity would be way further advanced without religion?
Lack of education/knowledge?

They are stupid delusional faggots that dont understand how societies and civilizations built and sustained.

youtube.com/watch?v=ywTljZW87dI

>French politics are universal

Think of how much better the middle east would be without religion blowing shit up every year.

>site of the first major city and written language
>third world shit hole because of a magic book

What am I looking at here

>science points
>mfw we've been living in a Sid Meyer game all along.

Language, human thought and concepts are evolving and building on each other. They don't just appear out of thin air.

The concept of "divinity" has been around since spirit worship which is the basis of abstract thought. Denying the concept of divinity in the year 400BC would be like someone in modern times denying that the basic concept of "universe" is valid. No one would understand what he's talking about because he's abandoned common concepts for his own, which today would be diagnosed as schizophrenia.

Denying divinity is only possible in the context that modern christian materialism gives so it's a christian concept.

>Denying divinity is only possible in the context that modern christian materialism gives
But the character Euripides wrote did exactly that.

"Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don't believe in the gods. What's your argument? Where's your proof?"

Most of the ME wasn't that extremist until the late 19th century roughly, when Wahhabism took root under the guise that it could protect them colonial powers. It was more of a backlash against colonialism.

It only stuck because the Saudis and other Persian Gulf dynasties still fund it because they see it as an essential pillar of their rule.

The issues with the Middle East aren't exclusively caused by Islam. That land has marginal fertility as a result of being farmed continuously for the past 10,000 years.

Their practice of mass polygamy essentially ensures that their population will quickly reach the limits of the carrying capacity of the land.

Egypt went from a population of 36.6 million people at the time the Aswan Dam was completed in the 1970s to an estimated 91.8 million people today.

The large populations are the root cause of the modern conflicts. The irony is that without the US exporting agricultural technology in the 1970s, most of those people wouldn't even exist.

if i see one more of these cancerous frogs slapped onto a fucking useless thread i'm gonna snap

But I already pointed out there is a difference between the concept of the greek gods and divinity. That guy was not an atheist, he was annoyed at Greek culture.

...

I get the feeling we could solve all of the world's problems if we stopped giving aid and weapons to other countries for a year or two. The famine and disease alone would fix things.

1. Christianity has executed scientists who defied the Bible's teachings, such as Galileo, despite them being scientifically accurate on the basis of 'MUH HOLY BIBLE'

2. Christianity led to internal divisions within the Roman Empire, leading to many civil wars that weakened it against the barbarian hordes.
Once it became the main religion, it pacified the romans into being cucks, unlike the germans who invaded them.

3. The statement was used in 2010-2013 by prevalent atheists due to the rise of creationism, a theory that tried to be a legitimate scientific theory based on the Bible, to contend with evolution (hurdur if humans came from monkeys Y R DER STILL MONKEYS?). It was eventually discredited and discarded by every scientist alive.

4. Islam, a modern day religion closely based upon Christianity (Islam is literally christianity - Muhammed) , holds back much of the Middle East and Africa, with a complete disdain for education (bombing schools for no reason, ect), and it's different sects with VERY little differences between one another have led to divisions in these countries and civil war. This, logically, hinders scientific progress

Those are the main reasons as far as i know.

>But I already pointed out there is a difference between the concept of the greek gods and divinity.

Which matters only because you say it does, when in reality all an atheist is is someone not believing in god/s. Which is the case for that character. Or that other one in my last post, written by Aristophanes.

Let's try another one: "this universe, which is the same for all, has not been made by any god or man, but it always has been, is, and will be an ever-living fire, kindling itself by regular measures and going out by regular measures."

Lefties don't know shit.

I am not Catholic, but Catholicism made the world the paradise it used to be.

Judaism ruined it, beginning with slavery.

Mohammedism will finish us off, I fear.

time.

FPBP

Galileo was not executed for science or anything like that, Galileo simply would not stop talking shit to the Church for years and years on unrelated grounds.

youtube.com/watch?v=YNoRr5JaIxU

Of course they're not, you stupid hippie.
Looking at the origin of the terms makes it easier to make a clear distinction between them.
And it is very obvious that, generally speaking, the left is the side of secularism and atheism.

There is a lot of confusion and debate about the correct definition of left and right. But it only makes sense if you maintain a sort of one drop rule.
This is why you get the absurd debate between free market conservatives calling national socialists left-wing and vice versa.
They're both left-wing of course.

youtube.com/watch?v=LFlQlFhQm64

The fall of Rome, which was ultimately caused by bureaucracy and socialism.

Because religion eschews skepticism and replaces it with dogmatic authority

Who created the Universe? uh...the bible says God did it
Who created the Earth? uh...the bible says God did it
Who created Man? uh...the bible says God did it

That isn't to say there haven't been phenomenal Christian scientists throughout the years who worked hard to understand the methods through which "God" worked. But when you find yourself denying the age of the universe, evolution, a spherical Earth, gravity, just because it doesn't fit with your dogmatic scripture? It's clearly regressive.

There would be better results if it were for a decade. Europe and China would try to pick up the slack through aid and weapons respectively, but they won't be able to do much without the United States.

What cult am I looking at here? What science or scripture are you referring to?

because they do not care about the past, which is what makes them iconic evil robots who don't care about nostalgia

>Why do lefties say humanity would be way further advanced without religion?

Because faith-based ideology and hardline dogma tends to prevent people from embracing new data that may lead them to new, truer, and more useful conclusions.
They rightfully see that many people embrace religion fully on faith, and stick hard to dogma despite any new information.

What they do not see is:
>1) the lefties tend to also follow faith-based thinking and dogma in their ideologies - e.g. Feminism, multicultural myths, Islam is a religion of peace, etc.
>2) unlike their faith-based ideologies, some religions present a unified framework of ethics that help prevent a unified people from degenerating in their culture, often making them stronger and better

The best way is neither traditional religious practice, nor progressive nonsense.
The best path is a unified identity within each society that respects their heritage (including respect of their cultures' traditional religion), but having a scientific view of both ethics and politics, aimed at strengthening their people.
We should celebrate our religious holidays, religious figures, and religious history, as it is part of our people and cultural identity. But rather than Sunday schools at churches, we should be teaching our children critical thinking, research methodology, evidence-based thinking, and so on.

>Who created the Universe? uh...the bible says God did it
>Who created the Earth? uh...the bible says God did it
>Who created Man? uh...the bible says God did it

Catholicism calls man to take up science to figure out how God performs his miracles.

>But when you find yourself denying the age of the universe, evolution, a spherical Earth, gravity, just because it doesn't fit with your dogmatic scripture? It's clearly regressive.
We don't do this
The Bible literally says the Earth is round and tons of shit like this.

Then there's no issue?

If your religion makes you happy and doesn't push regressive ideology, more power to you.

While the Mudslimes weren't nearly as productive as classical Greeks or Renaissance Europeans, they were the center of the scientific world and were making some progress during the European Dark Ages.

>Because religion eschews skepticism and replaces it with dogmatic authority
I was countering this. You made a broad generalization without acknowledging it.

meant for

>Read this quote:
>“Doth some one say that there be gods above?
>There are not; no, there are not. Let no fool,
>Led by the old false fable, thus deceive you.”
Christianity just predicted this shit.

The church did not execute galileo. He was put on house arrest for agreeing to accumulate more evidence before teaching heliocentricism as fact. Then he did the opposite. The church had been enamored by the idea of heliocentricism before Galileo worked on it

Rome was weakened by strings of insane, retarded rulers

Young earth creationism is nothing new and its belief was both never comprehensive among christians nor didit have any significant effect on scientific or technological advancement

The mudslimes would be awful with or without their shitty mudslime religion.

It holds true. You take it on faith that God created the universe. Your only evidence of this, thus far, is religious authority.

That guy is a part of the development of Christianity, he´s coming to terms with the concept of monotheism and coined the Logos meme. An early christian describe him a Christian before Christ. Nothing to do with the modern concept of materialistic atheism.

>Jesus is placed in his cosmic setting as the eternal Logos made flesh
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

>all religions are shit but Christianity is the real deal and the true word of muh god
*tips maga hat*

> Fino Korean hyper war
Every time

Well it certainly isn't your moon worshipping deathcult, you camel fucking cockroach.

Bad meme, men.

amazon.com/Navigating-Genesis-Scientists-Journey-through/dp/1886653860

amazon.com/Why-Universe-Way-Hugh-Ross/dp/0801071968/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_3?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=12ND60E840NS988ZR0JV

amazon.com/Matter-Days-Resolving-Creation-Controversy/dp/1886653135/ref=pd_sim_14_4?ie=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1886653135&pd_rd_r=TR7SW5C6WK4M53S2VYAT&pd_rd_w=7kSiO&pd_rd_wg=lTSWb&psc=1&refRID=TR7SW5C6WK4M53S2VYAT

yeah im pretty sure its your god who created him self then sacrificed himself to protect humanity from himself ... im pretty sure jesus didnt not steal the story from Horus, Mithras, Krishna, Dionysus ....

Rome collapsed cause it was pussified by the christian takeover.

Protip: just because something is said in a documentary doesn't mean that it's true.

>unlike the germans who invaded them.
The germans were also christians.
The problem with the Roman Empire was that it was built upon a false economy that required conquest to maintain itself. Also the corruption was awful. The only way christianity hurt The Roman Empire was by changing the hierarchy because people thought of the emperors and leaders as Gods.

>a modern day religion closely based upon Christianity (Islam is literally christianity - Muhammed)
LOL
who gave you this information besides the shitty pope. Their teachings are so fucking different.

>#not all Christians

this isn't an argument
Next you'll be telling us that we need to tolerate Muzzies

it mostly does if it has reliable sources

check out the works of Graham Hancock if you're actually interested

Aquinas just go all his ideas from Avicenna

How did I say this? I just said there is evidence to support christianity. It's by no means 100 percent, but there is certainly plenty of stuff to go off of.

>we don't know how the universe started
>therefore it must have been God, exactly how the bible describes him

this isn't a reasonable line of thought

The good muzzies are muzzies that don't know their religion and shouldn't be trusted because they are the seeds of a bad muzzie.

Friendly reminder that the dark ages were caused by the eternal german barbarian and not by Christianity.

>Horus
>born after his mother Isis fucked Osisis' reassembled dildo penis
>didn't resurrect

>Mithras
>born from a rock
>sacrifices bulls

>Dionysus
>born from Zeus' leg
>has forest orgies

The only figure in your list that might resemble Jesus is Krishna, because they both incarnate from heaven and spend time btfo demons. That's about it though.

Well the one you're talking about did not, or badly misinterpreted them. Wasn't that a Moore film? Tells you everything you need to know.

Lefist here
>humanity
>advance
Wew

i had no idea there was such a documentary

>beautiful
>tsarist

What else can you asked in a woman?

Also checked

liberalamerica.org/2015/03/17/5-near-identical-jesus-christ-myths-that-predate-jesus/

Because they're racists. They're assuming that white invented everything. So if white didn't go through dark ages, we would be exploring neighboring galaxy.

I'm interested because it sounds interesting but I don't expect to convert or anything.

No. The chart is saying that a first causer must exist and possess the listed traits (pretty divine sounding traits if you ask me). This force becomes God when conscious. This chart increases the chances of a God existing but is by no means 100 percent, which is what I said.

That's factually wrong though. There is no such figure as Anup the Baptizer.

There are a shit ton of stories of course there will be some overlap. Besides concepts such as sacrifice are burned into our DNA. The Bible said the Messiah would be sacrificed way before Jesus.

The Dark Ages were caused by the fall of Rome. That empire had long been in decline by their own doing - debasement of the currency, massive importation of cheap labor, gigantic welfare state, erosion of gender roles - for a century, which had very little to do with the Germanic barbarian tribes. Those tribes simply came in and picked up the pieces when Rome disintegrated, and failed to do as good a job as classical Rome had done for most of its history (which, in all fairness, probably nobody else at the time could have done).

If the Germanic tribes had simply stayed home, and only ruled their little native soil, the Dark Ages still would have happened.

>Anubis
fuck you im not going to google things for you

>scientific advancement
>no units whatsoever on the y axis

Why do people keep posting this shitty bait?

They do have a religion, the belief that there is absolutely no deity.

I'm sick of threads like this where someone makes a retarded claim (the dark ages don't exist) and people just accept it without calling them out for it.

Quit reading dumb conspiracy theories and instantly taking them as fact, you always do this Cred Forums.

>concepts such as sacrifice are burned into our DNA
holy fuck

If it's Anubis then why not say Anubis the Baptizer? Is it perhaps because Anubis didn't actually perform baptisms?

>Someone who has never read an up to date history book.

I said that wrong. I meant the idea of a sacrifice shows up in societies around the world. People just naturally come up with this shit. It's like how nearly every society has been a patriarchy. It's not like this is because of some head honcho patriarchy that used to exists and influenced all other patriarchies. It's just how people are.

Its circular reasoning though

>Causality says that the universe can't be timeless
>Causality says the at the universe needs a creator
>Oh and btw, causality doesn't apply to God so he can be timeless and doesn't require a creator

If you think causality doesn't allow for the universe we live in, then your issue should be with causality.
If causality doesn't apply to God, then it is not an absolute. Anything, no matter how unlikely, could spring into existence without cause.

holy shit that graph is retarded
isn't smack dab in the middle of that trough the technological advancements that enabled the crusades to kick to much ass?

Don't be such a desperate fedora and try to read everything in such a way that would seem bad when the meaning in context is very obvious.

The chart is saying that must be some sort of force that doesn't abide by natural laws. I think you need to read the chart again and remove this weird idea of God that you have in your head.

>Someone who believes conspiracy theories

>worldwide flood
top kek. Look up the Iraqi floodplains, professor.

>The chart is saying that must be some sort of force that doesn't abide by natural laws
If there is some force that doesn't apply to natural laws, then they are no longer laws. Your argument relies on natural laws being absolute, your solution relies on them not being absolute.

Do you honestly not see the problem with this?

cracked.com/article_20615_5-ridiculous-myths-you-probably-believe-about-dark-ages.html

history.com/news/history-lists/6-reasons-the-dark-ages-werent-so-dark

Feel free to check everything here. The second article also critiques previous historians.

>((((Cracked))))

>implying the catholic church didnt stifle scientific progress for hundreds of years

no its like folklore stories and myths passed from a place to place and time to time creating multiple superheros with the same magical nonsense . people believe it because they want to, not because its actually believable or logical.

jesus is just an extend of ancient stories and myths regardless of him being a real person (human) ..

The chart is saying these absolute laws must not be absolute, so what could this be.

It's more to see the presented ideas and fact check them in the appropriate places. Don't be such a willful autist.

The idea of a God is that it wouldn't follow natural laws because it creates and defines them.