this post was submitted on
1,395 points (55% like it)
6,581 up votes 5,186 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,232,765 readers

1,647 users here now

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
AtheistVids atheismbot secularstudents
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
11/9-11 Skepticon - Springfield MO
3/28-31 AA Convention - Austin
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

Read The FAQ

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

1394
1395

When people says our government needs "Christian Morals"... (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by Freethinker4life

top 200 commentsshow all 366
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]CowFu 389 points390 points ago

Modern historians generally do not classify the European era between the decline of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance as the "Dark Ages". In the past, usage of the term has varied in different countries and disciplines. It could refer to anything from the widespread loss of literacy in early medieval Britain and the consequent absence of any sources for that period (roughly 5th/6th century) to the entire Migration Period or Early Middle Ages. In contrast, as early as the Carolingian Renaissance lost knowledge was regained and educational efforts were made. Among the main reasons why modern scholars tend to avoid the term are its generalized negative connotations stemming from popular culture that expanded on it as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness.

Please stop being so ignorant, or if you must continue stop trying to spread it to others.

[–]remton_asq 103 points104 points ago

It's low grade political propaganda...it's not supposed to be accurate.

[–]random_potatoes 147 points148 points ago

I think you just described the entirety of /r/atheism.

[–]RedAnarchist 143 points144 points ago

Also...

During the period of European history often called the Dark Ages which followed the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, Church scholars and missionaries played a vital role in preserving knowledge of Classical Learning. While the Roman Empire and Christian religion survived in an increasingly Hellenised form in the Byzantine Empire centred at Constantinople in the East, Western civilization suffered a collapse of literacy and organization following the fall of Rome in 476AD. Monks sought refuge at the far fringes of the known world: like Cornwall, Ireland, or the Hebrides. Disciplined Christian scholarship carried on in isolated outposts like Skellig Michael in Ireland, where literate monks became some of the last preservers in Western Europe of the poetic, scientific and philosophical works of Western antiquity.

And

As Western Europe became more orderly again, the Church remained a driving force in education, with Cathedral schools beginning in the Early Middle Ages as centers of advanced education, often evolving into the medieval universities which were the springboard of many of Western Europe's later achievements.

This is literally the the opposite of what most of r/atheism wants to believe.

And yet, time and time again this Dark Ages bullshit keeps raising to the top no matter how many times we clear up the misconception in the comments.

[–]edkennedy 35 points36 points ago

Thank you so much for being near the top. Every time I see these posts, it pisses me off. I have as much of a problem with Christianity of the next guy, but there are plenty of REAL problems with the religion, attributing things to them that are just patently untrue is a waste of time and serves no purpose but to lower your credibility.

[–]Directors_Cut 4 points5 points ago

There seems to be a divide between people who comment on a thread in r/atheism, and those who upvote the posts.

[–]d0odk 7 points8 points ago

Wait... so was there or was there not a period that can properly be referred to as the Dark Ages.

[–]RedAnarchist 12 points13 points ago

Short answer yes, long answer no.

Hope that cleared things up.

[–]OreoC00kieMonster 0 points1 point ago

Depends on what you consider "properly" modern historians don't use the term. If you use it, people generally have a vague idea of what you are referring to, but it is considered at best outdated.

[–]edkennedy 0 points1 point ago

Yes, if you're referring to simply Europe. If you're talking about the entire period, no. Outside of the European barbarians, the Arabs were inventing algebra and the Chinese were off inventing gunpowder and generally kicking ass.

Europeans were a little "in the dark" though, yes. The point is that the only reason they weren't completely hung out to dry is because of Christian monks keeping records and such and generally being scholarly for the good of future generations.

[–]SonnyBlack90 -1 points0 points ago

Yes, but it's not called the Dark Ages because it was bad. It's called the dark ages because relatively little is known about it.

Same as how dark matter isn't some evil matter or something, it's just matter they can't describe.

So they don't call it the dark ages because people see the word dark and assume it means bad, which isn't the case.

[–]phlegmatichumour 1 point2 points ago

I believe Petrarch made up the term because he disliked the education style at the time (more emphasis on specialized knowledge, less on greek, latin, rhetoric, etc.) Not really the main model of education today either.

[–]p_U_c_K 0 points1 point ago

Dude... you just clearly changed your mind after reading this responses and tried to shit out what you just learned. It's not the same thing as dark matter, semantically. It IS referred to as the dark ages because of the lack of education, economic regression, etc. but it's not because of religion, there are tons of factors and tons of different ideas of WHEN that occured, as well as WHERE.

While you can argue that little is known about it (as people argue about the when and where), it isn't called that because of the lack of consensus... Think about the renaissance, what does that word mean? And what would come before something becomes that? I was going to say: it's not called the iron age because it was discovered by stark industries but the other one sounded less dicky, and more smarter...ing.

Hapablap.

load more comments (2 replies)

    [–]thrawnie 2 points3 points ago

    This is literally the the opposite of *what most of r/atheism wants to believe. *

    This is contradicted by the fact that such clarification comments as yours (and this thread in general) keep getting voted to the top. Try not to get on the circlejerkers' bandwagon please. You and the top post made some very good points and the active community seems to have responded well, as it seems to in most cases of idiotic propaganda images.

    It is an objective question whether the efficacy of a subreddit (and your justification in using phrases like "most of r/atheism") should be judged by the active posting subset of the community or merely the drive-by voting bloc that brings crap like this to the top every day. I think it is clear what the answer is, don't you?

    [–]yes_thats_right 0 points1 point ago

    I like your sentiment, however the cynical side of me would like to point out that the top comments here have ~150 upvotes whilst this ridiculous post has over 5000.

    [–]Milesaboveu 2 points3 points ago

    Conversely, the church became very elitist and only religious members were allowed education. By this time Islam started coming in and all religion seemed to override authority and logic. This made religion less of a privilege and more of a geographical indicator.

    It wasn't until much later (middle ages) that early priests went on to further their knowledge of "God" and became scientists or "free thinkers" with new farfetched ideas that conflicts of blasphemy arose. Since then, religion has become a corrupt monotonous geo-political struggle of morals for centuries.

    [–]3DBeerGoggles 1 point2 points ago

    Very true - wasn't it was after education became more widespread (and started contradicting dogma, etc.) that intellectual conflict grew?

    load more comments (7 replies)

      [–]FaithlessAndProud 8 points9 points ago

      Bullshit, posts like CowFu's come up every time this is mentioned, and I've learned more from reading comments telling me the OP is an idiot than I've learned from OP's throughout my time here. I REALLY wish people would stop acting like /r/atheism is full of bullshit lies that go completely unnoticed. This post right here is evidence that, in general, /r/atheism prefers information accurate and informative, and in at least nearly every case calls people out on bullshit. Don't act like the mindless upvoting hordes are the driving force behind /r/atheism, because the real driving force here is people like CowFu, STOPPING worthless misinformation in its tracks when they find it.

      [–]mandrilltiger 1 point2 points ago

      http://i.imgur.com/Evdwm.gif

      [–]speranza -1 points0 points ago

      And yet the bullshit posts get up-voted like crazy. Funny how that works....

      [–]thrawnie 1 point2 points ago

      The actively engaged subset of the community posts comments, reads comments and votes on comments. The drive-by section upvotes cool-looking pics. Funny how that works (in every single community).

      load more comments (1 reply)

        [–]thrawnie 0 points1 point ago

        Ironically, if that were true, you wouldn't be near the top spouting uninformed drivel like this.

        [–]Tehkaiser 0 points1 point ago

        I feel like if that were true, then the original comment would be buried.

        [–]timdiggerm 2 points3 points ago

        And this is a good idea how/why?

        load more comments (1 reply)

          [–]Aoife246 2 points3 points ago

          thank you. is it a mistake in the article where it says America is named after Amerigo Vespucci? I read somewhere that this is false.

          [–]siscos_dad 2 points3 points ago

          This thread is like a weekly thing by now.

          [–]ThrowawayNTTN 15 points16 points ago

          Not to mention how euro-centric the concept is. While Christian europe had its "Dark Ages", Islamic middle east took huge strides scientifically. All of it is irrelevant given the "Dark Ages" never really happened.

          [–]Notblackandwhite 8 points9 points ago

          To be fair, the term "dark ages" is really only brought up when studying Europe during this time period. If another part of the world is being studied, most people know better than to say they were in the dark ages

          [–]ecolologist 6 points7 points ago

          That's like saying the term "blue period" is Picasso-centric. Well no shit.

          [–]hat678 -2 points-1 points ago

          But we don't have a bin full of loonies claiming that the blue period never happened.

          Christians are so absolutely embarrassed at how their cult behaved, that they have an active agenda to pretend it did not even happen.

          load more comments (8 replies)

            [–]drfakz 0 points1 point ago

            Good post. I was going to come and say something along those lines but you really nailed it. I also realized this wasn't /r/askhistorians and realized there wouldn't exactly be the most logical discussion.

            [–]genzahg 2 points3 points ago

            Excellent post. It's fine to dislike religion, but do it with facts, people.

            [–]neglect_your_dad 0 points1 point ago

            /r/atheism is always good about correcting each other.

            [–]Protosmoochy 0 points1 point ago

            THANK YOU, I was about to post basically this. You wouldn't believe how often I have to explain this fact to people when they hear I'm a History student with a specialization in European Middle Ages.

            [–]CowFu 0 points1 point ago

            Don't read the rest of the replies to me, it will make you a sad panda if you're a history student.

            [–]speranza 2 points3 points ago

            I met a guy at a computer repair store once who was a serious conspiracy theorist. He believed the "Dark Ages" was named as such because a meteorite hit the Earth covering the planet in a dust cloud for 7 years. He was a hoot to chat with.

            [–]hat678 0 points1 point ago

            Hell, that guy makes about as much sense as the people here who are claiming that "christian monks" saved civilization from some sort unimaginable evil all because europe missed the boat in the "dark ages".

            [–]harky 0 points1 point ago

            Facts? I love facts. This being at the top of the comments makes me happy.

            Religion has caused enough harm that we can treat it fairly and it will still look bad. If we want to be treated fairly, then we should do the same. Not hide behind trumped up nonsense based in part on our own sub-par education. I was taught many things incorrectly as a kid, but I don't now repeat them as an adult, or if I do I hope to be corrected for that mistake so I can learn.

            [–]theothersteve7 4 points5 points ago

            It's comments like this that have kept me from unsubscribing from /r/atheism. Thank you.

            [–]cyaneyed9 4 points5 points ago

            I was a Spanish major undergrad and learned that Spain was the only nation to NOT suffer this backwards period. Funny coincidence: This was the period that it was run by Muslims that previously invaded, Spain Flourished. Then came along the Los Reyes Catolicos and everything promptly went to shit.

            [–]LifeIsSufferingBitch 7 points8 points ago

            Spanish Inquisition 1478-1834

            That is well into the Renaissance. They fucked up a whole lot of Muslims at the time as well.

            [–]cyaneyed9 0 points1 point ago

            Yes exactly. It was sort of an inverse effect. As the rest of Europe started to heal with the "rebirth" of science, art and engineering, Spain went into a decline.

            [–]LifeIsSufferingBitch 1 point2 points ago

            It does seem that Spain has a delayed response. Kinda like how fascism came in and left later than the rest of Europe.

            [–]CowFu 3 points4 points ago

            The middle east did pretty well during this time and it was the first period where consolidated schools were set up, I wouldn't call it "backwards", it was more like an abrupt change to the way things used to be.

            [–]cyaneyed9 2 points3 points ago

            Well considering ignorance, disease and famine were prevalent across Europe where they had not previously been, I would. Spain was the only European nation at this time that lacked those things. They also had running water and a strong economy. They built up the city of Granada at that time with such things as Alhambra. The city of Toledo also existed in complete peace even though it was equal parts Jewish, Muslim and Christian which, having been there myself, the influences are still apparent.

            When "The Catholics" (Ferdinand and Isabella) took over they exiled the Jews and slaughtered the Muslims and Spain entered a pretty brutal period of history that no one ever expects...

            [–]czpaka 2 points3 points ago

            Ignorance, disease and famine was a rampart problem in the Roman period.

            [–]CowFu 1 point2 points ago

            that no one ever expects...

            Well played.

            I don't mean to say that there wasn't a ton of new problems, but there were a lot of forward movements that came about because of the lack of the roman empire at the time, kind of like a re-birth for Europe rather than a dark age, it would be a shitty time to be alive but I have a feeling that we're further along as a western culture because of the darkages happening. That's just my speculation though.

            [–]Iraqi272 -1 points0 points ago

            Note that the Roman Empire period was a shitty place to live for most of the slave population. Also, what happened in Europe is mainly a lesson of what happens when central authority and infrastructure disappear than what the effect of religion is.

            [–]cyaneyed9 -1 points0 points ago

            Wrong. The church burned all kinds of books which helped user in the period after the fall of the Roman Empire. They claimed they were blasphemy and destroyed all scientific and mathematical knowledge they could get their hands on up until that point. That is, except for the ones about actuarial science, accounting and taxation I'm sure. The church did fine at that time. It managed to fund several crusades as well as backing Charlemagne in the Hundred Years War.

            [–]hat678 0 points1 point ago

            All European cultures claim that they were "the only nation to NOT suffer this backwards period". Case in point: How The Irish Saved Civilization.

            [–]WKHowIGotTheseScars 0 points1 point ago

            I don't know why they use that example. There are several backwards Islamic countries in the world right now. Why not use those as examples?

            [–]republitard 1 point2 points ago

            However, there's also this, which describes the non-dark, unbackward Early Middle Ages as a time of decreasing literacy, scientific and otherwise, in Europe.

            [–]redbarr 1 point2 points ago

            More accurate wiki on the use of the term dark ages specific to the Middle Ages in Europe following the fall fo Rome

            If you must paste at length from wikipedia, at least let it be more specific to the topic, with a better in depth treatment of the question.

            [–]CowFu 1 point2 points ago

            I thought it would have more punch if it came from the page of common misconceptions, with the added benefit of someone sticking around to learn about some of the others.

            [–]redbarr 1 point2 points ago

            I think it gets people pointed in the right direction.

            [–]reese_ridley -1 points0 points ago

            I can't tell if the OP of this post is trolling or just an idiot, but this is terrible content.

            [–]Dude_from_Europe 1 point2 points ago

            To build on this, there has been some macroeconomic research on the topic that indicates that there was a significant amount of wealth spilling into the middle east (they were the trading hub at the time) during the period that led to an increase in overall poverty in Europe. It was only after the discovery of ocean routes that Europe got back on its feet. If you follow this train of thought, the church was spending a lot of time in preserving literacy and some organization in the system that followed.

            Just to clarify, a fellow atheist is here. I just think we should not be dealing with absolutes about things we know so little about...

            [–]ecolologist 0 points1 point ago

            I'd like to see that macroeconomic research, as it seems very counter-intuitive.

            [–]Dude_from_Europe 0 points1 point ago

            I don't have it readily accessible, I just remember one of my professors mentioning this during a seminar on history of banking. I find it intuitive in the sense that at the time coinage was extremely scarce (governments couldnt print money like today) and Serfs/Villeins/Peasants operated on a barter economy. Actual precious metals were used by nobility for foreign trade.

            Having in mind that the Romans did have a relatively sufficient supply of bronze (and later silver and gold) for their coinage, I wonder where this specie went. One explanation could be a sudden population growth with no productivity growth (then there would be more people sharing the same pie, a highly unlikely scenario) and the other is a simple migration of wealth.

            What does your intuition tell you?

            [–]ecolologist 0 points1 point ago

            That if money is flowing into the middle east by something other than force, goods should be coming back. That is the basis of trade.

            Sort of like how we send china data promising them wealth at a later date (cause really, what large financial transactions are done in cash any more), and in return we get ipods and poison toothpaste.

            [–]Dude_from_Europe 0 points1 point ago

            Oh, I see. What you are assuming is perfect efficiency of the market. This might (seem to) be the case with today's trade with China, but once you have a monopoly situation, that assumption goes out the door.

            Think of it this way, a feudal lord had no way of knowing whether the perfume/drugs/spices he so loved were really worth the bullion in gold he paid for them or if they were produced for free by slaves. This information was only posessed by a few individuals within this ME trade monopoly.

            To build on this, imagine that part of the reason this lord so loved those spices was that their value was increasing due to higher demand (all the other lords thought it was a safe investment too). There you have it, a bubble waiting to happen and spill tons of wealth southeast.

            [–]ecolologist -1 points0 points ago

            Your concept of value is nebulous, but your point about autocracy squandering wealth is a good one. That makes sense though- tax the peasants, buy luxuy goods for your bitches.

            [–]republitard 0 points1 point ago

            Was that by any chance an Economics professor? According to the anthropologist David Graeber, the barter economy is a myth promulgated by economists, and the actual economy of serfs and peasants was based on credit.

            [–]spacemonkey514 1 point2 points ago

            I... I love you, whoever you are.

            [–]Bullboah -1 points0 points ago

            Seeing this comment with 200 upvotes gave me hope

            [–]zeleven11 -1 points0 points ago

            I came to post this same thing, though I doubt I would have done so this well. Have an upvote.

            [–]Iraqi272 0 points1 point ago

            Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

            load more comments (63 replies)

              [–]abillonfire 23 points24 points ago

              Oh my god some people like OP really need to learn their history

              [–]Peritract 75 points76 points ago

              I hate this nonsense. At best it is gross ignorance, at worst it is an outright lie.

              Christianity was one of the only institutions preserving knowledge and learning during Europe's "Dark Ages". Of all the epochs, this is one that religion can hold up as a positive.

              [–]coldacid 33 points34 points ago

              Not only that, but while Europe was wallowing in its so-called Dark Ages, there was a golden age of science and discovery in the recently turned Islamic Middle East.

              [–]bloodfyr 3 points4 points ago

              And everyone forgets about the Chinese and what they were doing at the time.

              [–]Nenrov 4 points5 points ago

              Which gets upplayed a ton by orientalist fetishists whose existence in the 21st century I cannot fathom.

              They had very nice architecture and some renowned persian mathematicians and astronomers. A "golden age of science and discovery" is however a vast overstatement. If you check out their actual finds many did not add much beyond wanking off the Greeks. The areas of particular interest they added to is medicine (primitive), mathematics, optics and astronomics and their contributors there number in the low tens.

              The scientific efforts were really very centered around the intellectual hub Baghdad which lasted about as long as it's Siege in 1258 and the funds of the Abbasids. The achievements that truly lasted were not always that good either, on one hand you had Al-Khwarizmi's treatise on the hindu numeral system (wich Fibonacci popularized in the west) and on the other you have Razi's writings being the de-facto standard for healing quackery until the 16th century.

              [–]_juniper5 1 point2 points ago

              To a certain extent, couldn't you make this argument about any nonsecular era prior to the Renaissance that had an abundance of intellectual growth? Ancient Greece and Rome had artistic and scientific growth, but it could only improve on prior knowledge and beliefs--and at that time, they held beliefs in pagan gods.

              [–]MakeFunOfMyStupidity 20 points21 points ago

              This is historically illiterate.

              [–]bushisbetr99 52 points53 points ago

              The funny thing is, the church saved so much in Europe during that period.

              [–]bearfuckers420 41 points42 points ago

              With the name "freethinker4life" you sure are a tool.

              [–]Razorblade_Fellatio 6 points7 points ago

              I don't disagree with you, but...

              "bearfuckers420"

              yeeeaaaahhh...

              [–]Madrawn 1 point2 points ago

              STAY AWAY FROM MY GROIN!

              [–]bearfuckers420 -1 points0 points ago

              My comment was more of trying to highlight the irony of his name being related to free thinking yet falling into the same thought trap that one of these "dark age christians" would fall into.

              [–]Ryuksapple 6 points7 points ago

              Holy fuck your username is freethinker4life. I knew this post was going to be rich the moment I saw that.

              Just to be clear: your post is wrong. Entirely wrong.

              [–]Bassjumper0590 23 points24 points ago

              The term Dark Ages comes from the amount of disease and plague that spread everywhere, the death toll was high. Times were dark and dangerous, but progress was made. Why do you think we have so much history to read? The Church. Who translated ancient scripture of many religions giving us insight into the way things were? The Church. Who funded many medical and scientific discoveries that were made? Primarily, the Church. The dark ages is a term that should be struck from the history books. That's the Middle Age, nothing else. One day scientists may realize that people from the ancient and middle ages were nit stupid, they just layed the foundation for what we have now. We should thank them for their inquisitive, brilliant discoveries. And realize that some things they did we can't understand. The Incan architects are a good example.

              [–]Schindog 4 points5 points ago

              Dat diablo font.

              [–]glennbob 1 point2 points ago

              That font, it needs to die.

              [–]Fishare 0 points1 point ago

              i think you mean x2 tornado WW font.

              [–]overused-meme-alert -1 points0 points ago

              Dat diablo

              buzz

              buzz

              buzz

              .

              [–]SmokeyBaxter 13 points14 points ago

              You mean the Roman empire fell leading to mass chaos right?

              [–]johnnysexcrime 6 points7 points ago

              In all fairness, it was different religions that ran the world during the European dark ages. For example, Islamic power was at its height, but still had a large scholarly community which preserved ancient Greek texts and made great strides in science.

              [–]superchuckinator 6 points7 points ago

              The dark ages were really caused by the fall of the roman empire. People looked to religion for safety and piece of mind, and religious institutions stepped up to fill the responsibilities left by a lack of government. Over time, this power evolved into religion becoming the "overall government" if you will. In fact, most of the few historical documents we have are from religious institutions, and many historians believe that if it weren't for monasteries promoting learning, we wouldn't have any books from that time or before, and concepts of math, literature, and science from the roman empire would have been lost. Monasteries are the reason learning continued during that time period, and were often the only school available.

              [–]conal- 5 points6 points ago

              You're ignorant if you made this, and a tool if you didn't.

              [–]frankts1 11 points12 points ago

              I know the good people of r/atheism are all brilliant, well-respected scientists, but would you PLEASE direct your monocles to a source other than the History Channel for this stuff? It's embarrassing.

              [–]Lokky 4 points5 points ago

              Not to be nitpicky but under religion the world also saw the ellenistic era, the roman empire, ancient china... so really maybe this should actually be about abrahamic religions (and then again Islam oversaw some of the greatest scientific discoveries ever).

              [–]Emericanaddict 9 points10 points ago

              Not this again...

              [–]JayAllDay 2 points3 points ago

              • CHRISTIANTY SUCKS SO FOLLOW ME instead!
              • Naw... I'm quite alright...

              -The end

              [–]KidCharlemagne201 2 points3 points ago

              Interestingly, during the roughly 700 years of Islamic rule in Spain, scholarship and intellectual pursuits thrived.

              So whatever.

              [–]Stocaz 9 points10 points ago

              Obviously made by someone who pines for the free, enlightened utopia of Stalinist Russia.

              [–]funlol -1 points0 points ago

              yeah! because everyone knows if you don't like religion your a communist!

              [–]Circa_Survive 16 points17 points ago

              Certain Christians give normal Christians a bad rep. We aren't all bad!

              [–]Mystrunner 8 points9 points ago

              I like how this got downvoted.

              [–]Circa_Survive 10 points11 points ago

              It's ok. I don't mind.

              [–]Vulturas 9 points10 points ago

              Welcome to /r/atheism , the place where you say "I'm a Christian" or the sorts get you downvoted.

              [–]Circa_Survive 5 points6 points ago

              It's ok! I don't mind. Really. I don't hate someone because of their beliefs or lack thereof. I don't see why most atheists do. It's none of your business what other people do or think!

              [–]Vulturas 6 points7 points ago

              Too bad all atheists I've seen so far are pretty much "Oh, you believe in something? Here, let me shit on your belief for free!"

              [–]usypicus -1 points0 points ago

              Sure it would be okay if those who believe in superstitious nonsense kept it entirely to themselves or other like-minded believers. But they don't, they indoctrinate their children, and often others. Despite how one tries to work around the fact, Christianity is a universalizing religion and it is mandated in its core beliefs. To be a true Christian is to spread the faith.

              [–]Circa_Survive 3 points4 points ago

              how is that any different then what atheists do? Some people feel entitled to tell other people what they do or do not believe in. "Hey im right and you're wrong" everybody does that not just Christians. So what you are saying is that Christians are the only ones who go around spreading belief in something?

              [–]spacemonkey514 0 points1 point ago

              Freethinking 101. Don't even bother engaging in a discussion, downvote those who don't agree with you.

              [–]z1- 1 point2 points ago

              Not all atheists are part of the smug, condescending hivemind that is r/atheism. Many people on here have a visceral hatred for religious people but forget it is the religion we have a problem with, not the people.

              After all, many of us are ex-Christians, ex-Muslims, ex-Mormons etc. It would greatly benefit us to adopt the "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach used by Christianity.

              [–]Circa_Survive 1 point2 points ago

              I guess then it was wrong for me to put you all the same category like people all over the world are so apt to do. Everyone judges. Even atheists.

              [–]spacemonkey514 0 points1 point ago

              I think specifically though, it's the religious institutions (i.e. the Vatican, Westboro Bapstist Church, The Taliban, Zionist Israel) that people should be upset at, not at religion because religion doesn't go around brainwashing people and doing terrible things, religious institutions do. That, and it's quite hard to separate religion from religious people.

              [–]theonefree-man 0 points1 point ago

              Hey man, they might've just read the signs completely backwards.

              [–]CaNANDian 0 points1 point ago

              Get off your high horse, you cherry picker.

              [–]viiScorp 0 points1 point ago

              I like your name. Awesome band.

              Anyway, I think you're getting downvoted because your post is kinda agreeing with the OP that Christianity was a bad thing during the supposed "Dark Ages", that pretty much any knowledgeable person in this sub disagrees with. You aren't being downvoted because you're saying all Christians aren't bad, I think that's a given. ;)

              [–]Doesnt_Suck 3 points4 points ago

              No, Religion had a chance to rule the world. It's fucking called HISTORY.

              [–]Me929 2 points3 points ago

              Needs more JPEG.

              [–]detaitiv 2 points3 points ago

              I would have so many intelligent things to say about how Christianity hastened the fall of the Roman empire if I hadn't learned everything from History of Rome podcasts and had some idea how to spell the names.

              [–]sowhynot 2 points3 points ago

              Morals != religion

              therefore:

              Christian morals != Christian religion.

              [–]Circa_Survive 2 points3 points ago

              If by "Christian morals" you mean "treat everyone the way they deserve to be treated" then I fail to see the problem. At least, those are the morals I grew up with.

              [–]another_old_fart -1 points0 points ago

              You're right. I've raised my daughters the same way. Christians certainly didn't invent those morals, but they sure go to great lengths to pretend they did (along with freedom and patriotism).

              [–]muckymann 2 points3 points ago

              Not concerning the message of this post.. kudos for diablo font.

              [–]dat_low 0 points1 point ago

              Fucking christ how many times has this type of shit been mindlessly upvoted?

              [–]writtenrhythm 2 points3 points ago

              The last time we allowed religion and government to mix, we started burning people at the stake.

              [–]Rondariel 5 points6 points ago

              What a brave opinion to have in this subreddit. It's not like this quote hasn't been posted about 10 million times in the last week...

              [–]Stackman32 4 points5 points ago

              Damn, OP. I guess just because your thinking is "free" doesn't mean that you're necessarily doing it WELL.

              [–]waggle238 1 point2 points ago

              I will have to steal this quote, well played

              [–]Seikoholic 4 points5 points ago

              OP accidentally a tense

              [–]Squalor- 3 points4 points ago

              More like: OP presently a tense.

              [–]Davedz 0 points1 point ago

              OP is a little dense

              [–]yes_thats_right 0 points1 point ago

              Could you please elaborate in case I am missing something here?

              "It's" is a valid contraction for both "It is" and "It was".

              OP is stupid for not knowing history, but that grammar looks fine to me.

              [–]calico_cat 0 points1 point ago

              and some facts.

              [–]hoboswithhandgrenade 6 points7 points ago

              while I completely agree with you, you've got to realize, the period you're calling "the dark ages" was directly following the collapse of Rome. Rome had been the social center of the known world for hundreds of years and with chaos rampant, the Church had to step in to prevent the total downfall of western society

              [–]calico_cat 0 points1 point ago

              social centre of the known world

              If your 'known world' is Eurocentric, then yes. There were many other world civilisations going just fine during this period. Watch this video for a quick overview.

              [–]hoboswithhandgrenade 0 points1 point ago

              yes thank you as someone with knowledge of history I'm completely unaware of the rest of the planet I thought it was implied that we were discussing western civilization. And at this point western "civilization" was kept propped up by the harsh structure imposed by the church.

              [–]PhoQ 0 points1 point ago

              TIL fake bullcrap gets on the front page of r/atheism

              [–]Mack488 1 point2 points ago

              Gettin real tired of your bullshit /r/atheism

              [–]dlililb 0 points1 point ago

              a point isn't a strong one if it's attacking something that was already wrong. the stuff in the dark ages was arguably the opposite of the teachings of Christianity in many cases.

              [–]R3plicon 0 points1 point ago

              nature goes wrong by itself. i'd like to blame republicans for the dark ages from my castle too but some have seen scary shit like MC Eschers ribbon faces IRL... and if anything i'd argue that they held it together during the dark age3s. all this shit is a waste of time.

              [–]tonenine 0 points1 point ago

              Oh I forgot to mention, a lot of you are pussies too, waa someone said something bad about us waaaa. Hate the taste of your own meds, classic hypocrites.

              [–]ThrowawayMerril 0 points1 point ago

              no, that would be the result of individuals claiming divine right to rule. not divine leadership.

              [–]Bass_EXE -1 points0 points ago

              YOU IDIOTS DON'T UNDERSTAND, IT WAS THE WRONG FORM OF CHRISTIANITY BEFORE THE RIGHT ONE THAT I WAS BORN INTO GODBLESSIT!

              [–]another_old_fart 0 points1 point ago

              Religion has been running the world in one way or another for most of human history.

              [–]IceTr3 0 points1 point ago

              The Dark Ages weren't caused by Christianity. The Dark Ages were caused because after the Roman Empire fell, there was no regional unity and constant warfare from local leaders trying to gain more land. I may be wrong. I'm open to rebuttals.

              [–]chiefroaringpeacock 1 point2 points ago

              The church has shaped the world into what we are today. We don't know what the world would be like if it weren't for religion. Without religion it is possible that most Americans might not be monogamous (which isn't a good or bad thing, it simply affects the way we live our lives), and due to "survival of the fittest" it's possible(I'm not saying this WOULD happen I'm saying it COULD happen) that murder, rape, and theft would be completely acceptable because it would be on their shoulders to protect themselves. I know that it is highly possible that our justice system and our laws agaisnt all of these things would probably exist without religion, but it is a fact that religion has controlled human government for thousands of years and everything we see today, the good and bad, are all a result of that. Religion has affected EVERYTHING we do. Maybe the world would be a better place without religion, but at one time it served a purpose in human society and it can't be cut out overnight.

              [–]Intow1 0 points1 point ago

              Thank you! I'm so sick of hearing this! Get some history,people!

              [–]What33 0 points1 point ago

              Is every single post on r/atheism factually incorrect?

              [–]schwebz 0 points1 point ago

              Hell, it still does. It's called the Middle East.

              [–]radu111 1 point2 points ago

              As an athiest, i've got to say that I love the posts you guys are making. Not believing in a deity doesn't have to mean that you neglect all the positive contributions that organised worship of one has made in the past; and dare I say, present. A lot of nuts forget that nowadays.

              [–]ChrisMorals 0 points1 point ago

              Actually I wouldn't mind going into politics... these people never bother to ask my opinion and simply speak out of turn on my behalf.

              [–]Cunty_McTwat 0 points1 point ago

              You're probably the kind of person who has a lot of edgy bumper stickers, huh?

              [–]I_ROPE_HORSES 0 points1 point ago

              Was there or wasn't there a point in history where the catholic church went on crusades slaughtering non believers and witches? I thought that was what happened in the dark ages.

              [–]JammerLam 0 points1 point ago

              Actually the Catholic Church said the ideas of witches is bullshit.

              Coming all the way back from St. Augustine of Hippo (~300AD) who said the idea of witches was dumb and shouldn't not be believed

              The Council of Paderborn (785AD) was the church condeming alot of idolatry but also saying that the belief in witch craft is nonsense and calling for the death penalty for witch hunters who caused the death of people accused for witchcraft.

              The Council of Frankfurt (794AD) pretty much said the same thing.

              And the Lombard Code

              ""Let nobody presume to kill a foreign serving maid or female servant as a witch, for it is not possible, nor ought to be believed by Christian minds.""

              And Pope Greogry telling the King of Denmark to stop burning witches

              They also condemned the Malleus Maleficarum as false and told people not to read it.

              Its wiki, but you can follow the sources if you want. Read under the Middle Ages section

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

              [–]Ruprect124 0 points1 point ago

              So-called 'christian morals' don't really exist. It is their blind obedience of these ancient MYTHS and their inability to accept others, as they are, is totally hypocritical. SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, assholes.

              [–]brainfoam -1 points0 points ago

              nice post, people seem to forget that a whole time period happened where people weren't even able to count much past their fingers. The quantification of Europe lead us out of this age of ignorance. What blows my mind is how the world at the time thought in terms of qualitative measure than quantitative; everything had to do with religion, evil this evil that...

              [–]n-some 0 points1 point ago

              You know, or now, in some places in the world.

              [–]universaljoint 1 point2 points ago

              It's not the government that needs Christian morals. It's the Christians. If the evangelical christian right had the foggiest fucking clue about Jesus' teaching, they wouldn't be rallying behind the people and policies that they do.

              [–]adamhong 1 point2 points ago

              It's accually called the middle ages

              [–]atomicbiter -1 points0 points ago

              Yes because euro-centrism. Who ever made that picture is a typical neckbeard atheist.

              [–]EveryFridays 0 points1 point ago

              Yeah! Now it's time for corporations to rule the world! Wait, what?

              [–]Killswitch35 0 points1 point ago

              The Dark Ages occured from the Fall of the Roman empire in around the 5th century all the way to the 10th or 11th century. During that time, the church did not have much control over Europe, much less the world. Instead the church consisted of monks that saved much of classic philosophy from the greeks and romans...get your facts straight.

              [–]Solstars -1 points0 points ago

              If spouting historical lies is ok for atheists, the how can you tell christens that remaking history in there own image is wrong?

              [–]Sometimes_Retarded 0 points1 point ago

              Is this implying that politics are completely void of religion nowadays?

              [–]Fig1024 0 points1 point ago

              honestly I wouldn't mind if government had Christian morals. But what I see is that people who claim they are Christian actually do not have Christian morals. Many of the politicians who identify as Christians do not believe in helping the poor, want to practice all kinds of discrimination, and are just being assholes in general, in no way morally superior to any other politician.

              So before they ask for Christian morals in the government, they should first apply Christian morals among themselves. Until they get their act together, they have no business trying to "fix" the government.

              [–]memorylists 0 points1 point ago

              religion dominated in the middle-east at that time as well and it sure as hell wasn't the dark ages for them.

              [–]Everythingpossible 0 points1 point ago

              Yet during the same time, the Islamic and Chinese Empires (both run according to religious principles) were major centres of trade and innovation. Also, when politicians talk about Christian morals, they're not referring to censorship of new scientific ideas, they are talking about the ethical principles that define the religion.

              [–]rebelreligion 0 points1 point ago

              This is not necessarily a true statement that politicians talk about ethics when speaking about Christianity. The standard for many, many centuries for Christian ethics has been the Sermon on the Mount, and not just the Beatitudes. One can search far and wide for any politician willing to discuss these Christian ethics anymore. Now what I do find they will discuss is Christian Capitalism's 'ethics'.

              [–]novari 0 points1 point ago

              Shouldn't it be "When people SAY our government needs 'Christian Morals'?"

              jw

              [–]IwillBringYoutoNauht 0 points1 point ago

              There are a number of very astonishing, powerful and scientific state systems which had political systems motivated by religious convictions. The dark ages isn't the only example of a religion and state functioning together.

              Asoka, who ran an empire in what is today Bihar province in India, basing his statesmanship on precepts in Buddhism established one of the most humane of ancient systems. The Khmer empire is another example. The contributions to science and philosophy made in Baghdad's and Cordoba's heydays are pretty significant examples of a very positive Islamic contribution to statehood. The Byzantine empire basing its systems on Christianity made some great architectural contributions. Ghandi, a very religious individual, made significant contributions to India's political -- basing his methods on religious convictions.

              I'm sure there are many more examples of the positive contribution of religion to civilization. The so called "dark ages" is not the only example of this.

              [–]MikeC2103 0 points1 point ago

              I thought the "Dark Ages' was more about there being a political power vacuum. Which religion stepped in to take control over. Though it may have helped keep together failing states.. It also caused a lot of strife.

              For instance, priests and monks may have saved many works of literature. Yet in doing so they didn't exactly share it with the people.

              It's not so cut and dry from either perspective and I think it falls more in the middle. Religion was a problem, but it didn't break civilization.

              [–]_cookie_monster_ 1 point2 points ago

              TIL: In the 1200s, Europeans were torturing people right and left, usually for religious reasons, with no evidence or even reasonable doubt necessary. Meanwhile, in Asia, the Mongol Empire had complete religious freedom, and Kublai Khan (grandson of Genghis) outlawed torture, except to illicit a confession in cases where there was solid evidence of a crime. And even then, the only torture permissible was beating with a cane. Compare that to Europe, where they were dismembering people and burning them alive for even being accused of heresy (or simply for being Jewish).

              [–]qounqer 0 points1 point ago

              i think your forgetting the part where the Mongolian Empire killed between 7.5% and 17.5% of the human population. They also where atheists.

              [–]Amryxx 0 points1 point ago

              Actually, Genghis Khan himself is a shamanist, while the Yuan Dynasty (branching off from Kublai Khan) is Buddhist while the Golden Horde is Muslim.

              [–]SpeedyVT 0 points1 point ago

              Morals are not the same as Wars. I saw progress in the Dark Ages. The Crusades brought and spread a wealth of knowledge around the world. Even if it was not tasteful. It left such a dramatic impact on modern day medicine and science I can forgive the those times for being so inhumane. So you can thank Christian Morals for the wonderful things we have today!

              [–]Lost-Republic 0 points1 point ago

              Are you retarded. The dark ages happened because of the Black plague, ya know the thing that killed literal a fuck ton of people. The reason this happened was because everyone was dead. Not literally everyone, but still a vast majority of the people died. They had no idea how people thousands of years ago made anything. The church brought hope to these people. IN FACT if it weren't for religion would wouldn't have nearly as many advances in technology... Learn about history before you go out and rage about religion.

              I have no problem with atheists. In fact I am one myself, but if there's one thing I hate more than a religious fanatic it's an atheist who gives us a bad name.

              [–]Amryxx 0 points1 point ago

              I'm pretty sure Charlemagne, Harun al-Rashid and Asoka also ran their respective empires based on religious principles, and yet they are shining examples of good stewardship of the land.

              Methinks the paragons of "rational thought" could do with a bit of academic research themselves.

              [–]madmonty98 0 points1 point ago

              Dark Ages 16th Century

              [–]hepdd 0 points1 point ago

              Every time I see the word 'Biblical' I replace it with the word 'Hypocritical.'

              It usually makes the sentence easier to understand.

              [–]MiniCooperUSB 0 points1 point ago

              For the most part, people actually had a higher quality of life in the dark ages than the 'oh so successful' Roman times. Well minus the Bubonic Plague, but Christianity really didn't do too much to influence that spreading to Europe.

              Not to say that religion is the way to run the world, but this is more akin to something that atheists make fun of Christians for posting. My Resource: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7CanyzhZg

              [–]Gershon12 0 points1 point ago

              You shouldn't do good deeds in fear of going to Hell. You do good deeds because it is the right thing to do.

              [–]randomguy12kk 0 points1 point ago

              This post ignores the Muslim golden age where massive leaps in Science and mathematics took place, not to mention most of the world's history before the dark ages. ಠ_ಠ

              [–]koavf 0 points1 point ago

              This is so. So. Stupid.

              [–]koavf -1 points0 points ago

              HOW DID THIS GET UPVOTED?

              [–]diamened 0 points1 point ago

              Nowadays it's called islam.

              [–]superpastaaisle 0 points1 point ago

              Are you sure you didn't mean the dawn of civilization until recently?

              [–]MrFilovirus 0 points1 point ago

              The arrogance is strong with this one.

              [–]fosterco -1 points0 points ago

              Religions ran shit before the Dark Ages. And after. You know this, right?

              [–]fuzzy_warbles 1 point2 points ago

              Eurocentrism rules!

              [–]bilateralchicken -3 points-2 points ago

              Diablo font. Nice choice.

              [–]You-are_wrong 2 points3 points ago

              Why would this get downvoted and "Dat diablo font." get upvoted?

              load more comments (16 replies)

                Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

                REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

                π Rendered by PID 10848 on app-132 running 6aaac28.