Christian Dark Ages. one two three four five. I THE HALE g THE CHRISTIAN DARK AGES new 1 Egyptian " Renaissance I Greek Age T, Enlightenment Remain l,' Science  no

Christian Dark Ages

Tags: no
1 Egyptian " Renaissance
I Greek Age T, Enlightenment
Remain l,' Science
I Christian Dark Ages
Customink. we twould have been exploring the galaxy by new
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 54706
Favorited: 205
Submitted: 05/11/2012
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to donutsection Subscribe to atheism


Anonymous comments allowed.
#669 to #30 - theannoyingFJguy (05/12/2012) [-]
This image has expired
it's oc ive never seen i't befo
#207 - Drstein (05/12/2012) [-]
being a history major and all, its actually because of the fall of the roman empire, and disintegration of society, thanks to Christian monks, we were able to save a lot of the knowledge of the past, because the copied the documents that would other wise have been lost,
#216 to #207 - anon (05/12/2012) [-]
You also shouldn't give a lot of credit to the corrupt monks of the time. Would of been nice if they could of taught their communities how to write and read instead of wasting time telling fairy tales.
#211 to #207 - anon (05/12/2012) [-]
Being a history major you should know better than that ******** . The reason for the loss is because of the burning of the temple of Alexandria because of the Christians. Christians didn't help preserve **** .
User avatar #217 to #211 - Drstein (05/12/2012) [-]
yea they made mistakes, but welcome to the club of being human, and thanks to both Christian monks and Arabic scholars, alot of information was saved, if not for both of these groups a lot of ancients sources would be lost , but of course if evidence disproving they didnt preserve anything confronts you, you will just thumb me down and stay ignorant ...the irony..
User avatar #377 to #217 - ViXi (05/12/2012) [-]
lol get that finger off the comma key. Dayum.
#215 to #211 - anon (05/12/2012) [-]
He's saying the monks preserved the writings of previous people, and he's right. As training (among other things) they would copy down/have the new monks write/copy down information...
User avatar #235 to #207 - angrygorrira (05/12/2012) [-]
Sigh.... The majority of Greek and Roman texts were saved by the Persians and other middle eastern cultures. No one give them credit for **** ....
User avatar #250 to #235 - Drstein (05/12/2012) [-]
I did in my lower post >_>, and they were very good at keeping text, especially Aristotle
#588 - I Am Monkey (05/12/2012) [-]
The fact that this post continues to make the front page astounds me.
Anyone with an 8th grader's knowledge of history could blow this argument to pieces.

Christianity held a lot of power during this period because it could still function without a central government. Christians actually preserved knowledge in Monasteries by transcribing texts. Without those Monks Western Civilization would have basically reset.

The Dark Ages were caused by the collapse of the Roman Empire, everyone knows that. Many factors contributed the long period of stagnation that followed, none of them Christianity. A minor Ice Age made farming difficult and plagues ravaged the impoverished people. Europe pretty much had to sit on ass until conditions improved.

For those that don't know, the Roman Empire maintained it's prosperity by going on campaign. They would conquer neighboring territory and use the spoils to fuel their economic and political system. Once their military machine lost steam it was all over. Without the ability to win wars they completely fell apart. You can't rebuilt a system like that. It just doesn't work if without a world class army to back it. After the Empire fell Europe had to build a new system from the ground up. This took centuries and the process was exponentially slowed by plague, invasion and famine.
User avatar #622 to #588 - theshadowed (05/12/2012) [-]
Thank you.
#609 to #588 - dahahawgy (05/12/2012) [-]
I thank you for taking the time to write all this out, and would like to inform you I read the entirety of it in Butthead's voice.
I thank you for taking the time to write all this out, and would like to inform you I read the entirety of it in Butthead's voice.
User avatar #564 - dafiltafish (05/12/2012) [-]
i might be pretty godless, but for god's sake, show some intelligence. atheists are supposed to be smart right? here is what is missing:

fall of Rome
war with the western Asians and Assyrians
uprisings and incomplete governments

as you can see, it was a culmination of terrible things that happened way too fast, so before you start going off about the christian movement, think about the political and medical problems of the time.
#36 - blackrunner ONLINE (05/11/2012) [-]
User avatar #556 - mexirican (05/12/2012) [-]
right, right. because out of all other religions christianity is the one that has hindered the world. the only reason i don't like atheists is because they swear they are so smart when all they do is repeat what they hear.
User avatar #179 - damngodit (05/12/2012) [-]
From what I've learned, that period was mostly due to the fall of Rome. People didn't know what to do. Hell, Christian monks preserved books and such.
#187 to #179 - anon (05/12/2012) [-]
You are correct about the Fall of Rome having a large impact. It's a shame that Christian monks were too busy preaching to teach others how to read and write.
#202 to #187 - aliksander (05/12/2012) [-]
Yes, because while hordes of invaders are constantly pillaging, raping, and murdering combined with the loss of political stability and a return to direct (and extremely violent) monarchies across the area, the inhabitants of Europe were thinking 'priority one is to learn to read'.
#218 to #202 - anon (05/12/2012) [-]
Yeah, that would be as silly as them wasting countless work hours every year to learn about a guy that died on a cross in the middle east hundreds of years ago.
#229 to #218 - anon (05/12/2012) [-]
You sound extremely ignorant and very disrespectful to other people's beliefs. Please learn how to not sound like a biased person on the Internet. Quite frankly, I'm sick of all the people that complain about people that believe in God are idiots and self absorbed, because of there is one thing I (and you) should take away from the bible is to love and care for others. Thank you for reading my opinion.
#251 to #229 - anon (05/12/2012) [-]
What you write gives me the impression that you yourself are ignorant of what written in the Bible. I in fact do believe that most religious people are quite stupid. However I have met many Christians who are quite giving, intelligent, and secular.

Also I would like to point out that all you wrote was that I was ignorant, seemed bias, and that the Bible teaches everyone to love and care for others. None of which relates directly to the comment. As for reading your opinion it is no problem. I take great pleasure in reading the opinions of others in topics that have my interest.
#157 - dontrixster **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#563 - nivex (05/12/2012) [-]
This post is stupid. The Dark Ages didn't happen because of christians. It happened because the Roman Empire fell, and barbarians invaded. Nobody took over in western europe after Rome fell. In fact, the only reason that art and knowledge made it through the dark ages is because of monks, who were some of the only people who could read and write.

#315 - LewdFlapjack (05/12/2012) [-]
A lot of technical advances were made in the middle east and asia during this period too, especially in navigation and math (ever heard of the Arabic numeral system? we use it every day.) My point is that the *European* ( not Christian) Dark ages did not cause that much of a hole in advancement because other parts of the world, the middle east and asia, was having a golden age of technology. So in summary, yes, the european dark ages caused a gap in *european* technological advances, but not overall advances worldwide. This post contains massive amounts of ignorance.

I'm a history and poli sci major :3
#345 to #315 - classik (05/12/2012) [-]
thank you for setting it right (also to OP, i'm pretty sure the huge decline in advancements were due to the plague, not Christianity)
#463 to #345 - anon (05/12/2012) [-]
It might also have something to do with the fact that the Roman Empire split in two and lost control over it's territories and vikings and marauders came about. People were trying to save themselves from savages and thieves. That may have something to do with it.
User avatar #337 to #315 - spikethepony (05/12/2012) [-]
Can.... Can I give you a hug?
#362 to #337 - LewdFlapjack (05/12/2012) [-]
Just for you, Spike.
#369 to #362 - spikethepony (05/12/2012) [-]
*currently overwhelmed by exaggerated feel.*
*currently overwhelmed by exaggerated feel.*
User avatar #335 to #315 - masterbob (05/12/2012) [-]
the middle east and asia were not christian though, the hundreds of years of scientific suppression and massive depopulation and social change contributed to this, so yes, the christian dark ages and european dark ages are the same thing for the most part, but without the contribution of europe to the asian and middle eastern advancements we lost out on a lot.
#350 to #335 - LewdFlapjack (05/12/2012) [-]
My point is that that graph is extremely inaccurate.
User avatar #352 to #350 - masterbob (05/12/2012) [-]
its not that inaccurate besides the fact that it is just the christian dark ages.
#357 to #352 - LewdFlapjack (05/12/2012) [-]
The shape of the graph is innacurate. Not nearly as much information was lost in europe during this time as is shown. If the shape of the graph was accurate, it would be safe to assume we would have no knowledge of anything between the egyptian era and the dark ages.
User avatar #368 to #357 - masterbob (05/12/2012) [-]
ookay i feel like im with you know.
#358 to #357 - LewdFlapjack (05/12/2012) [-]
If anything there would be a slight dip.
#320 to #315 - anon (05/12/2012) [-]
I like you. I hope you have a good day.
User avatar #102 - srskate (05/11/2012) [-]
That awkward moment when the dark ages were actually caused by the fall of the roman empire.
User avatar #112 to #102 - smokerocks (05/11/2012) [-]
followed by the rise of Christianity. Which lead to the Crusades. Do you have any idea how much science and general human progress was destroyed by the crusades? In the name of religion?

Oh, and then there's the whole threatening to burn out Galileo's eyes for saying the Earth wasn't the center of the universe? Of course Christianity never impeded scientific progress. What a silly notion that is.
User avatar #117 to #112 - nicrofl (05/11/2012) [-]
There was also a plague, and religious extremists. Also I dont believe we would be exploring space right now if it wasn't for the Dark Ages, it would be more like we would have little to none trees and massive deforestation.
User avatar #254 to #117 - srskate (05/12/2012) [-]
lets face it, the only reason we went to space in the first place was because we wanted to beat the soviets
#516 to #112 - machricar **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #257 to #112 - srskate (05/12/2012) [-]
The crusades were a war for power in the power vacuum after the fall of war. Religion was just used as justification.
#147 - anon (05/11/2012) [-]
Dark Ages? Era created due to the fall of the Roman Empire? Ravaging hordes of Pillagers aiming to seize power from the dying empire? Mass epidemic in the spread of diseases?
Yup. Christianity's fault. i can completely see the correlation.
Assuming that the reason is because of Christianity just because u refer to it as the "christian" dark ages is like expecting ever guy named Christian to grow up and be a priest.
#150 to #147 - anon (05/11/2012) [-]
btw, i'm not even Christian. I'm Muslim.
I don't let my views whether i'm Atheist, Jewish, Shinto, or whatever get in the way of the truth. Remain unbiased bros
#135 - iamphoenix (05/11/2012) [-]
1. We are exploring the galaxy. Just not very much of it.
2. If you think there was only one factor to everything that happened during the dark ages, you're a moron.
#704 - drcroccer (05/12/2012) [-]
As someone who studies history this hurts my brains. There's so much wrong with this on both a historical and just logical level that it'd take an entire essay to carefully explain every detail that is incorrect.

For one, the absolutely retarded notion that you can just chart scientific progress as if it were some objective game of numbers. Secondly, the fact that this chart pretends that there was no scientific progress at all during the Middle Ages. Thirdly, the notion that the 'Christian Dark Ages' lasted from the late 5th century until 1400. And, most importantly, the notion that Christianity was the cause.

I'm really not going to delve too deep into this, as that would take way too long, but I'm just going to point a few things out. For example, the Roman empire was Christian (with some minor intervals) since 380. Anyone who knows basic history knows that the cause of the Dark Ages was primarily the decline and ultimate demise of the Western Roman Empire due to political, economic and social reasons, and its replacement by Germanic kingdoms. The irony is that Christianity was one of the few things remaining from the Roman times that wasn't destroyed, and was vital to the intellectual rebuilding of Western Europe. Monasteries were centres of scientific learning and culture, and were connected to eachother as a web over Europe. They not only advanced sciences, but spread them across the Catholic world. It wasn't until much later, with the Pope becoming more powerful and the Church more centralized, that conflicts arose. Even then, it's been greatly exaggerated by post-Medieval scholars who wanted to portray the age as backwards as possible.

Next OP will try and convince us that Medieval people thought the Earth was flat, and that intellectuals only debated about the number of angels that could stand on a pin.

My faith in humanity is somewhat restored reading the comment section and seeing all the people voicing the same complaints I do.

#715 to #704 - anon (05/12/2012) [-]
Well that was a lot better than anything I could've typed out, although I was going to try.
User avatar #713 to #704 - Kajekillz (05/12/2012) [-]
Also during the middle ages there was great scientific advancement around the middle east in areas of medicine leaving behind the days of leeches and torturing patients rather than healing them
User avatar #716 to #713 - drcroccer (05/12/2012) [-]
Indeed. The funny thing is that most things that held them back were ancient dogmas dating back to Greco-Roman times. Galen's theory of the 4 humors was basic stuff in both Christian Europe and the Islamic world until well into the 17th century, even though basic autopsies revealed it to be incorrect. Doctors would just shrug their shoulders and assume that there was something wrong with the body, rather than the ancient medical philopsophy they adhered to.
#728 to #704 - bithcwits (05/12/2012) [-]
From an Archaeologist, Anthropologist and Egyptologist....... The entire motiving notion behind the graph is pathetically evolutionist in its outlook, seeing civilisation as a continuous chain of progress towards some ill defined goal of "SCIENCE!", which it quite emphatically is not.
Moreover, the implied continuity of Egyptian, Greek and Roman "civilisation" is moronic, since the latter two knew very little about the Egyptians (Whose advances are often overstated, and who, in the later years of their culture, were almost as clueless as the others,), as is the absurd shift in locus of "Scientific advancement" from the Near East and Mediterranean to Western Europe, which is likewise a rather sad case of Eurocentricism.
Of such an outlook, I can only say that "It belongs in a museum."

TL:DR OP can suck a dick
#718 to #704 - anon (05/12/2012) [-]
Thumbs up from a fellow historian. Might I add another remark? The implied continuity between the Egyptian and Greek civilization, as if the 'Greek' civilization chronologically succeeded the Egyptian one. The same counts, in a somewhat lesser extent, for the implied Greek-Roman succession as well.
User avatar #726 to #718 - drcroccer (05/12/2012) [-]
That's very true as well. One can argue that the Romans made full use of the Greek knowledge and culture when Hellenic areas were incorporated into the empire, though on the other hand it has been stated that the Romans stinted some intellectual development.

The same can be said to a lesser degree about the Greco-Egyptian link. The Egyptians did, indirectly or directly, give the Greeks the alphabet and their characteristic realistic art, and it's been argued that philosophy originated in Egypt as well.

That having been said, none of these were really continuous. Not much more than the continuity between Classical and Medieval sciences anyway.
User avatar #729 to #726 - bithcwits (05/12/2012) [-]
The Egyptians did not give the Greeks their alphabet, the Greek alphabet is based upon the Phoenician script from the levant, which developed independently for Hieroglyphic script, and, as a set of purely phonetic symbols, differs considerably from hieroglyphic. Likewise, Hellenic art was not taken from Egypt; it was a mixture of indigenous styles and influences from across the Med.
User avatar #740 to #729 - drcroccer (05/12/2012) [-]
You're right about the alphabet (not sure why I said that), but I wasn't saying that Greek art came entirely from Egypt, but that the Egyptian style influenced that of the Greeks , with archaic, very expressive statues becoming increasingly realistic, and eventually surpassing the Egyptian variants.
User avatar #742 to #740 - bithcwits (05/12/2012) [-]
The closeness of the link is debatable, partially in the motivation of the sculptors; the Egyptians were concerned with making an idealised replica of an actual person, whilst the Greeks were aiming to create THE idealised person. Egyptian sculpture was also bound by far tighter restrictions.

Moreover, the high point of Egyptian sculpture (Arguably in the Amarna period) occurred several hundred years before the high point of Greek sculpture; the period when Greek sculpture was developing was one in which Egyptian sculpture was in a serious low, the late Third Intermediate Period and the Assyrian periods. If one compares contemporaneous Mycenaean and Cretan sculpture with New Kingdom and 3rd Intermediate Period sculpture, it is noticeably different, both in style and technique. Although there was dialogue between the civilisations, as shown by finds of Hellenic/Helladic pottery in Egypt, Minoan frescoes in Avaris, and multifarious Egyptian finds across the Aegean, the influence of Egyptian styles upon Hellenic/Helladic styles appear to be quite limited.

Yay for reasoned academic discourse on Funnyjunk!
#756 to #742 - anon (05/12/2012) [-]
(same anon as four posts above this one): I love you guys. Gives me hope in humanity and the academic world.
#92 - jmrking **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#95 to #92 - speightsix **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #63 - sloar ONLINE (05/11/2012) [-]
Promotes science yet it does not have a scale on its Y axis ...
User avatar #138 to #63 - mattythebeaver ONLINE (05/11/2012) [-]
There's not really a unit for scientific advances.
He could have used milestones.
#64 to #63 - excallibur **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #66 to #63 - redwolfradolf (05/11/2012) [-]
He's right you know ^
User avatar #781 - Sethorein (05/16/2012) [-]
that graph is skewed... even in the dark ages there was advancement... Also advancement looked REALLY linear up until very recent... like the past century...

Also it would be more accurate to call it the barbarian dark ages. It was the barbarians who destroyed the widely christian Roman Empire...

This graph really doesn't have any scientific reasoning behind it. What quantifies scientific advancement? Having faith in a graph like this is no more logical than having faith in a book like the bible xD

Also... really old repost...
#687 - mapton (05/12/2012) [-]
Just give it some time, someday we will explore it
#691 to #687 - revelionz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #242 - commontroll (05/12/2012) [-]
First off, super old post is super old.

Secondly, they did actually make scientific advancements in Europe in the Dark Ages. Farming was improved, they invented steel (the Romans only used iron) and created metalworking techniques that are still useful today. Also, how often is steel used today? Be thankful. Then there was also the telescope, printing press, etc. These were all made in roughly the Dark Ages.

Third, until the past fifty years, almost every scientific advancement was made by somebody religious. Christianity is no exception.

Fourthly, the main thing that hindered science and free-thought in the Middle Ages, was the Catholic Church, and the lack of separation of Church and State. But more than that, it was the Feudal System. The lords, dukes, kings, and other nobles and royals depended on the commoners remaining uneducated and stupid. They told the Pope to say that they were appointed by God, and that they were holy because of being born.

Basically, it wasn't the religion, it was the government that hindered it, and the government using religion to keep people in line.
#263 to #242 - anon (05/12/2012) [-]
One of the best comments on this content so far.
User avatar #573 to #263 - commontroll (05/12/2012) [-]
Huzzah! I commented, and an Anon replied... and they were a pretty cool guy.

My life is complete.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)