Rank #560 on CommentsLevel 321 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
OfflineSend mail to lolerbot Block lolerbot Invite lolerbot to be your friend flag avatar
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||10/14/2010|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#994|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#185|
|Content Thumbs:||3502 total, 3916 , 414|
|Comment Thumbs:||24295 total, 27201 , 2906|
|Content Level Progress:|| 99% (99/100) |
Level 133 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 134 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
|Comment Level Progress:|| 18.8% (188/1000) |
Level 321 Comments: Covered In Thumbs → Level 322 Comments: Covered In Thumbs
|Times Content Favorited:||296 times|
|Total Comments Made:||4352|
|Favorite Tags:||avatar (2)|
latest user's comments
|#1277641 - So which do you prefer: fallout 3 or fallout new vegas? … [+] (14 new replies)||07/26/2015 on Video Games Board - console...||0|
|#17 - who cares about reload time when you only need to shoot once?||07/26/2015 on A WEAPON TO SURPASS METAL GEAR||+1|
|#41 - inb4 the ineveitable thousands of people who think this is ser…||07/26/2015 on BINGO time||0|
|#16 - 221 hours and ive never heard it either.||07/25/2015 on Video Game Soundtracks Comp||0|
|#15 - Picture [+] (1 new reply)||07/25/2015 on Sonicion?||+62|
|#11 - Picture||07/25/2015 on (untitled)||+4|
|#7 - that one game lasted over an hour||07/25/2015 on MFW Unranked games||+1|
|#9 - You realize that nobody uses literally anymore, right? The onl…||07/25/2015 on PC master race||-8|
|#2 - I'm genuinely curious, why did you just straight up roll an im… [+] (1 new reply)||07/25/2015 on What really got him fired||+1|
|#101 - **lolerbot used "*roll 1, 1-9999*"** **lolerbot rolls 3,293**||07/25/2015 on Roll your penis reaction face||0|
|#1213 - **lolerbot used "*roll picture*"** **lolerbot rolled image…||07/24/2015 on Fight Admin with ONE weapon||0|
|#1739 - **lolerbot rolled user Rei ** save me plz [+] (1 new reply)||07/23/2015 on Roll a moderator, get a...||0|
|#57 - I'm not going to defend what they did because I don't like it … [+] (1 new reply)||07/23/2015 on Anime Facts Compilation...||0|
|#278 - Comment deleted||07/23/2015 on Roll your pokemon team!||0|
|#22 - Picture||07/23/2015 on The purest of cancer||0|
|#35 - LoL anime sounds like it could be fun to watch. Thought of… [+] (3 new replies)||07/23/2015 on Anime Facts Compilation...||0|
#57 - lolerbot (07/23/2015) [-]
I'm not going to defend what they did because I don't like it either, but you should know that the new champions do have alot of lore, it's just not shown in the launcher screen.
If you look online, you'll see almost all the new champions have alot of lore behind them in some form of media, like azir's rise of shurima video reveal page or ekko's comics.
|#1275740 - hello darkness my old friend [+] (2 new replies)||07/23/2015 on Video Games Board - console...||0|
|#8 - Picture||07/22/2015 on (untitled)||+3|
|#54 - please explain what this picture is [+] (1 new reply)||07/21/2015 on Dinner with the Waifu||0|
|#32 - Someone should make a script that physically ejects a blender … [+] (1 new reply)||07/21/2015 on Sounds familiar >.>||+3|
|#100 - Picture||07/21/2015 on Anon has a stupid grandma||+1|
|#14 - aint even fedora, jesus being still alive would **** up… [+] (17 new replies)||07/20/2015 on Based||+26|
#105 - alarubra (07/21/2015) [-]
Cringy as fuck, eh? I think it covers the base of your arguments. Now let's discuss what I've learned since then. First of all, that dip is highly misleading. Roman scientific advancements were quickly rediscovered, and never completely lost during the Dark Ages. Now, the Romans were mostly Christian by the time the Dark Ages started, so why were they advancing so quickly. Well, there are 3 really good reasons.
1. Christianity says God created the heavens and Earth, but doesn't really explain how they work. This isn't true of the Greek and Egyptian religions, so without religion doing all the explaining, people started wondering how things work. This lead to the most base and early scientific discoveries.
2. The church was funding philosophers and mathematicians in their intellectual pursuits. This lead to a comfortable lifestyle for academics, leading more to get involved in these activities.
3. The Roman Military was expansionist, so great funding was given to those developing new weapons, which while a darker side of science is still science. Why was their military so aggressive and expansionist? To spread their religion.
And that last one led to the Crusades, which as angrybacteria said is how a lot of knowledge was spread. Those libraries that were destroyed, were looted first. Scientific knowledge was taken. The things that were destroyed were more religious or artistic in nature.
Again, angrybacteria was right about the Dark Ages, they were largely caused by famine and plague. Yes, it was a heavily religious time, but the religious extremism wasn't the cause, it was a symptom. People find comfort in their religion. There was a short life expectancy then, because people were sick and starving. This made people miserable, so they turned to god for comfort. They weren't making advancements because they were too busy starving to death, drowning in their own blood, or being terrified of starving to death or drowning in their own blood.
Now, onto the Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment, for these eras I'd like to focus on Leonardo Da Vinci, Isaac Newton, and Galileo Galilei.
Starting with Da Vinci, a man who was revered for his mathematics and inventions, but made his living on his art. He was arguably the most important thinker of the Renaissance, and he made his living selling paintings and sculptures to the Catholic Church. If it wasn't for the Church, he wouldn't have survived, and the Wright brothers may have never studied his notebooks and designed the first plane influenced by his sketches.
Isaac Newton, the man who invented Calculus, and discovered the equations on which all of modern physics is based, made his living as an advisor to the King of England. But, his research wasn't funded by taxes. No, academics were the realm of the Church of England. Again, Christianity funds scientific advancement.
Now, Galileo, the father of modern science. Yes, he's the least connected to the church, after all, he was eventually decried as a heretic. But where did he learn the basics on which all of his later discoveries were founded, the University of Pisa an institution founded and run by the Roman Catholic Church.
Throughout all of history until a couple hundred years ago science was heavily intertwined with religion. And yes, anon raises a fair point in >>#72, but regardless of whether they were truly Christian or not, they were bankrolled by the Church.
I'm not saying that in an alternate universe where religion didn't exist, these discoveries wouldn't have happened. They almost definitely would have. But, based on actual history, religion, particularly Christianity has helped scientific advancement far more than it's hurt it.
#123 - crazypat (07/21/2015) [-]
Im not gonna write anything super long. But at the time of the crusades Islam had made huge discoveries, and they had developed some really advanced analog computers for mapping the stars and moon, they discovered flight and how air could be redirected over larger surface areas to slow decent (parachutes, gliders, wings). All this tech was destroyed along with so many lives. BUT you are correct by the end of the crusades the western world had advanced because of it, but we destroyed the Islamic world and removed technology that would not be rediscovered for another 500-700 years.
Sorry if my previous comment seemed abrupt and uneducated as I wasn't making an intellectual statement, but without the crusades the world would be different as the crusades gave the west its power and allowed city states like Venice and Genoa to trade with the west and link the western world with everyone else. Still if the crusades did not happen we might have seen the middle east be the powerhouse today and not the west and we might see different tech, as I stated though we don't know because it didn't happen that way so in a way you are correct that tech still advanced at the rate that logistically was achievable during the dark ages and during the crusades.
I'm really tired so any grammatical errors please ignore and fact check me cause I might have gotten some stuff wrong. I accept my red thumbs for my previous comment.
#74 - noahlikespie (07/21/2015) [-]
Human advancement of technology has an "S-curve", meaning there are periods when we use existing technology, until we feel the need to make something better, more useful, etc.
Every time we get to the point when there's a technological breakthrough, if you were to send that one thing back in time even a few days, it may seem like that thing came from "500 years ahead".
This story by Isaac Asimov may be semi-relevant:
#60 - angrybacteria (07/20/2015) [-]
>they burned so many libraries and destroyed so much technology during the crusades that we were set back 500 years.
I'm not defending the Crusades as a good thing but western Europe actually became more technologically advance because the crusaders stole all the tech from the Muslims who in turn had stolen much of it from the Byzantines.
>We would probably be 500 years ahead in technology without Christianity.
Are you talking about the Dark Ages? The time when barely anyone in Western Europe could read, everyone was fighting fruitless battles, plague was rampant, and harvests were crap? Because I'm pretty sure that starving hordes of Germanic invaders and steppe nomads caused that not Christianity. Who saved the knowledge of science and history in Europe? Christian monks.
Then there were the eastern Christians. The Easter Roman (Byzantine) Empire saved science while western Europe descended into barbarism. The Empire spent over 500 years defending Europe against Islam, Sasaniand Persians, steppe nomads they messed up and let the Magyars though unfortunately , and other threats. By the time the Empire died the west had emerged and started inventing faster than ever.
#72 - anon (07/21/2015) [-]
Have you ever thought that some or at least a good bit of those "christian" scientists were not christian at all? Just to save their lives from catholic church, they said there were?
#104 - wrpen (07/21/2015) [-]
Many still gave time to both the Bible and theology in general. Galileo Galilei helped promote the Bible not actually being literal 100% of the time, and William of Ockham (commonly known for Occam's Razor) advocated for Voluntarism in the Catholic community. Many more held and expressed life views based primarily in their religion as well, and that's just the ones between 1000 and 1700, the only time frame that the Church had any kind of real power over advanced science.
Outside of that timeframe, you have Isaac Newton, Antoine Lavoisier, John Dalton, Gregor Mendel, Lord Kelvin, Ernest Rutherford, Max Planck, and even Freeman Dyson, none of which have been persecuted to a majority in either the scientific or christian community because of their religious views or scientific work, respectively.
#83 - bigjd (07/21/2015) [-]
#110 - mayoroftownsville (07/21/2015) [-]
Meh, no true scotsman fallacy. If we only count people who lived their lives in line with the teachings of Jesus we end up with maybe a dozen historically significant Christians. It's more realistic to count someone as a Christian if they said they were unless there was explicit evidence that they didn't actually believe and really were just saying it.
#115 - bigjd (07/21/2015) [-]
In biblical terms, we can "Know a tree by its fruits."Matthew 7:15-20. Christians believe that It's ultimately up to God in the end to make the determination. Considering that everyone fails, nobody stays perfectly in line with the teachings of Christ. But If a man who says that he speaks for God makes repeated claims contradictory to doctrine, It is highly likely that he is a liar. Take for example those church leaders of the time period who claimed that the Bible could only be read in Latin. This idea is in direct contradiction to Christ's great commission to spread the good news to every nation. Men were martyred by the Catholic church for translating the bible into english. (William Tyndale) Keeping the Bible in language that only most clergy understood, ensured the priests dominance over the common men. They could and did make up extra-biblical laws which were also contradictory to doctrine. IE condolences. It is no fallacy to say that "no true Christian would do something like this" when the definition and standard for what a Christian should be is contained within the book they follow. And according to that same book, not many people who claim to be Christian actually are. "Many are called, few are chosen" Matthew 22:14
#117 - mayoroftownsville (07/21/2015) [-]
The Christian test for Christianity gives different results depending on whether or not you are a believer. According to John 3:16 the most fundamental requirement is belief. Everything else is secondary. If you believe in Christianity, then going by your verse, a person whose views and actions seem to contradict and work against Jesus' teachings necessarily cannot believe in their heart. If they did then their 'fruits' would be good - no matter what. If you don't believe and apply the same standards, however, that connection fails - a non-believer doesn't hold the fruits to be a necessary co-indicator with belief. For a non-believer it is very easily imaginable for someone to truly believe in Jesus and to still produce negative results - bad fruit.
I'm not really trying to argue with you. If you want to take the hardline Christian stance that's your choice, but understand the logic doesn't follow for non-Christians trying to make the distinction. As a non-believer, if I need to make the distinction between a Christian and a non-Christian, the results of their behavior tell me very little.
#120 - bigjd (07/21/2015) [-]
**bigjd used "*roll picture*"**
**bigjd rolled image**
But I like to argue! I understand that most who do not believe, recognize Christians as those who simply claim the title. I originally posted in an attempt to shed light on the difference. I know that most people wont care. They'll continue to pick out the bad examples left behind by those who have failed the faith as "proof" that religion is false. This is human nature, to find the easiest route in which to ease our conscience. On another note, I think that you confuse belief with faith. A person can very easily believe in God and act in rebellion as per James 2:19 Where it says that the demons believe and tremble. The difference I suppose is trust or better yet purpose. If a person "believes" it should change their whole outlook on life, This results in a change in how they live. They should produce "good Fruits" but it does not always go that way. Some close their eyes to the whole scene or "harden their hearts". More of that human nature. This results in those who create the bad example in the first place and turn people off of Christianity. .. Ima gonna chance a roll and see what happens.
#122 - mayoroftownsville (07/21/2015) [-]
Sure, Christian theology is complicated. More ink has been spilled over the divinity of Jesus than both of us put together could read in a lifetime. The basic assertion I'm making, though, is that judging a person's Christianity by the fruits of their labor only holds if you presuppose the truth of Christianity. Building on your goat/sheep metaphor, imagine the flock in question existed hundreds of years ago and all we had was a list of the prices each animal was bought at without their species noted. Now imagine we have a separate document from the era stating that goats were sold from 2-4 ducats and sheep from 4-6. If I don't accept the facticity of the latter document, it would be mighty hard for you to convince me that we can guess the identity of almost all of the animals by this metric.
|#2118 - **lolerbot used "*roll picture*"** **lolerbot rolled image…||07/20/2015 on Roll John Cena, get a 1 day...||0|
|#66 - they know shut it down||07/20/2015 on This week in science | July...||0|
|#7 - if someone had the intelligence and reasoning of a human, but … [+] (3 new replies)||07/20/2015 on This week in science | July...||+6|