Morganie and others #fundie

Morganie and others #fundie answers.yahoo.com

[I don't know which is worse, the original question or the answers]

The "Dark Ages" is a misnomer. What do you think?
Dark Ages is a misnomer, since it was a time in which there were the least heathenism (Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, etc, which all lead to Satan) and the most people who saw the light of Christ. It was termed the Dark Ages by non-Christians (Satanists) who hated Christ and Christianity and only wanted to make Christianity's influence seem like a negative thing. Just because scientific advancement was delayed, they see it as a bad thing. Science advancements don't matter if you do not have salvation. Salvation is the most important thing.

[Gorillawits] Its called th dark ages cause the Catholic Church suppressed the bible and kept it to themselves.

[oldguy63] No, the Dark Ages were coined by Protestants who were pushed down under the control of Catholicism and martyred by the wagon load.

72 comments

old comment by Nathan the Wise

Well, actually, speaking as a scholar of the period ... I mean I study it, not that I live there ... it was actually so named (by Petrarch) because of the lack of texts from the period. Thus, it is 'dark' to us, we cannot 'see' it like we do classical antiquity or later medieval Europe, due to the paucity of written material. For the ordinary Joe it probably wasn't any worse a time to live in than those preceding or following, but it is true that the collapse of the Western Roman Empire did cause a lowering of what we today would call technological standards, and the elite of society were certainly a lot less literate, and less concerned with learning.

The idiot who gave the first answer in the OP might like to know that, far from being the time of least heathenism, Christian Britannia became pagan England during this period.

Dates for the 'Dark Ages' are fluid and much disputed, when acknowledged at all (the term isn't much used by modern historians) but if you're talking about Britain I go with c. 450 to 1086 CE.

old comment by Mrs. Antichrist

It's called the dark ages because knowledge was suppressed by the church. People were kept ignorant ("in the dark", if you prefer) in order to keep them loyal to the church and the king. They destroyed books and scrolls containing scientific knowledge, including information about disease, and how to prevent and fight it. As a result, superstitions took over, and medicine became a complete joke. If it weren't for the dark ages, it's likely that modern medicine would have developed much earlier, and thousands would have been spared from dying from plagues, childbirth, and so on.

And let's not forget the thousands who were tortured and killed because they didn't believe exactly what the church said they had to believe, even if the so-called heathen's beliefs were more bible-based than that of the clergy.

For the record, there was more than one European 'dark age'. Any era that saw knowledge being suppressed is called a dark age. Incidentally, the influence of religion always seems to be present during these ages, with the Abrahamic religions almost always being the dominant presence.

A large chunk of the middle east is currently in a dark age, as are many African countries. If you want to know what the dark ages were really like, go spend a month or two in rural Iran.

old comment by BobsOldSocks

"...and only wanted to make Christianity's influence seem like a negative thing."

The premature deaths of millions of people wasn't a "negative thing"? The suffering of countless millions more wasn't a "negative thing"? Your religion was the worst thing to happen to Europe, worse even that the black death.

"Just because scientific advancement was delayed, they see it as a bad thing."

Yeah, cos saving people's lives and alleviating hunger, disease and poverty are all bad things. Only the discoveries of science have allowed us to attempt to do those things; your religion has failed utterly at all of them.

"Science advancements don't matter if you do not have salvation. Salvation is the most important thing."

No. There is no such thing as "salvation" and no one, no where, who can provide it. Your religion is based on a lie (several lies, in fact) and your refusal to accept reality tells me that you're either brain damaged or mentally ill, possibly both.

"[Gorillawits] Its called th dark ages cause the Catholic Church suppressed the bible and kept it to themselves.

[oldguy63] No, the Dark Ages were coined by Protestants who were pushed down under the control of Catholicism and martyred by the wagon load."

No. It's called the Dark Ages because of the suppression of human endeavour, achievement and intellectual inquiry by the christian churches and the murder and torture carried out in jesus name in pursuit of that goal.

old comment by jsonitsac

It was called the Dark Ages by Renaissance Era Christians. Good try.

[Gorillawits] Its called th dark ages cause the Catholic Church suppressed the bible and kept it to themselves.

Oddly enough the Bible was one of many books that the Catholic Church tried to suppress, least anybody have their own interpretation.

[oldguy63] No, the Dark Ages were coined by Protestants who were pushed down under the control of Catholicism and martyred by the wagon load.

Crack open an encyclopedia to the entry: "Luther, Martin" and see why you're wrong.

@GodotIsWaiting4U

Not really. There was no real central authority at all in Europe at that time. Hence, if you had to deal with Viking Attacks, and nobody is there to stop them, then studying the way the universe works will be low on your list of priorities.

old comment by Nathan the Wise

Aaaagh, stop it! Scientific advancement (such as it was) stalled in Western Europe because the collapse of the Roman Empire meant there was no longer the infrastructure to support it. The decline in technological achievement and scientific understanding seen in the West did not happen in the continuing Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire, which was equally Christian.

Furthermore, the Church played a vital role in the preservation of classical learning; in the days before printing, all texts had to be copied by hand, and if wasn't for the monks in some scriptorium we wouldn't even know who Archimedes or Eratosthenes were, let alone what they wrote. Yes, at various places and times the Church did stand opposed to certain scientific advances, but not always, not everywhere and not everything.

And no, I'm not a Christian apologist. I'm an atheist Jew.

old comment by Papabear

"It was termed the Dark Ages by non-Christians (Satanists) who hated Christ and Christianity "

Not being a Christian doesn't mean one worships Satan, hates Christ or Christianity. I think I'm starting to hate you though.

"Just because scientific advancement was delayed, they see it as a bad thing. Science advancements don't matter if you do not have salvation."

Yes, but not JUST because. There's also the stiffling of literature, music and other arts. There's the torture and deaths of millions. You know, little things like that.

"Salvation is the most important thing."

No. Your salvation fantasy is simply NOT the most thing. You can't show that anyone has been saved or that the hell they were supposedly saved from even exists.

P.S. Gorillawits - Please stop insulting gorillas.

old comment by Tolpuddle Martyr

I think that Dark Ages is a bit of a misnomer, after all there was a scientific renaissance going on in the Arab world at the time. It's a rather western - European centred way of looking at things.

It was pretty dark for most of Western Europe for a pretty long time - until the Greek and Roman works that were preserved by the Byzantine and Arab civilisations started filtering through and Europe had its renaissance.

JSS, as for that chart showing scientific advancement increasing exponentially, I'm skeptical of that too.

The Ancient Greeks developed science in a lot of areas that the Romans really let stagnate. Sure the Romans were good structural engineers but they couldn't come up with anything like the Antikythera mechanism, they tended to sit on the knowledge passed down by the Greeks and not question it.

I don't think it's historically accurate to say that the development of scientific knowledge was, until very recently, exponential or uniform!

All said and done, the fact that these guys are actually pining for the days of witch burnings, famine and ignorance that was the European Medieval period is kind of scary.

old comment by David B.

Funny, I read the quote and just knew that someone was going to pull that "hole left by the Christian Dark Ages" graph out of his ass.

The early Middle Ages (Dark Ages) did not "regress in knowledge", but was at least as progressive an era (if not more so) than the ones the precede and follow it. See Lynn White's "Medieval Technology and Social Change", Oxford University Press, ISBN 0195002660.

The "decline in science" attributed to the Dark Ages was more to do with the failure of ancient learning to be relevant in the post Roman world. Without the giant state structure to support it, pure science became an irrelevant luxury to most people, to be replaced with advances in applied science, i.e. technology. In the ancient world, the way to increase productivity was through man-power not innovation, so improvements in ploughing and harvesting did not occur until after the collapse of Rome. Agricultural use of horse and water power, wheeled and heavy ploughs, three-field crop rotation, land drainage and reclamation, the stirrup, horseshoe and the English (actually Welsh) longbow all date from the early Middle Ages. Agricultural productivity rocketed, having decreased 'per hand' under the Roman Empire. See David Lindburg's "Science in the Middle Ages", University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0226482332.

old comment by David B.

@Journeyer:

At most that would account for a decade or so of reduced light, not for the 500+ years commonly described as the Dark Ages.

Francesco Petrarca was the person who first popularised the term, arguing that in the period after the fall of Rome, the "light of classical antiquity" had been extinguished.

Ironically, Petrarca had previously also described the very same Roman and Greek world of classical antiquity as "the dark ages of barbarism" that had preceded the "enlightenment" brought to Earth by Christ. He famously pitied his hero Cicero for dying just before "the end of darkness and error" and "the dawn of the true light".

Basically, "the Dark Ages" has no more real significance than do American pioneers' references to "the savage lands". It was just a literary put-down that became the received wisdom.

old comment by Freethinker

#1057963

2) In the dark ages most of Europe was ruled by Muslims, in fact the dark ages saw the birth of Islam.

No. Only part of Spain and a bit in the Balkans was ruled by Muslims during the Dark Ages. Grenada was the last to fall in 1492 and is seen as one of the 'end of the Dark Ages'. Together with the fall of Constantinople and the discovery of the Americas by Columbus, both in 1492 as well.
Almost all of Europe was wholeheartedly christian (RC). Methinks the becoming christian of Rome and the Merovingians have something to do with that.

The birth of Islam has nothing to do with the Dark Ages, because that term is used for Europe 500-1500 only. In all other places (like.. the Middle East, Central America, China and a couple of other places) culture grew and shone brightly! In fact: Thank the Muslims for keeping an eye on the great works left behind by Rome and Greece. Medicine, Mathematics, Chemistry, Astronomy and a few other things were kept from destruction by them. All during the time the Catholic Church was kinda busy burning the stuff in Europe.

old comment by David B.

"Disease ran rampant, people died by the scores"

Nope, not unless you are blaming Christianity for the Black Death. The average life expectancy of the Early Middle Ages didn't change much from Roman norms (stayed at about 30), many cities grew larger (Byzantium overtook Rome as the largest city in the world with a population of half a million) and the world population grew by 50% (from 300 million in 500AD to over 400 million by 1000AD). Moreover agricultural productivity rose and the number of people living beyond 60 actually fell by nearly half after the Dark Ages (Gordon Patterson, "The Essentials of Medieval History", Research & Education Association, ISBN 0878917055).

old comment by

Let me begin. The Dark Ages were coined in the very Christian Reinassance and they didn't mean that they were bad, but that most of the WRITTEN TEXTS were lost, so a lot of information was lost as well. Second, there was more heathenism, NOT IN EUROPE OR AMERICA, but, well, we are not the centre of the world, I guess. Third, they were all Catholics, which you don't consider Christian anyway and the delay of Science(not exactly that but, anyway)goes away with the fact that you are posting it in a computer. If salvation is so important, go ahead, don't type it and be consequent. The supression of the Bible was made by protestants who, at the time of their persecution, had long passed the so called Dark Ages. Honestly, not even Bro Randy and RR are that stupid.

old comment by LitStudent

As a student of early medieval literature, I can say that OP is an idiot.

Most historians do not use the term "Dark Ages" anymore. Its the Early Middle Ages. Science remained based off of the remaining ancient scholarly works, Aristotle being one. The idea of Protestants really didn't exist until Martin Luther's movement centuries later. And once the Protestant movement was underway, there was plenty of killing on both sides. See Peasant's War and anything involving Henry VIII and Mary Tudor.

And as for less heathenism, the Muslim World to the south of Europe was the most sophisticated place in the Western world at the time, being a large center of learning, travel and trade.

L2 world history, moron.

Morganie and others #fundie answers.yahoo.com

72 comments

Confused?