[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33055740]you're right, it had nothing to do with the european dark ages
[img]http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/darkages.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Everytime someone post's that it reminds me how stupid and pathetic some atheists are. (I know mostly of understanding ones)
It's not a real graph, It doesn't even make sense! How the fuck can you measure science? Things are usually invented by accident. And according to that despite the "Christian Dark ages" science would somehow catch up? Also what have atheists ever done as a group? because that's all they count them selves as is some sort of anti religious following/Cult and it's no wonder Einstein never said that he was "Atheist" Who the hell would wan't to class them selves as such a pointless lazy bunch of people who just constantly dig at anything they don't like.
Here's a fact, Religion brought on many benefits not just by lifestyle but also in Science by introducing cleanliness before germs and disease was understood as people wanted to smell nice for their god, Care taking for people who where suffering from illness or lack of money and civilised ways of living.
Of course there's extremism and stereotype, but that happens with anything that gains popularity including Athetism.
[QUOTE=Canary;33059830]It's not a real graph, It doesn't even make sense![/QUOTE]
As i said, it's a not-too-inaccurate way to visualize the progress we weren't making.
[quote]How the fuck can you measure science?[/QUOTE]
From the previous page:
There are actually a lot of ways researchers will try to quantify scientific knowledge. One such way is the number of sources cited in an argument or paper or something. There's also just the obvious; how long did it take for humans to get from copper to bronze, bronze to iron, iron to steel, etc.? Or looking at how the processing power of computers has increased exponentially in a very short time because we're advancing so rapidly. Each step is more complex than the last, yet we complete it quicker and quicker.
When you look at the Christian Dark Ages, we didn't make very many steps. That's why you learn so much about the Renaissance in school, because we left the dark ages and started [I]actually[/I] advancing again.
[quote]Things are usually invented by accident.[/QUOTE]
you're an idiot. very few things are invented by accident. unless you're Thomas Edison, but he was kind of an idiot.
[quote]Also what have atheists ever done as a group?[/QUOTE]
95% of the members of the scientific community identify themselves as atheist or agnostic (which if you know anything about, is also basically atheist.)
[quote]because that's all they count them selves as is some sort of anti religious following/Cult and it's no wonder Einstein never said that he was "Atheist" Who the hell would wan't to class them selves as such a pointless lazy bunch of people who just constantly dig at anything they don't like.[/QUOTE]
Albert Einstein was most definitely an atheist.
[quote]Here's a fact, Religion brought on many benefits not just by lifestyle but also in Science by introducing cleanliness before germs and disease was understood as people wanted to smell nice for their god, Care taking for people who where suffering from illness or lack of money and civilised ways of living.[/quote]
What are you talking about? All these things were vastly improved upon and changed by actual, modern science. Even today, instead of actually taking care of people suffering from illness, there are people who choose to pray for them to get better.
[quote]Of course there's extremism and stereotype, but that happens with anything that gains popularity including Athetism.[/QUOTE]
you're right, it just so happens that religiousness decreases as education increases. as i said, 95% of the members of the scientific community are atheists/agnostics.
[QUOTE=Canary;33059830]Also what have atheists ever done as a group?[/QUOTE]
Atheism is not a group.
Everything in your post just... ugh.
[QUOTE=Canary;33059830]Everytime someone post's that it reminds me how stupid and pathetic some atheists are. (I know mostly of understanding ones)
It's not a real graph, It doesn't even make sense! How the fuck can you measure science? Things are usually invented by accident. And according to that despite the "Christian Dark ages" science would somehow catch up? Also what have atheists ever done as a group? because that's all they count them selves as is some sort of anti religious following/Cult and it's no wonder Einstein never said that he was "Atheist" Who the hell would wan't to class them selves as such a pointless lazy bunch of people who just constantly dig at anything they don't like.
Here's a fact, Religion brought on many benefits not just by lifestyle but also in Science by introducing cleanliness before germs and disease was understood as people wanted to smell nice for their god, Care taking for people who where suffering from illness or lack of money and civilised ways of living.
Of course there's extremism and stereotype, but that happens with anything that gains popularity including Athetism.[/QUOTE]
Hey, fuck off, not all atheists are bastards!
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33060045]As i said, it's a not-too-inaccurate way to visualize the progress we weren't making.
-large rant ensues-[/QUOTE]
Shame I can't rate 'agree' 300 more times :(
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;33056160]Huh, so we are the 7 billion out of 81 billion.
Interesting figures.[/QUOTE]
Nope, approximately 106 billion homo sapiens have lived throughout history.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;33059494]I like how there's a debate about how the CHRISTIAN DARK AGES!!!1 somehow kept us down, as a fucking species, for a long time in a discussion about a BABY.
If you don't know what the fuck you're on about, SHUT THE FUCK UP and stay on topic. This isn't yet another discussion about the perils of religion and how Jesus is stopping us from colonizing Mars. It's a stupid argument, it's always been a stupid argument and it will forever be a stupid argument. Religions are not these unstoppable titans that roam the earth, finding hapless scientists and squeezing their precious science brains out with their big religion fists. It doesn't fucking work like that! Even if they did, injecting anti-religious shit into discussions that have [i]absolutely [u]nothing[/u][/i] to do with religion wouldn't help the situation! Yes, bringing up European progress and how it stagnated because of the dreaded [b][i]religion[/i][/b] and that, somehow, caused the rest of humanity to be dumb as shit too, is [i]very important[/i] to a discussion about babies. I am sick and fucking tired of some loud-mouthed Atheist son of a bitch running into a discussion and screaming about religion in a high pitched voice like some kind of intellectual suicide bomber. It's not cool anymore and it certainly was never funny. You are [i]just as bad[/i] as Phelps and his merry band of cocksuckers, so take a moment and [i]think [u]carefully[/u][/i] before you decide to do it again. Yeah, you're the exact same as the people you criticize the most. In fact, you're worse because they'll go away... eventually. You? Well, you're incapable of really noticing when people have stopped giving a shit [i]hours ago[/i] and the worst part is we can still hear you. Our only flaw is we can't somehow develop telekinesis, probably using the part of the brain that stores hatred like a capacitor, and rip your tongue out with our fucking minds.
I hope you break your both your hands in your fit to rate me dumb.
Oh, and I forgot to add, that baby is adorable. <3[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8zNsUTWsOc]Welcome to face punch... I love you.[/url]
As i said, it's a not-too-inaccurate way to visualize the progress we weren't making.
From the previous page:
There are actually a lot of ways researchers will try to quantify scientific knowledge. One such way is the number of sources cited in an argument or paper or something. There's also just the obvious; how long did it take for humans to get from copper to bronze, bronze to iron, iron to steel, etc.? Or looking at how the processing power of computers has increased exponentially in a very short time because we're advancing so rapidly. Each step is more complex than the last, yet we complete it quicker and quicker.
When you look at the Christian Dark Ages, we didn't make very many steps. That's why you learn so much about the Renaissance in school, because we left the dark ages and started [I]actually[/I] advancing again.
You're an idiot. very few things are invented by accident. unless you're Thomas Edison, but he was kind of an idiot.
[b]What makes you so smart compared to me or a famous inventor or many other famous inventors who where mostly religious? oh ye of course you're Atheist you're special and better than everyone else.[/b]
95% of the members of the scientific community identify themselves as atheist or agnostic (which if you know anything about, is also basically atheist.)
[b]"basically" So in other words despite a lot of scientists believing in a higher power you class that as Atheist to make you feel smarter.[/b]
Albert Einstein was most definitely an atheist.
[b]No he most definitely wasn't, He said so himself he believed in a higher power but didn't wan't to follow a religion or call himself atheist.[/b]
What are you talking about? All these things were vastly improved upon and changed by actual, modern science. Even today, instead of actually taking care of people suffering from illness, there are people who choose pray for them to get better.
[b]A lot of people working in medicine and science gladly follow a religion and don't mind working in the name of science and with modern medicine.[/b]
you're right, it just so happens that religiousness decreases as education increases. as i said, 95% of the members of the scientific community are atheists/agnostics.
[b]Once against you pull this out of your ass and make up facts.[/b]
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=RubberFruit;33060092]Hey, fuck off, not all atheists are bastards!
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
Shame I can't rate 'agree' 300 more times :([/QUOTE]
Like I said most are understanding, Usually atheists that say things things about religion are children trying to fit in on an online community.
So far in this thread I've seen fair and agreeable replies from Atheists, but just like religion it only takes a few to spoil the bunch.
[QUOTE=Canary;33060218]Once against you pull this out of your ass and make up facts.[/QUOTE]
I'm not making up facts.
[url=http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm]Here's a study[/url] talking about the religiousness of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, where 92% of them classify themselves as atheists or agnostics.
If you want to learn about how things aren't invented by accident, but rather through careful planning and mathematics, go read about Nikola Tesla, one of the most innovative and prolific inventors ever.
If you want to learn about Albert Einstein's irreligiousness, read this quote about his "God," which is nothing more than the laws of nature he loved to study:
[quote]"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."[/quote]
If you want to learn about religious people choosing to pray instead of taking their ill to hospitals, well... just watch the news.
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
And no, an agnostic is someone who doesn't believe in a god because they don't believe there is substantial enough evidence to support such a substantial claim.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33060358]I'm not making up facts.
[url=http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm]Here's a study[/url] talking about the religiousness of the members of the National Academy of Sciences, where 92% of them classify themselves as atheists or agnostics.
If you want to learn about how things aren't invented by accident, but rather through careful planning and mathematics, go read about Nikola Tesla, one of the most innovative and prolific inventors ever.
If you want to learn about Albert Einstein's irreligiousness, read this quote about his "God," which is nothing more than the laws of nature he loved to study:
If you want to learn about religious people choosing to pray instead of taking their ill to hospitals, well... just watch the news.
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
And no, an agnostic is someone who doesn't believe in a god because they don't believe there is substantial enough evidence to support such a substantial claim.[/QUOTE]
Your arguments are dwindling because you probably know I am correct.
If atheist is about not believing in god or being and individual then why do you fight so hard to disprove him
The argument in this thread wasn't about disproving any gods; that's another argument for another thread. It was about how the dark ages impeded scientific advancements.
And my arguments aren't 'dwindling,' but I do appreciate that you didn't even try to respond to any of them. Ones where I actually cited sources so you could see for yourself.
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
In fact I responded to everything you said in that post.
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
I can't believe I'm arguing with someone about religion who doesn't even know the meaning of the term 'agnostic'
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
Oh, and here, have a quote from a very prominent astronomer, astrophysicist, author, and champion of Facepunch, the late Carl Sagan:
[quote]Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws.[/quote]
What kind of fucking name is "Camacho"?
The 7 billion mark would always fluctuate so it's pointless to make that estimate. 100'000 babies could be the 7 billionth.
[QUOTE=TAU!;33060946]What kind of fucking name is "Camacho"?[/QUOTE]
What kind of fucking name is "TAU!"?
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
Camacho is a bad ass name.
[QUOTE=J!NX;33061000]What kind of fucking name is "TAU!"?
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
Camacho is a bad ass name.[/QUOTE]
What kind of fucking name is "J!NX"? An internet username is a completely different from someones surname.
[QUOTE=TAU!;33061025]What kind of fucking name is "J!NX"? An internet username is a completely different from someones surname.[/QUOTE]
The entire point of what I just said, went utterly over your head. Not everyone likes 'American' names you know, what if its normal over where they live?
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
American names are kinda over rated anyways.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33060045]Albert Einstein was most definitely an atheist.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views[/url] Not exactly. The rest was pretty spot on though.
He didn't believe in the Christian god or any other god for that matter. He talked about a 'God' a lot, but he has clarified (in that quote that I posted as well as others) that the 'God' he talked about was not a mystical god, it was not an anthropomorphic intelligent being ruling from the heavens, it was just Nature and its laws that govern our universe.
[editline]31st October 2011[/editline]
At the top of that wiki page you posted, go read about Baruch Spinoza's "god" that Einstein believed in.
"Spinoza expressly denies personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence, feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law...."
A set of laws.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33055740]you're right, it had nothing to do with the european dark ages
[img]http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/darkages.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Is there a source anywhere for this graph or what because every time someone posts it I never get one.
read the rest of the thread
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33063515]read the rest of the thread[/QUOTE]
So no? No source, no citations, no studies, no research in any way?
Of course it isn't a real freaking chart, it's so fucking obvious. It's supposed to send a message, people.
[QUOTE=Canary;33060513]Your arguments are dwindling because you probably know I am correct.
If atheist is about not believing in god or being and individual then why do you fight so hard to disprove him[/QUOTE]
Your posts are the stupidest in this thread, congratulations. Atheism is lack of belief in a deity. "Coincidentally", people who've reasoned that God does not exist are interested in the topic, and in explaining why they think he doesn't exist.
You are so butthurt by atheism it almost hurts me.
[QUOTE=Chrille;33067862]Of course it isn't a real freaking chart, it's so fucking obvious. It's supposed to send a message, people.[/QUOTE]
Then it shouldn't be paraded around as a fact.
[QUOTE=AK'z;33059613]Lol, people die so how can any baby be the 7 billionth. :>[/QUOTE]
Im just wondering, I was looking at your post count and join date, do you just spend your whole fucking life huddled over a keyboard posting on facepunch?
[QUOTE=Paramud;33066918]So no? No source, no citations, no studies, no research in any way?[/QUOTE]
You're an idiot and we already went over this. The research that went into making that chart was a very basic world history education because that's all you need to get the message that scientific progress slowed considerably during that time.
[QUOTE=mercurius;33053724]That's bean counting, you can't quantify the amount of humans on earth.[/QUOTE]
She's one of the several babies chosen to be a symbolic 7 billionth baby
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33069998]You're an idiot and we already went over this. The research that went into making that chart was a very basic world history education because that's all you need to get the message that scientific progress slowed considerably during that time.[/QUOTE]
Disregarding that the graph is still lacking any sort of detail except for a time line, that only deals with the historical aspect of it. I'd like to see if any research was actually put into predicting how far scientific advancement would've gone if we hadn't gone into the dark ages.
For someone who's defending the message that image has, you sure have an easy time believing the first thing you hear.
God you're dumb... it's not the first thing I heard. Have you taken a single world/european history class? You will hear [I]many times[/I] about the dark ages and the renaissance and the enlightenment, and then perhaps you will understand the "message that image has."
More people, hurray.
[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;33055740]you're right, it had nothing to do with the european dark ages
[img]http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/darkages.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Nice graph. How did they calculate "scientific advancement"? And nice source for the graph too.
Dumbass.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("flaming" - postal))[/highlight]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.