Saudi Arabian executioners are having an unusually prolific year - Polidicks

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49205252]Yes, but nobody is claiming that Christianity uplifted Europe. Actually the popular opinion is that Christianity actually held that back and got in the way of scientific advancement, so.. quite the opposite. I mean isn't that the argument used most often by atheists (and others) when they're being critical of Christianity anyway?[/QUOTE] Who's "popular opinion" is that? I've seen most historians actually say the opposite. The only people I've seen make that argument are modern atheists who don't have any historical background at all.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;49205286]There's actually a lot of truth to this, considering the early Caliphate heavily borrowed from Persian and Byzantine influences for hundreds of years.[/QUOTE] I think that what ISIS is doing today. They are taking a lot of ideas and absorbing it into their way or doing things. Their propaganda machine. Their organization is a class M corporation structure. [url]http://www.npr.org/2014/11/29/367424785/isis-and-the-corporatization-of-terrorism[/url] They are stealing everything that makes the west effective.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49205248]The golden age of islam is more prolific than sobotonik or vasili are admitting but it isn't as prolific as was originally proposed in the thread as a rebuttal to the concept of christian nations being the only progressive ones in the world. There were a lot of smart people in the golden age, we shouldn't discount them because the bulk of their base knowledge was stolen. They came up with things in that time frame, to deny that, and just say "Nah, christians could have done that in the future" is one of the most ludicrous responses I've ever read. Anyone could have done it in the future, anyone can invent anything in the scenario of "What if" and "In the future" scenarios like that. They're as meaningless as me making a what if to show how meaningless it is. What they did come up with was good. But that period of innovation and creation was only about 100 years, and the golden age is cited to last a lot longer than that so yeah it's not fair to say it was meaningless, and it's not fair to say it's super important either.[/QUOTE] the main point is that the islamic golden age is largely a historiographical construct that exists largely as a place that some people can point to as spurious evidence that the faith of the Mohammedan was responsible for a flowering of cultural and scientific knowledge and prosperity the reality is that the concept of a "golden age" is a bullshit term in itself that has no place in historical discourse that exists more for political reasons than as something historians actually use the "islamic golden age" in particular is a reactionary collection of rubbish used by modern day islamist scholars to make up an ideological armour that can be used to defend the religion from modernist critiques. of course the project is doomed to failure, which is why the organisations and countries which have tried to bring back or revive aspects of this mythical golden age tend to be genocidal organisations like ISIS which literally wants to recreate the social, political, and economic system that prevailed in the early moslem calpihates

[QUOTE=Disgruntled;49204608]Man, I just love how every thread about bad shit happening in the middle east always inevitably involves people going full "DESTROY ISLAM REMOVE KEBAB DEUS VULT". Wait, did I say "love"? I meant, "I want to snap these people's fingers in half so they'll quit typing." Yeah, that's the one.[/QUOTE] What do you expect, facepunch circlejerks over religion and why religion is bad in every single thread revolving around it, the same thing happens in any thread that has to do with shootings and/or drugs (especially marijuana)

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49205276]All valid points, but I'm going to add something: I really don't think Europe would have progressed forward like it did without the Middle East having those hundred years or so. I mean for as long as "the West" has been a political entity we've always been married partially to the Middle East in some way or another.[/QUOTE] the moslem invasion resulted in the complete collapse of a collection of nascent states and eviscerated the byzantine and Sassanian empires. the level of economic activity and political organisation was at its lowest in europe during the 7th-8th centuries. multiple cities were abandoned, sacked, shrank, went into decline, stagnated, or otherwise suffered in some way. the revival only really began a few centuries afterwards when the feudal system and the catholic church brought a degree of stability to europe that made the creation of states and population growth (and by extension trade, industry, science, culture, etc) possible. the reality is that europe would have quietly moved on regardless of whenever or not Mohammed was born [QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49205252]Yes, but nobody is claiming that Christianity uplifted Europe. Actually the popular opinion is that Christianity actually held that back and got in the way of scientific advancement, so.. quite the opposite. I mean isn't that the argument used most often by atheists (and others) when they're being critical of Christianity anyway?[/QUOTE] i'd say the catholic church was responsible for the creation of most of europe in itself, and as an organisation it has a generally positive and widespread impact through virtue of the fact it was the only major international institution to exist in the post-roman world. many of the positive developments of medieval europe are linked to the existence of the church and the role it played throughout it. certainly much more than the superfluous renaissance, which consisted largely of italian nobles translating greek poetry and bidding on rare books.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49205252]Yes, but nobody is claiming that Christianity uplifted Europe. Actually the popular opinion is that Christianity actually held that back and got in the way of scientific advancement, so.. quite the opposite. I mean isn't that the argument used most often by atheists (and others) when they're being critical of Christianity anyway?[/QUOTE] its debatable, for sure monistaries were excellent places to learn, and often were where nobles sent their "spare" sons for safe keeping in case the current heir had an unfortunate death, and they were often places of great scientific study and preserved a lot of ancient mathmatical works as well as improved upon them and priests were the go-to teachers and tutors for many nobles. the church's dogma did impead certain theories, and dogma did cause a lot of stuff to be buried or downplayed

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;49204151][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age[/url] Yup. Only wars happened in the 12th century and before. Totally. During these centuries, despite some conflicts, Muslims schooled Christians in philosophy, science, tolerance, progress and were pretty much fucking liberal compared to the shithole that was Christianity at that time. The dark ages weren't dark, in the Muslim world and China great progress was being made.[/QUOTE] I'm back finally. Basically, everything that has needed to be said to rebut this... [QUOTE=sgman91;49204185]The "dark ages" weren't dark anywhere. It's a total misnomer.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49204542]One thing that has always irked me about people praising Islam for it's "golden age" is most of their accomplishments were just cargo cultish imitations of Romans,Persians, Indians, and other relics of a dying classical civilization. The Middle East had been a cultural and economic center for millennia at the time of the Islamic conquests, producing many of Christendom's best theologians, and it's a little disingenuous to give Muslims credit for the region's accomplishments when they're the ones who took thousands of years of success and slowly drove it into the ground; turning the richest, oldest, and most strategically valuable region in the world into a worthless backwater. By this time the Ottoman Empire was being propped up for political reasons and half of the Muslim countries had been reduced to piracy as the primary form of economic activity. There's little of value produced by Muslims in these countries that was not already produced, or could not have been produced in the future, by a Christian or Zoroastrian population of the middle east and north Africa. It's interesting that despite all the existing initial social and economic skills and resources, all of these nations more or less fell into decline and became the pawns of their neighbours after the middle ages ended. Today the only thing going for half of the Arab states is the fact they have oil that they can use to import skilled foreigners to build places like Dubai, a city as superflous as the "Islamic Golden Age".[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;49204553]It wasn't Islam that did this. It as the relative tolerance of the rulers, the monopoly on the east-west trade routes and the ability for scholars to gather that made that area in that era a prosperous one.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49204754]largely because of parasitic rent-seeking activities, slave-farming, and the sheer luck a few desert tribes had in taking over a vast economic powerhouse and then tax-farming it until the regime collapsed and a new generation came to power. as islam entrenched itself, the ostensibly tolerant and innovative culture of the early civilization steadily decayed. most of the moslem nations experienced economic and demographic stagnation (followed by decline) as the medieval period progressed. the egypt that was ruled by the ottomans had a smaller population and economy than that of the classical egypt administered by the pharaohs, persians, greeks, and romans. they spent all of their social capital that classical civilization spent centuries building up on wasteful endeavors, while in europe the successors to rome ended up rebuilding a new civilization out of virtually nothing[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49205309]the main point is that the islamic golden age is largely a historiographical construct that exists largely as a place that some people can point to as spurious evidence that the faith of the Mohammedan was responsible for a flowering of cultural and scientific knowledge and prosperity the reality is that the concept of a "golden age" is a bullshit term in itself that has no place in historical discourse that exists more for political reasons than as something historians actually use the "islamic golden age" in particular is a reactionary collection of rubbish used by modern day islamist scholars to make up an ideological armour that can be used to defend the religion from modernist critiques. of course the project is doomed to failure, which is why the organisations and countries which have tried to bring back or revive aspects of this mythical golden age tend to be genocidal organisations like ISIS which literally wants to recreate the social, political, and economic system that prevailed in the early moslem calpihates[/QUOTE] ...has already been said. The Islamic Golden Age is a myth, the Dark Ages in general are a myth. The European Dark Age myth is unfortunately an extremely tenacious one that refuses to die; fact is though, Europe in the Middle Ages underwent a number of renaissances that are unfortunately untaught in schools: the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_Renaissance]Carolingian Renaissance under Charlemagne[/url], the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottonian_Renaissance]Ottonian Renaissance under the Saxon Dynasty[/url], and the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_of_the_12th_century]High Medieval Renaissance in the 12th century[/url] that built the foundations for the Italian Renaissance.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49205302]Who's "popular opinion" is that? I've seen most historians actually say the opposite. The only people I've seen make that argument are modern atheists who don't have any historical background at all.[/QUOTE][U]Popular[/U] opinion. Popular. Not scholarly, academic, professional, or otherwise. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49205318]the reality is that europe would have quietly moved on regardless of whenever or not Mohammed was born[/QUOTE]Okay, that's a silly point to make when the choices are die off or move forward so of course Europe would have "moved on." [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49205318]i'd say the catholic church was responsible for the creation of most of europe in itself, and as an organisation it has a generally positive and widespread impact through virtue of the fact it was the only major international institution to exist in the post-roman world. many of the positive developments of medieval europe are linked to the existence of the church and the role it played throughout it.[/QUOTE]Yet on that same note some of the worst things and most detrimental things have been the result of Catholicism in Europe, and even aside from that Orthodox Christians managed to organize themselves just fine and survive against repeated Muslim assaults into their lands. I don't think that the Catholic church was the necessary vehicle for European advancement, economic conditions were steadily improving and it was only a matter of time. Sure, because of the Catholic church there was much less infighting between the Catholic nations, but still they happened which goes to show the Pope couldn't say shit when money was on the line. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49205318]certainly much more than the superfluous renaissance, which consisted largely of italian nobles translating greek poetry and bidding on rare books.[/QUOTE]Plus you're deliberately discounting the actual scientific advancements made during the Renaissance period in spite of the Catholic church, and I'm not sure why given how the Venetians completely fucking dominated Mediterranean trade west of Sicily for a long time. They didn't do that because the Pope gave them good financial advice, they did that through technological, social, and political prowess. [QUOTE=Sableye;49205366]its debatable, for sure monistaries were excellent places to learn, and often were where nobles sent their "spare" sons for safe keeping in case the current heir had an unfortunate death, and they were often places of great scientific study and preserved a lot of ancient mathmatical works as well as improved upon them and priests were the go-to teachers and tutors for many nobles. the church's dogma did impead certain theories, and dogma did cause a lot of stuff to be buried or downplayed[/QUOTE]Oh, don't get me wrong, I certainly can't ignore the contributions the Catholic church played in Europe for centuries. A lot of scholarly work was done in the name of science by a lot of people working for the church, but as you say the church's dogma did impead certain theories so I really think it's hard to say if it was a positive or negative influence. All I can say for sure is the Catholic church did influence things, for better or for worse, much like the Middle East and the advances made there.

The Church tried to prove gods existence through science and logic. We know that didnt work too well. I read during Islamic golden age, math and science were used for meditations to get closer to god.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49205765][U]Yet on that same note some of the worst things and most detrimental things have been the result of Catholicism in Europe[/quote] like [quote]I don't think that the Catholic church was the necessary vehicle for European advancement, economic conditions were steadily improving and it was only a matter of time. Sure, because of the Catholic church there was much less infighting between the Catholic nations, but still they happened which goes to show the Pope couldn't say shit when money was on the line.[/quote] the development and rapid expansion of the catholic church and in particular its organisational capabilities is seen by most medieval historians as instrumental to the creation of medieval civilization. [quote]Plus you're deliberately discounting the actual scientific advancements made during the Renaissance period in spite of the Catholic church[/quote] the catholic church never held back science or technology, it's ludicrous to think that. people overstate the renaissance of the 15th century and ignore the Carolingian and 12th century ones (the 15th century one was more of an artistic and cultural movement than one of science or philosophy). remember that witch burning and occultism only really began in the renaissance. not to mention it was a literal churchman who proposed the idea that the earth went around the sun [quote]but as you say the church's dogma did impead certain theories[/QUOTE] like [quote]I'm not sure why given how the Venetians completely fucking dominated Mediterranean trade west of Sicily for a long time. They didn't do that because the Pope gave them good financial advice, they did that through technological, social, and political prowess.[/quote] the technological, social, and political prowess they possessed is largely inherited from the church. like, without the international reach of the church it would have been harder for traders to communicate, learn how to read and write, transmit new discoveries, find backing (the church often patronized major projects), organize much of society, etc it seems stupid to say, but probably the most influential and important person in european history is God, regardless of whenever he exists or not

[QUOTE=Tarver;49204750]Dont cut yourself with that edge now[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to be edgy, this shit just really rustles my god damn jimmies. I know Muslims, I go to school with Muslims, and not a single one of them would ever support the kind of shit people like Daesh or the Saudi government do. Any religion can be violent if you let it, but it applies just the same in the opposite direction. A great majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. All this unnecessary hate directed towards them will solve nothing, and will only make things worse.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49205872]the development and rapid expansion of the catholic church and in particular its organisational capabilities is seen by most medieval historians as instrumental to the creation of medieval civilization.[/QUOTE]I'd say it's the flow of money that contributed more, but that's the other half of that debate. I'm not going to say one or the other was the entire end-all reason though. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49205872]the catholic church never held back science or technology, it's ludicrous to think that. people overstate the renaissance of the 15th century and ignore the Carolingian and 12th century ones (the 15th century one was more of an artistic and cultural movement than one of science or philosophy). remember that witch burning and occultism only really began in the renaissance.[/QUOTE]Are we talking about the same catholic church that imprisoned and sometimes killed people for saying shit contrary to church doctrine, often with scientific evidence that the church just ignored? Oh, and about the witch burning? Yeah, a lot of pagans were killed in the name of the church and entire cultures were demolished or forced to go underground because of Catholicism. This happened well before even the 12th century, in case you weren't aware or something. I'm almost as critical of the Catholic church as I am of Islam, and if you really want to keep arguing that the Catholic church can do no wrong then fine, have fun by yourself. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49205872]the technological, social, and political prowess they possessed is largely inherited from the church. like, without the international reach of the church it would have been harder for traders to communicate, learn how to read and write, transmit new discoveries, find backing (the church often patronized major projects), organize much of society, etc[/QUOTE]No, no, maybe, no, no, and no.

[QUOTE]Oh, and about the witch burning? Yeah, a lot of pagans were killed in the name of the church and entire cultures were demolished or forced to go underground because of Catholicism. This happened well before even the 12th century, in case you weren't aware or something. I'm almost as critical of the Catholic church as I am of Islam, and if you really want to keep arguing that the Catholic church can do no wrong then fine, have fun by yourself.[/QUOTE] Didnt the pagans start the killing of Christians first?

[QUOTE=BananaFoam;49201976]Christians in the 12th century.[/QUOTE] Muslims existed in the 12th century too, it's not like it's a new religion.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49206102]I'd say it's the flow of money that contributed more, but that's the other half of that debate. I'm not going to say one or the other was the entire end-all reason though.[/quote] The money economy didn't exist in much of Europe until the 12th century. Saying that money is the reason for the success of the society ignores the developments that made it possible to make money. Many of the conditions which ultimately resulted in the development of the money economy, the market system, etc were fostered by the church. There are many instances of monasteries organizing the construction of bridges, organizing trade, engaging in business and industry, finance, etc. Not to mention that the church was literally the only organisation which promoted learning and education (and had the resources to do it) in addition to architecture and reforming the law and administration. [quote]Are we talking about the same catholic church that imprisoned and sometimes killed people for saying shit contrary to church doctrine, often with scientific evidence that the church just ignored?[/quote] Which scientists are you referring to? What scientific doctrines were systematically buried, ignored, demolished, etc? [quote]Oh, and about the witch burning? Yeah, a lot of pagans were killed in the name of the church and entire cultures were demolished or forced to go underground because of Catholicism. This happened well before even the 12th century, in case you weren't aware or something. I'm almost as critical of the Catholic church as I am of Islam, and if you really want to keep arguing that the Catholic church can do no wrong then fine, have fun by yourself.[/quote] I'm not saying it's infallible, I'm saying the positive developments of it outweighed the problems caused by its existence. For the first few centuries of existence Christianity was an underground movement spread primarily by slaves, missionaries, the poor, and other people without power (it didn't gain political power until Roman Civilization had more or less collapsed). Islam by contrast was spread by conquering invaders. [quote]No, no, maybe, no, no, and no.[/QUOTE] could you explain why

[QUOTE=matt000024;49202153]I bet like 90% of the people saying shit like this don't even actually know any Muslims.[/QUOTE] I know some and they're chill as fuck Thinking all of them are like it would be a generalization though

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;49201903]"Religion of peace"... riiiiight.[/QUOTE] Yes and all jews are colonialist imperialist greedy inconsiderate assholes because the Israeli government is the perfect representative of literally every single individual on earth who actively practices Judaism Get over yourself. You can condemn the actions of the Saudi Arabian without generalizing it profusely to the rest of the world's population that happens to share the same religion.

[QUOTE=matt000024;49202153]I bet like 90% of the people saying shit like this don't even actually know any Muslims.[/QUOTE] I assume you are? I was born in a Muslim family,went to Islamic school,have to go through Islamic Education in both my public school and the Islamic school I went to for a few years in my early youth. Most are pleasant until you get into more sensitive topics like apostasy,sharia law and homosexuality then things get muddy from there. I'm still disgusted that I learned about the fucked up aspects of Islam like death sentences for apostasy,arm-cutting for stealing and stoning for adultery and homosexuality in a public school of all places.