![c91[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/NtboXio.jpg "c91[1].jpg")
get in atheoBROS!
ITT
we list all the miseries that religion brought upon our civilization (the crimes of the church, bigotry, anti-science attitude etc. etc.)
we imagine how the world would look now if the religious cancer never existed
would we be already on Mars? on Pluto?
>>61631
>>61660
how is this shitposting exactly?
there are many theist threads on the catalog, can't atheists have one? this is disrimination, atheophobia
>>61686
So long as you don't mind atheism being considered a religion, okay.
>>61725
you are off topic anyway
beware, someone may report you.
go now
Most reasonable thinkers agree that we would have time travel, self-replicating machines, teleporters, warp drives, and tricorders.
The rest is subject to dispute.
>"hey guys, let's have a thread about not believing in something, wouldn't that be interesting and productive?"
>>61748
Whatever you say, you raving evangelical.
>>61631
we'd have gay rights, that would be enough
>>61760
>>61631
Here's a good starting point if you read German, it's 10 volumes so translations are still in the works;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriminalgeschichte_des_Christentums
(available on bookzz.org I think)
>>61790
I'll show this to my grandmother since she acts all religious and shit always saying how much the church helped her during the war, hypocrites
>>61819
It doesn't cover the 20th century or how the churches brought the nazis to power and collaborated and all that (or the rare cases where church employees even opposed nazism) as it deals with the preceding two millennia, so for that you'll probably want to hit up the sources on some of these pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany
>>62454
lmao, bibleturds BTFO
>>61631
>>62454
>the churches brought Nazis to power
L M A O
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_persecution_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Germany
>A threatening, if initially mainly sporadic persecution of the Church followed the Nazi takeover. Hitler moved quickly to eliminate Political Catholicism, and thousands were arrested. Despite continuing molestation of Catholic clergy, and organisations following the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor by President von Hindenburg, the Vatican was anxious to reach a legal agreement with the new government, in order to protect the rights of the Church in Germany.[8] The resulting Reich concordat was violated almost immediately. The Nazis moved to dissolve the Catholic youth leagues and clergy, nuns and lay leaders began to be targeted, leading to thousands of arrests over the ensuing years, often on trumped up charges of currency smuggling or "immorality". Catholic aligned political parties in Germany, along with all other parties, were outlawed in 1933, and Catholic lay leaders were targeted in Hitler's 1934 Night of the Long Knives purge. By 1937, Pope Pius XI's Mit brennender Sorge encyclical was accusing the regime of sowing "fundamental hostility to Christ and his Church".
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/13/weekinreview/word-for-word-case-against-nazis-hitler-s-forces-planned-destroy-german.html
From Mosse's "Nazi Culture: Intellectual, Cultural and Social Life in the Third Reich":
>"Had the Nazis won the war their ecclesiastical policies would have gone beyond those of the German Christians, to the utter destruction of both the Protestant and the Catholic Church."
>Reichskonkordat
Signed by Paul von Hindenburg, a democratically elected President, and no Nazi official was either present or addressed in the document.
>>62454
From the very article you posted:
>A majority of German Protestants sided neither with the "German Christians", nor with the Confessing Church.
>>62454
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Plans_to_destroy_Christianity
>>61789
Yeah man, because pre-Christian Romans never copied books, right? You'll have edgemasters who go really extreme in Christ-bashing but you have to admit that many intellectual pursuits were stymied by the Papa.
>>63816
Of course, and most of those books were also written originally by pre-christians. The point is that most of those documents, and most Roman and pre-Roman scientific knowledge, would have been completely lost to time or other malicious forces if it weren't for the church. You also can't discount the huge number of scientific advancements and artistic marvels that were made on the churches dime.
Nobody can say for sure if we would have flying cars or warp drives if there were no church, but that seems fairly unlikely, to say the least. What can be said for sure is that without the church's protection many of these men:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists
...would not have been able to make the immense contributions to science that they had. There would also be no Notre Dame cathedral, no Sistine Chapel, no Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Flower, and no Michaelangelo's David. We would not have most of our heritage or culture or most of the beautiful things created in humanity's history, which I think would kind of take the fun out of the "time travel, self-replicating machines, teleporters, warp drives, and tricorders" which "most reasonable thinkers" agree we would have instead.
>All those atheist memesters ITT
>Muh Christian Dark Ages
>>63816
Bruh, the church is the reason most recorded history was kept around.
>>65064
Well the muslims did play a part in that also with keeping roman and creek texts and studying them.
>>61631
>get in atheoBROS
>we list all the miseries that religion brought upon our civilization (the crimes of the church, bigotry, anti-science attitude etc. etc.)
>we imagine how the world would look now if the religious cancer never existed
would we be already on Mars? on Pluto?
Atheism is Reddit-tier now. Please leave.
“We live in a culture that has, for centuries now, cultivated the idea that the skeptical person is always smarter than one who believes. You can almost be as stupid as a cabbage as long as you doubt.”
― Dallas Willard
>>65781
Which may be excessive, but generally, being sceptic isn't a bad thing. It's how you notice old ideas aren't actually all that great just because they're old. It's the skeptics that notice the mistakes of history, and hence set the path towards correcting them.
>>65813
i think the point is the assumption that skeptics are always unbiased and purely objective. that is decidedly false. take for example many of their presuppositions like the impossibility of miracles which is defended through circular reasoning.
>>65847
>i think the point is the assumption that skeptics are always unbiased and purely objective. that is decidedly false.
Of course, but if your work checks out afterwards, your personal bias isn't that important, I'd argue.
> take for example many of their presuppositions like the impossibility of miracles which is defended through circular reasoning.
Meh, arguing for impossibility of anything isn't a good idea. That's just setting new dogma.
>>61789
Thanks for the humanities faggot.
>>61631
Dark Ages, inquisition, crusades, Holocaust... think if all the effort on these were used for science
>>65949
>Dark Ages
You mean the early medieval period or late antiquity?
>holocaust
dude what
>>64061
I'm an atheist, but not an idiot, so it's obvious to me that you are right.
Even if I don't personally have faith in any religion, I can still appreciate all the contributions religion has brought mankind.
>>62724
Scorpion and the frog
>>61631
>ITT
we list all the miseries that religion brought upon our civilization (the crimes of the church, bigotry, anti-science attitude etc. etc.)
we imagine how the world would look now if the religious cancer never existed
would we be already on Mars? on Pluto?
So atheism plus?
http://atheismplus.com/
>>66018
Why does every faggot insist on attaching his pet cause to atheism and then attempt to turn it into another sect?
>>61631
l like how Atheists (rightfully) claim that science should be done by the scientists, but then in the same breath will make claims about history, the academic study of religion, anthropology and so on.
>>65949
>Holocaust
>caused by religion
>Pfarrerblock in Dachau concetration camp made precisely to kill clerics
wew
lad
>Hating your culture and traditions
>Implying the church has done more bad than good
>Falling for Marxist athiesm brainwashing
>>66045
Except the same people who make this claim have usually already attached a 'pet cause' to their atheism.
>>66130
>Christianity
>european culture
>>65949
>History board
>Doesn't know the holocaust didn't actually happen
So is this a joke board with just revisionist shitposting?
>>66150
>Disgusting pagan heretics
>European culture
I bet you arent even white
>>66179
I'm not that guy, but paganism is true European and white culture. Christianity is semite culture from the middle-east.
>>66441
>Roman Catholicism
>Jesus
>Jew culture
Youre fuckin funny.
>>66130
> Brainwashing
> Church has done more Good Than Bad
Holy fuck my sides
>>66555
*tips fedora*
I suppose we should just be a culture-less, morality free, tradition free, atheist society, right comrade?
>>66555
it's better in north korea
>>66648
>Marxists actually believe this
>>65933
>proving things impossible is bad
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>62724
>trusting jewpedia
>ever
Oy vey, the nazis were full of hate, they persecuted you goyim too.
Sorry for going full /pol/, but please post a real source. NSDAP wanted complete separation of church and state, but to say they persecuted christians in an almost entirely christian country is plain stupid. Not believing in god was considered arrogant and foolish, and lots of christians imagery was used by Nazi Germany - for example the Teutonic Knights.
>we list all the miseries that religion brought upon our civilization (the crimes of the church, bigotry, anti-science attitude etc. etc.)
lol well done, you couldn't even think of one.
Meanwhile the Catholic Church preserved the knowledge of the ancients, maintained a whole caste of people occupied with scholarly work, founded the cathedral schools and universities, massively encouraged science and reason, and eventually led to the creation of the scientific method.
We'd basically still be living in forests and humping trees if it wasn't for the Church. That or praying to Allah.
>this entire thread
Top fucking work, OP.
>>67467
Mmmm, yeah man. It was totally the church that did everything. Yup
>>67636
Talking about the Catholic Church m8, don't see what your pic of some bearded Muslim has to do with it.
>>67636
> creating dichotomy between science and religion
They are separate you raging faggot. It's like saying that since breathing hasn't changed while technology did, then science>breathing. I bet you are one of these retards who think that atheism=science too.
>>67686
The church puts out shit like the Summa Unicornia. Science puts out the actual advances you praise
>>67729
>They are separate you raging faggot
They are separate. And one is useful, the other is not
>>67467
>Catholic Church [...] eventually led to the creation of the scientific method
>>67636
WE WUZ ASTRONAUTS N SHIET
-Athiests
>>67829
>who is Roger Bacon
Do any of you actually know any scientists or science, or do you just blather about going to other planets and hovercars?
>>67764
They're basically the same thing. Both are about making the world understandable as a system of causality. While religion also encompasses other things, the material part of religion is a form of science in the broadest sense. And what we call science is religious.
>>61631
The problem is that religion these days isn't at the forefront of science and culture like it used to, and people who don't know that it used to be important to them fall for the "dark ages" meme.
And then there are people who think that because most science is observation based that it is as good as religion. They don't help, either.
>>67904
the scientific method is the result of thousands of years of empiricism happening all over, attributing that to the Catholic Church is not unlike claiming Scientology led to the study of alchemy/chemistry, ie; anachronistic and factually wrong
>Ancient Egypt
>Parmenides
>Aristotle
>Ptolemy
>Alhazen
>Augustine
>etc.
even if like one of those was a Christian, that doesn't mean Christianity was conducive to the emergence of the scientific method, the scientific method was developed more in spite of it than because of it
>>68141
I don't see any atheists there.
And the fact that Ericsson discovered America first does not make him a more significant figure than Columbus. The contemporary usage and form of empiricism we call the scientific method is unarguably the result of the work of the Catholic Church's scholar caste during the last millennium. Not only that, but most of the information from the sources you have just listed was also probably preserved for us and made available for scientists today by said scholar caste.
>>61686
>atheophobia
No.
>>66489
>Roman Catholicism
>White culture
>Jesus
>White
You're fuckin dumb.
>>68084
>>68141
None of those ancient civilisations used the scientific method. The scientific method was developed leading up to the early 17th century and first explicitly formulated by Descartes. This led to what is called the Scientific Revolution, a period of scientific and technical advancement totally unprecedented in human history and which lasts until today, thanks to rigorous application of that method.
Now if you want to see how that method came to being, you have to look at medieval thinkers. There were two major steps:
- Scholasticism: in the early 1100s, the scholastic method was established by thinkers such as Peter Abelard ("I must first understand so that I may believe") and became dominant at the cathedral schools of Western Europe. This method placed reason and in particular logic as the foundation of all thought. The idea was that the universe was like a great perfect clock built by God, and that God gave us reason so that we may use it to understand his work. The Church enthusiastically adopted this thinking, especially after Abelard used Aristotlean logic to explain the concept of transubstantiation. Natural philosophy (ie science) became the second highest discipline after theology.
- The Paris condemnation of 1277: The Church declared that the will of God could not be limited by the laws of Aristotle. This broke the academic conservatism until then and for the first time thinkers thought beyond Aristotle. Thinkers at the University of Paris (again a religious institution) like Nicolas Oresme and Jean Buridan, as well as the Merton calculators at Oxford, began to question ancient scientific dogma. The image of the universe as God's great clock led to the principle that the physical world can entirely be translated into the language of mathematics. The doubting of ancient dogma and the prudence demanded from natural philosophers by the Church led to the concept of the scientific theory, and the central role of doubt.
Can atheists even be historians? All they would do is "Its religions fault!" at every opportunity.
>>68465
>"b-but space and stuff"
>>68465
The only thing missing was experimentation, which was eventually adopted from alchemy and first used systematically by Galileo.
These are all the elements that were combined in Descartes' philosophy. Our entire world view is based on Catholic philosophy.
>>68469
I'm not a white European, but watch out you don't get banned. This isn't pol, son.
>>68508
>and FIRST used systematically by Galileo.
ayy fucking L-mao, citation very needed
>>68569
>>68570
I don't know, do you have an earlier example?
The reason experimentation was completely absent from medieval scientific thought was that anything practical was looked down upon by the ancient Greeks who placed pure logic above all, and that same thinking had been adopted by Parisian academia. The only people who experimented at the time were alchemists and surgeons, who were also looked down upon in ancient Greek fashion.
>>68582
tl;didnt google translate. No more mee mee's and racism please. Lets get back to the fact that Jesus wasn't born in Sweden and Christianity/Catholocism stems from Juidaic religion which is a Semite religion which adopted things from much older Levant and Mesopotamian religions. It is foreign to white Europeans, that's why it needed to be spread, that's why conversion needed to happen. White people butchered and sold out their ancient cultures and ways of life, their beliefs and their heritage for this new religion. Please try and argue this.
>>62860
This, any nationalist knows that Christianity is not native to 90% of where it is believed and taught today.
>>61631
/his/ is a Christian board
>>68938
Any actual nationalists knows that even the very idea of nationalism was built on Catholicism.
>>66103
>not mentioning philo
I saw this sign the other day (on the internet). It said "we don't need your Christian morals. We have science." The stupidity and implications are astounding.
>>69046
/his/ is a marxist board
>>66441
>Christendom isn't Christian
>>61631
>get in atheoBROS!
reporting
>>69113
Marxist threads are appropriate for /his/, imo. But, we're not a Marxist board.
>>61631
No, fuck off.
Talking about how much you don't believe in something is the dumbest shit.
>>69046
>atheism is reddit
When will Christfaggots let this meme die already?
>>69202
memes are all they've got
their worldview is literally a meme
This thread is cringeworthy as fuck.
>why Yes i do believe in Conflict thesis
>>61631
how naïve. All belief systems = religions. What matters of a religion/belief system is it's ideal.
>>68238
>implying I'm the one claiming my belief system is responsible for the scientific method
>>69213
>memes are all they have
>They are clearly blinded and not open to reason and truth
You people are so stereotypical, it's difficult to mock. Sometimes I wonder if you're Christians trying to make atheistards look bad.
>>69101
Yeah, especially philosophy.
From my experience this is most common in the New Atheist movement.
I'm an atheist and I urge all religious people to not fall for this b8.
>>68465
>the scientific method was developed over the course of many centuries
>now watch as I discard the myriad causes leading up to it and cherry-pick these two events which I think support my argument
>>68465
>Scholasticism
Not the basis of science. Simply a method of teaching inspired by Socrates (everything catholics did was hijacked from great non Catholic philosophers)
Guys I'm going to hold a party at the country club and only people who don't play golf are invited
We're going to spend the whole evening talking about how shit golf is
We're going to spend our entire lives trying to make others stop playing golf and let our status as non-golf players dominate our entire way of thinking and lifestyle
>>68465
>The Paris condemnation of 1277: The Church declared that the will of God could not be limited by the laws of Aristotle.
Science does not mean banning certain types of thinking. More like the opposite of science.
>>71037
>>71147
>when your bait thread blows up in your face and you get all butthurt
>>71147
>Christians are interested in facts
k
*le tip hat meme*
>>70975
No, it's a method of thinking, literally the predecessor of the scientific method.
Its excessive reliance on ancient Greek thought was precisely what kept it from advancing, and that's what the Paris condemnation fixed.
>>71051
Removing limits to thinking isn't banning thinking, it's the exact opposite.
>>71479
>No, it's a method of thinking, literally the predecessor of the scientific method
Sure m8, and alchemy is the predecessor to chemistry.
>Removing limits to thinking isn't banning thinking, it's the exact opposite
The CONDEMNATION was a series of bans on Aristotle science
>>71604
>and alchemy is the predecessor to chemistry
That's correct.
>The CONDEMNATION was a series of bans on Aristotle science
No it wasn't. It was exactly what I explained, a declaration that the will of God was not limited by the laws defined by Aristotle. Which meant that natural philosophers were free to question those laws and think beyond them, which was a good thing since they were almost all extremely wrong.
>>69117
That is a funny image, I'll upload it to funnyjunk later. Now, if you have anything against nordic culture, that doesn't make it any less white or European. Those vikings, celts, and all other white Europeans lived in those lands for thousans upon thousands of years, developing their own unique culture and religions over time. Judging how they lived based on your modern ethics is in no way a substantial cause to devalue the validity of their culture. Christianity was spread from the semites of the middle-east, and it wasn't taken kindly by most Europeans. Conversion took time, and many fought against it. White Europeans lost so much of their culture, and became so detached from their true heritage that it's really kind of sad. People who used to be considered wise leaders and teachers became evil witches. Old traditions, and cultural celebration became devil worship. Whether or not it was for the best is not what this board is about, but to deny these facts is historical inaccuracy.
Also, before you meme at me anymore, I'm a nonwhite agnostic.
>>71791
BTW there had previously been a short-lived ban not on Aristotlean science, but on teaching Aristotle's books at the University of Paris. Which the Church could perfectly do since the University was a Church institution. That ban was never even respected though.
>>71791
>That's correct
Then Catholic philosophy is as useless as alchemy.
>No it wasn't
Here let me look it up for you
>The Condemnations at the medieval University of Paris were enacted to restrict certain teachings as being heretical. These included a number of medieval theological teachings, but most importantly the physical treatises of Aristotle.
Boom
>>71791
>>71921
Look, I can tell you're not interested in actually knowing how the scientific method came about. You just want to try to justify your religion by making it seem useful. But, on the off chance you are interested please start here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
>>72061
>an atheist sources wikipedia
Is this what this board is going to be like with muh atheism infecting it?
>>72083
Sorry, reality tends to have an atheist bias. If reality hurts your feelings then feel free to go to a safe place like r/Christianity
>>72172
Nice trying to pretend that reddit is for Christians. No, you are just uninformed and this is evident by sourcing Wikipedia. I'm agnostic, btw, but I absolutely can't stand already going into a thread about religion to see you guys shitting it up with your epic fake research. Just fuck off.
>>72336
>No, you are just uninformed and this is evident by sourcing Wikipedia
Lol, show me which sources are wrong then. I'll update the sources and change the article for you
>>69046
Your autism is showing
>>69172
Is Christianity the disbelief of thousands of other possible gods?
>>71983
Alchemy wasn't useless since it contributed a significant element to modern science. And scholasticism was only a path on the way to creating the scientific method, which is when things actually took off.
>Boom
That's bullshit though. Aristotle was taught before and after, Aristotle was even taught back when it was actually forbidden to teach him, and the 1277 condemnation didn't even do that at all.
>>72061
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
Oh look, it's a bunch of theists.
I was actually talking about the actual origins of the scientific method which are traditionally overlooked because our view of history is still primarily shaped by the Renaissance and Enlightenment, and which I can give you much better sources for than Wikipedia, but if you want to go by the Wikipedia tier version that's fine, however I don't see how that helps your argument about evil religion oppressing science at all.
>>75580
>>72061
lol, that Wikipedia article completely ignores everything that happened between the 13th and the 17th century. Just totally skips four centuries, as if the farthest we had ever gotten was understanding Aristotle by the 13th century (which is correct), but then nothing happened and we only started going beyond that with Descartes.
>>74382
Yes, actually.
>>61631
Religion got lots of scotkeks and taigs killed so Im not complaining
Religion is inevitable, almost all peoples of all cultures adopted it.
Hey what if pain and death weren't real, wouldn't we be Gods now?
Also inb4 muh stalin muh mao muh [insert religious scientist here]
>>75580
>Alchemy wasn't useless
Sure, sure. Keep telling yourself that.
>That's bullshit though.
That's literally what the CONDEMNATION was. It was condemning certain works at a certain college, banning their teaching.
>I was actually talking about the actual origins of the scientific method which are traditionally overlooked because our view of history is still primarily shaped by the Renaissance and Enlightenment, and which I can give you much better sources for than Wikipedia
If you actually read the article you'd know that it stretches back all the way to Aristotle (the guy your Scholastics ripped off)
>>75700
Are you illiterate? It clearly goes over those centuries. Check out dates under the headings of "Skepticism as a basis for understanding", "Francis Bacon's eliminative induction", "Descartes", "Galileo Galilei", and "Newton".
Please stop shit posting, keep /his/ high-quality
>>69113
>>>/reddit/
>>75984
>inb4 muh stalin muh mao
But weren't they ultimately religious figures too thanks to their batshit insane cults of personality?
>>76004
>The list published on 7 March condemned a great number of "errors", some of which emanated from the astrology, and others from the philosophy of the Peripatetics.[11] These included:
>9. "That there was no first man, nor will there be a last; on the contrary, there always was and always will be generation of man from man."[13]
>49. "That God could not move the heavens with rectilinear motion; and the reason is that a vacuum would remain."[13]
>87. "That the world is eternal as to all the species contained in it; and that time is eternal, as are motion, matter, agent, and recipient; and because the world is from the infinite power of God, it is impossible that there be novelty in an effect without novelty in the cause."[13]
Learn to read. All it does is forbid to teach as absolute fact all those restrictions that Aristotle invents, and that btw we now know are almost all total bullshit.
>>76072
It skips from the 13th century straight to the 17th (and late 16th). Meaning it totally skips the 14th century discoveries and attributes them wholly to Francis Bacon, Descartes, Galileo, and Newton. All of whom were Christians btw, so again I still don't see how even if that article wasn't ignoring four centuries of scientific history, it would in any way support your bullshit.
>keep /his/ high-quality
Yes it would be nice if people who literally don't know how to read could stay away. Thank you.
>>76525
>It skips from the 13th century straight to the 17th
No it doesn't. Look at the dates under the headers I listed.
>Learn to read. All it does is forbid to teach as absolute fact all those restrictions that Aristotle invents, and that btw we now know are almost all total bullshit.
Here, let me go over the "bullshit".
>That there was no first man
But there was no first man.
>That God could not move the heavens with rectilinear motion
Ooh, so scientific.
> that time is eternal
Of course time is eternal
>>76653
For fuck's sake, the latest medieval date listed is 1265, and the earliest date stated after that is 1519 for a translation, 1581 for the first new writings. Conveniently, history stops right before the Paris condemnation of 1277, skips over the works of Oresme, Buridan, and the Merton calculators in the 14th century, and only slowly resumes after over three centuries.
>But there was no first man.
You don't believe in the theory of evolution?
>Ooh, so scientific.
You don't believe in Newton's laws of motion? (previously discovered by Buridan btw)
>Of course time is eternal
You don't believe in the Big Bang theory?
Are you just retarded or do you just belong to some kind of atheist cult that rejects all modern science?
>>76653
>man has always existed
>astronomical objects can't move in a straight line
>the universe has been like this forever
Hahaha oh wow, atheist science everyone.
>>76889
>>76653
Oh and btw, since you like Wikipedia:
>According to Duhem, "if we must assign a date for the birth of modern science, we would, without doubt, choose the year 1277 when the bishop of Paris solemnly proclaimed that several worlds could exist, and that the whole of heavens could, without contradiction, be moved with a rectilinear motion."[17]
>>76889
>skips over the works of Oresme, Buridan, and the Merton calculators in the 14th century
Math is not science. Get your head in the game.
>You don't believe in the theory of evolution?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdWLhXi24Mo
>You don't believe in Newton's laws of motion?
Sure, but those were invented by Newton, not the church.
>You don't believe in the Big Bang theory?
Big Bang was NOT the beginning of time. This is such a common misconception. Here, let me quote Hawking:
>Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.
>>76973
>>77158
>Duhem
Which goes in direct contradiction against what Voltaire and Condorcet have to say on the subject. Again, explain how banning certain works is the basis of science?
>>69064
What does that change? Apart from the political and social irony of foreign religion being the origin of a Pro-Ethic Culture agenda?
Do you support the notion that because one upholds the ideals of nationalism they must also be catholic?
>>69064
>There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
-Galatians 3:28
>>77215
>Math is not science.
Oresme and Buridan were physicists as well as mathematicians, and one of the most important tenants of the scientific method is that all science is mathematical.
>youtube
We're not talking about semantics you idiot. Aristotle said that man has always existed and will always exist. The Church stated this claim was not fact. The Church was right, Aristotle was wrong.
>Sure, but those were invented by Newton, not the church.
Like I just said, that particular law was discovered by Buridan, and not "invented" by anyone, but regardless of which Christian discovered it, the law is a fact. Buridan and Newton proved the Church right, and Aristotle wrong.
>Big Bang was NOT the beginning of time.
lol yes it was, that's literally what Hawking says in your own quote you idiot:
>time began at the Big Bang
>Again, explain how banning certain works is the basis of science?
For the hundredth time, the 1277 condemnation DIDN'T BAN ANY WORKS. It forbade to teach Aristotle as indisputable fact. Aristotle continued to be taught, but teachers could no longer present his works as unquestionable truth, which they weren't.
The tyrannical authority that was holding science back was never the Church, it was Aristotle. People worshiped ancient Greek texts and believed they had the answers to everything. Anything that contradicted them was dismissed and ridiculed. What the Church did was remove the tyranny of Aristotle on Parisian academia, and allow for science to think freely.
Because the freedom of modern science, the freedom from dogma, this fundamental idea that everything is possible, that is the limitless power of the Christian God. Modern scientific thinking is Catholic thinking. You cannot have a truly scientific mind without a Christian soul.
>>77539
>one of the most important tenants of the scientific method is that all science is mathematical.
NO IT FUCKING ISN'T
> Aristotle said that man has always existed and will always exist
Fine, he was wrong. But this was WAY before you could actually prove he was wrong (Darwin). So it is NOT SCIENTIFIC to ban that idea. BANNING IDEAS IS NOT SCIENCE
>lol yes it was, that's literally what Hawking says
nope, hawking references events BEFORE the big bang. He just says they aren't practical to consider.
>For the hundredth time, the 1277 condemnation DIDN'T BAN ANY WORKS
Everything I can find on it says it just banned Aristotle completely.
>You cannot have a truly scientific mind without a Christian soul.
Now you're just trolling.
Let me leave everyone with one final thought: "Catholics think that science means dogmatically banning certain ideas"
And with that, I'm off. Later /his/!
>>67686
Atheists at their best.
>>67686
>muslim
>holding a cross
at least you know your religion is shit
>>69046
Christ-chan a shit.
>>77636
>NO IT FUCKING ISN'T
Yes, it is. Have you ever even seen the inside of a school?
>BANNING IDEAS IS NOT SCIENCE
Aristotle was the one banning ideas you absolute retard. Aristotle banned the idea that man might not always have existed, and the Church unbanned that idea.
>He just says they aren't practical to consider.
He says they have no effect on anything observable and thus for scientific purposes are as real as imaginary unicorns.
>Everything I can find on it says it just banned Aristotle completely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condemnations_of_1210%E2%80%931277#Condemnation_of_1277
Where does it say anything of the kind?
>science means dogmatically banning certain ideas
This is literally what you think. You seriously believe that all of Aristotle's laws that turned out to be totally wrong should never have been questioned, in which case we would quite plainly never have progressed beyond the scientific level of over 2000 years ago.
Must really suck for you that there are all these Christians messing that up with their science.
>>77738
He's an Orthodox, dumbass.
>>77914
>Yes, it is. Have you ever even seen the inside of a school?
What does that have to do with the scientific method?
>>76889
>>Of course time is eternal
>You don't believe in the Big Bang theory?
Doesn't eternal just mean it never ends, not necessarily that it never begins?
>>79419
The fact that modern science consists primarily in creating mathematical models to describe the physical world is something one should normally learn in school.
>>80048
No, what Aristotle meant is that time never began and never ends. It has no bounds at all. More precisely, he meant that the universe has been the way it is since forever.
