did Christianity set humanity back?
It's another form of comfortable nihilism to keep the working class from revolting against their oppressors
>>1323173
No. Humanity was fine without Industrial pollution and atomic threat.
Now that we've made this choice, though, to build some Icarus wings, let's not get so high our first few jumps, and see what we can productively do.
>>1323197
Not sure what you're trying to say.
Dentistry good, nuclear weapons bad etc etc
European civilisation prospered for centuries, them Christianity came along and we plunged into the dark ages.
Then the reformation showed everyone that the church was talking shit and and we had the Enlightenment.
Why were vikings so good a fighting? Is it because of harsh scandinavian climate and their war like religion? They sacked Rome, Paris, Constantinopole and were an unstoppable force ravaging Europe.
>>1312635
They weren't really better fighters than regular militiaries, they were just incredibly mobile. They could turn up on any shore, any time; their seaworthy vessels were just as good for sailing up the river, and since most settlements aren't very far from water, that meant everywhere that had something worth taking was under constant threat of Vikings.
You can't stop them from showing up, as naval combat wasn't really practiced in the dark ages besides what remained of Roman naval tradition (Muslims in Spain and The Byzantines). You can't really mobilize a force to intercept Vikings either, as standing armies were prohibitively expensive, and most troops were just peasant levies. Vikings could show up on shore and sack a town/village in a day or so; no way in he'll could people effectively respond to that. The solution? Castles.
Castles as we know them first came into being as defense against Vikings. The Norse weren't really known for their siege tactics, and they would much rather get 20 gold pieces and lose nobody than lose half their men and get 100. Attacking castles weren't worth it, so people built tons of them in places Vikings were likely to show up. Eventually after kingdoms started to fortify and Scandinavia was Christianized, the raids slowed to a halt.
The legend that Vikings were peerless warriors mostly came from the fact that they had little to no fear of death in combat (Valhalla awaits), meaning they were incredibly ballsy in battle. Once their inferior arms and armor (and numbers) succumbed to the development of standing professional armies, they ceased to be a raiding threat.
>>1312698
Are there any actual records describing their behaviour in battle?
General attitude toward vikings seems to be that they were pretty big guys and were a hardy bunch of fuckers but generally very useless in terms of any conflict that wasn't raiding.
They relied on being able to show up and surprise a lesser equipped enemy, fuck their shit up and then leave near immediately.
They weren't incredibly skilled soldiers, nor could they into tactics.
Irishboos always post a battle where thousands of norse soldiers fell against a few hundred irish shitters on a hill.
Vikings really aren't that great, lad. There's a reason they were stomped out of existence on /his/ very quickly, because anyone who knows anything about anything knows that they're really just not that good if they aren't showing up to memeraid farmers or shitty guards whilst relying on better equipment, numbers and the element of surprise, lad.
Every website I've come across is completely biased.
It's either god.com or its atheist.com, each having their own obvious articles that always contradict what the other side says.
So is there actually any records of a jesus running around healing and getting crucified?
Occam's razor says he existed and was one messianic cult leader among many of the era, who was eventually put to death for being a nuisance. I'm not sure how it's supposed to work if he didn't exist at all?
>>1328281
Yep. The apostles all made it up and were martyred for literally no reason at all.
Listen, if you can't understand the fact Jesus is God, that He is the divine Logos and that His existence is a miracle, then there's no reason why you should reckon his existence, otherwise you will become a muslim and you don't even need to assume it.
Why are everyday citizens with 0 education or understandings of complex Economic models or outcomes allowed to decide whether it crashes not only it's own market, but every market in the world as well? Is democracy a sham? Should the sole (atleast economic) decisions be left to those who are experts in it without any say so or insight from the citizens?
that's corporate capitalism for you
Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they are stupid.
>>1327857
>power to the people!!
>someone votes in something they dislike
>omg why should we let these people vote????
Really makes you think.
What day did WWII start?
>>1326832
Tuesday
>>1326832
The World War: July 28, 1914 - September 2, 1945
when germany invaded poland tbqh
or when pearl harbor was bombed
Heh heh, ya know Jimbo, the ovens at Treblinka would have had to burn over 8,000 bodies per day to make the purported death figures accurate! Yet no ashes or bone fragments have ever been found at the site! Now ain't that just quacking crazy?!?
>>1324623
[citation needed]
>I read this on the internet so it must be true!
Did you know that OP would have to suck over 1000 cocks a day to be this gay? I read it in an image macro!
>>1324623
I'm not entirely sure why but i find this funny every time. Something about the way it's written, I always read it in his voice.
Anyone else here a proponent of Anti-Natalism? I got into an argument about this on /tv/, and I want to hear what /his/ has to say on the topic.
Procreation is an inherently selfish act, one that cannot be justified by traditional morals. Life and its continuation serves but one false purpose, and that is to ensure the continuation of life. This of course, can be no true purpose, as it holds no sort of finality, no end goal. I ask you, in the absence of finality, can purpose exist? I think not. Reproduction's sole function is to ensure that one fulfills THEIR own biological imperative to continue THEIR bloodline, to prevent THEIR genes from fading along with the sands of time, and to do this, they would force another living being into this world. Such an act is morally unjustifiable, seeing as by creating said person, you are only creating the possibility that they will suffer. On the other hand, by abstaining from reproduction, the child is spared both pleasure and pain, and the result is an action which can be seen as morally neutral. This is the only action that can ensure a lack of suffering 100% of the time, and as such, it is the most logical.
One might claim that, from a Utilitarian perspective, reproduction is to be allowed and even advocated, as the total suffering is outweighed by the total pleasure, and in turn, renders the net suffering to somethijg negligible.
This is ultimately a false statement, as those who suffer shall suffer regardless of those who prosper and thrive. Therefore there is no net good or suffering except in the individual themselves.
So I ask if you, /his/, can Natalism be morally justified, or not? Do you share my beliefs on the subject, or do you have a differing view that you would like to point out?
>>1324617
I am fascinated with that aspect of the christian dualist heresy called bogomili, cathars, albigenses, paulikiani and related, that flourished during the high middle ages.
The Roman Church still claims today that their literal eradication of the concurrent dualist Church, culminating in the Albigensian Crusade and the foundation of the Inquisition, was necessary partly, but most importantly, because of this creed of theirs.
Apparently they promoted or sexual abstinence, or sex through "unnatural" means as a way to avoid procreation. Their idea was that the earth and all things material were inventions of Satan, who locks our souls (which are divine beings who belong to God) into this word of his creation, and that every baby born is another soul re-incarnated in this earthly prison.
The Roman Catholic Church claims that without their efforts, dualist catharism might have prevailed and caused basically the suicide of the human race.
>>1324617
>Procreation is an inherently selfish act
It is what we are designed to do. Because we know that we are designed for that purpose does not mean it is selfish to do so. Withholding our seed would be the selfish act.
>>1324617
>The continuation of life is a false purpose
Why? Because it's not that awesome purpose you wanted it to be? Fucking hell
In what places and periods of time women looked like sluts?
Also when tits started being seen as something vulgar and to be covered and why?
>>1321678
>In what places and periods of time women looked like sluts?
Every place and time except modern day Saudi Arabia.
>>1321688
Wos such sluttery
fuck off I'm looking for time periods when women looked like hooker whores you know kinda like your mom.
>>1321678
Only when a civilization had degenerated to the point of near collapse. I hope the aliens who study us aren't left with so little archaeological evidence that they assume we always lived in a feminist society.
Some claim that the Out of Africa hypothesis is widely used today due to high political tension rather than actual evidence. Any truth to this?
I am skeptical to any chart that just shows pictures of different skulls rather than a few medium stats of many with clear cut definitions.
>>1321404
There's this.
>>1321413
Was more thinking of something like this.
Can we have a thread sharing moments of astounding autism by historical figures? In reading about Aquinas I came upon a snippet about his life and thought, my god, that is absolutely autistic. I mean, imagine doing this right now at some dinner.
>From 1252 he taught in Paris. There is a story of him dining at the court of Louis IX (St Louis) and passing the meal sunk in abstraction while the social butterflies gossiped around him. Then suddenly Thomas concluded his lucubrations, brought his great fist crashing down upon the table, and declared: “That will settle the Manicheees.”
>>1319498
He was also a shitty autist because he came up with nothing useful
I think Claudius hiding behind a curtain from the Praetorian guard so he does not have to become emperor qualifies.
>>1319498
That's good because Saint Louis of France was also a gigantic autist. His wedding night, his wife was all over him and started to get down to fuck, when he fled from the day because according to an old tradition that only he followed, the couple had to stay chaste for 3 nights.
In Christianity, God made creation out of love, especially for the angels and for humanity, whom he he made in his image.
Islam, afaik, God made creation for no reason except that he desired worship (Quran 51:56)
Can any Muslim correct me if I'm wrong?
Also, in Christianity, God loves you first, and then you love him back, but in Islam (iirc) God only loves you in return for your love. Is this the case?
>>1318373
i don't know much about islam, buti would like to remind you that christians have a whole angel order(seraphims?) devoted to praying God and his greatness.
>>1318373
Kill yourself.
>not knowing the Anunnaki created the Igigi to do the gods labour
Kill yourself, tripfag.
Who /ancestry/ here?
Post how far back you've got, and anything interesting.
>1700
>Oldest relative found
>Bitching big guy in Shetland called Magnus Duncan
>>1317873
My oldest relative is some German merchant from the 1600s or sth if I recall correctly, his descendants migrated through Russia to Finland
16th Century German merchant somewhere in Bavaria
>>1317873
I found an ancestor from 1500's England by the name of Matilda Sowell. Turns out that he might've be semi-illiterate since his surname is different from an older generation. I would have to contact my family who actually have the records and looked through this.
Who fucked up to allow this to happen?
>>1317636
No one allowed it. Iranians and Chinks are just weak. Same goes for Russians.
>>1317636
Agriculturalists, obviously.
Agriculturalists have the capacity to outperform nomads in every way but that doesn't mean they always do.
>>1317636
Gengis Khan a very clever military leader and the cavalry of the Mongolian troops were very efficient.
However, the signnificant lack of cummunication - due to the era - inside the borders of the empire led to its destruction.
Both were some of the original cradles of civilization, regional superpowers in ancient history, and massive population centers in modern history.
So why is India such a backwater place whilst China is the rising star of the world?
What made these two ancient civilizations so different that they created two vastly different nations nowadays?
>>1326855
India has a lot of potential but I swear that Hindi religion is fucking them over
>>1326855
China
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG225dz89TY
India
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXZ4pRhY-kU
Disclaimer: Ignore irrelevant details like "China is the oldest civilization" and focus on the overall conclusion once you've seen the whole video.
But basically India is too decentralized and the central state is relatively powerless compared to the chinese one. I don't find myself prepared to judge if it would be possible to have a more centralized system, probably not, India is very diverse and the indian states zealous of their privileges.
Chinks learned how to poo in loo
![747235467-150320052634-lee-yuan-yew-quotes-5-super-169[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/2ZBFzjo.jpg "747235467-150320052634-lee-yuan-yew-quotes-5-super-169[1]")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Kuan_Yew
Holy shit. I just read this guy's wikipedia page and I am in love with him. Am I missing something? The dude basically seems like asian George Washington.
>>1319700
>Am I missing something?
His military record is nothing to brag about.
Basically managed to preserve Singapore by sucking US dick.
Pic related is the superior statesmen.
>>1319708
Didn't he do Ti*nanm*n Sq?
>>1319700
A lot.
He cooperated with the IJA to feed his family, went to Britain to study law and came back a ruthless materialist who did literally anything to get his way.
He had no qualms cooperating with the communists, only to sell them out when he got what he wanted. He refused to listen to the team of economists he put together when he wanted his way, and would regularly sue anyone who criticized him. He also arrested a bunch of Catholics in the 70s under trumped up charges.
Singapore today is a corporate paradise and the PAP remains in power relatively unchallenged. It is also my belief that the TPP will fuck Singapore over, though that's a given.(The Worker's Party in Singapore is just the PAP in red shirts. Fuck them.)
George Washington fucking stood up for Benedict Arnold. Sure, he probably wasn't the sort of general who could lead a standing army, but even I'd rather have GWash over Lee.
![maxresdefault[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/R6vVd7m.jpg "maxresdefault[1]")
