'Christianity' and 'the Roman Catholic Church' are two very different things. Christianity had very little traction in the world until a certain Roman Emperor saw his empire in decline, realized that military power alone would not keep it strong. What he needed was a borderless, stateless religious empire, with this mythical God as his power source, so he appropriated the Christian religion, made himself the leader (Pope) of it, and used religion, not military power, to control the people. To this day, the Roman Empire and the power of the Roman Emperor to rule all mankind continues under the guise of the Holly Roman Catholic Church. It has very little to do with Jesus Christ, and everything to do with the perpetuation of the dominance of the Roman Empire and the dictatorial authority of the Roman Emperor.
Atheist Memes
About
A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.
Rules
-
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
-
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
-
No bigotry.
-
Attack ideas not people.
-
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
-
No False Reporting
-
NSFW posts must be marked as such.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
!religiouscringe@midwest.social
Jesus, the hardline Orthodox Jew from first century Galilee would not recognize “Christianity” only a few decades after his death, let alone the current iterations, and he would be appalled that gentiles had created an entirely new religion out of the worship of his idol. I would attribute this more to Paul than Constantine. Christianity could rightly be called the religion of Paul, a man who never met Jesus, rather than the religion of Jesus himself.
I am not convinced Paul had much to do with it. Fact is, the congregations Paul wrote to seemed to be very well established. Paul just kept them informed and in line. It was arguably John the Baptist that set up the infrastructure of the religious order that Jesus appropriated. In point of fact, it is contentious as to who died first, Jesus or John the Baptist. History is written by the winning side, and Jesus just happened to be on the winning side. It could just as easily have been 'Baptistianity'.
Christianity spread first in Europe, and in general, by offering the toiling classes something to look forward to besides suffering. For a bit charlemagne tried to spread it at the tip of a sword but that was more the exception then the rule.
It spread through the America's partly through violent colonization but also for the above reasons and the natives desire to assimilate into the new ruling class.
It spread and continues to spread through sub saharan Africa mostly due to heavy evangelical prosthelyzation from the west. By the time of African colonization the Europeans were directing there violence towards securing resources, not securing converts, even though that was the excuse they often gave.
Christianity may not be true but it is an attractive world view. Yes you may suffer the cruelty of others on earth but that is temporary, at the end of it all you will spend eternity in paradise and your torturers will be sent to hell. There's a reason Marx called it the opiates of the masses, and the promises of opium don't need to be true to sell.
imagine having faith in a dude who shamed his bro for trying to de-arrest him
maybe you should have done a drill with the gang um, once? instead of lecturing constantly at Judas to the point he wanted you got
JC is the most "loser who died at 33 for obvious reasons" kind of guy even in the version of the story that they control
grant me SATAN and satan grant me a gang who doesn't do hierarchical trash
"those who live by the sword" yeah go read how you guys died and tell me if sword would have been worse
loser ass cult
Not by the quality of its truth but by the quantity of its violence.
Very true, but don't disregard the quality of its truth. I'd say that most of the claims of miracles were used to justify the violence. And both can be dropped in favor of the core truth.
The scientific tradition was also exported to the rest of the world from Europe(and parts of Asia, I suppose) via colonialism, I do not see anyone complaining about that.
Is that why we use Indian numerals?
You mean arabic?
So yeah I read all that very interesting. It still seems to suggest the 1,2,3 that we use are called arabic, but still thanks for the wiki link.
Yes we call them Arabic because Europe got them from Arab mathematicians but they got them from India so for the purpose of showing math/science outside of Europe I highlighted India
Yes, Hindus call them arabic numerals as well, because their own numbering system looks different.
I am not dismissing the achievements of other civilisations, but this is hardly a counterargument.
India is, indeed, the only place on earth where a rationalistic tradition emerged similar to the Greek philosophical tradition, and they did achieve quite a lot in maths as well I believe, but their intellectual tradition did not achieve what the western intellectual tradition did. This is just a fact.
Modern science is a result of two thousand years of intellectual work, during which a rich variety of conceptual tools was formed on the basis of which science emerged. It did so out of a rationalistic tradition, that has been developed by Europeans, other Mediterranean peoples and Arabs, but the centre of which was western Europe.
Modern science is a result of two thousand years of intellectual work, during which a rich variety of conceptual tools was formed on the basis of which science emerged.
The Enlightenment was only 300 years ago, and it only happened because the printing press (Invented in China, refined by Korea) allowed knowledge to spread outside of their given libraries
Before that Europe was very much anti-rationality and anti-science
The Enlightenment was only 300 years ago, and it only happened because the printing press (Invented in China, refined by Korea) allowed knowledge to spread outside of their given libraries.
Why did it not happen in China then? Also, as far as I understand, the Gutenberg press was made independently from the Chiense, and in any case this is not the sole reason for the enlightenment clearly.
Europe was not "anti-rationality", because western Europe has always had a very rationalistic culture it inherited the Greek philosophical tradition, western Christianity is quite rationalistic as well, compared to other religions and orthodox Christianity.
Without the medieval intellectuals, the universities, the scholastics, there would be no modern science. It did not suddenly appear out of nowhere, and it did take 2000 years of the development of conceptual tools for it to emerge.
2000 years not since the enlightenment, but since the beginning of philosophy in Greece, clearly.
This is just absurd. How can you say Europe was anti-science, if modern science did not exist, so it was impossible to be opposed to it? And Europe was literally the region with the most rationalistic intellectual culture in the world.
If you do not know something, do not pretend you do.
If you do not know something, do not pretend you do.
I just find this line comical when you pretend Europe was progressive from the Greeks through to modern times rather than seeing the Enlightenment as a return to those values
You should look into that Galileo guy and see how accepting of science Europe was
I just find this line comical when you pretend Europe was progressive from the Greeks through to modern times rather than seeing the Enlightenment as a return to those values
Progress is a modern idea. The enlightenment was not a return to these values, because it was very different from what came before it.
You might be confusing rennaisance and enlightenment.
You might want to look into that Copernicus guy:
In 1533, Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter delivered a series of lectures in Rome outlining Copernicus' theory. Pope Clement VII and several Catholic cardinals heard the lectures and were interested in the theory. On 1 November 1536, Nikolaus von Schönberg, Archbishop of Capua and since the previous year a cardinal, wrote to Copernicus from Rome:
Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you. ...For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe. ...Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject.
Also, you should look into that Galileo guy yourself. He and his inquires were favoured by the church, until they weren't. It was a complicated matter, and to say that the church was opposed to science is just false.
what a strange troll.
All religions have equal claim to this. And they’re all fucking bullshit made up by patriarchal assholes who were so terrified of losing their absolute power, they would kill anyone who would challenge it. For millennia.
Lmao, Christianity emerged as a religion of disempowered Jews, what absolute power? Absolutism did not even exist in antiquity/middle ages.
I think this might be
fucking bullshit made up by ~~patriarchal~~ assholes
lol, wow
See? This is exactly the type of crazy, self-serving bullshit that I’m talking about.
There is no such thing as invisible sky wizards that grant wishes. Picking and choosing who, in particular, your invisible sky wizard serves only reinforces my point that it’s a bunch of self-serving bullshit pulling out of some patriarch’s ass just so that they can reinforce their own invented power whenever rational and reasonable people tell them that they are, quite obviously, full of shit...
Thanks for proving my point
Edit: but, hey, if you can submit any verifiable evidence, and or proof that even one of the countless claims of religion over the past, several millennia are actually real, then go ahead and do that, and I might reconsider.
But, considering that not a single claim that religion has ever made ever can ever be verified or proven, I rest my case that it is all ridiculous and absurd, bullshit.
I am not religious. You commented about the sociocultural roots of religion. You were wrong.
But because I was not making up bullshit about Christianity to insult it, but instead was actually, unlike you, "rational and reasonable", your binary thinking led to you writing even more fan-fiction about religion, unfortunately.
Feel free to write another essay full of nonsense.
There is no such thing as invisible sky wizards that grant wishes.
Excuse me?!? I shall no longer grant you wishes!