Skip to content
November 22, 2011 / itsnobody

Where would modern society be without religion?

Religion is perhaps the best thing that ever happened to society.

The liberal atheist media is intent on telling anti-religious lies. Anyone who studies even a little history will find this to be true.

So why does the liberal atheist media intentionally tell lies? It’s because they want people to believe that religion is bad and non-religion/atheism is good.

Just take a look at a great lie in the liberal atheist TV show “Family Guy” in the episode “World Without Christianity” where they envisioned that without Christianity technology and science would some how be ahead.

Here’s a real “World Without Christianity”, Life Expectancy in the year 1960 (a few decades ago):

– Switzerland (the 1st or 2nd most religious Christian Western country): 71
– China (an atheist country undisturbed from Christianity): 43

Source: World Bank

So this life expectancy data by itself thoroughly falsifies the atheists’ hypothesis “that without religion somehow society would be ahead”, lol. It’s only been in very recent times that China’s life expectancy has gone above Christian Europe’s life expectancy from the Middle Ages.

Apparently the delusional authors of Family Guy must understand very little to nothing about history and science.

Here’s some historical facts:

– Historians  don’t believe in the “Dark Ages” as portrayed on TV. It’s just a lie in the atheist media.

“The stereotype of the Middle Ages as ‘the Dark Ages’ fostered by Renaissance humanists and Enlightenment philosophes has, of course, long since been abandoned by scholars.” (Raico, Ralph“The European Miracle”)

The supposed “Dark Ages” was actually a very bright age, full of advancements that had never before been made in human history.

– The earliest Universities were all religious institutions that were built specifically because of religion

– Science comes from studying astronomy and philosophy, which are not necessary for basic survival

– Seeking truth, knowledge, and studying nature are all religious ideas that come directly from religion

–  The Chinese, who were mostly non-religious had believed that the Earth was flat and square up until the late 16th Century when Jesuit priest astronomers introduced the spherical Earth idea to them

– Faraday’s Field theory idea that magnetism and light were linked together came directly from his religion. If Faraday hadn’t been super-religious he would’ve never believed that magnetism and light were linked, an idea that during Faraday’s time was ridiculous, laughable, and crazy. Without Faraday’s Field theory James Clerk Maxwell would’ve never been able to develop Maxwell’s equations and most modern electrical technology would be quite impossible. So if Faraday hadn’t been super-religious, science and technology would’ve been held back by at least 100 years (probably more).

So contrary to the popular belief propounded by the low-life atheist media, the main reason we have most of our modern electrical technology is specifically because of religion, not despite religion.

For more details about Faraday’s religion see his biographical information here or watch this video (tune to 8:23 for the part about his religion).

So realistically without religion here’s where society would be:

– Since Universities aren’t necessary for basic survival and all have their origin in religion they most likely wouldn’t exist

– Since atheists would’ve most likely viewed intensely studying astronomy and philosophy as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time, philosophy wouldn’t exist

– Since philosophy would have been non-existent the scientific method which comes from philosophy would not exist, and all advancements made because of the scientific method wouldn’t exist

– Since astronomy is not necessary for basic survival and the Church was the main sponsor of astronomy, no one would’ve bothered to study astronomy, and since Newtonian physics and higher mathematics came directly from studying astronomy they also wouldn’t exist

– Since Faraday’s religion wouldn’t have existed and science wouldn’t have existed, the Field theory would definitely not exist and most electrical technology would not exist

– Since higher mathematics wouldn’t exist, Maxwell’s equations could not exist and most modern day electrical technology would be nearly impossible to invent (since they rely upon Maxwell’s equations)

Human beings need food, water, and shelter for survival, not the scientific method (a form of logical empiricism resulting from studying philosophy) or Newtonian physics (an advanced astronomical model).

Everything that led up to the scientific revolution (intensely studying astronomy and philosophy) would’ve been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to atheists.

It would take a very minimum of hundreds and hundreds of years of studying philosophy and astronomy for any civilization to come up with the scientific method, higher mathematics, and Newtonian physics.

History clearly shows us that religion was what directly caused people to study philosophy and astronomy for hundreds of years.

The Church was the biggest sponsor of astronomy since they needed calendars and the Church invented Universities as a place to study religion (natural philosophy was an extension of religion). This is the undeniable historical consensus.

In all of human history not one pre-science civilization decided to intensely study philosophy and astronomy after gaining food, water, and shelter WITHOUT a religion causing them to .

We can be nearly 100% certain that without religion the scientific revolution would’ve never occurred.

There is no civilization in history that some how all of a sudden started off with the scientific method, Newtonian physics, and higher mathematics.

So without religion there would be a near 100% chance of the scientific method, Newtonian physics, higher mathematics, and all scientific achievements that came after being non-existent.

Contrary to what the delusional authors of Family Guy believe, without religion there would probably be no such thing as science. I doubt the authors of Family Guy even know what Maxwell’s equations is. Science would most likely be non-existent and technology would be far far far behind what we have today if initially humans had no religion.

Without religion we would be just like other animals.

When you go to the zoo and see chimpanzees, gorillas, and other animals, what do you see them doing? They’re just focusing on survival, they have no religion. That’s just how humans were prior to religion, focusing on basic survival and achieving nothing more.

Even if atheists had taken over science prior to Faraday science and technology would still be far far behind what it is today.

History clearly shows us that things happen by a NEED, since science, mathematics, and higher technology are not required for basic survival they must come from a need. Historically religion was what produced a NEED for higher mathematics, science, and technology.

After atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s we immediately stopped finding cures, the life expectancy started growing slower, technology started growing slower, science is turning to pseudoscience, and physics became stuck with empirically untestable hypotheses.

If there was no religion initially we’d just be living in the stone age with no technology or with at most steam technology. After all for basic survival you don’t need science (which originates from astronomy and philosophy), mathematics, or higher technology. All you need for basic survival is food, water, and shelter.

Once human beings achieve food, water, and shelter if there is no religion then there’s no need to study astronomy, philosophy, science, logic, mathematics, etc…it would just be unnecessary. This is clear from the overwhelming historical evidence.

If atheists were correct then how come in ALL of human pre-science history there was not even ONE civilization that came up with an advanced astronomical model without a religion causing them to?

If atheists were correct then we should expect to see many civilizations in history spontaneously coming up with advanced astronomical models for no reason after gaining food, water, and shelter WITHOUT religion…but we don’t see EVEN ONE civilization in all of pre-science human history doing that.

Throughout history atheism and non-religion has always been the main obstacle and block to human progress.

Just imagine how far we would be if Theists still ran science, we’d probably be living in a Utopia-like world where technology was super-advanced and every disease had been cured, which is the exact opposite of what’s portrayed in the atheist media.

I don’t even know how it’s possible for the liberal atheist media to intentionally tell so many lies. I guess atheists must take pleasure in telling lies. Basically everything in the liberal atheist media about religion and science is either a wild exaggeration or a complete lie.

Religion is the seed, life, and essence of mankind.

No religion = Near 100% chance that there wouldn’t have been any scientific revolution

I don’t know where delusional atheists got this idea that without religion some how science would be ahead, lol. What a joke. Without the supposed “Dark Ages” the scientific method would most likely not exist because no one would have been studying philosophy or astronomy. If no one was studying philosophy and astronomy then there’s virtually no chance that either the scientific method or Newtonian physics could come into existence.

If we are to be honest with ourselves we can see that atheism and non-religion has always threatened mankind and held back human progress.

In the future if society becomes atheistic/non-religious enough humans might revert to state of animal, seeing no need to even be literate or do science!

Conclusion:
– Humans need food, water, and shelter for survival, not astronomy or philosophy
– In all of human history not one pre-science civilization decided to intensely study philosophy and astronomy after gaining food, water, and shelter WITHOUT a religion causing them to
– The scientific method is a form of logical empiricism that comes from studying philosophy
– Newtonian physics is an advanced astronomical model that comes from studying astronomy
– There’s a 0% chance that any civilization would arrive at the scientific method and Newtonian physics without intensely studying philosophy and astronomy
– Everything that led up to the scientific revolution (intensely studying philosophy and astronomy) would’ve been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to atheists
– Since religion directly caused people to intensely studying philosophy and astronomy, indeed, religion DIRECTLY caused the scientific revolution

Advertisements

91 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. itsnobody / Jun 7 2016 12:47 am

    Haha I destroyed the fools (atheists) once again!

    I’m the King, the master, the unstoppable one!

    Notice when the fools respond they never refute any statement that I made since they know that I’m right and they are wrong, all they can do is throw personal attacks and cry.

    Weak and useless is the subhuman atheist mind they can’t compete with me.

    You notice that every atheist forum or blog site has special rules where they ban or block or pre-approve comments criticizing their arguments? Why is this? Because atheists are weak and useless.

    A true statement will stand up to any amount of criticism and scrutiny so if you know your statements are true like I do you don’t have to runaway, hide, and breakdown and cry when people criticize you like atheists do.

    The more we criticize and scrutinize the closer we come towards the truth. The atheists’ idea is different, to runaway from criticism, subjectively interpret any type of scrutiny as “trolling” and breakdown and cry…lol so lame and weak.

    I don’t have to runaway or shy away from criticism and scrutiny, knowing my ways as true.

    My blog site is among the only one on the internet allowing full-fledged free speech. Other sites (especially atheist blog sites and forums) have to prevent people from criticizing their weak useless arguments and false statements.

    Once atheists step into my domain (a free speech zone) their arguments get destroyed, ruined, sliced and diced, and killed off!

    Haha I’m undefeatable, I’ll always stay on top above the fools.

    Who can stop me? No person or army in this world or the next.

    I’m unmatched in this world.

    The truth needs no special protection from criticism and scrutiny.

    • Anonymous / Jul 3 2016 8:03 pm

      ” Haha I destroyed the fools (atheists) once again!

      I’m the King, the master, the unstoppable one! ”

      Hold on, what? Are you proud of yourself??? You sound like a child. You reason like a child.

      … seriously you need to stop what you’re doing because you are embarrassing yourself and everything you stand for … I get that you want to prove a point but as I keep reading your recent posts I come to notice how lifeless, arrogant, rude and , well, Stupid you are. This blog is a waste of time. You most definitely are not putting light upon religion as you prove yourself to be closed minded and it saddens me. As a Christian, I am embarrassed. Who gave you the right to insult people based on their beliefs? I get that you argue about those that do not believe in religion, maybe you got bullied?!… haha well then get a good grip and suck it up. How dare you be proud about this blog? it is disgusting. Looks like you’re unable to ignore criticism. Here’s a fact, people criticize and just so YOU know, itsnobody, you are evenly criticizing others and in a very harsh way. It is no surprise that you get shat on. From where I stand and from what I see, you’re a p*ssy. I believe in God. The existence of religion stands based on our strong beliefs, will, and faith. Religion is not a fact, it was never meant to be a fact. It is a concept, a way of foreseeing life, a guide we accept to believe in.

      Stop what you are doing, be a man. Accept this world for what it is because this blog will make no difference. All it will bring to you is hate. You have no right to spit on others as you do now. Stop this nonsense.

      When you think of it, have you ever wondered why people choose to be atheist? As they lack evidence or any sort of proof of the prime existence of God. They have a reason to their choice, as do you. Therefore you must not take pride in calling them fools as they can easily turn around and call our God an imaginary friend. Some choose to use such insult but you must be stronger than them, be the better man. You have shown yourself as to being the same as those individuals that mock us. You are not a King but a slave of your own ego.

      Don’t call yourself a King until you become a man. That is all.

  2. Ana / Jun 4 2016 9:07 am

    Why are Christians so delusional? This one is determined to deny proven history, for goodness sakes! And by the way, yes, the Chinese have a totally different culture from Switzerland, and not just religion. Different resources, among other things. Of course the average lifespan would be different. Then again, I wouldn’t expect anything more.

    • itsnobody / Jun 6 2016 11:43 pm

      That’s the problem with your type and kind.

      If I’m wrong then why the fuck don’t you open up your low-life atheist mouth and name me a civilization that came up with an advanced astronomical model without a religion or something just like a religion (form of government, organization) causing them to?

      “What would realistically happen without religion is that after gaining food, water, and shelter humans would just feel like coming up with an advanced astronomical model for no reason even though it never happened even one time in all of human history, yeah it makes perfect sense to me since I watched cartoon shows and read stuff on atheist blog sites” – Dumb, dense, stupid, the atheist mind

      So shut the fuck up with your low-life atheist propaganda.

      Weak and useless, just go home and keep mimicking crap from atheist blog sites and cartoon shows since you have no facts.

      Speaking of the Chinese, Confucius says “A woman’s duty is not to control or take charge” so give up, go home, take things sitting down, and keep your fuckin mouth shut like a Confucian woman.

      CASE CLOSED.

  3. Anonymous / Mar 2 2016 9:38 am

    Wow. Just another loud-mouthed christian who, insecure about their beliefs, needs to trash-talk people who don’t share his/her beliefs. What a sad way to go.

    • Anonymous / Mar 9 2016 1:09 am

      To be fair, he did give a reasonable amount of historical context to support his trash talking.

    • itsnobody / Jun 6 2016 11:49 pm

      Oh another weak and useless atheist who can’t refute any statement I made so they just throw personal attacks.

      Listen fools (atheists) I don’t have to pre-approve comments or block people or whatever like you and your type and kind do on your atheist blog sites.

      So weak and useless are atheists, they know that their statements can’t stand up to criticism and scrutiny so all they can do is runaway and hide like the weak useless subhumans they are.

  4. Anonymous / Dec 24 2015 10:08 pm

    You know Family Guy is a comedy, right? A satire? A joke? Not the true opinion of its writers?

    • Anonymous / Mar 9 2016 1:10 am

      That’s very debatable. Considering that Seth MacFarlane has actually admitted to it.

    • itsnobody / Jun 6 2016 11:59 pm

      I know that the majority of people who watch Family Guy really think that it and other cartoon shows are historically accurate.

  5. Anonymous / Dec 24 2015 6:43 pm

    Obviously, much of the knowledge of modern science has been accumulated through attention to details that are not apparently useful in the moment, such as astronomy in the very beginning of human history. You fail to realize that this has nothing to do with religion. The Scientific Method is was not immediately clear to prehistoric humans, and so they speculated about the causes of the phenomena they observed. These speculations were the foundations of religion.

    The fact that a correlation between religion and scientific advancement exists is hardly surprising. Religion was usually a powerful part of the government or social order where it existed, and most people subscribed to it. So it happened that many of history’s great scientists and philosophers and their followers and supporters were religious, because, well, everyone was. In societies where not everyone is religious, it follows that not all great thinkers won’t be religious. For example, ancient China, which, as you say was not very religious, invented a great number of technologies, such as the movable type and gunpowder, to name a few, as well as studying astronomy and writing their own philosophies, without religion.

    Atheism has nothing to do with what needs to be done for short-term survival. It is simply the rejection of religion. Atheists reject religion because there is no evidence-based justification for it, the same reasoning we all use in rejecting the idea of monsters under the bed, or disease happening due to demons in our heads, or the wind being caused by the sneezing of trees. Atheists do not discourage empirically observing the universe, but encourage it, as it provides provides more evidence to use in deciding which ideas to accept or reject.

  6. Anonymous / Dec 24 2015 4:41 pm

    You all understand Ad Hominem. How do you rebuke other people for using it while also committing it?

  7. Anonymous / Nov 6 2015 7:13 pm

    Wow. You’re like a child trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You keep reusing the same arguement over and over again when we all get it. It’s really a wonder people still bother to argue with you when you’ve proven time and time again that you are an ignorant pighead. It’s especially obvious that you’re losing the debate when you sink to name-calling. I don’t know why I wasted thirty minutes of my life on someone who clearly doesn’t have one. You are annoying, unintelligent, and you make me sick. Your name seems apropriate, because it perfectly describes you. Good day.

    • itsnobody / Nov 9 2015 7:56 am

      lol…you’re just using argument ad hominems…I completely destroyed all of the atheists’ arguments with hard facts and reasoning…their responses are like yours “I say that you’re wrong and you’re wrong, you’re ignorant, you’re a pighead, you’re so wrong, but I can’t explain how you’re wrong or refute any statement you made”…lol.

      The fools (atheists) can’t refute any statement that I made so they just keep throwing personal attacks to get other fools (atheists) to believe them.

      If you think that I’m wrong or ignorant or whatever then please explain so.

      How am I wrong Mr.Fool?

      Oh wait I can already predict your response “I say that he’s wrong, and I repeatedly say so, he’s so ignorant, and he’s so annoying, and here’s some other personal attacks, I’m not going to actually explain how he’s wrong, but he’s so wrong”.

      Everything I said is thoroughly backed up with facts and historical evidence, atheists’ statements are backed by up by cartoon shows and the imaginations of atheists, lol.

      Stupid people.

      Whenever they lose the debate all they do is throw personal attacks.

      It’s a real shame that the media is so well-controlled by atheists that they portray lies from atheist authors rather than the actual historical facts.

      This is normal history you can contact any historian from any University and ask them about it…

      The atheists’ argument is that “After gaining food, water, and shelter humans would just feel like studying astronomy and philosophy for no reason without religion even though that never happened even one time in all of human history and then somehow the scientific revolution would just happen and we would be ahead” even though that hypothesis is thoroughly contradicted by all of historical evidence we have.

      It’s always a great laugh to see an atheist in desperation!

  8. itsnobody / Jan 9 2015 1:24 pm

    Come come view atheists as subhuman!

    The comments from atheists just show their nasty low-acting attitude and their refusal to accept the historical evidence and hard facts just because they can’t handle the truth and want to be biased and believe lies in the atheist-controlled media.

    They only respond with personal attacks because they feel bad that the hard facts refutes their nonsense (non-science).

    They can’t handle the truth so they just want to live in denial and invent fantasies in their delusional subhuman atheist mind.

    Truthfully atheists are the nastiest lowest most disgusting form of life.

    If we are to completely objective and honest with ourselves we can see with 100% certainty that atheists have always been the #1 block to human progress, hold back science, and threaten mankind.

    No greater threat has arisen to mankind than the atheist population.

    In the future if society becomes atheistic/non-religious enough they might try to exterminate science viewing it as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time.

    Atheists in general hate science and view it as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time.

    They’ve always been anti-science fans from the beginning.

    Estonia (the most atheistic country) has 0 Nobel prizes in science, lol.

    If I’m wrong, then come on fools (atheists), name one civilization in all of human pre-science history that came up with an advanced astronomical model WITHOUT a religion causing them to.

    There aren’t any.

    Newtonian physics IS an advanced astronomical model, but I doubt the fools (atheists) know that since they are anti-science fans.

    What Newton was doing was trying to figure out the motion of the planets, Newtonian gravity is saying that the same force pulling the planets around is also the same force pulling objects down on Earth. Newtonian physics has very little to do with the apple portrayal on TV.

    I just don’t understand how atheists can just deny the hard facts and historical evidence.

    The truth hurts for the fools (atheists):
    – “Humans need food, water, and shelter for survival, not astronomy or philosophy” – Undeniable fact
    – “Without religion there is no NEED for humans to intensely study astronomy or philosophy” – Undeniable fact
    – “In all of human history not one pre-science civilization decided to intensely study philosophy and astronomy after gaining food, water, and shelter WITHOUT a religion causing them to” – Undeniable fact
    – “The scientific method is a form of logical empiricism that comes from studying philosophy” – Undeniable fact
    – “Newtonian physics is an advanced astronomical model that comes from studying astronomy” – Undeniable fact
    – “There’s a 0% chance that any civilization would arrive at the scientific method and Newtonian physics without intensely studying philosophy and astronomy” – Undeniable fact
    – “The Church was the biggest sponsor of astronomy because the Church NEEDED calendars” – Undeniable fact
    – “The Church invented Universities and was the main sponsor of natural philosophy” – Undeniable fact
    – “Since religion directly caused people to intensely study philosophy and astronomy, indeed, religion DIRECTLY caused the scientific revolution” – Undeniable fact

    These are undeniable facts that have remained thoroughly unrefuted.

    Based on these facts we can be nearly 100% certain that without religion there would have been no scientific revolution at all!

    Everything that led up to the scientific revolution (intensely studying astronomy and philosophy) would’ve been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to most atheists.

    I’m still waiting for the fools (atheists) to name JUST ONE civilization in all of pre-science human history that came up with an advanced astronomical model without a religion causing them to, please NAME ONE fools (atheists).

    Atheists just can’t handle the truth and these facts, that’s why they only respond with personal attacks.

    Here’s a real “World Without Christianity”, Life Expectancy in the year 1960 (a few decades ago):
    – Switzerland (the 1st or 2nd most religious Christian Western country): 71
    – China (an atheist country undisturbed from Christianity): 43

    Source: World Bank

    LOL! I guess everyone needs a good laugh.

    China has proportionally the lowest amount of Nobel prizes in science of any country! Only very very very recently in history have the Chinese even gained a literacy rate above 25%, LOL (like since the 1950s)!

    If atheists were correct we would predict that the initially atheist countries would start off with more science, what a joke, most people in China weren’t even aware of science (the scientific method) until like the 1980s!

    The overwhelming historical and scientific evidence thoroughly debunks the nonsense atheists believe in.

    What would’ve realistically happened WITHOUT religion is this: “Now that we have food, water, and shelter, why would we intensely study philosophy and astronomy for? We just need food, water, and shelter, it’s just philosophical nonsense and a waste of time”.

    This hypothesis is thoroughly supported by the overwhelming historical evidence.

    Atheists are nothing more than savages, animals, untrustables, untouchables. They just believe in living backwards in the stone age with trees and grass, they hate science and technology.

    The Chinese (a celebrated atheist society) were the perhaps the VERY most primitive civilization in terms of life expectancy.

    Now that’s what you call a primitive civilization, maybe BEYOND primitive in terms of life expectancy. The elite in China (the Chinese emperors) didn’t live very long.

    Modern science has proven that Chinese medical practices are just junk, most ineffective, some even counter effective.

    In reality (contrary to the lies on the media) the Chinese were perhaps one of the very most primitive civilizations in terms of life expectancy. Many Native American and African tribes had higher life expectancies than China.

    Many Chinese medical practitioners discourage physical exercise (they say that it blocks the flow of chi or whatever) because of superstitions, this ends up being very bad advice since modern science has overwhelmingly shown physical exercise to be effective at treating high-blood pressure, depression, osteoporosis, sleeping disorders, cognitive disabilities, and so many other negative health conditions. Physical exercise (aerobic) is almost like a cure-for-all.

    The Christianized Caribbean countries like Barbados have higher life expectancies than China does.
    James Sisnett from Barbados is the 13th oldest verified male, dieing at age 113.
    Violet Brown from Jamaica, is still alive, at age 114!

    There aren’t any Chinese people on the list of oldest verified males or females even though China has a population size of 1357 million (compared to Barbados which has a population size of less than 300,000), LOL!

    China has a population size of more than 1357 million
    Jamaica has a population size of less than 2.8 million
    Barbados has a population size of less than 300,000

    By sheer luck and chance we would expect China to have many more long-lived people than Barbados or Jamaica, lol, what a bunch of savage animal atheists the Chinese are. Obviously in any population size as large as China’s 1357 million there would be some smart people or some long-lived people just by chance.

    Barbados has an extremely low population size of less than 300,000, but:
    – Cardinal Warde from Barbados is a full professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT (MIT was ranked as the #1 University in the entire world by QS World University Rankings)
    – Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Brock University, Velmer Headley was from Barbados
    – James Sisnett from Barbados is the 13th oldest verified male (died at age 113)
    – Rihanna, the pop star is from Barbados
    – Dwain Worrell a screenwriter who wrote the original series “The Wall” is from Barbados
    – Barbados has a very high HDI (Human Development Index)
    – Barbados high school students have an average SAT score of 1345 (on the 1600 scale)

    What Barbados has accomplished is pretty impressive since Barbados has such an extremely low population size of less than 300,000 (more than 4,500 times lower than China’s population of more than 1357 million).

    Estonia (the most atheistic country in the world) has 0 Nobel prizes in science, China has proportionally the lowest amount of Nobel prizes in science of any country.

    Switzerland and Austria (the 1st and 2nd most religious Western European countries) have the 1st and 2nd most Nobel prizes in science per capita among nations with a population size above 1 million.

    People have to realize the threat that atheists pose to science and society, it’s really real.

    Once the atheist/non-religious population goes up without religion there is no need to be literate, to study science, or do anything, so there’s a very REAL possibility that people will revert to state of an animal in the future without religion.

    • Meesa / Jan 11 2015 8:04 pm

      I was liking this post until I read the comments… God wouldn’t like you being a dick…

      • itsnobody / Jan 12 2015 1:09 am

        I just really hate how the media intentionally tells lies and how so many people really believe the lies in the atheist-controlled media.

        Someone has to debunk their nonsense (non-science).

    • Anna Fürbiß / Jan 5 2016 12:26 am

      I’m Christian and I find this sh!t offensive. Who are you to say who is trash and who isn’t? Let atheists be atheists. Let Bhuddists be Bhuddists. Let Muslims be Muslims. Why should you care about what people believe in? Also, I don’t think you should be wasting your time talking about how the world ‘might’ have been different if we didn’t have religion, or even talking about what ‘might’ have been different in any given situation. What is the point in that? We have not yet nor do I believe that we will ever be able to travel into the past to change things, so why are you wasting precious time talking about what might have happened? No one will ever know, so therefore your “realistic” and “historically factual” article is another opinion aka a pile of b.s. Another thing, why is your inspiration to write this giant and seemingly useless article a crappy TV show? We have talking animals, an evil genius toddler, a dad that hasn’t gone to jail from how he abuses Meg, I mean come on! This is like writing your college final paper on how Spongebob is unrealistic because he lives in a pineapple under the sea. The point of the show is to be unrealistic! This kind of b.s. is what makes me slightly embarrassed to be a Christian. People like you, trying to “spread the word of God” are really just being arrogant pieces of sh!t who thinks the world revolves around them. I would write more, but I am using a mobile device, so it is slightly harder for me to type, so I shall end my rant here for now.

      • itsnobody / Jun 6 2016 11:56 pm

        I don’t care what people find offensive I care about what’s actually true.

        If I’m wrong then why don’t the fools (atheists) name me some civilizations that came up with an advanced astronomical model without a religion causing them to? They can’t, weak and useless, feeble-minded individuals.

        The historical evidence is crystal clear that it would NEVER EVER happen that humans would decide to come up with an advanced astronomical model for no reason without a religion or something just like a religion.

        If it’s really true that people “just feel like coming up with astronomical models for no reason” then we should see many civilizations in history that did that, instead not EVEN ONE civilization in all of human history did.

        Yet the fools (atheists) doubt me.

        Religion DIRECTLY caused the scientific revolution.
        Get over it.

        This is basic history if you have an issue with it you can go home back to your delusional atheist blog sites and watch cartoon shows or whatever.

  9. Dan / Jan 5 2015 7:27 am

    After reading some other posts of yours. I’ve realised your a troll, mate the fact that you’ve spent so much time creating this blog just to troll shows that you lead a very sad and pathetic existence. I truly hope you can find help.

    • itsnobody / Jan 7 2015 4:24 pm

      Throwing personal attacks at me doesn’t refute anything I’ve said, lol.

      You can’t handle the truth because you’re biased and have been brainwashed.

      What are the fools (atheists) argument? That “what would have happened realistically in history is that after gaining food, water, and shelter people spontaneously for no reason without religion would just intensely study philosophy and astronomy and then the scientific revolution would’ve occurred and it doesn’t matter that human beings need food, water, and shelter for survival not philosophy or astronomy and it doesn’t matter that not even ONE civilization in all of pre-science human history came up with advanced astronomical models without a religion causing them to study astronomy, nothing matters except for cartoon shows and other stuff I saw on TV”

      LOL, how can anyone really be as stupid and gullible as atheists are?

      When confronted with overwhelming historical data and evidence the fools (atheists) just respond with denial and personal attacks.

      Anyone can falsify my claims, if I’m wrong.

  10. Dan / Jan 5 2015 5:52 am

    To say that without religion minds like darwin, newton etc wouldn’t exist and still seek answers shows you are a foolish child. Correlation does not imply causation. Grow up. Any sane person would life you out of the room.

    • itsnobody / Jan 7 2015 4:22 pm

      Sorry that you can’t handle the truth because you’re biased and have been brainwashed by the atheist-controlled media.

      The historical consensus and evidence thoroughly debunks your nonsense.

      If I’m wrong then please name just ONE civilization in all of pre-science history that intensely studied philosophy and astronomy WITHOUT a religion causing them to.

      Correlation isn’t causation, what directly CAUSED people to study philosophy and astronomy was religion, so religion CAUSED the scientific revolution.

      It’s not mere correlation, it’s CAUSATION. The reason why people in Europe were studying astronomy was because the Church NEEDED calendars. The reason why they were studying natural philosophy is because the Church invented Universities so that people can study religion and natural philosophy was an extension of religion.

      These are undeniable historical facts, the stuff on TV and cartoon shows has been thoroughly debunked by historians.

      Atheists like you can’t handle the truth and just want to live in denial.

      If I’m wrong then why can’t you or any of your other low-life atheist friends actually refute any statement that I made?

      Without religion there would be a near 0% chance of the scientific revolution occurring!

      Sorry that you can’t handle the truth.

      If atheists/anti-science fans were correct we should expect to see lots of civilizations coming up with advanced astronomical models for no reason after gaining food, water, and shelter without religion, but there’s not EVEN ONE civilization that did in all of pre-science human history!

      Everything that led up to scientific revolution would’ve been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to atheists!

      Definitely there would be no physics without religion!

      • LOLWUT / Oct 7 2017 10:16 pm

        1. If atheists are competent enough to control the media, they must be some pretty smart fools, eh?

        2. Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Susan Greenfield, and Paul Dirac were atheists. Albert Einstein was spiritual, believing in a certain order nature held, but didn’t follow organized religion. Edwin Hubble was also agnostic, and he made integral astrological discoveries, most notably Hubble’s Law, which describes the universe’s expansion.

      • LOLWUT / Oct 7 2017 10:18 pm

        Also Astronomy =/= All Science.

  11. Roj / Dec 17 2014 12:37 pm

    Both the atheist and religious arguments are based on the logical fallacy of slippery slope. We can’t prove either way how things would have been, as our timeline holds religion in its past. I will admit that some atheists are attacking you, itnobody, but you’re attacking them as well. I really don’t know where you get off calling atheists sub human, as our beliefs don’t affect our intelligence really. It’s more of a cultural or societal thing. Stop being mean bro, and let people believe what they want. Sure the liberal media attacks religion, but if organized religion is in the right, well there you go. You win. If it’s not atheists are right. Seriously both sides are being cocksmokes.

    • Roj / Dec 17 2014 12:39 pm

      Correlation does not imply causation, homie. Step off your high horse because you can still be wrong.

  12. Phoenix / Dec 9 2014 1:17 am

    Correction:

    The Christian scientist,lawyer and philosopher Sir Francis Bacon is credited with pioneering the inductive method but the founder of the scientific method goes to Alhazen

  13. Phoenix / Dec 8 2014 3:34 am

    Since philosophy would have been non-existent the scientific method which comes from philosophy would not exist, and all advancements made because of the scientific method wouldn’t exist

    That’s so true,since the founding father of the empirical method was the philosopher Sir Francis Bacon

  14. Anonymous / May 27 2014 6:41 pm

    I strongly agree with a few of the teaching of Jesus himself, “But I tell you not to resist an evildoer. On the contrary, whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well.” – Matthew 5:39

    “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”.

    http://www.biographyonline.net/spiritual/jesus-christ.html

    Religion has done good things and bad things, but its something that had to be introduced to the world to be where we are now.

  15. Mrs. Robert - Spanish teacher / Jan 13 2014 12:02 am

    Wow the atheist responses are like something from the back of short bus! High five, itsnobody!

  16. Anonymous / Jul 30 2013 2:30 pm

    I am reading this article and it’s responses rather late but have found the debate most interesting. I believe that both arguments are correct. True that without religion, we as people would be technologically less advanced. However, I must say that nowadays religion is not needed in the advancements of modern technology (I cannot support this through evidence it is merely my own observation of logic). In other words, religion has served its purpose.
    Btw how can you assume miracles will inevitable be scientifically proven? That is like saying “in the future, we will have flying automobiles because well its the future (yay)”.
    I am atheist.

    • itsnobody / Jan 20 2014 10:49 pm

      Wrong again.

      Modern days is the result of the past, and in the past religion was what caused science to exist.

      This article is about what modern society would be if there was no religion initially.

      In modern times the scientific method, Newtonian physics, Universities and many other things exist, so anyone who takes birth into this time-period has those things pre-existing. But I’m talking about initially when a civilization just starts off.

      I don’t know what you mean by I think that in the future miracles will be proven, I think that in the future God, an afterlife, and many other things outside the realm of empirical testability now will be proven.

      The only reason it’s unproven is because of empirical testability.

      A common misconception in anti-science/atheist circles is that science makes claims regarding the truth of things outside the realm of empirical testability.

      In reality science can only make claims regarding the truth of things within the realm of empirical testability.

      In science, we may never know the actual truth, just what’s consistent and matches observations.

      The geocentric model appeared consistent and accurate in certain conditions until other observations were made.
      Newtonian physics appeared consistent and extremely accurate in certain conditions until other observations were made.
      General Relativity appears consistent and accurate in certain conditions, I don’t know if in the future observations will come showing it to be not entirely accurate or different.
      Quantum Mechanics appears consistent and accurate in certain conditions, many aren’t sure if it’s really true or merely an accurate model.

      I think GR is pretty close to the truth, but probably needs new modifications.

  17. Anonymous / May 23 2013 6:18 pm

    I have an answer……Aliens they explain all your objections pretty head on.

  18. Bruce / May 1 2013 8:20 pm

    It’s as if I accidentally landed in that special part of the internet that is inhabited by complete goddamn morons. Or maybe I just walked into a church…….. Either way.

    • Jesus / May 9 2013 9:53 pm

      Slowclap.jpg (I two thumbed up you)

  19. itsnobody / Apr 27 2013 1:03 pm

    I feel bad for killing every atheist response off so badly.

    I’m still waiting for any fool (atheist) to explain common delusions still propounded by atheists and the liberal atheist media like:
    “Without Christianity and religion science and technology would be further ahead”
    “Science exists despite religion”
    “Christianity threw Europe into the ‘Dark Ages'”

    Their lies are so laughable, and thoroughly debunked by the historical consensus by all the historical observations.

    A simple place that a fool (atheist) can start to learn basic history:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Middle_Ages

    Everything I’ve said can be confirmed and verified by all of the historical and scientific evidence. I’ve already provided them, I don’t know why atheists are in such denial.

    My claims can all be backed up and verified like:
    – The scientific method, higher mathematics, and Newtonian physics comes from intensely studying astronomy and philosophy
    – The Church and the Christian religion being the main cause of people studying philosophy and astronomy in Europe (Early Middle Ages, Middle Ages, Late Middle Ages)
    – The Church encouraged people to seek truth, knowledge, study nature, and caused natural philosophy, viewing “dealings in magic and divination” as a heresy
    – There being no example of any civilization in all of human history that decided to intensely study astronomy and philosophy after gaining food, water, and shelter without a religion causing them to do so
    – Faraday’s religious belief causing him to believe that magnetism and light were linked, which in turn caused JC Maxwell to formulate Maxwell’s equations, which would’ve happened much later in history or not at all had Faraday been less religious or an atheist
    – Life Expectancy in the year 1960:
    China (an atheist country): 43
    Switzerland (one of the most religious European countries): 71
    Most Western religious Christian countries: 70s
    Christianized Caribbean countries: 60s

    The religious Christian European countries were the ones with the highest life expectancies and most technology in the year 1960, most Christianized Caribbean countries had much higher life expectancies than China’s in the year 1960 as well, where as the less Christian countries or the countries less affected by European countries were less advanced (so much for religion holding back science, lol). What would’ve happened to China if they would’ve been left undisturbed?

    This was of course in the year 1960 (just less than 55 years ago) when many countries had not been strongly influenced by the West.

    There are many countries in modern times that have lower life expectancies than most Western religious Christian countries did in the year 1960.

    The simple fact is atheists just believe in living in the stone age with trees and grass. They think technology and science is bad for society, unnatural and that human beings should just live with grass, rocks, and trees alone in the stone age.

    They take joy and pleasure in seeing third world children living in third world conditions, suffering from diseases, experiencing pain because they don’t want people to use technology, make medical advances, and advance science because they believe it’s better for preserving the environment, and living with trees and grass.

    The goal almost every atheist has is to set mankind back to the stone age because they want to: Live with trees and grass alone

    Nothing has blocked scientific and technological progress as much as the atheists have, and I’ve already proven it in my other articles.

    It was always the atheists holding back science from the very beginning, always

    • Alec / Apr 27 2013 5:24 pm

      If you’re right, why do you feel the need to defent the absolute truth? You’re wasting your time putting normal people down. If you’re correct, we will be punished for what we believe. What’re you going to do? Nobody really cares about what you have to say and god isn’t going to like you any more than anyone else for being a dick. I’m tired of getting random emails that contain your ignorant rambling so please fuck off and get a life.

      • Jesus / May 9 2013 9:55 pm

        Alec, I second what Alec wrote. I like what Alec said, fuck that douche nozzle ‘itsnobody’.

  20. itsnobody / Nov 23 2012 8:08 pm

    The case is closed!

    I’m the undeniable winner of this debate and basically every historical source supports my assertions!

    The only conclusions I can reach from the atheists’ responses are:
    – Atheists are in denial and really want to believe ant-religious propaganda regardless of what every modern day historical source tells us
    – Atheists are delusional
    – Atheists just enjoy telling lies

    I feel bad for winning and destroying all atheistic arguments so easily

    • Alec / Nov 24 2012 1:30 pm

      It’s really funny how you think you’re absolutely right about everything and how you and the people who agree with you think that atheists should be considered a lesser group of human beings. All of your arguments are wrong and that is a fact. You constantly violate a basic rule of debat; if you are biased, you are wrong. You cannot explain two different sides of the argument so you are ignorant of all the facts. You are obviously an extremists that believes in magic. The only reason why religion exists is because early human beings needed a way to explain things. Eventually, evolution came around and we became intelligent enough to begin scientific research and realized that you can explain things through experimentation and research, not through believing in magic. Religion has some good things but we don’t need it anymore. The only reason that extremists like you exists is because you have been brainwashed by your family, friends, or the media that you see and you live in a flawed reality. I already know that you’re just going to sling insults about atheists and use words like delusional so don’t bother posting anything else unless you have something intelligent to say.

      • itsnobody / Nov 29 2012 1:38 am

        How boring. I guess anyone can see why I consider atheists to be subhuman in terms of intelligence!

        To summarize your response “I repeatedly say you’re wrong and I throw personal attacks, and it doesn’t matter what historical sources and observations indicate”

        Such an idiot, you probably don’t even know this: The Church believed that dealings with magic and divination was a heresy and directly caused natural philosophy, Newton, Euler, Faraday, and basically all Theists until relatively recently were “natural philosophers”, the Church discouraged belief in “magic” and “divination”, the supernatural vs. natural war is just a lie conjured up by atheists relatively recently (seems like in the 1980s)

        I don’t believe in the supernatural at all.

        The one who doesn’t have anything intelligent to say is you and all the other atheists who replied. I actually provide empirical observations and reasons to support my statements.

        For anyone who wants to see how gullible, idiotic, and delusional atheists are just read their responses.

        I destroy all their arguments so easily.

        Well it’s always a great laugh to see an atheist in desperation!

      • Bruce / May 1 2013 8:21 pm

        Thank you!

      • Mrs. Robert - Spanish teacher / Jan 13 2014 12:05 am

        wow, what an idiot. Your response is that of a petulant child!

  21. Alec / Nov 15 2012 12:41 pm
    • itsnobody / Nov 23 2012 6:31 pm

      Thanks for your delusions.

      Estonia has the very lowest percentage of believers in a god according to the 2005 Eurobarometer poll and Estonia has the very highest murder rate in Northern Europe in 2011.

      Austria is the most religious country in Western Europe and Austria’s murder rate is lower than than all atheist countries in Europe

      What a great disgust it is to be an atheist, they are always intent on telling lies.

      It was a nice try though!

  22. AdVeritatem / Nov 11 2012 6:46 pm

    Where do you even get this notion of the “liberal atheist media”. I’m a debater. You’re wrong

    • itsnobody / Nov 23 2012 7:03 pm

      Well then tell me why the media intentionally lies to support non-religion and atheism then?

      The historical consensus is that the Early Middle Ages were not dark and that religion was what caused science to exist

      But the atheist media just can’t let people find this out, explain why if you can.

  23. Anonymous / Sep 22 2012 5:45 pm

    All your examples were religion promoting advancements. Why? Because the leaders of said religions at that time had vested interests in those advancements.
    Consequently, Galileo advancements had been rejected because they conflicted with the Church’s.

    Why you have such a vested interest in proving religion had any scientific advancement is intriguing. Religion is primarily for spirituality purposes in this day and age. Science and religion are not related.

    If anything, your blog would simply solidify that without religion, the modern day would be more or less the same due to religion’s hand in promoting and rejecting scientific advances.

    How come you’ve never mentioned the Taoist/Buddhist’s influence for science 900 years ago? Or Hindu’s encouragement ~500 years ago?

    • itsnobody / Nov 23 2012 6:47 pm

      Thanks for your delusions.

      Once again proving how ignorant atheists are of history.

      All your examples were religion promoting advancements. Why? Because the leaders of said religions at that time had vested interests in those advancements.

      Can you explain how or give reasons to support your assertions or is it just the inherent nature of the atheist to be disgusted with providing empirical observations and valid reasons to support assertions?

      Consequently, Galileo advancements had been rejected because they conflicted with the Church’s.

      It’s just popular myth common in anti-science/atheist circles.

      “appreciated that the reference to heresy in connection with Galileo or Copernicus had no general or theological significance.” (J. L. Heilbron)

      The Galileo affair simply had to do with not being able to hold the heliocentric view. The Church was correct that given Galileo’s contributions you wouldn’t be able to hold the view.

      With Galileo’s contributions alone you can’t even distinguish geo-heliocentric and heliocentric models. The one who actually solidified the heliocentric model was Newton, not Galileo.

      The reason people had been studying astronomy wasn’t because “they just wanted to out of human inquisitiveness”
      it’s because the Church was the biggest sponsor of astronomy.

      Science and religion are not related.

      To believe so is to be delusional. The historical sources are all there.

      The historical consensus is that religion directly caused science to exist

      Can you explain to me why you and other atheists refuses to acknowledge the historical consensus?
      Is it because since you’re an atheist you’re subhuman in terms of intelligence?

      If anything, your blog would simply solidify that without religion, the modern day would be more or less the same due to religion’s hand in promoting and rejecting scientific advances.

      If you want to be delusional that’s fine, but otherwise please open up your low-life atheist mouth and give reasons to support your delusions. Please GIVE REASONS

      I’ve already explained how modern day society would definitely not be the same in detail, yet you believe that human beings after gaining food, water, and shelter without religion just decide to come up with advanced astronomical models even though there’s no example in all of human history of that happening.

      So you’re a delusional!

      China’s life expectancy in the year 1960: 43
      Switzerland (one of the most religious European countries)’s life expectancy in the year 1960: 71

      The Aztecs had a life expectancy of 37, only slightly lower than China’s life expectancy in the year 1960 (just 52 years ago)!

      If human inquisitiveness alone causes people to intensely study philosophy and astronomy then explain why China and every other non-religious civilization in all of human history never intensely studied philosophy and astronomy?

      I also explained how Maxwell’s equations would definitely not exist in 1861 if it hadn’t been for Faraday’s religion. I doubt that atheists who responded even know what Maxwell’s equations is.

      If you want me to explain again I can, but all of my previous comments are all there.

      How come you’ve never mentioned the Taoist/Buddhist’s influence for science 900 years ago? Or Hindu’s encouragement ~500 years ago?

      Because there was no significant influence on the cause of the scientific method, higher mathematics, and Newtonian physics, except for the Hindus (who were extremely religious), their mathematics really did have a big influence, but that’s really it.

      The Buddhists and Taoists had virtually no influence or impact on causing the scientific method, higher mathematics, or Newtonian physics to come into existence.

  24. itsnobody / Sep 14 2012 11:20 pm

    Why the fuck won’t any atheists give fuckin reasons to support their false assertions? All they have are baseless statements and personal attacks. They just can’t open up their fuckin mouth and give fuckin reasons.

    Hopefully I can encourage society in general to view atheists as subhuman beings rather than as fully human.

    The worst thing that happened to science was setting atheist animals loose.

    The damage atheists have done to science by valuing authority and incredulity too much is severe.

    Nothing else has prevented and suppressed the growth of science and technology as much as the atheist population.

    The conclusion is simple atheists really want to believe the lies they heard in the low-life atheist media instead of what the historical consensus and valid reasoning tells us.

  25. itsnobody / Sep 11 2012 5:07 am

    I’m still waiting for the fools (atheists) to explain how the Early Middle Ages (the supposed darkest part of the “Dark Ages”) was a “Dark Age” when they had:
    – Shipbuilding
    – Metallurgy
    – Early philosophy
    – Artwork
    – Architecture
    – An agricultural boom

    How could this be a “Dark Age”? It’s one of the brightest periods in Earth’s history.

    They seemed to have ignored this being fooled by the low-life atheist media instead.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Middle_Ages

  26. Bob / Aug 31 2012 3:00 pm

    Wow. I cant believe I wasted a few mins of my life reading some of these posts. Talk about being cocky and arrogant.

    “Well I declare myself the undeniable winner of this debate, as usual, I always win every time.”

    Are you serious? Talk about one thick headed individual. Good job “destroying” atheist arguments. Maybe they just give up on trying to talk to a brick wall who is OBVIOUSLY ALWAYS RIGHT! 100% right about everything. You probably shit gold nuggets too dont you? I thought religion was supposed to teach people how to be a good person, not be a arrogant child who likes to argue on the internet all day about things that cant be proven one way or another.

    • itsnobody / Sep 11 2012 4:55 am

      Your response (like many other angry atheists’ responses) is just an ad hominem (personal attack with no refutation)

      How boring!

    • AdVeritatem / Nov 11 2012 6:42 pm

      I agree with “Bob”. Waste of time. I also question why you’ve chosen to answer atheist idioms from a comic TV show, known for criticizing everything. The Middle Ages are “dark” because during war from North Eastern peoples destroyed art, architecture, things aforemetioned, the (bubonic) Plague, Crusade Wars, cruel methods of torture. To those who are frustrated with

      • itsnobody / Nov 23 2012 7:02 pm

        What a fuckin idiot.

        The Middle Ages are “dark” because during war from North Eastern peoples destroyed art, architecture, things aforemetioned, the (bubonic) Plague, Crusade Wars, cruel methods of torture

        We can point out lots of time periods in history with war and cruel methods of torture, so this is meaningless.

        Look at the Greeks:
        – The Greeks were extremely sexist
        – The Greeks had slaves
        – The Greeks brutally tortured slaves
        – The Greeks executed lots of people

        But the Greek’s age isn’t labeled as “Dark”.

        During lots of wars in human history (almost all) architecture and existing art were destroyed, so if this is why you consider it to be a Dark Age then we can say that lots of periods were “Dark” ages.

        Why can’t you disgusting people called “atheists” acknowledge the historical consensus and truth that the Early Middle Ages were definitely not a “Dark Age”?

        Why can’t you people ever open up your mouth and provide reasons and empirical observations to support your low-life assertions?

        I already know your response: “I’ll make a statement then provide no reasons or explanation or empirical observations to support it because I really want to believe what I saw on TV, I get historical information from cartoon shows since I’m an atheist and therefore subhuman in terms of intelligence”

  27. itsnobody / Jul 19 2012 11:04 pm

    I’m still waiting for any savage atheist to justify the delusions of the authors of the Family Guy about the supposed “Dark Ages” or that “Christianity was holding back science” or that “Christianity and religion held back technology”.

    Atheists always make laughable statements like these, but never give any valid reasons to support these assertions (as usual)

    In the delusional atheist fantasy world: “If there was no supposed ‘Dark Ages’ all of a sudden of out of no where after human beings gain food, water, and shelter a bunch of savage atheists would decide to spend all day figuring out astronomical models, then out of no where within like 10 years the scientific method, Newtonian physics, and higher mathematics would just some how all of a sudden come into existence, and then technology would be ahead. Technology would just some how be ahead. History clearly shows us this is what happens. It makes so much sense in my primitive savage subhuman atheist mind”

    LOL! What a great laughable atheist delusion.

    In reality here’s what would’ve happened if there was no supposed “Dark Ages”: “Since we’re savage animal atheists and human beings only need food, water, and shelter to survive, why would we spend all day figuring out astronomical models? Human beings don’t need an advanced astronomical model for survival, it’s just philosophical nonsense and a waste of time.”

    There is no historical example of an advanced astronomical model or anything close arising in an initially non-religious or atheistic civilization, not one

    Newtonian physics is an advanced astronomical model and really what set technology and science far far ahead. Most medical advances would be quite impossible without technology that relies upon physics. In reality without the supposed “Dark Ages” there would be no such thing as the scientific method, Newtonian physics, or higher mathematics because religion is what directly caused people to study astronomy. All the technology made possible because of those things wouldn’t exist.

    The life expectancy would be around 30-45 max in an initially atheistic or non-religious society. China’s life expectancy in the year 1960 was only 43 compared to Switzerland’s (one of the very most religious European countries) life expectancy of 71 in the year 1960.

    The truth is an atheist world = the stone age

    Why don’t atheists just go live on an island where they can focus only on food, water, and shelter then die at the age of 30?

    If atheists initially ran things we’d be living the stone age with no advanced technology and a low life expectancy, everyone just might have gone home and committed suicide.

    If anyone is to be completely honest and objective with themselves they will see that throughout history the main block to science and technology has always been the atheist population. They have always threatened science and continue to do so even today.

    In modern times atheists still threaten science by valuing only authority and incredulity and de-valuing empirical observations and valid reasoning. If savage atheists hadn’t taken over science and scientists still focused on experimentation science would’ve been much much much further ahead.

    I still don’t know why anyone as disgusting and as anti-science as an atheist would even participate in science. Since everything that lead to science is just philosophical nonsense to you, why don’t you and all your other low-life atheist friends just stay far far away from science? Just stay away.

    I’m still waiting for any savage atheist to justify the “Dark Ages” media delusion as portrayed by the delusional authors of the Family Guy.

    All I see is pure silence in response.

    • Alec / Nov 15 2012 11:38 am

      Why are the dark ages suddenly the most important point in human advancement? Greek philosophy had come into play nearly two thousands years before the dark ages, and advancements have been made throughout history, not because of religion, but because of a natural curiosity of the vast space around us and everything in it. Religions have caused genocide and stunts in scientific advancement (stem cell research). People have kill each other because they believe in different deities that no one has ever proven to exist. I don’t hate religion until someone shoves it in my face and says that something is wrong because a book and an invisible being say so. Atheists are trying to help the advancement of the human race by throwing out the guidelines set by religious rules, that would make advancement run more smoothly and would help unite the planet instead of dividing it. I find you to be extremely arrogant and self centered. You are not supporting discussion, you are bashing anything you can. It is pathetic that the people who agree with you believe that atheists are less human than people who are bound to a religion. How does that make sense? How can religion be a good thing when comments like that come up during a discussion? It is people like you that disgust me. There isn’t even a point in anyone leaving a comment on this page because any counterargument will be ignored or torn apart by your own beliefs. Religion enables ignorance and arrogance. I don’t call myself an atheist even though I don’t worship any god and i don’t go around destroying peoples beliefs. I am just a normal human being. I have my own set of morals that have been built by living in this world and figuring out what is right and wrong. I’m only 18, so I don’t know everything, but I do know that religion has never helped me become a better person and I don’t need it in my life. There is definitely nothing wrong with me, I have a fantastic family, a loving girlfriend, friends, a job, I’m going to college, and I can get along with just about anyone. If a normal human being can lead a happy life, why is religion necessary? Please tell me exactly why you’re right and everyone else is wrong…. and do so without being like Bill O’reilly. Try to convert me. Show me the light. If you can use logic to make me believe what you believe, without being a complete ass, I will respect you greatly. The problem is, people like you tend to jump into things without thinking about what really makes sense. From now on, when you write something, you should make a list of your ides, write a rough draft, do some research, edit out any lols, realize that your beliefs are illogical and unimportant for the advancement of the human race, and delete/ throw out what you’ve written. Then, after that, you can attempt writing something that doesn’t just bash a group of people and that encourages discussion.

      • itsnobody / Nov 23 2012 7:41 pm

        Must be intent on telling lies with that low-life atheist mouth of yours.

        Greek philosophy had come into play nearly two thousands years before the dark ages, and advancements have been made throughout history, not because of religion, but because of a natural curiosity of the vast space around us and everything in it

        Thanks for the laugh.

        – The Greeks didn’t start off with philosophical or mathematical achievements, it took them thousands of years of studying philosophy
        – The Greeks were studying philosophy specifically because of religion, not because they just felt like doing it
        – The Greeks never came up with the scientific method, higher mathematics, or Newtonian physics and just did pseudoscience, mathematics, and logic, so the Greeks never did science in the modern day scientific sense
        – If you consider what the Greeks did to be “science” then we can say that any speculative explanation or philosophy or religion is “science”

        Can you atheists answer this simple question:
        – If natural curiosity alone causes people to intensely study astronomy and philosophy then why isn’t there even one example of any civilization in all of human history deciding to intensely studying astronomy and philosophy after gaining food, water, and shelter without a religion causing them to do so?

        So the historical evidence completely falsifies the hypothesis that “out of mere human inquisitiveness people repeatedly intensely study astronomy and philosophy”

        If this hypothesis that “mere human inquisitiveness causes people to intensely study astronomy and philosophy” were true then we should have expected the Chinese, the pre-Christian Europeans, the Native Americans, and basically every civilization to have had an advanced astronomical model without a religion causing them to do so.

        But there isn’t even one example of that happening in all of human history.

        The scientific and historical evidence tells us this:
        – Human beings need food, water, and shelter for survival not astronomical models and philosophy
        – After human beings gain food, water, and shelter human inquisitiveness wouldn’t cause anyone to come up with an advanced astronomical model or really do anything, it just causes people to ask simple questions

        The most advanced astronomical models came from:
        – The Arabs who came up with a geocentric model (seems to have been copied from the Greeks), but that’s really it, who were studying astronomy because of religion
        – The Indians (Kerala’s) geo-heliocentric model who were studying astronomy because of religion
        – The Europeans who ended up with Newtonian physics, the scientific method, higher mathematics, and more who were studying astronomy because the Church was the main sponsor of astronomy

        The Chinese didn’t even come up with a geocentric model let alone a heliocentric or geo-heliocentric model and would’ve probably still believed that the Earth was flat and square if they had no contact with religious countries.

        ALL of the historical evidence and historical sources clearly indicate that the reason people were studying astronomy in Europe was because of the Church not because after gaining food, water, and shelter they just decided to spend all day on astronomical models

        “Only recently we have got a very good study of Catholicism and early modern science from John Heilbron, whose prize-winning study The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories argues that the Roman Catholic church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery
        of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other – and probably all other – institutions. What would we have done without the Catholic Church?” – Ronald Numbers

        Atheists are trying to help the advancement of the human race by throwing out the guidelines set by religious rules, that would make advancement run more smoothly and would help unite the planet instead of dividing it

        LOL!

        All atheists have done after they took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s was turn science into a laughable popularity contest where authority and incredulity matters much more than empirical observations and valid reasoning, a fine example is the String Theory, an empirically untestable mathematical model.

        I explained in my other articles the threat that atheists pose to science.

        Please tell me exactly why you’re right and everyone else is wrong….

        I’m right because:
        – All of the historical sources and evidence support what I’ve said
        – All of the empirical observations support what I’ve said
        – Valid reasoning supports everything that I’ve said

        I don’t know how anyone can be as delusional as an atheist is, they really just want to believe anti-religious lies on TV.

        It’s just a like a joke, I don’t know how anyone can be as gullible as an atheist.

  28. sugarcanegray / Jul 3 2012 5:41 am

    Thank you for the response, and thank you for proving my points in another thread so eloquently. You calling me “shithead” is EXACTLY what you accuse atheists of doing. Ad hominem attacks show a lack of argument, which is your biggest problem.

    A few points, firstly The Dark Ages.
    Modern historians know just how bad the dark ages were. Language and understanding fell dramatically during this period. There were some advances, as you mentioned, universities were born. But considering the Dark Ages were around 1,000 years, the couple of advancements you speak of are no indication it was a good era. We’re achieved more in the past 10 years than they did during that entire 1,000 year period.

    The Scientific Method
    This has it’s roots in philosophy, which was born a long time before the Dark Ages. The modern scientific method came a long time after the dark ages ended.

    “Atheists are the dumbest form of life”
    Yes, that Stephen Hawking is dumb, isn’t he? Yet more ad hominem attacks with no basis in reality.

    “Quantity and quality are not the same shithead, you can list thousands of insignificant advancements made since the late 1960s and early 1970s when atheists ruined science.”

    Childish Ad hominem attacks aside, you have no basis for this idea of yours. You’re saying that no progress has been made, or no “quality” of progress has been made since atheists took over science. Firstly, atheists haven’t taken over science – theists are simply in dwindling numbers because it represents a mis-informed and deluded world view with no evidence to support it. Secondly, you have subjectively assessed that the last 40 years in science haven’t produced any quality. That’s utter nonsense. We understand more about the world than ever before, and science is constantly moving forward. Take a look at things like the LHC at CERN and everything on the list I wrote that you dismissed so churlishly – I’m afraid your subjective view of the quality of science diminishing isn’t one shared by reality.

    “lol, what attacks?”
    Well, the attacks on the teaching of evolution for one thing. This is only coming from the religious.

    “Correlation is not causation shithead, those technologically advanced nations were technologically advanced long before they were less religious. Religious European countries had been more technologically advanced than most countries for hundreds of years.”

    As countries get more technologically advanced, they’re losing their faith in the supernatural sky father you love to worship.

    Honestly, for the self-acclaimed master of reason and logic, your arguments are poor and weak and you have no solid basis for them, which is exactly why you resort to childish, petty name calling. You God must be so proud of you acting like a petulant five year old to try and convince people of his existence.

    • itsnobody / Jul 3 2012 7:37 am

      Thank you for the response, and thank you for proving my points in another thread so eloquently. You calling me “shithead” is EXACTLY what you accuse atheists of doing. Ad hominem attacks show a lack of argument, which is your biggest problem.

      It’s quite obvious that you don’t understand the difference between name-calling and ad hominems. Ad hominems occur when you attempt to refute something by throwing personal attacks.
      Name-calling occurs when you throw personal attacks, but don’t use personal attacks to refute an argument.

      I never used any personal attacks in an attempt to refute anything, so no ad hominem occurs.

      A few points, firstly The Dark Ages.
      Modern historians know just how bad the dark ages were. Language and understanding fell dramatically during this period. There were some advances, as you mentioned, universities were born. But considering the Dark Ages were around 1,000 years, the couple of advancements you speak of are no indication it was a good era. We’re achieved more in the past 10 years than they did during that entire 1,000 year period.

      I noticed that you didn’t cite any historical source to back up your claims, it’s ok you’re clearly coming out of denial.

      Instead of living in denial why don’t you just face the historical truth? Stop watching TV and face reality.

      Wikipedia is an ok place to start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography)

      How were the Dark Ages darker than other ages? Tremendous agricultural developments were made.

      Here are some historical sources to clear up your delusions:
      “The stereotype of the Middle Ages as “the Dark Ages” fostered by Renaissance humanists and Enlightenment philosophes has, of course, long since been abandoned by scholars.” – Raico, Ralph. “The European Miracle”, http://mises.org/daily/2404

      – Even the supposedly darkest part of the “Dark Ages” has been found to be much brighter than portrayed http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/0-271-00894-6.html

      – Christian Europe allowed the dissection of the human body (unlike Pagan Rome, which was supposedly not a Dark Age) (Prioreschi, Determinants of the revival of dissection of the human body in the Middle Ages’, Medical Hypotheses)

      – “…argues that the Roman Catholic church gave more financial aid and social support to the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment, than any other – and probably all other – institutions. What would we have done without the Catholic Church?” – Historian, Ronald Numbers

      – The historian Ronald Numbers clears up common lies spread by atheists here http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/Numbers/Numbers_Lecture.pdf

      – How were the “Dark Ages” darker than most periods in history? They seem to be much brighter than the vast majority of periods in history.

      It’s ok, everyone should come out of denial.

      The Scientific Method
      This has it’s roots in philosophy, which was born a long time before the Dark Ages. The modern scientific method came a long time after the dark ages ended.

      Right Mr.Fool, now that subhuman atheist mind of yours is finally understanding.

      The scientific method comes from a minimum of hundreds and hundreds of years of studying philosophy.

      The Greeks never developed the scientific method despite studying philosophy, science really started growing because people abandoned Greek philosophy, so it is really just pure speculation on how far they would’ve gone.

      “Atheists are the dumbest form of life”
      Yes, that Stephen Hawking is dumb, isn’t he? Yet more ad hominem attacks with no basis in reality.

      Stephen Hawkings? He’s a complete idiot, just like you.

      “Quantity and quality are not the same shithead, you can list thousands of insignificant advancements made since the late 1960s and early 1970s when atheists ruined science.”

      Childish Ad hominem attacks aside, you have no basis for this idea of yours. You’re saying that no progress has been made, or no “quality” of progress has been made since atheists took over science. Firstly, atheists haven’t taken over science – theists are simply in dwindling numbers because it represents a mis-informed and deluded world view with no evidence to support it. Secondly, you have subjectively assessed that the last 40 years in science haven’t produced any quality. That’s utter nonsense. We understand more about the world than ever before, and science is constantly moving forward. Take a look at things like the LHC at CERN and everything on the list I wrote that you dismissed so churlishly – I’m afraid your subjective view of the quality of science diminishing isn’t one shared by reality.

      Still don’t understand the difference between an ad hominem and name-calling?

      Also you’re just using a straw man, I didn’t say that no progress has been made, I said that the life expectancy started growing slower, technology started growing slower, and science slower as well. This can all be verified easily.

      You can point out as many insignificant changes as you want, the simple fact is when Theists ran science things were much better.

      “lol, what attacks?”
      Well, the attacks on the teaching of evolution for one thing. This is only coming from the religious.

      Really? In the US there is virtually no public school that teaches Intelligent Design or whatever, it’s just a common exaggerated lie. Even the ones that supposedly “teach” Intelligent Design merely mention a small paragraph, nothing like actually teaching it.

      These attacks have done nothing to stop the progress of science as most technological advancements don’t require you to believe in evolution (James Clerk Maxwell and Michael Faraday didn’t believe in evolution).

      “Correlation is not causation shithead, those technologically advanced nations were technologically advanced long before they were less religious. Religious European countries had been more technologically advanced than most countries for hundreds of years.”

      As countries get more technologically advanced, they’re losing their faith in the supernatural sky father you love to worship.

      You’re just using a common straw man, where did you get the idea that God is a supernatural sky father? Historically Theists in the past never believed that God was a man in the sky or whatever. It’s really funny that atheists can be so stupid and gullible that they believe anything they hear on TV LOL. “I saw on TV God is portrayed as a man in the sky, it must be true”. Their gullibility and stupidity level is off the charts.

      You’ve still failed to show a causal link dumb ass. You’re merely pointing out a coincidence.

      Switzerland in the year 1960 was much more technologically developed than China in the year 1960 and much more religious than China as well.

      It’s just as I said, for hundreds of years the super-religious European countries had been much more technologically developed than the atheistic countries.

      There is no causal link between technological advancements and losing faith. Most loss in faith probably has to do with a shift in social norms, nothing to do with technology.

      I’m still waiting for you to explain why for hundreds and hundreds of years super-religious European countries were much more technologically advanced than atheist countries.

      The atheist countries simply acquired technology from religious countries, electrical technology came from Faraday, and after atheists took over technology started growing much slower.

      Honestly, for the self-acclaimed master of reason and logic, your arguments are poor and weak and you have no solid basis for them, which is exactly why you resort to childish, petty name calling. You God must be so proud of you acting like a petulant five year old to try and convince people of his existence.

      Which argument is poor or weak? Can you point one out. This is an example of a baseless claim…”I say his arguments are weak and poor and I ignored the historical consensus and I ignored reality, I win”

      It’s always a great laugh to see an atheist in desperation.

      I feel really bad for killing your arguments off so badly.

      • sugarcanegray / Jul 3 2012 7:57 am

        yes I know what an ad hominem attack is, and yes, you clearly use name calling in an attempt to undermine an argument. You do this constantly against atheists as a group. Denying it just makes you seem a little silly.

        I’m afraid your arguments promoting the dark ages as some kind of enlightened era are completely misguided. Some agricultural advances do not make the era a particularly good one. If, as you posit, the middle ages were an age of development and enlightenment, why did science make such huge leaps once the dark ages were over? Your hypothesis doesn’t make much sense. There was some progression, some regression, but the enlightenment that came afterwards is called so for a very good reason – language and knowledge improved, the church stopped holding science back, humankind made huge leaps.

        By the way, I don’t watch TV. How typical of you to jump to erroneous conclusions.

        Stephen Hawking is an idiot? ok, sorry but that’s just insane. Widely regarded as one of the smartest minds on the planet, having solved many problems and increasing our understanding of the universe incredibly. Sorry but what ground breaking discoveries have you made to give you the high position to call one of the premier scientists of all time an idiot?

        “I feel really bad for killing your arguments off so badly.”

        Except, as always, you haven’t at all, except in your own mind, where your god lives.

      • itsnobody / Jul 3 2012 8:39 am

        If, as you posit, the middle ages were an age of development and enlightenment, why did science make such huge leaps once the dark ages were over?

        This is easy to answer for anyone who has a brain. It’s because it takes a minimum of hundreds of years of studying philosophy and astronomy for the scientific method, higher mathematics, and Newtonian physics to come into the existence.

        These things don’t come into existence “all of a sudden in 10 years” like you believe. It would take hundreds and hundreds of years.

        It doesn’t matter what time period it is, if the scientific method, higher mathematics, and Newtonian physics don’t exist then it would be impossible for science to grow fast.

        All around the world there were very few scientific advancements during the time period when the scientific method, higher mathematics, and Newtonian physics didn’t exist. So you can really point out almost any time period in history and label it as a “Dark Age” if you use that as a reason for the age being dark.

        Why don’t you label Pagan Rome as a “Dark Age” or almost any other time period as a “Dark Age” then?

        Stephen Hawking is an idiot? ok, sorry but that’s just insane. Widely regarded as one of the smartest minds on the planet, having solved many problems and increasing our understanding of the universe incredibly. Sorry but what ground breaking discoveries have you made to give you the high position to call one of the premier scientists of all time an idiot?

        Maybe he is to people who watch TV, but to most physicists he isn’t. He’s just an overrated media figure.

      • sugarcanegray / Jul 3 2012 8:03 am

        “You’re just using a common straw man, where did you get the idea that God is a supernatural sky father? Historically Theists in the past never believed that God was a man in the sky or whatever. It’s really funny that atheists can be so stupid and gullible that they believe anything they hear on TV LOL. “I saw on TV God is portrayed as a man in the sky, it must be true”. Their gullibility and stupidity level is off the charts.”

        Well, religious artwork shows God in the clouds quite often. Jesus ascended into heaven (ascending into the sky) is one of the cornerstones of the Christian faith.

      • itsnobody / Jul 3 2012 8:25 am

        lol, religious art work? I’ve read lots of arguments written by Theists in the past, and not one of them mention a “bearded man in the sky” like the fools (atheists) believe. Did Newton or Euler ever argue that God existed as a bearded man in the sky? Why not? It’s because in the past virtually no Theist did. They believed that God was the Creator of the Universe, not a bearded man in the sky or whatever.

      • sugarcanegray / Jul 3 2012 8:08 am

        “- The historian Ronald Numbers clears up common lies spread by atheists here http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/CIS/Numbers/Numbers_Lecture.pdf

        Hmm. Interesting how this link doesn’t even talk about the dark ages – it focusses on 16th and forward, AFTER the dark ages. Interesting talk, and yes, it does highlight contributions to science by theists. But what it doesn’t mention, is that given there were incredibly few theists at the time, the odds are any scientific advancement was going to be done by someone with some kind of theistic belief.

      • itsnobody / Jul 3 2012 8:22 am

        Hey shithead,

        I said that article clears up lies spread by atheists, not that it was about the “Dark Ages”.

      • sugarcanegray / Jul 3 2012 8:16 am

        “Here are some historical sources to clear up your delusions:
        “The stereotype of the Middle Ages as “the Dark Ages” fostered by Renaissance humanists and Enlightenment philosophes has, of course, long since been abandoned by scholars.” – Raico, Ralph. “The European Miracle”, http://mises.org/daily/2404

        Article speaks of growth, in terms of per-capita economical growth. Mentions science only 4 times in the whole article, and it does not suggest there were the huge advances you speak of.

      • itsnobody / Jul 3 2012 8:18 am

        Stop living in denial dumbass, I’ve already entirely ruined your arguments and now your response is the article doesn’t mention science much, wtf? How were the Dark Ages dark? ANSWER THAT FUCKING QUESTION

      • sugarcanegray / Jul 3 2012 8:23 am

        “Really? In the US there is virtually no public school that teaches Intelligent Design or whatever, it’s just a common exaggerated lie. Even the ones that supposedly “teach” Intelligent Design merely mention a small paragraph, nothing like actually teaching it.

        These attacks have done nothing to stop the progress of science as most technological advancements don’t require you to believe in evolution (James Clerk Maxwell and Michael Faraday didn’t believe in evolution).”

        I’m afraid you’re pretty deluded if you think there’s no attack taking place. The attacks come in various guises, from the direct action of insisting teaching creationism alongside evolution, to teaching Intelligent Design and also under the guise of “educational freedom” which is something the more libertarian voters are pushing for.

        Right now, thankfully, reason is winning out, but the threat is always there I’m afraid.

        To have a full understanding of the natural world, an acceptance of evolution is a pre-requisite – it’s not only biology that evolved, but the universe as a whole.

        As for your claim of Faraday not accepting evolution – this is speculation and hearsay because he never stated either way. These are typical rumours coming out of the creation movement. Check here:

        http://www.create.ab.ca/michael-faraday-christian-and-scientist/

        As you can see here:

        “Even though Darwin published his work on evolution near the end of Faraday’s life, several very good reasons exist to conclude that Faraday rejected Darwinism. In 1859 :

        Darwin published his book The Origin of Species, which many have seen as undermining such a confident faith. The remarkable thing is that Faraday says nothing about evolution that implies any kind of unresolvable problem. Though by now his physical condition was deteriorating, he could think clearly for much of his time and express himself eloquently where that was necessary. His silence on Darwin’s work is highly significant. Like many physical scientists, he may have dismissed evolution as “only a theory.” More probably his faith was so strong that nothing, even in science, could shake it (Russell, 2000, p. 115).”

        They are drawing conclusions simply on omission of comment. This would not stand up in any court of law for very good reason.

      • itsnobody / Jul 19 2012 9:14 pm

        What an idiot your article only re-confirms that most likely Michael Faraday didn’t believe in evolution. Faraday was extraordinarily religious and remained silent on virtually everything. This is because he believed that religion was something private, not because he secretly believed in evolution or whatever.

        There’s a near 100% chance that Michael Faraday didn’t believe in evolution. During Faraday’s time there was virtually no one (whether they were a scientist or not) was nearly as religious as Faraday was.

        Faraday was so religious that I don’t think there’s any other scientist or mathematician that was as religious as he was (I think Michael Faraday was perhaps more religious than Newton and Euler).

        “Speculations? I have none. I am resting on certainties. I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” – Michael Faraday

        It was highly unusual for anyone during Faraday’s time to be as religious as he was. It seems that Faraday was perhaps the very most religious scientist that existed in history.

        James Clerk Maxwell out rightly rejected evolution and he’s the one responsible for most electrical technology.

        Your weak arguments make me laugh so much.

      • sugarcanegray / Jul 3 2012 8:25 am

        “Hey shithead,

        I said that article clears up lies spread by atheists, not that it was about the “Dark Ages”.”

        what a charming use of language you have. your god must be so proud of you and your behaviour towards other people.

      • sugarcanegray / Jul 3 2012 8:32 am

        “Stop living in denial dumbass, I’ve already entirely ruined your arguments and now your response is the article doesn’t mention science much, wtf? How were the Dark Ages dark? ANSWER THAT FUCKING QUESTION”

        The Dark Ages, certainly the very early period were incredibly dark – after the break up of the roman empire communities became incredibly isolated from each other, meaning little spreading of knowledge or information. This was eventually overcome, but it took a good few hundred years.

        I will concede that after reading much about the period, certainly between 1100 to 1500 progress was made. Manuscripts were being produced again and information was spreading. But, the progress was still far slower than the subsequent centuries, this really isn’t in question by anyone.

        By the way, all throughout this joke of a blog, you still haven’t proven atheists to be wrong. So please answer this fucking question – why can’t you prove the existence of your God?

      • itsnobody / Jul 19 2012 9:34 pm

        lol, did you read the article stupid? Little spread of knowledge? Well then if that makes something a “Dark Age” we could really label any time period prior to the Christianization of Northern and Eastern Europe as a “Dark Age” couldn’t we?

        Recent evidence has shown that in the early Middle Ages (the supposed darkest part of the “Dark” ages) they had metallurgy advanced enough to make complex jewelry and shipbuilding techniques as well, it was by no means a “Dark Age”. It would still be much brighter than most of pre-Christian Northern and Eastern Europe.

        “As for the level of craftsmanship that went into making the jewellery, it is highly debatable that it could be bettered today.” – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6229683/Anglo-Saxon-gold-a-past-thats-no-longer-dead-and-buried.html

        Advanced metallurgy and craftsmanship during a supposed “Dark Age”? That’s a contradiction.

        http://www.abebooks.com/Discovering-Anglo-Saxon-England-Martin-Welch-Pennsylvania/6450703099/bd
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6229683/Anglo-Saxon-gold-a-past-thats-no-longer-dead-and-buried.html
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/16/cross-bed-anglo-saxon-grave

        The brightness that lead up to 1100-1500 was due to specifically because of religion not despite religion. It was specifically because of the Church and Christianity that brightness began. The Church was what caused people to study philosophy and astronomy, build up Cathedrals and make advancements in architecture, not a bunch of savage atheists. You can’t deny the historical consensus, now can you?

        The reason people were studying philosophy and astronomy in Europe during the Middle ages was specifically because of the Church and Christianity, why can’t you accept the historical consensus?

        Also the 1100s is a time within the supposed Dark Ages (supposedly the 6th Century to the 13th Century).

        What was truly a “Dark Age” was pre-Christian Northern and Eastern Europe, now that’s what you call a “Dark” age!

        So please answer this fucking question – why can’t you prove the existence of your God?

        Well that’s simple to answer for anyone who understands science (which would be very few modern day Ph.D. physics students), it’s because in science you can’t prove any empirically untestable hypothesis. Since God is an empirically untestable hypothesis, I wouldn’t be able to prove it.

        Every single thing in modern science lacked evidence and was unproven during the time period that it was empirically untestable. Name something in science, anything. Now go back to the time period prior to it being empirically testable and you will see a lack of evidence, a lack of proof. This is true for every single thing in modern science now. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about gravity, General Relativity, atoms, quarks, black holes, the speed of light, heliocentric theory, etc…it was all unknown and unproven prior to it being empirically testable.

        Take something as simple as the heliocentric model, if no one found a way to test the heliocentric model then there would be absolutely no shred of scientific evidence for heliocentric model (the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun).

        Scientific evidence can only exist for an empirically testable hypothesis.

        So saying that you can’t prove God is really just circular reasoning, you’re saying “you can’t prove something that can’t be scientifically proven even if it did exist”.

  29. itsnobody / Jul 3 2012 5:08 am

    Well I declare myself the undeniable winner of this debate, as usual, I always win every time.

    I feel bad for destroying atheistic arguments so badly that all atheists can do in response is live in denial (deny the historical consensus) and throw ad hominems at me.

    Where did the delusional atheists get this idea that human beings would come up with an advanced astronomical model out of nowhere without religion?

    Human beings need food, water, and shelter for survival, not an advanced astronomical model (physics) or the scientific method (a form of logical empiricism resulting from studying philosophy).

    I’m still waiting for the fools (atheists) to answer the question of how science could come into existence without religion? Why would people come up with an advanced astronomical model (physics) after they have food, water, and shelter if there was no religion?

    Newtonian physics (an advanced astronomical model) isn’t nearly as simple as portrayed in the media. Newton’s geometric proofs still stand as the most complex geometric proofs in human history, so complex that even the very very very very smartest people in the world have difficulties understanding them. So mere human inquisitiveness could never be enough to cause science.

    History clearly shows us that things happen by a need, not by mere human inquisitiveness, and that the reason why people were studying philosophy and astronomy was because of religion (not despite religion). The Church was the biggest sponsor of astronomy and the reason people were studying astronomy was because of religion, not non-religion.

    Every single thing that led up up to the scientific revolution (studying philosophy and astronomy) would’ve been viewed as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time to the atheist.

    Also why do atheists deny the undeniable facts that historians don’t believe in the “Dark Ages” as portrayed in the delusional atheist media, that the reason people were studying astronomy in Europe was because the Church needed calendars and because of astrology, and that Faraday’s religion is what directly caused him to believe that magnetism and light were linked? I guess atheists enjoy living in denial. These are all historical facts that can be easily verified.

    The simple fact is atheists have and still today threaten science and mankind. I don’t even know why people as disgusting and anti-science as atheists would do science.

    Just look at China – a primitive atheist society vs. Switzerland, one of the very most religious countries in Europe.

    China’s life expectancy in 1960 was 43.46 years
    Switzerland’s life expectancy in 1960 was 71.31 years

    Without religion there would most likely be no such thing as the scientific method or Newtonian physics, and all the modern day technology (made possible because of those things) that help human beings survive.

    The only thing atheism is compatible with is living in the stone age with little technology and means to survive. Only through stealing religiously-caused things can the atheist societies thrive.

    Why don’t atheists all just live on an island where they can live in their stone age society with a low life expectancy like how China was in the past?

    What would truly be a “Dark Age” is a world without religion.

    Just face the facts, fools.

    CASE CLOSED.

    • sugarcanegray / Jul 20 2012 7:17 pm

      No the case certainly isn’t closed. Your points are all over the place and certainly do not in anyway bolster these idiotic notions you hold about science needing religion, and religion being good for science.

      Scientific advancement has increased exponentially from the Enlightenment right up to this day and age. Far more has been discovered since the middle ages, and it correlates nicely with dropping religious views. And yes, I know correlation isn’t causation, but they do sit so nicely hand in hand.

      But, this hypothesis of yours, that “The simple fact is atheists have and still today threaten science and mankind” is just plain delusional and idiotic, and here’s why:

      Firstly, atheists haven’t taken over science. There are simply more atheists working as scientists, most likely due to the fact that the extraordinary knowledge someone needs of the natural world to be a scientist in this day and age leaves little room for fairy stories. As scientists become more qualified, as their knowledge increases you see a decline in religious beliefs. This could be for a number of reasons, pick one:

      1. religious people are satisfied with not knowing more about the natural world because of their beliefs.
      2. religious people tend to have lower IQs.
      3. science contradicts religious beliefs too much to ignore the more you learn about the natural world.
      4. religious people have no need to study because they have their nicely wrapped up little answer already.

      There could be more reasons, but it’s an inescapable fact – fewer religious people become scientists. There is no take-over, just the religious bowing out of any scientific enquiry.

      Secondly, you mistakenly believe that science has somehow gotten worse since this alleged atheist take over. Given how we’re in the year where the Higgs Boson has been discovered, what many are declaring is the most important scientific discovery of the past 100 years, it seems beyond laughable that you would try and argue that position – especially given how you’re doing so on the back of all the modern technology we enjoy thanks to the science conducted during this fictitious atheist take-over.

      Religion in science is now limited to holding science back. Look at how places like the Institute for Creation Research are doing nothing but trying to create a fictitious controversy about the Theory of Evolution, for the sake of maintaining their 2,000 year old beliefs in the creation myths. Yes, the religious do indeed present the cutting edge of scientific research that’s leading to more understanding and a better world! Also, you’ve got places like conservapedia.com which is the epitome of the religious worldview – facts are too liberal, we’ll make our own!

      This is your wonderful religious worldview in action: hindering science, presenting lies as truths and wilfully ignoring reality when it doesn’t fit with the God hypothesis.

      Science has left religion and it’s childish fairy stories in it’s dust, it’s that simple. It’s moved so far beyond the agricultural improvements the religious made in the middle ages, and now has us at a point of so much more understanding than ever before, that the Bible has been shown to be nothing but fables and an appallingly bad hypothesis with zero supporting evidence.

      As you sit and preach your deluded gospel on your computer over the internet, consider this:

      Your God is quite against hypocrisy, as declared in his user’s manual, so why are you happily being a hypocrite? Claiming that science has gotten worse yet enjoying the benefits of it in your everyday life? You’re a hypocrite for using a computer, and the internet. You are a hypocrite if you ever use any modern medicine or visit a hospital. You are a hypocrite if you use GPS, or a TV, or any other device reliant of satellite communications. You’re a hypocrite for using the very things that the science you claim atheists are destroying has produced. At least be a man, stand by your beliefs, and never bother the online world again.

      Finally, this little gem of yours:

      “Scientific evidence can only exist for an empirically testable hypothesis.

      So saying that you can’t prove God is really just circular reasoning, you’re saying “you can’t prove something that can’t be scientifically proven even if it did exist”

      This is kind of the whole point. All the things you mentioned could be tested, at least the effects could be witnessed (as with gravity) or tested mathematically (like General Relativity) yet your God hypothesis has no possible test – and it has no possible test intentionally – to keep people believing the lies and dogma. Unproven scientific hypotheses are validated by the possibility of testing them. They have to fit in mathematical models. What exactly is the mathematical model for God? It’s a hypothesis that just doesn’t even make any sense with what know of the natural world. Just like the myths in the Bible, it goes against all the evidence we find.

      So I’m afraid those with religious beliefs are the ones guilty of circular reasoning – you see, if something exists, it can be shown to exist scientifically. If science cannot find a way to prove it, it simply doesn’t exist. Like your God.

      Case Closed.

      • itsnobody / Jul 21 2012 11:13 pm

        Scientific advancement has increased exponentially from the Enlightenment right up to this day and age. Far more has been discovered since the middle ages, and it correlates nicely with dropping religious views. And yes, I know correlation isn’t causation, but they do sit so nicely hand in hand.

        I’ve explained this a million times before, but apparently it didn’t penetrate that thick atheistic skull.

        Correlation isn’t causation dumb ass.

        The reason why there was less scientific advancements in the past is because the scientific method, Newtonian physics, and higher mathematics didn’t exist. You can point out basically any time period prior to these things and say that there were less scientific achievements then.

        What you’re basically saying is “there was less scientific achievements prior to science existing”, which is just obviously a joke argument.

        Of course there were less scientific advancements prior to science existing. The scientific method, Newtonian physics, and higher mathematics are the direct result of studying philosophy and astronomy for hundreds and hundreds of years, and religion was what directly caused people to study philosophy and astronomy.

        It would be very easy to use Biblical scriptures like “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) to support doing science.

        I’m still waiting for atheists to justify this ridiculous claim of “all of sudden out of nowhere science would just come into existence and we would be ahead without religion”…what a big joke

        It took the Greeks (who were extremely religious) nearly a thousand years of studying philosophy to come up with just a few mathematical and logic contributions (most Greek contributions came around 300 BC to 100 BC). The rest of what the Greeks did was just pseudoscience. The Greeks never even came close to Newtonian physics. Much of their philosophy was highly inaccurate and set back science. Science really came into existence when people abandoned the work of Greek philosophers.

        1. religious people are satisfied with not knowing more about the natural world because of their beliefs.
        2. religious people tend to have lower IQs.
        3. science contradicts religious beliefs too much to ignore the more you learn about the natural world.
        4. religious people have no need to study because they have their nicely wrapped up little answer already.

        1. This claim is not supported by history.

        Let’s see:
        – Newton: the one who really started science often called the #1 physicist, made phenomenal mathematical and scientific contributions, which without technology would be no where, Newton was much more religious than all the other scientists that lived during his era, not less

        – Euler: the one who really started modern mathematical notation, often called the #1 mathematician, because of Euler’s mathematical contributions technology really took off, Euler was more religious than all of the other mathematicians during his era, not less

        – Faraday: the father of electrical engineering, came up with the Field theory and many other scientific contributions, often called the #1 experimentalist, Faraday was more religious than all the other scientists during his era, not less

        2. This isn’t true, the IQ difference between the religious and non-religious within the same ethnic group is extremely small, so small that with the sampling error factored it would be statistically insignificant. Even without the sampling error once average IQ goes up to around 96 because of the standard deviation average IQ isn’t really that relevant anymore.

        Also the IQ in European countries was higher in the past when people were more religious. So if you believe that correlation is causation it would be easy to argue that more religious people are smarter.

        3. I don’t think so, science doesn’t really contradict any of my religious beliefs. I’m confident that in the future things like spirits and an afterlife will be easily experimentally proven, this is why I encourage experimentation, and probably the impersonal type of God (which is quite literally the light within all things) will also be scientifically proven. I don’t really know if a personal God will ever be scientifically proven, or if it’s even possible to prove experimentally.

        There is really nothing supernatural, there are only things that appear to be “supernatural” because the physics of how they exist is unknown.

        The closer science comes to the truth the faster atheism will be eliminated, the only form of atheism that will exist in the future is impersonalism and that’s it.

        People think fiction is strange, but the truth really is stranger than fiction.

        4. The main reason people were studying philosophy and astronomy was specifically because of religion, this is confirmed by the historical consensus.

        Secondly, you mistakenly believe that science has somehow gotten worse since this alleged atheist take over. Given how we’re in the year where the Higgs Boson has been discovered, what many are declaring is the most important scientific discovery of the past 100 years, it seems beyond laughable that you would try and argue that position – especially given how you’re doing so on the back of all the modern technology we enjoy thanks to the science conducted during this fictitious atheist take-over.

        Higgs Boson was proposed in 1964…the reason why it took so long to confirm is because after atheists took over in the late 1960s and early 1970s they de-valued experimentation.

        If Theists like myself had still been running science we would be much much further than this. If I and other Theists like myself ran science for just around 30 years we would make more progress than atheist animals would in a thousand years.

        Religion in science is now limited to holding science back. Look at how places like the Institute for Creation Research are doing nothing but trying to create a fictitious controversy about the Theory of Evolution, for the sake of maintaining their 2,000 year old beliefs in the creation myths. Yes, the religious do indeed present the cutting edge of scientific research that’s leading to more understanding and a better world! Also, you’ve got places like conservapedia.com which is the epitome of the religious worldview – facts are too liberal, we’ll make our own!

        You’ve still failed to give any explanation as to how arguing about Creationism vs. Evolution sets back science or technology. As usual you don’t give any valid reasons to support your delusions. If anything it pushes science forward because it causes evolutionists to come up with better more solid arguments.

        If no one criticizes then there would be very little room for any scientific growth. Science would just remain in the same position.

        The more people criticize and question things the better it is for the growth of science, even if a criticism or question seems stupid to us.

        Your God is quite against hypocrisy, as declared in his user’s manual, so why are you happily being a hypocrite? Claiming that science has gotten worse yet enjoying the benefits of it in your everyday life? You’re a hypocrite for using a computer, and the internet. You are a hypocrite if you ever use any modern medicine or visit a hospital. You are a hypocrite if you use GPS, or a TV, or any other device reliant of satellite communications. You’re a hypocrite for using the very things that the science you claim atheists are destroying has produced. At least be a man, stand by your beliefs, and never bother the online world again.

        How is it hypocrisy? The internet really isn’t a big leap in technology at all, it’s just networking really. Without Faraday and Maxwell there would be no internet, guaranteed.

        The type of technological advancements I and other Theists would’ve made would be much more significant than this.

        This is kind of the whole point. All the things you mentioned could be tested, at least the effects could be witnessed (as with gravity) or tested mathematically (like General Relativity) yet your God hypothesis has no possible test – and it has no possible test intentionally – to keep people believing the lies and dogma. Unproven scientific hypotheses are validated by the possibility of testing them. They have to fit in mathematical models. What exactly is the mathematical model for God? It’s a hypothesis that just doesn’t even make any sense with what know of the natural world. Just like the myths in the Bible, it goes against all the evidence we find.

        So I’m afraid those with religious beliefs are the ones guilty of circular reasoning – you see, if something exists, it can be shown to exist scientifically. If science cannot find a way to prove it, it simply doesn’t exist. Like your God.

        I don’t think you read what I wrote, I said go back to the time period prior to it being empirically testable and you will find no shred of scientific evidence.

        If no one found a way to test General Relativity then there would be no shred of scientific evidence for General Relativity. The same with everything else proven true today in modern science.

        Also you’re wrong about mathematical models. Experimental data is used to verify the accuracy of mathematical models, not the other way around like you and the other modern day fools (atheists) think. Reality behaves the way it does regardless of what atheists want to believe. This is problem with modern day science, it’s just about authority and incredulity, not about empirical observations and valid reasoning like how it use to be.

        As usual atheists understand very little to nothing about science.

        Absence of evidence by itself isn’t evidence of absence like the fools (atheists) think, a more clear concrete statement has been independently reasoned by me: absence of evidence for an empirically testable hypothesis that’s been tested is evidence of absence

        If a hypothesis is empirically untestable then this means regardless of if the hypothesis is true or false that there couldn’t be any scientific evidence present.

        Meaning if X empirically untestable hypothesis really is true, there would be no scientific evidence present.
        And if X empirically untestable hypothesis really is false, there would be no scientific evidence present.

        So an absence of evidence for an empirically untestable hypothesis tells us nothing about whether or not the hypothesis is true or false.

        If no one found a way to test the existence of atoms, black holes, quarks, gravity, General Relativity, or anything else then to this day there should be absolutely no scientific evidence for them.

        The failure of atheists to understand what empirical testability is causes them to think that “all things should start off with scientific evidence and if something really is true there would be scientific for it”. The correct reasoning would be “if an empirically testable hypothesis is true then there should be scientific evidence present”.

        The simple fact is if a hypothesis is empirically untestable then scientific evidence couldn’t be present even if the hypothesis was 100% true.

  30. John / May 29 2012 2:59 pm

    This guy is hilarious. I hope he is young enough to be around when religions views are a minority. Its not that far off. He sounds pretty smart but at times his articles seem to be written by an angry 12 year old. There’s nothing to be angry about dude society will be better off without religion! Embrace Science it’s way more beautiful than any religion out there.

    • itsnobody / Jul 3 2012 3:22 am

      Wow another argument ad hominem, I guess when atheists are defeated all they can do is throw personal attacks and refute no statement that I made

      Don’t worry though other atheists will really believe that personally attacking me is equivalent to refuting a statement that I made

      Why don’t atheists ever give reasons to support their assertions? Your argument right now is “I say that society would be better without religion, I say so”

  31. Anonymous / Apr 10 2012 1:11 pm

    religion is going to destroy the world

  32. Anonymous / Feb 20 2012 10:17 pm

    After reading what sugarcane said, theres really not much else to say than you present opinions as facts and anyone with half a brain can plainly see that religion is the enemy of scientific advancement in most cases. A perfect example of this is creationists trying to get that retarded theory taught as facts in the classroom.

    • itsnobody / Jul 3 2012 3:30 am

      Try reading my response to sugarcane, which easily destroyed his laughable weak arguments.

      What have I tried to state as a fact that is really an opinion? You can double-check all the historical facts, modern day historians don’t believe in the “Dark Ages” as portrayed in the delusional atheist media.

      As usual atheists always make statements, but never give any valid reasons to support their assertions.

      You can be a Creationist and do most science fine dumbass, this is shown throughout history. Creationists have done virtually nothing to hold back science.

      The ones holding back science today are the atheists who have de-valued contributions, given up on experimentation, and placed authority and incredulity above empirical observations and valid reasoning.

      • sugarcanegray / Jul 20 2012 7:28 pm

        you didn’t destroy anything other than your own view point. But I do find your macho chest-beating highly amusing.

        “Creationists have done virtually nothing to hold back science.”

        Um, hello? they’re refuting all manner of science – from geology and plate-tectonics to the theory of evolution. And they’re trying to get their “creation science” (which is the very antithesis of science) taught alongside science is the classroom.

        To be a creationist, you must ignore everything we know about the atomic world. You must ignore pretty much all cosmology, all astrophysics. You must ignore all evolutionary biology, genetics, archaeology… basically any science that’s come about in the past couple of hundred years needs to be completely ignored. This is why “creation scientists” offer no credible science – it’s impossible to understand any of the above and still be able to maintain the absurd belief that God made the Earth 6,000 years ago, and made man out of dirt and woman out of one of man’s ribs.

        I mean, come on, are you for real?

        Furthermore, experimentation, empirical observations and valid reasoning are what science should be based on, atheist or not. Funny how it’s the creationists not actually following that at all, and it’s the atheists that are out there, doing the experiments, making the discoveries, and furthering mankind. You cannot say the same for creationists. At least, not with a straight face.

      • itsnobody / Jul 21 2012 2:41 pm

        As usual your arguments are boring and weak, lacking substance.

        You haven’t refuted even one statement I made

        This article is about about a world without religion, why are you intentionally avoiding that for?

        I’m still waiting for any atheist to explain how, without religion, technology would be ahead, and how the scientific method, Newtonian physics, and higher mathematics would come into existence if initially there was no religion and people were atheists.

        Why won’t any atheist explain that? I guess on that point I’m the undeniable winner.

        Now onto your next weak points.

        Um, hello? they’re refuting all manner of science – from geology and plate-tectonics to the theory of evolution. And they’re trying to get their “creation science” (which is the very antithesis of science) taught alongside science is the classroom.

        Creationist criticisms have really done nothing to slow down the growth of science. It’s actually good that they criticize because the more people criticize and question things the closer we come to the truth and the faster science grows.

        So creationist criticizing real causes science to grow more.

        If something really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism, so criticism is really good for science.

        Furthermore, experimentation, empirical observations and valid reasoning are what science should be based on, atheist or not. Funny how it’s the creationists not actually following that at all, and it’s the atheists that are out there, doing the experiments, making the discoveries, and furthering mankind. You cannot say the same for creationists. At least, not with a straight face.

        Instead of being delusional why the fuck don’t you be honest for once in that low-life atheist life of yours?

        If this is true then explain to me why the fuck don’t atheists criticize string theorists nearly as much as they do Creationists?

        So tell me, why don’t you and all your other low-life atheist friends open up that low-life atheist mouth of yours and voice opposition to the string theory?

        I know why, it’s because atheists can give one fuck about science, what atheists care about is ridiculing religion. What science is about now is just using authority and incredulity, it’s not about using empirical observations, experimentation, or valid reasoning. This is shown by the string theory.

        The String Theory is taught in Universities with absolutely no opposition from the people who supposedly care so much about science. In reality atheists can care less about science.

        If empirical observation and valid reasoning are valued highly like how it use to be then string theorists wouldn’t be taken seriously. It’s only been ever since the lowest of the low (the atheists) took over that the string theory came in.

        What would’ve happened prior to the fools (atheists) taking over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s is that string theorists would be considered as mathematicians and no one would take them seriously unless they found ways to empirically test their model. This is how things use to be prior to the fools (atheists) taking over science and valuing authority and incredulity too highly.

        Back when Theists ran science they didn’t use to have empirically untestable hypotheses, lol, face the facts.

        Science is now just a big pseudo-scientific joke, all about authority and incredulity, that’s it.

        Atheists don’t make any discoveries except for the kind that anyone could make. Their discoveries just come by luck.

        It has always been your low-life atheist kind that has threatened science and set us back thousands of years. Always. It’s always been that way.

      • sugarcanegray / Jul 22 2012 7:38 pm

        “I’m still waiting for any atheist to explain how, without religion, technology would be ahead, and how the scientific method, Newtonian physics, and higher mathematics would come into existence if initially there was no religion and people were atheists.”

        Actually, given you’re the one making the claim, you need to actually try and prove your hypothesis. That, in itself is impossible – all we have is the history as it panned out, we cannot go back and see what would have happened if your Christian myths had not become the cultural norm for the time periods you’re talking about. But let’s go through your original assertions, one by one.

        Your assertions:
        China
        You mention China as an example, claiming they were non-religious, but this isn’t true at all – the Chinese have had all manner of religious and spiritual beliefs during their long history, going back to pre-historic times. They were only officially declared an atheist state in the late forties.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China#Ancient_and_Pre-historic
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China#Modern_history
        The Chinese also made significant contributions to science, philosophy and other disciplines and enjoyed a scientific revolution before those in Christian Europe:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China#China.27s_scientific_revolution

        Seeking truth:
        You assert: “Seeking truth, knowledge, and studying nature are all religious ideas that come directly from religion”
        Not at all. Pre-Socratic philosophers way back in 600BC were already looking for non-mythical explanations of the natural world. You could take it back further and further to when our very ancient ancestors first started using tools, harnessing fire and realising that the world around them was in some way rational. With no language, these people would have been atheistic by default.
        This assertion of yours is basically pure conjecture – humans have been inquisitive since we first climbed out of the trees and onto the plains. As you keep mentioning – Correlation is not Causation. Just because there were scientific advancements during the more religious eras in human history does not in any way mean they are the cause.

        “Faraday’s Field theory idea that magnetism and light were linked together came directly from his religion. If Faraday hadn’t been super-religious he would’ve never believed that magnetism and light were linked, an idea that during Faraday’s time was ridiculous, laughable, and crazy”

        This is true, but that does not mean someone else would not have discovered this. Many scientists, as history shows us, have made enormous breakthroughs without a religious drive. Einstein being a great example. You’ve cherry picked a couple of examples with Newton and Faraday and ignored all of the massive leaps made by non-believers all the way throughout history.

        “Since Universities aren’t necessary for basic survival and all have their origin in religion they most likely wouldn’t exist”

        This again is pure conjecture. One could argue that shoes aren’t necessary for basic survival, hominids certainly managed without them long enough. Schools could be argued as being unnecessary for basic survival. Yet both came about, and neither can be attributed to religion.

        “Since atheists would’ve most likely viewed ideas of “seeking truth” and “understanding the universe” as nothing more than philosophical nonsense and a waste of time, philosophy wouldn’t exist”

        Again, correlation does not equal causation. Philosophy has a long history, and it seems that your atheist Chinese were at it first.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_philosophy
        The point being here, it’s simply a natural thing for man to start doing once he’s got the basics of survival under control. This is the same with your assertions of universities – just because they came about at the time they did does not mean that religion was the cause. One could easily argue that the church is an obvious place for them to start as they had the resources and had to worry less about basic survival than the rest of civilisation.

        “Since philosophy would have been non-existent the scientific method which comes from philosophy would not exist, and all advancements made because of the scientific method wouldn’t exist”

        See above, this is a false premise.

        “Since astronomy is not necessary for basic survival and the Church was the main sponsor of astronomy, no one would’ve bothered to study astronomy, and since Newtonian physics and higher mathematics came directly from studying astronomy they also wouldn’t exist”

        Astronomy was being conducted long before the Church’s (I’m assuming you’re talking about the Christian church here) sponsoring of it.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_astronomy
        Astronomy also had many practical uses, such as navigation, calendars, agriculture etc so there’s no way you can assert that without your church this would not have happened. Again, the resources of the church would have allowed for more in depth inquisition, but they certainly did not start it.

        “Since Faraday’s religion wouldn’t have existed and science wouldn’t have existed, the Field theory would definitely not exist and most electrical technology would not exist”

        “Since higher mathematics wouldn’t exist, Maxwell’s equations could not exist and most modern day electrical technology would be nearly impossible to invent (since they rely upon Maxwell’s equations)”

        Again, you’re falsely attributing religion to be the cause of science, when it’s quite clear that it has it’s roots in human inquisitiveness, and driven by the need to survive. In that above statement, you could argue that your religion wouldn’t have existed if our earliest ancestors, obviously atheists (no language to communicate any myths), had not walked out into the plains. It’s a terrible way to argue, and belongs with the “my dad is harder than your dad” arguments in a school playground. But if we carry on with that line of logic, neither science nor religion would exist had it not been for these early atheists. Check mate.

        But, as I said, that’s an appalling argument to make.

        So what can we conclude from all this? Well, as I’ve shown above, you cannot assert that religion was the cause of science, and it’s pointless if you do, any how, because the fact remains that since fewer of us believe in fairy stories, science has accelerated enormously, and the last 100 years of breakthroughs are correlated nicely with a strong decline in theistic beliefs amongst scientists. Every scientific discovery owes something to what came before it, and you can take that right back to our earliest hominid ancestors and their rudimentary use of tools.

        Some of your other assertions:

        “Atheists don’t make any discoveries except for the kind that anyone could make. Their discoveries just come by luck.”

        Are you for real? Black holes were discovered by pure luck? the Higgs Boson? Quantum Theory? Relativity? That is perhaps the most mis-informed thing you’ve claimed so far. You have nothing to back that up at all.

        “Back when Theists ran science they didn’t use to have empirically untestable hypotheses, lol, face the facts”

        Theism is an untestable hypothesis.

        “So tell me, why don’t you and all your other low-life atheist friends open up that low-life atheist mouth of yours and voice opposition to the string theory?”

        String theory is a mathematical model – and it has validity as such because it explains the things we can test. Theoretical models have to be applicable to what is known, explain what is known, and function in the language of nature (mathematics).

        Assertions about God, such as creationism, explain NOTHING. They have to ignore all of the facts involved. If you love science so much as to proclaim its a product of your religious worldview, how could you possibly even begin to defend creationists?

        “Science is now just a big pseudo-scientific joke, all about authority and incredulity, that’s it.”
        Yes that big Large Hadron Collider is just pseudo science and nothing to do with empirically testing things….

        “What would’ve happened prior to the fools (atheists) taking over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s is that string theorists would be considered as mathematicians and no one would take them seriously unless they found ways to empirically test their model.”

        Actually it was empirical exploration into the sub atomic world that lead to the necessity for mathematicians to help explain what was being observed.

        The reason String Theory is being taken seriously is because it’s a great framework to work within. As I explained before, it has to work with what is known, so it would not be simply dismissed as you assert. You can read about what would be needed to falsify string theory here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Testability_and_experimental_predictions

        Falsification, as you should know, is a very important part of science. Something that religion lacks in it’s entirety.

        “Also the IQ in European countries was higher in the past when people were more religious.”
        Please cite your source for this. If you examine this graph, you can see that an increase in IQ correlates with greater disbelief in God: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LynnHarveyNyborg-CountryBelieveGod-Intelligence.svg
        As you say, correlation is not causation. But it’s certainly interesting to see that in countries with a higher IQ, fewer people believe in God.

        “Higgs Boson was proposed in 1964…the reason why it took so long to confirm is because after atheists took over in the late 1960s and early 1970s they de-valued experimentation.

        If Theists like myself had still been running science we would be much much further than this. If I and other Theists like myself ran science for just around 30 years we would make more progress than atheist animals would in a thousand years”

        The reason it took so long to find the Higgs has nothing to do with this imaginary de-valuing of experimentation. It was simply down to the massive effort involved in finding it. To assert that theists would have got the job done quicker is insanity. Need I remind you that currently your theistic scientists are busy propagating false information about the Theory of Evolution and ruining science education in the US and around the world:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education

        If theists ran science nowadays, we’d be viewing the world through the eyes of the likes of Ken Ham and his http://www.answersingenesis.org/ nonsense.

        Science has come to a point where you can no longer be at the cutting edge of science and still believe in God. The Bible has been completely refuted, creation explained, a detailed picture of the universe and it’s origins emerging – God has been entirely removed from the picture. This is why there are fewer and fewer theists in science. It completely refutes their beliefs. Their beliefs which are wrong, archaic and misguided.
        The simple fact is that science and understanding are increasing faster and faster as fewer people believe in religion. You proposed that this is quantity and not quality, which is nothing but your personal opinion on the subject. The number of papers released is a good indicator of scientific progress, as every paper progresses scientific knowledge, irrelevant of how ground-breaking it may be. This graph shows the increase over just the past 30 years:
        http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-J3eOvrhYhgI/T0Oa3XGnQ1I/AAAAAAAAAEo/6PLAjbDeOFE/s1600/graph.bmp
        Another good indicator would be how science gets applied through technological invention and discovery. this chart is a good overview:

        As you can see, by the time we hit the mid twentieth century, when this alleged atheistic take-over of science occurs, the rate at which technology grew increased dramatically. Your method of deciding, on your own opinion, that these advances are quantity and not quality shall be ignored as you’ve nothing to back it up. We’ll simply use the rate at which the application of science (technology) appeared. As you can see on the graph, it’s a no-brainer.

        So in summary, you can say that science owes everything to religion if you want, but it’s not true. Science owes everything to the inquisition of man kind. Religion served as a funding method for a certain period in history, and beyond that, it’s nothing but a distraction that is now setting out to hinder science at every corner.

      • itsnobody / Sep 13 2012 9:42 pm

        Thanks for demonstrating your low near subhuman level of intelligence (this is common with atheists). They are basically subhuman in terms of intelligence and have historically always been the main block to scientific progress.

        Hopefully I can encourage people to view atheists as subhuman beings rather than human beings so that science and technology can be ahead. They’ve already completely ruined science by turning it into a popularity contest about authority and incredulity alone.

        Actually, given you’re the one making the claim, you need to actually try and prove your hypothesis. That, in itself is impossible – all we have is the history as it panned out, we cannot go back and see what would have happened if your Christian myths had not become the cultural norm for the time periods you’re talking about. But let’s go through your original assertions, one by one.

        I’ve already proven my hypothesis dumbass. You on the other hand haven’t even formulated a hypothesis as to how Newtonian physics, the scientific method, and higher mathematics would appear without religion.

        Let’s see:
        – “Human beings need food, water, and shelter for survival not an advanced astronomical model or a logical form of empiricism” – Proven
        – “There’s no example in history of any initially non-religious civilization coming up with an advanced astronomical model” – Proven
        – “The historical consensus is that religion is what directly caused science to exist” – Proven

        So my statements have all been proven while you can’t even formulate a hypothesis out of your low-life atheist mouth. All you can do is mimic proven lies from the atheist media.

        I wonder when atheists will give up on living in denial and just face the facts.

        Your assertions:
        China
        You mention China as an example, claiming they were non-religious, but this isn’t true at all – the Chinese have had all manner of religious and spiritual beliefs during their long history, going back to pre-historic times. They were only officially declared an atheist state in the late forties.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China#Ancient_and_Pre-historic
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China#Modern_history
        The Chinese also made significant contributions to science, philosophy and other disciplines and enjoyed a scientific revolution before those in Christian Europe:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China#China.27s_scientific_revolution

        Are you pretending to be this stupid or are you really this stupid?

        The Chinese did have some religion which caused them to study astrology (astronomy) a little, but they were still far less religious than the Europeans, Arabs, and Indians.

        The Chinese didn’t even approach or come close to the scientific method or Newtonian physics, everything they did was engineering and possibly pseudoscience, nothing like science at all. If you believe what they did was science then we can say that basically any civilization did science.

        In terms of life expectancy throughout history the Chinese were not any more advanced than most civilizations. It’s just the atheist media that wants people to think that China was more advanced than they really were.

        China’s life expectancy in the year 1960 (relatively recently) was just 43 compared to Switzerland’s (one of the most religious European countries) life expectancy of 71.

        According to the delusional atheists since religion was holding back science so much China should’ve had a much higher life expectancy. Hypothesis falsified, lol.

        Not at all. Pre-Socratic philosophers way back in 600BC were already looking for non-mythical explanations of the natural world. You could take it back further and further to when our very ancient ancestors first started using tools, harnessing fire and realising that the world around them was in some way rational. With no language, these people would have been atheistic by default.
        This assertion of yours is basically pure conjecture – humans have been inquisitive since we first climbed out of the trees and onto the plains. As you keep mentioning – Correlation is not Causation. Just because there were scientific advancements during the more religious eras in human history does not in any way mean they are the cause.

        As usual your ignorance continues to show.

        Pre-Socratic “schools” were all like different “religions” dumbass. People who belonged to a different “school” were like people who belonged to a different religion.

        Those Pre-Socratic schools were nothing like science or even close to being science, they are just mere speculations, so it’s uncertain if they really have any historical importance.

        Historically basically all monotheists were naturalists. Why can’t atheists just realize that there is nothing supernatural or magical?

        Correlation isn’t causation but it’s already been historically proven that the reason that people were studying astronomy was because of the Church, not despite the Church. Why do you keep denying the historical consensus for?

        This is true, but that does not mean someone else would not have discovered this. Many scientists, as history shows us, have made enormous breakthroughs without a religious drive. Einstein being a great example. You’ve cherry picked a couple of examples with Newton and Faraday and ignored all of the massive leaps made by non-believers all the way throughout history.

        I didn’t say someone else would not have I said that science would’ve been held back. Even in modern times the idea that magnetism and light are linked seems ridiculous. So realistically science would’ve been held back by at least 100 years.

        Einstein got a lot of his ideas from Faraday. He was an impersonalist.

        Again, correlation does not equal causation. Philosophy has a long history, and it seems that your atheist Chinese were at it first.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_philosophy
        The point being here, it’s simply a natural thing for man to start doing once he’s got the basics of survival under control. This is the same with your assertions of universities – just because they came about at the time they did does not mean that religion was the cause. One could easily argue that the church is an obvious place for them to start as they had the resources and had to worry less about basic survival than the rest of civilisation.

        Chinese philosophy is not very deep or even really philosophy. Nothing like Greek or Indian philosophy.

        If you consider that to be philosophy then we can really say that any civilization had philosophy.

        Astronomy was being conducted long before the Church’s (I’m assuming you’re talking about the Christian church here) sponsoring of it.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_astronomy
        Astronomy also had many practical uses, such as navigation, calendars, agriculture etc so there’s no way you can assert that without your church this would not have happened. Again, the resources of the church would have allowed for more in depth inquisition, but they certainly did not start it.

        You’re just using a straw man. I never argued that astronomy didn’t exist prior to the Church you idiot.

        I argued that the Church was the main sponsor of astronomy and cause of people studying astronomy, which has already been proven.

        Practical uses for astronomy would never be enough to create Newtonian physics.

        Again, you’re falsely attributing religion to be the cause of science, when it’s quite clear that it has it’s roots in human inquisitiveness, and driven by the need to survive. In that above statement, you could argue that your religion wouldn’t have existed if our earliest ancestors, obviously atheists (no language to communicate any myths), had not walked out into the plains. It’s a terrible way to argue, and belongs with the “my dad is harder than your dad” arguments in a school playground. But if we carry on with that line of logic, neither science nor religion would exist had it not been for these early atheists. Check mate.

        But, as I said, that’s an appalling argument to make.

        This is not true.

        There is no example in history of human inquisitiveness alone causing science or coming close.

        The historical consensus is that religion was what caused science to exist, why do you keep denying history for? This ridiculous idea that “out of no where just out of human inquisitiveness people come up with advanced astronomical models and geometric proofs so complex that they puzzle the smartest people in the world”

        There’s no historical example of that happening dumbass. You’re so stupid it’s hilarious.

        Hey stupid why the fuck you keep lying for you dumb fuck? The cause of Newtonian physics was studying astronomy and the cause of people studying astronomy was the Church.

        Our earliest ancestors weren’t atheists they didn’t have enough knowledge to be atheist or agnostic or theist.

        So what can we conclude from all this? Well, as I’ve shown above, you cannot assert that religion was the cause of science, and it’s pointless if you do, any how, because the fact remains that since fewer of us believe in fairy stories, science has accelerated enormously, and the last 100 years of breakthroughs are correlated nicely with a strong decline in theistic beliefs amongst scientists. Every scientific discovery owes something to what came before it, and you can take that right back to our earliest hominid ancestors and their rudimentary use of tools.

        What we can conclude is that you’re an idiot stuck in denial.

        The scientific method and Newtonian physics come from studying philosophy and astronomy, and religion was the main sponsor/cause of both of these things.

        So we can conclude that religion is what directly caused science to exist.

        Why can’t you open up your low-life atheist mouth and give a fuckin explanation for once in your low-life atheist life?

        All I hear is “no religion didn’t cause science to exist because I say so and deny the historical consensus and just some how by some unknown means without religion the scientific method and Newtonian physics would come into existence, people just study philosophy and astronomy intensely for no reason, it doesn’t matter that there’s no example in history”

        Maybe the scientific method and Newtonian physics would come into existence by around the year 100,000 AD out of nothing more than human inquisitiveness alone, LOL.

        So stupid it’s laughable.

        Are you for real? Black holes were discovered by pure luck? the Higgs Boson? Quantum Theory? Relativity? That is perhaps the most mis-informed thing you’ve claimed so far. You have nothing to back that up at all.

        Higgs Boson definitely came by luck. The rest of the things you mentioned were not discovered by a bunch of subhuman atheists.

        Theism is an untestable hypothesis.

        Theism isn’t in science dumbass, nor is it considered as science.

        Back when Theists ran science, in science they didn’t have empirically untestable hypotheses.

        String theory is a mathematical model – and it has validity as such because it explains the things we can test. Theoretical models have to be applicable to what is known, explain what is known, and function in the language of nature (mathematics).

        The String Theory cannot be tested dumbass, it’s just mathematics.

        Assertions about God, such as creationism, explain NOTHING. They have to ignore all of the facts involved. If you love science so much as to proclaim its a product of your religious worldview, how could you possibly even begin to defend creationists?

        Hey stupid I never argued that creationism should be considered as science, so you’re just using a straw man from that low-life atheist mind of yours. Due to your subhuman intelligence you make lots of false assumptions.

        Secondly, the String Theory explains nothing.

        Yes that big Large Hadron Collider is just pseudo science and nothing to do with empirically testing things….
        lol, LHC?

        If Theists were running science the life expectancy would be around 1,000 by now.

        Since atheists have suppressed the growth of science so much, we’ll have to wait like around 500-1000 years now.

        Stupid atheists.

        Actually it was empirical exploration into the sub atomic world that lead to the necessity for mathematicians to help explain what was being observed.

        The reason String Theory is being taken seriously is because it’s a great framework to work within. As I explained before, it has to work with what is known, so it would not be simply dismissed as you assert. You can read about what would be needed to falsify string theory here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory#Testability_and_experimental_predictions

        I guess we can see why atheists are subhuman in terms of intelligence.

        I never claimed that exploring the atomic world didn’t create a necessity for mathematics dumbass, I claimed that prior to the fools taking over science empirically untestable mathematical models weren’t considered as science, just mathematics, so it’s just another straw man.

        The String Theory model is just a joke dumbass. It’s quite clear that your intelligence must be extremely low since you’re constantly linking to Wikipedia.

        Let me make this clear: The String Theory model is unfalsifiable

        Even Wikipedia authors admit that “However, these falsifications do not necessarily correspond to predictions which are unique to string theory, and finding a way to experimentally verify string theory via unique predictions remains a major challenge”

        Since atheists are subhuman in terms of intelligence I’ll explain slowly.

        If someone found an error in General Relativity or the Quantum Theory then String theorists could simply switch to another String Theory solution, and the String Theory model wouldn’t be falsified.

        The String Theory model can fit into basically any low-energy observation, so no low-energy observation can falsify it. It’s just like what happened with low-energy super-symmetry. The String Theory didn’t fit in, but String Theorists just switched to a different solution.

        Another reason that GR and QT can’t be considered as predictions that the String Theory makes:
        – Even if the String Theory model was 100% false you would still be able to adjust the String Theory model mathematics to match into QR and QT (and basically any low-energy observation)

        So adjusting the mathematics to match into QR and GR tells us absolutely nothing!

        The String Theory predicts nothing testable, and tells us nothing.

        Falsification, as you should know, is a very important part of science. Something that religion lacks in it’s entirety.

        The String Theory isn’t falsifiable dumbass as I’ve already proven. I don’t know why anyone as disgusting and foolish as an atheist would participate in science.

        I never argued that religious claims should be science dumbass so it’s just another straw man. If religious claims can match the criteria of being science then they should be.

        They had a whole fuckin court case about why Intelligent Design isn’t science, but there is no court case about the String Theory.

        All of a sudden the String Theory model doesn’t have to match any criteria for being considered as science, why? Because “some authority figures said it’s science”. Authority is ALL that matters now, not matching a criteria for being considered as science.

        If the String Theory model can be considered as science then why not this:
        “I have a hypothesis, there are some aliens in another unobservable dimension, I have the mathematical model, this hypothesis pre-assumes General Relativity and Quantum Theory (you can falsify it by falsifying GR or QT), it doesn’t matter if I cannot empirically detect the existence of these aliens in another unobservable dimension”

        If the String Theory is science then the above should also be science!

        We can say that anything can be considered as science, just say that it pre-assumes GR and QT according to String Theorists, LOL!

        In other words String Theorists are trying to re-define the definition of science so that what’s considered as science is “just what authority figures say is science”. So science now that the fools have taken over is nearly 100% all about authority, that’s it.

        The fact remains that The String Theory has no empirically unique testable predictions and cannot be falsified

        By definition the String Theory isn’t science, but definitions and matching a criteria doesn’t matter anymore now that atheists have taken over, it’s JUST authority!

        The reason it took so long to find the Higgs has nothing to do with this imaginary de-valuing of experimentation. It was simply down to the massive effort involved in finding it. To assert that theists would have got the job done quicker is insanity. Need I remind you that currently your theistic scientists are busy propagating false information about the Theory of Evolution and ruining science education in the US and around the world:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education

        What are you talking about? Prior to the fools running science experimentation was highly valued.

        Atheists actually discourage experimentation and tell people to focus on empirically untestable mathematical models (The String Theory) LOL!

        This is proven by history.

        Who cares about evolution vs. creationism? You can be a creationist and still believe basically everything in physics so it doesn’t really matter much.

        I wonder why the fuck atheists don’t oppose the String Theory model even though it matches the exact precise definition of pseudoscience.

        You still haven’t answered the fuckin question, all you’ve done is mimic some crap from Wikipedia.

        If theists ran science nowadays, we’d be viewing the world through the eyes of the likes of Ken Ham and his http://www.answersingenesis.org/ nonsense.

        Yeah, that explains why science and technology were growing so much faster prior to atheists taking over, LOL.

        Your hypothesis has been thoroughly falsified

        Science has come to a point where you can no longer be at the cutting edge of science and still believe in God. The Bible has been completely refuted, creation explained, a detailed picture of the universe and it’s origins emerging – God has been entirely removed from the picture. This is why there are fewer and fewer theists in science. It completely refutes their beliefs. Their beliefs which are wrong, archaic and misguided.
        The simple fact is that science and understanding are increasing faster and faster as fewer people believe in religion. You proposed that this is quantity and not quality, which is nothing but your personal opinion on the subject. The number of papers released is a good indicator of scientific progress, as every paper progresses scientific knowledge, irrelevant of how ground-breaking it may be. This graph shows the increase over just the past 30 years:
        http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-J3eOvrhYhgI/T0Oa3XGnQ1I/AAAAAAAAAEo/6PLAjbDeOFE/s1600/graph.bmp
        Another good indicator would be how science gets applied through technological invention and discovery. this chart is a good overview:
        http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2012/3/22/868714-13324746734794471-Robert-Hallberg_origin.jpg

        Yeah, after atheists took over science:
        – Empirically untestable hypotheses can be considered as science now because of authority alone
        – The life expectancy started growing slower
        – We stopped finding cures
        – Technology started growing slower
        – What matters is authority and incredulity alone

        LOL! Atheists can’t do anything right.

        As for your laughable graph once again that disgusting low-life atheist skull of yours doesn’t understand that correlation isn’t causation. Without Newton and Faraday technology would be no where.

        The worse thing that happened to science was setting atheist animals to run loose and ruin everything. They ruin everything they touch and are basically subhumans to society.

        Hopefully I can encourage people to view atheists as subhuman beings.

        As you can see, by the time we hit the mid twentieth century, when this alleged atheistic take-over of science occurs, the rate at which technology grew increased dramatically. Your method of deciding, on your own opinion, that these advances are quantity and not quality shall be ignored as you’ve nothing to back it up. We’ll simply use the rate at which the application of science (technology) appeared. As you can see on the graph, it’s a no-brainer.

        Yes that’s what will happen up until things like an afterlife and spirits are scientifically proven, then the only form of atheism leftover will be impersonalism. People will no longer be arguing about the existence of God, just whether God is personal or impersonal.

        Since atheists have suppressed the growth of science, we’ll probably have to wait around 500-1000 years now.

        So in summary, you can say that science owes everything to religion if you want, but it’s not true. Science owes everything to the inquisition of man kind. Religion served as a funding method for a certain period in history, and beyond that, it’s nothing but a distraction that is now setting out to hinder science at every corner.

        Repeatedly intentionally making the same false statements doesn’t mean anything dumbass.

        You can pretend in your delusional fantasy world that “The reason people were studying astronomy was because of all of a sudden after gaining food, water, and shelter out of human inquisitiveness people just started intensely studying astronomy” or you can look at history.

        I’ve already provided countless historical sources and all you did with that low-life atheist mind of yours was ignore them just like a typical delusional.

        Science came directly from religion dumbass, because religion was what directly caused people to study philosophy and astronomy, not mere human inquisitiveness alone.

        Why the fuck won’t you ever come up with explanations or provide evidence to support your lies?

        Just continue living in a fantasy world “I saw it on The Simpsons and Family Guy and it must be true” like a stupid idiotic low-life.

        It was always your atheist kind that’s suppressed the growth of science, always.

  33. Anonymous / Feb 7 2012 4:20 am

    “After atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s”

    I’ve read this sentence now in several of your articles and I wonder on what data this claim is based on.

    • itsnobody / Jul 3 2012 4:05 am

      It’s from polls taken in the late 1960s and early 1970s…they show a significant rise in the atheist scientist population around that time period

      A big jump (and block) came around the 1920s and then around the late 1960s and early 1970s.

      The more atheist scientists, the less scientifically sound “science” becomes. Atheist scientists are only concerned with authority and incredulity and can care less about the scientific method, empirical observations, and valid reasoning.

  34. Sugarcane / Jan 24 2012 11:21 am

    There’s so much wrong with this article it’s really difficult to know where to begin. I guess firstly, your idea about the Dark Ages is quite wrong – very few discoveries came out of that era. In fact, science didn’t really start taking off til well after the dark ages. The few advancements that came out of the dark ages were primarily down to Muslim knowledge (which was the most superior at the time) spreading from Spain throughout Europe.

    I’ll tackle a few more points you’ve made.

    “Science, astronomy, and philosophy are not necessary for basic survival”
    Basic survival was overcome thanks to science. Man’s innate inquisitive nature lead to these, plus necessity and a want for a better life.

    “Faraday’s Field theory idea that magnetism and light were linked together came directly from his religion. If Faraday hadn’t been super-religious he would’ve never believed that magnetism and light were linked, an idea that during Faraday’s time was ridiculous, laughable, and crazy.”
    Faraday’s work came from his scientific inquiry, not his religious beliefs. His religious beliefs had nothing to do with his discoveries – the discoveries didn’t come through prayer or reading scripture, but through observation and experimentation, something religion does not do.

    “Seeking truth, knowledge, and studying nature are all religious ideas that come directly from religion”
    Man has been “seeking” truth since the our distant ancestors first started thinking, tens of thousands of years before Yahweh was even dreamed up. Tools would be man’s first exploration into the natural world, again, preceding God’s invention by nearly 100,000 years.

    “Since Universities aren’t necessary for basic survival…
    Since philosophy would have been non-existent…
    Since astronomy is not necessary for basic survival…
    Since Faraday’s religion wouldn’t have existed and…
    Since higher mathematics wouldn’t exist…”
    All highly incorrect. The greeks were doing complex mathematics well before Jesus or Christianity existed, as well as philosophy, and astronomy, not to mention long discourse about morals. Also, this idea you have that if something isn’t part of “basic survival” it would not have come about is utterly flawed. Necessity, as they say, is the mother of invention. This is what has driven discovery.

    “Throughout history atheism and non-religion has always been the main obstacle and block to human progress.”

    Far from it. The heliocentric universe idea was thoroughly shunned by the church. Evolution is still questioned to this day – all because of religious dogma. Look into the obstacles Galileo had to overcome, thanks to religion.

    “After atheists took over science in the late 1960s and early 1970s we immediately stopped finding cures, the life expectancy started growing slower, technology started growing slower, and physics became stuck with empirically untestable hypotheses.”

    This point you make here is absolute nonsense. Scientific progress has been accelerating faster and faster over the past one hundred and fifty years, curing more diseases with every year that passes, breaking new ground, making new discoveries. Either you don’t follow science at all, or you are reading from books published prior to 1970 and ignoring anything more recent. Major leaps over the past three decades include:

    • The Human Genome sequenced
    • MRI scanning
    • Most cancers now curable
    • Measles, mumps, and rubella cured
    • The age of the universe determined
    • The shape of the universe determined
    • The size of the universe determined
    • The weight of the universe confirmed
    • The existence of anti matter confirmed
    • Countless sub-atomic discoveries
    • Quantum computing, nano robots
    • Countless new materials created
    • AIDS and HIV treatable
    • Huge advances in Neurology and understanding of the human brain
    • Computer climate models now possible and effective
    • Black holes theorised and discovered.
    • The Big Bang theory confirmed
    • The Theory of Relativity confirmed
    • First Exoplanets discovered
    • The number of stars and galaxies in the universe approximated
    • Probes on Mars
    • Probe heading towards Jupiter
    • The international space station
    • The LHC @ Cern and it’s continuing discoveries of new particles
    • String Theory and M-Theory (whilst these are mathematical models at this point, scientists are working towards testing these models)
    • Evolution witnessed
    • The internet revolutionises information distribution
    • An unfathomable amount of consumer techological progress
    • Huge advances in sustainable energy
    • Nuclear Fusion @ ITER
    • Abiogenesis models theorised, cell membranes created in lab
    • first artificial DNA sequences used to create life
    • Genetically modified plants
    • Synthetic Life
    • Cloning
    • Stem Cells
    • First discoveries of the Multiverse…

    … the list is practically endless, I could spend weeks listing everything that’s happened, post 1970, but I simply don’t have the time.

    Life expectancy continues to rise, not stagnate. Computers doubling in power every couple of years… Unfortunately your hypothesis does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny whatsoever.

    Advancement is accelerating, thanks to fewer people thinking “God” is the answer. Yet religious people STILL try and hold it back. Take a look at the constant attack on science education from religion, for a start. Then take a look at the most technologically advanced nations in the world, and you’ll see how they’re getting less and less religious, and more advanced, by the day.

    • itsnobody / Mar 14 2012 2:36 am

      Wow what a joke, sorry for your delusions and extraordinarily weak arguments.

      It’s time for me destroy all your arguments.

      There’s so much wrong with this article it’s really difficult to know where to begin. I guess firstly, your idea about the Dark Ages is quite wrong – very few discoveries came out of that era. In fact, science didn’t really start taking off til well after the dark ages. The few advancements that came out of the dark ages were primarily down to Muslim knowledge (which was the most superior at the time) spreading from Spain throughout Europe.

      – Except that modern historians don’t believe in the Dark Ages as portrayed in the low-life atheist media (even when they use the term Dark Ages).
      – Except that Muslim knowledge is was the direct result of RELIGION (not non-religion), this article is about a society without religion shithead

      Few advancements came out from the Dark Ages? Sorry for your delusions:
      – Universities were born
      – Advancements in architecture
      – Agricultural advancements
      – Tremendous philosophical leaps

      It’s true that more advancements were made after the “Dark Ages” but this is simply because higher mathematics, physics, and the scientific method hadn’t existed in Europe during the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages is what directly lead up to physics, higher mathematics and the scientific method being developed in Europe.

      It’s easy to understand:
      – The scientific method comes from studying philosophy
      – Newtonian physics and higher mathematics comes from studying astronomy

      Without studying philosophy and astronomy there’s virtually no chance that the scientific method or Newtonian physics could come into existence.

      For some reason delusional atheists believe that the scientific method and Newtonian physics can just form overnight from mere human inquisitiveness.

      People who believe that overnight mere human inquisitiveness can cause Newtonian physics or the scientific method to form obviously don’t understand what the scientific method or the Newtonian physics is.

      Some atheists I’ve talked to are so stupid that they told me that all Newton did was say that the gravity exists (LOL), atheists are truthfully the dumbest form of life.

      Basic survival was overcome thanks to science. Man’s innate inquisitive nature lead to these, plus necessity and a want for a better life.

      – What are you talking about? You only need food, water, and shelter for survival. History shows us that things happen by a NEED not simply man’s inquisitive nature.

      You don’t need the scientific method or higher mathematics for survival.

      The Chinese could have survived fine believing that the earth was flat and square, not having a scientific method, physics, or higher mathematics.

      So you’re wrong on all points.

      Faraday’s work came from his scientific inquiry, not his religious beliefs. His religious beliefs had nothing to do with his discoveries – the discoveries didn’t come through prayer or reading scripture, but through observation and experimentation, something religion does not do.

      It’s quite obvious that you understand nothing about science or history.

      Historians have all concluded that Faraday’s belief that all things were unified came directly from his religion, not from his experiments. Faraday had performed many experiments which contradicted his idea that magnetism, gravity, and light were linked together, yet he still firmly believed that they were linked because of his religion.

      Without Faraday’s crazy belief that magnetism and light were linked technology would’ve been held back by at least 100 years.

      Speculations? I have none. I am resting on certainties. I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day” – Michael Faraday

      Man has been “seeking” truth since the our distant ancestors first started thinking, tens of thousands of years before Yahweh was even dreamed up. Tools would be man’s first exploration into the natural world, again, preceding God’s invention by nearly 100,000 years.

      – Why do you keep mentioning Yahweh? I’m talking all religion general stupid
      – Seeking truth was (and still is) a religious idea, and history shows us that things happen by a NEED not by mere human inquisitiveness

      All highly incorrect. The greeks were doing complex mathematics well before Jesus or Christianity existed, as well as philosophy, and astronomy, not to mention long discourse about morals. Also, this idea you have that if something isn’t part of “basic survival” it would not have come about is utterly flawed. Necessity, as they say, is the mother of invention. This is what has driven discovery.

      – Which part was highly incorrect?
      – Except that the Greeks were highly religious, due to your delusions you think that I am talking about a world without Christianity in particular rather than a world without religion in general.
      – Necessity is the mother of invention, and religion is what caused people to study astronomy, who needs an advanced astronomical model for survival?
      – So go ahead and explain how, without religion people would’ve all of a sudden out of human inquisitiveness spent all day trying to figure out advanced astronomical models and higher mathematics
      – I know lots of atheists, so I know that they would’ve viewed all the things that lead up to development of the scientific method and physics as nothing more than “philosophical nonsense and a waste of time”

      This point you make here is absolute nonsense. Scientific progress has been accelerating faster and faster over the past one hundred and fifty years, curing more diseases with every year that passes, breaking new ground, making new discoveries. Either you don’t follow science at all, or you are reading from books published prior to 1970 and ignoring anything more recent. Major leaps over the past three decades include:

      • The Human Genome sequenced
      • MRI scanning
      • Most cancers now curable
      • Measles, mumps, and rubella cured
      • The age of the universe determined
      • The shape of the universe determined
      • The size of the universe determined
      • The weight of the universe confirmed
      • The existence of anti matter confirmed
      • Countless sub-atomic discoveries
      • Quantum computing, nano robots
      • Countless new materials created
      • AIDS and HIV treatable
      • Huge advances in Neurology and understanding of the human brain
      • Computer climate models now possible and effective
      • Black holes theorised and discovered.
      • The Big Bang theory confirmed
      • The Theory of Relativity confirmed
      • First Exoplanets discovered
      • The number of stars and galaxies in the universe approximated
      • Probes on Mars
      • Probe heading towards Jupiter
      • The international space station
      • The LHC @ Cern and it’s continuing discoveries of new particles
      • String Theory and M-Theory (whilst these are mathematical models at this point, scientists are working towards testing these models)
      • Evolution witnessed
      • The internet revolutionises information distribution
      • An unfathomable amount of consumer techological progress
      • Huge advances in sustainable energy
      • Nuclear Fusion @ ITER
      • Abiogenesis models theorised, cell membranes created in lab
      • first artificial DNA sequences used to create life
      • Genetically modified plants
      • Synthetic Life
      • Cloning
      • Stem Cells
      • First discoveries of the Multiverse…

      … the list is practically endless, I could spend weeks listing everything that’s happened, post 1970, but I simply don’t have the time.

      Life expectancy continues to rise, not stagnate. Computers doubling in power every couple of years… Unfortunately your hypothesis does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny whatsoever.

      Wow what a joke of an argument.

      Quantity and quality are not the same shithead, you can list thousands of insignificant advancements made since the late 1960s and early 1970s when atheists ruined science.

      The simple fact is Maxwell’s equations alone (just one thing) is greater than EVERY SINGLE THING on your list.

      The life expectancy in 1961 was 70, in 2011 the life expectancy is 78. So without all medical advancements made after 1961 the life expectancy would be 70.

      Advancement is accelerating, thanks to fewer people thinking “God” is the answer. Yet religious people STILL try and hold it back. Take a look at the constant attack on science education from religion, for a start. Then take a look at the most technologically advanced nations in the world, and you’ll see how they’re getting less and less religious, and more advanced, by the day.

      lol, what attacks?

      Correlation is not causation shithead, those technologically advanced nations were technologically advanced long before they were less religious. Religious European countries had been more technologically advanced than most countries for hundreds of years.

      Switzerland is a very religious country and Switzerland has lots of advanced weapons and a very high life expectancy (higher than Sweden and Denmark). The US has the best national defense in the world and it’s also very religious.

      The cause of most modern day electrical technology is Maxwell’s equations, which without Faraday’s religion would’ve been formulated most likely much much later in the course of the history.

      In modern times the main block on scientific advancement is the atheists who run science placing authority and incredulity above all, removing empirical testability as a scientific requirement, and destroying originality and intuition.

      • Anonymous / Mar 25 2012 6:54 pm

        I done think God is like the greatest and stuff. God be smart and science for dumb dumbs

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: