[Curosinono]

What do you mean?

There is a clear phase in our history which was long and no progress was made "Dark age". In that time religion already existed right?

So what was the speciality of christianity apparently bootstrapping everything else? You could only be religious if you had resources to do so. Could have been filled with something else instead.

Napoleon wrote somewere (i read that in a museum) that education is ncessary to fight religion.

We do not know if it hold us back or not, but it also didn't push us through phases like the dark age.

But religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible. Like paying 5 silver for raping a woman and having to take her as abride.

[sourcinnamon]

The allegedly lack of progress during the "Dark ages" is a narrative constructed later on, during the Illustration/Enlightenment era. Just to mention an example, alchemical research was verly prolific in that time, and it was the basis for what we now call chemistry and pharmacology.

[joemazerino]

And agricultural practices which enabled the future flourishing of Europe.

[aerodexis]

> religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible.

thank God the world has moved past this kind of 2010s New Atheism.

[pstuart]

Oh, the irony.

Yes, it does feed a spiritual need but is's absolutely about control. The current US administration is guided by Project 2025 which wants God to govern (so to speak).

I spend a lot of time thinking about religion, and most of that is anger/fear over the religious zealots who want to control everybody else.

[aerodexis]

There is a control dimension, because humans require some degree of limitations in order to thrive. Ultra-individualism breaks down entirely the moment you think about actual society (like actually considering children) rather than utopian fantasies about how some people want society to work.

That being said, the way anti-religion ppl talk about "control" is so profoundly sloppy and underdefined that it's entirely meaningless. If I try to stop someone from shooting me, am I trying to control them? If I change the the youtube algorithm, did I control them? If I spread a bunch of malaria-resistent mosquitos around, did I control them?

Christianity is evangelical because it believes what it's doing is good and should be shared. If you can only conceptualize this as "control", then I feel sorry that you've internalized the worst and most misery-inducing parts of the last 100 years of western philosophy.

This evangelical quality is a feature of many world religions, including the ones that don't normally get called religion, like the New Atheism movement.

[pstuart]

> the New Atheism movement

Not a religion, not a faith. It's simply well-publicized challenging of religion.

I think that you only see it as such because of how you see the world, but Dawkins, Harris, et al are not my leaders and I strongly disagree with several of their positions.

[aerodexis]

If you abstract away the specific claims made by new New Atheists (either the leaders or the footsoldiers) and analyze it from a purely sociological point of view - it behaves identically to any other religion or faith - especially when you consider that strong, top-down leadership is not a universal property of religion.

Also relevant here is that the concept of "religion" itself was introduced very recently in the 16th and 17th centuries, and seems to have been created so that specific groups of people could consider their own activities as being non-religious. See Before Religion by Nongbri.

[pstuart]

I had a lovely conversation with Claude where I tried to input the relevant conversation contexts for its analysis: https://claude.ai/share/49c55947-219c-4381-99fe-8aebbec3592c

While it's nice to be vindicated, I'd much rather we live in the same universe and this is why I try to engage. I saw dang's warning about this is a flamebait topic, but I need to stress a couple points:

  * I'm in no way trying to attack *anyones* spiritual beliefs
  * I'm not trying to denigrate their religion of choice
  * I *am* trying to point out the nature of their religion in regards to outsiders

The best analogy I can offer up here is drugs. I believe in bodily autonomy, which means that people should be able to do the drugs they choose to do. A lot of drugs can be done with minimal danger (even pure heroin when properly administered is less harmful to the body than alcohol).

That said, drug abuse can happen and it can spread in society in a very unhealthy way. My point analogy is: let people do what they want but let's not have a public health crisis with people overdosing in the streets.

It's a crude analogy, but it's the best I've got for the moment.

I think you see my comments as an attack and that I am "the enemy", but I'm not. I just want to be able to live my life the way I choose to, rather than by somebody claiming to speak for God.

[Curosinono]

Accepting, that we do just not believe in something someone else said, is not a different kind of religion. It is acceptance and growth and mental freedom

[pstuart]

> analyze it from a purely sociological point of view - it behaves identically to any other religion or faith

What is the analysis? What is the behavior? I'm genuinely curious. Help me see what I am apparently blind to seeing.

[_DeadFred_]

Does western music lack value because it was forced to settle on 440 Hz? Is punk un-redeemable because there is a nazi punk offshoot?

[pstuart]

There's a lot tangled up in there but I fail to see the point you are trying to make.

[prerok]

Historians are nowadays equivocal in saying that the "dark ages" is really a misnomer. It's the middle ages and it was more marred (in Europe) by several powers warring with each other than by any religious "darkening".

[dismalaf]

> There is a clear phase in our history which was long and no progress was made "Dark age".

The Dark Ages are kind of a myth. The Eastern Roman Empire (aka. Byzantine Empire) existed through the whole time period up to the beginning of the Renaissance. And while some parts of Western Europe were "dark" (mainly due to Viking and Islamic invasions), Western Europe wasn't and isn't the whole world.

[Svip]

The Dark Ages are dark, because they lack surviving written record; ironically due to advancements in writing technology, where people would begin writing on hides instead of papyrus or chisel stone; this made writing a lot faster, but also had a far shorter life span, particularly because people could wipe the hide clean (after the text was of no use), and then rewrite on it.

Conversely, a lot of the writings of the Antiquity are preserved, in large part due to Middle Eastern scholars. The Dark Ages aren't a myth, but rather what is meant by "dark" is misunderstood.

[Amezarak]

No, the whole thing is some sort of revisonist history gambit. The Dark Ages were "dark" because they represented a massive and lasting decline in social organization, trade, and yes, literacy. These are all extremely well documented. You can see it in basically any field you want -

[constantius]

Your understanding of history, here and downthread, is fascinatingly selective, and, as far as the historical consensus goes, very mistaken.

The Dark Ages refer specifically to Western/Central Europe, so without Byzantium. Byzantium and the Islamic kingdoms were very much thriving, intellectually and culturally, in that period.

Equally, "parts of Europe" weren't dark because of "Vikings and Muslims": the reasons were multiple, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to infighting, to poverty, and to religion.

From your comments elsewhere however I understand you simply have a very caricatural view of Muslims and use them as a historical scapegoat.

[dismalaf]

Sorry. Should have also added various Germanic tribes to the list of invaders as well.

> Equally, "parts of Europe" weren't dark because of "Vikings and Muslims": the reasons were multiple, from the fall of the Western Roman Empire, to infighting, to poverty, and to religion.

The fall of the western Roman Empire was literally because of invaders (the Goths and Vandals I forgot to initially mention), the infighting was to fill the void and the poverty also related to that as well as constant Viking raids. Literally half the west (Spain) conquered by Muslims for 700 years. Religion not a factor, the Eastern Roman empire was also Christian and stayed rich until it also fell to invaders.

> From your comments elsewhere however I understand you simply have a very caricatural view of Muslims and use them as a historical scapegoat.

Did they not invade the area that is today Spain and France during the "dark" ages? Did they not invade the Byzantine empire (now referring to the other thread)? This is literal history.

[aerodexis]

The invention of the "dark ages" is really interesting, and afaik it was created in order to create a "this time it's different" sense of ahistoricity. Very similar to the "year zero" idea in communism, and even the current AI hype cycle.

[wavemode]

> But religion is primarily for control of the people. Thats why you see a lot of rules in the bible. Like paying 5 silver for raping a woman and having to take her as abride.

well, now you're just revealing that you don't understand the religion of Christianity at all

[Curosinono]

I got indoctrinated by the christian church as a very young age.

This is control.

I only started to question this when I was 14 and i do remember that I had the empiphany that its okay that i might go to a hell. Then i questioned what hell would even be.

Christianity literaly controlled me through this garbage.

And its also the fault of Christian priests that apparently 'i don't understand the religion of christianity'.

Ah yes the 5 silver is a old testament thing, plenty of weird stuff in the new testament as well.

And lets not ignore the basic fact, that for Christians woman are second class citizen.

I just stoped accepting to be that ignorant and I prefer to see woman as equal, also homosexual people and co. The bishop of passau, btw. is not. He doesn't like the 'different'.

[thefz]

Christians seek to control even non christians