Arabian's science

Napsáno Khal.eesi, 31.12.2015 at 05:38

( Ottoman rule was the worst thing that ever happened for the Islamic world. Literally destroyed it. Banned the printing press, banned science and free thinking and doomed countries from three different continents to intellectual and technological stagnation for hundreds of years. (still visible today, North Africa, Balkans, Middle East)

Napsáno Khal.eesi, 31.12.2015 at 05:38

p.s. Laochra that autoplay..what the fuck

I completely agree with you

Indeed Ottomans also stopped the usual trading between Europe and India. While the other Arabian empires bought that knowledge to Europe, Ottomans keep it for themselves.

Napsáno clovis1122, 30.12.2015 at 06:30

I know, but there is a fundamental difference between creating knowledge and just passing it from India to Europe. IMO, any kingdom that would'be in the middle would do it.

Also I wouldn't say that Europe was less developed... let's just say that the Arabians had access to another source of knowledge (India).

If there was another Arabian world or just if Arabian countries didn't exist (leading Europe to be closer to India) the result in that sense (passing knowledge) would'be the same.

You never know that. Pure speculation so you can't confirm anything.
If Europe had been the one in the middle, the church would have inmediately killed anyone who believed in such heresy and therefor stopped all effords to improve scientific knowledge.
Europe was less developed. That's a fact. Doesn't matter who had acces to whatever... we were less developed in many many senses, specially scientifically speaking. But that's something you're gonna have to look up yourself. Too long to write, not enough time.

Napsáno clovis1122, 30.12.2015 at 06:30

Wow, last time I read they forced the population into ISLAM or either they would pay tribute... But yeah, they contributed a lot to Spanish I must say (and as I pointed out above).

And everyone knows that the spanish kingdom that came houndreds of years later, threatened the islamic and jew population to convert to christianity or else they would be vanished from spain, without being able to take any of their possessions. As time showed, this was a disastrous decision since jews and muslims were the ones that had the knowledge, money, lands and technologies. It was a huge step back for spain as a whole.

So... comparing both... I'd say we were far worse. Specially considering how much they had contributed to the spanish kingdoms while they were permited to live amongst them.

Napsáno clovis1122, 30.12.2015 at 06:30

We would have other type of number and the world would go on without any minor change; or another kingdom would pass that knowledge to us. As I said, they just passed it from India to Europe...

It was them who brought us the number 0, we don't know what would have happened if they weren't there! You can't juggle with history and dreams. Imagine if there was some other kingdom that hated us and didn't tolarete anything else! Stop imagining different worlds.
We weren't capable enough to develop a new numeric system since the romans, do you really believe we would have done that by ourselves, alone, during those ages??? No way.

Napsáno clovis1122, 30.12.2015 at 06:30

Agree. Though if you suddenly get to remove one person or one kingdom from the history, it is very likely that another person or another kingdom will take it's place.

Again, stop imagining other worlds, it's useless in an argument. Stick to history, forget your day dreams.

Napsáno RaulPB, 31.12.2015 at 10:41

You never know that. Pure speculation so you can't confirm anything.
If Europe had been the one in the middle, the church would have inmediately killed anyone who believed in such heresy and therefor stopped all effords to improve scientific knowledge.
Europe was less developed. That's a fact. Doesn't matter who had acces to whatever... we were less developed in many many senses, specially scientifically speaking. But that's something you're gonna have to look up yourself. Too long to write, not enough time.

Actually the conflict thesis (which pits the church against science) only emerged in the 19th century and has since been proven false. With a few exceptions (the Galileo issue) the Catholic Church was a patron of the sciences. Also the first medieval universities (Uni of Paris, Oxford & Cambridge) evolved out of cathedral and monastic schools. The same is true of the first hospitals. Dozens of important scientists/thinkers were clergymen or doubled as theologians. Copernicus, William of Ockam, Mendel, Roger Bacon for example.

The dark ages myth (they weren't really all that dark) has been proven false time and again. Slavery which was extremely common during the Roman Era went out of style (serfs had many more freedoms). New systems of charity developed distributing food and money to those in need. Wars were just as brutal but on a much smaller scale than previously. There was even greater communication between scholars. But don't take my word for it just do the research (TV shows and movies don't count).

Napsáno Acquiesce, 31.12.2015 at 12:32

Napsáno RaulPB, 31.12.2015 at 10:41

You never know that. Pure speculation so you can't confirm anything.
If Europe had been the one in the middle, the church would have inmediately killed anyone who believed in such heresy and therefor stopped all effords to improve scientific knowledge.
Europe was less developed. That's a fact. Doesn't matter who had acces to whatever... we were less developed in many many senses, specially scientifically speaking. But that's something you're gonna have to look up yourself. Too long to write, not enough time.

Actually the conflict thesis (which pits the church against science) only emerged in the 19th century and has since been proven false. With a few exceptions (the Galileo issue)

it's also important to remember that Galileo was employed by, and lived in the Vatican

That's a contridiction, like saying there are Jewish Arabs somewhere on earth.

Napsáno Acquiesce, 31.12.2015 at 12:32

Napsáno RaulPB, 31.12.2015 at 10:41

You never know that. Pure speculation so you can't confirm anything.
If Europe had been the one in the middle, the church would have inmediately killed anyone who believed in such heresy and therefor stopped all effords to improve scientific knowledge.
Europe was less developed. That's a fact. Doesn't matter who had acces to whatever... we were less developed in many many senses, specially scientifically speaking. But that's something you're gonna have to look up yourself. Too long to write, not enough time.

Actually the conflict thesis (which pits the church against science) only emerged in the 19th century and has since been proven false. With a few exceptions (the Galileo issue) the Catholic Church was a patron of the sciences. Also the first medieval universities (Uni of Paris, Oxford & Cambridge) evolved out of cathedral and monastic schools. The same is true of the first hospitals. Dozens of important scientists/thinkers were clergymen or doubled as theologians. Copernicus, William of Ockam, Mendel, Roger Bacon for example.

The dark ages myth (they weren't really all that dark) has been proven false time and again. Slavery which was extremely common during the Roman Era went out of style (serfs had many more freedoms). New systems of charity developed distributing food and money to those in need. Wars were just as brutal but on a much smaller scale than previously. There was even greater communication between scholars. But don't take my word for it just do the research (TV shows and movies don't count).

βλα (bla in greek) aqui damn fool gtfo with your shitty revisionist propaganda

i started writing text, but im bored to do this today, so another time maybe.. That being said the conflict thesis argument which recent "enlightened" scholar nerds love to use is actually shit in my opinion. They blame two guys for oversimplifying the relationship between church and science, when in fact they are doing exactly the same. Also the first medieval universities were sponsored and patroned by the church because the church was in control of education. Dozens of importand thinkers/scientists were clergymen because if you werent a noble or richman offspring, this was your only chance for an education and a prosperous life. Going against the faith in any way was not even an option, since the punishment for heretisism was pretty tough and the selection process quite "vague". Lets just agree that it was pretty dangerous to be a free thinker at the time?

Also, the dark ages being a myth is actually a myth. Dark ages were very much real and theres a ton of information on this one, frankly i dont even know where to start. Another day we will have a more in depth discussion on this one, i would like to hear your opinion. Happy new year

Napsáno Khal.eesi, 01.01.2016 at 14:30

Napsáno Acquiesce, 31.12.2015 at 12:32

Napsáno RaulPB, 31.12.2015 at 10:41

You never know that. Pure speculation so you can't confirm anything.
If Europe had been the one in the middle, the church would have inmediately killed anyone who believed in such heresy and therefor stopped all effords to improve scientific knowledge.
Europe was less developed. That's a fact. Doesn't matter who had acces to whatever... we were less developed in many many senses, specially scientifically speaking. But that's something you're gonna have to look up yourself. Too long to write, not enough time.

Actually the conflict thesis (which pits the church against science) only emerged in the 19th century and has since been proven false. With a few exceptions (the Galileo issue) the Catholic Church was a patron of the sciences. Also the first medieval universities (Uni of Paris, Oxford & Cambridge) evolved out of cathedral and monastic schools. The same is true of the first hospitals. Dozens of important scientists/thinkers were clergymen or doubled as theologians. Copernicus, William of Ockam, Mendel, Roger Bacon for example.

The dark ages myth (they weren't really all that dark) has been proven false time and again. Slavery which was extremely common during the Roman Era went out of style (serfs had many more freedoms). New systems of charity developed distributing food and money to those in need. Wars were just as brutal but on a much smaller scale than previously. There was even greater communication between scholars. But don't take my word for it just do the research (TV shows and movies don't count).

βλα (bla in greek) aqui damn fool gtfo with your shitty revisionist propaganda

i started writing text, but im bored to do this today, so another time maybe.. That being said the conflict thesis argument which recent "enlightened" scholar nerds love to use is actually shit in my opinion. They blame two guys for oversimplifying the relationship between church and science, when in fact they are doing exactly the same. Also the first medieval universities were sponsored and patroned by the church because the church was in control of education. Dozens of importand thinkers/scientists were clergymen because if you werent a noble or richman offspring, this was your only chance for an education and a prosperous life. Going against the faith in any way was not even an option, since the punishment for heretisism was pretty tough and the selection process quite "vague". Lets just agree that it was pretty dangerous to be a free thinker at the time?

Also, the dark ages being a myth is actually a myth. Dark ages were very much real and theres a ton of information on this one, frankly i dont even know where to start. Another day we will have a more in depth discussion on this one, i would like to hear your opinion. Happy new year

So then Laochra told me, he actually liked to be a moderator and muting people who deserve it, like croat etc. ''People who bash at moderators should be locked inside the AW prison'' were laochra's exactly words. Shocking..

Napsáno Khal.eesi, 31.12.2015 at 05:38

The actual golden age of science (highest point) was 900 AD to 1200 AD. While in this period Europe lagged far behind both intellectual and scientific leadership. Things got uneasy after the thirteenth century, the Muslim world in general or that is Arabs started to stagnate and Europeans eventually .surged in. I remember reading what Bernard Lewis said, "the renaissance, reformation, even the scientific revolution and the enlightenment, passed unnoticed in the Arab world" The actual decline of Muslim power, is also an factor Muslims never learned from Europe. I agree that usually no Muslim turns up as a scientist to work for the needs of others, all you hear about is quarrel with in the world or a jihad (rubbish) killing of innocent people which i condemn, however religion is not all to blame for the lack of advancement, Islam and science are not in conflict. I could take an Indian Sub-continent activist to support my reasoning, since I'm a pakistani. Sir Syed ahmed for example who tried to convince muslims that scientific thought was not in conflict with the religion tried to promote western education, quoting Qu'ran and Sunnah to reason with the strong beliefd people.

Looking to the Modern world, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the Emirates have poured vast amounts of money into science and technology.

What Im trying to say is, Its not the only factor but at the same time l don't totally agree that arabs are actually getting hurt by Islam.

Napsáno Khal.eesi, 01.01.2016 at 14:30

Another day we will have a more in depth discussion on this one, i would like to hear your opinion. Happy new year

Cheers to that and happy new year

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Thousand_and_One_Nights

Nice why didn't you told me about this tact!!!

I remember reading aladin histories, though from Disney and not the actual original history...

Napsáno clovis1122, 01.01.2016 at 22:03

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Thousand_and_One_Nights

Nice why didn't you told me about this tact!!!

I remember reading aladin histories, though from Disney and not the actual original history...

oooooooooo that's a classic, good one

Napsáno clovis1122, 01.01.2016 at 22:03

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Thousand_and_One_Nights

I told you about that one :S

Napsáno Acquiesce, 31.12.2015 at 12:32

Actually the conflict thesis (which pits the church against science) only emerged in the 19th century and has since been proven false. With a few exceptions (the Galileo issue) the Catholic Church was a patron of the sciences. Also the first medieval universities (Uni of Paris, Oxford & Cambridge) evolved out of cathedral and monastic schools. The same is true of the first hospitals. Dozens of important scientists/thinkers were clergymen or doubled as theologians. Copernicus, William of Ockam, Mendel, Roger Bacon for example.

They were patron of the science they had interest in (theology for the most part) and which didn't contradict their thoughts. Universities taught what the church was willing to teach...

Napsáno Goblin, 30.12.2015 at 07:01

Read a couple of tweets from Muslims as a response to Bagdadi tweet calling all Muslims to join the Jihad...

Paraphrasing:

Tweet 1: "sorry dude i'm goin to watch Star wars on sunday... later maybe?"
Tweet 2: "but its Christmass... i need to hang out with my family"
Tweet 3: "WHAT??? While Leicester is playing their last game of the season???"
Tweet 4: "Sorry dude... i have final exams coming"

i lold

More Muslims in the UK joined Jihad than the UK military. Mozzies in the UK and all Mozzie institutions know exactly what they are doing. Outbreed, then conquer. Germany will take in 10 invaders million by 2020 and they are already mass molesting and burning. What happens when Germany mass issues these people EU papers? Then they'll spread. You'll feel them soon enough.