The Current Evolution of Ancient Religious Institutions

[Fake Messiah]

https://historyforatheists.com/2016/06/t...lat-earth/

Wow, history for atheists. Finally, since we all know that atheists never read history books or go to schools that teach history classes.

So the blog post starts with a tweet by Neal Degrasse Tyson because atheists get their history from tweets by Dr. Tyson. And then it explains how Tyson got his knowledge from a Buggs Bunny cartoon. While this was just some casual conversation Dr. Tyson had where he mentioned that people believed that the Earth was flat 500 years ago - and thus this post debunked Neal Degrasse Tyson and atheism.

But you know what, most people did believe that the Earth was flat 500 years ago because most people were uneducated, and they were uneducated because the Church kept them uneducated, so the Church played a big role in making people believe that the Earth is flat.

[TimOneill]

Administrator Notice
Link removed.

Wow, history for atheists. Finally, since we all know that atheists never read history books or go to schools that teach history classes.

I'm not sure how you got that from the very simple title of my site. It's called "History for Atheists" because its aim is to correct errors about history made by some atheists. It's not saying anything about all atheists and it's definitely not saying that no atheists read "read history books or go to schools that teach history classes". I write the articles on the site and I definitely read history books and draw on the history degree I've done to do so. And I'm ... an atheist. There's an **** and a **** at the top of my site for you to read about who I am and what the site is about.

Administrator Notice
Links removed.

So the blog post starts with a tweet by Neal Degrasse Tyson because atheists get their history from tweets by Dr. Tyson.

No, it begins with Tyson bungling the history here to show how common the misconception about the alleged Medieval flat earth idea is. Though Tyson is pretty influential and I've regularly seen him cited as an authority on history by some atheists, despite him not being a historian and often getting history completely wrong.

And then it explains how Tyson got his knowledge from a Buggs Bunny cartoon. While this was just some casual conversation Dr. Tyson had where he mentioned that people believed that the Earth was flat 500 years ago

Yes, thus showing how common the mistaken idea the article is about actually is.

- and thus this post debunked Neal Degrasse Tyson and atheism.

Pardon? I debunk what Tyson says. Not "atheism". How would debunking this common misconception about history "debunk atheism"? Why would I debunk atheism if I'm ... an atheist? 

But you know what, most people did believe that the Earth was flat 500 years ago because most people were uneducated,

Then it seems you didn't read much beyond the beginning of the article. I have

Administrator Notice
link removed

 on whether the medieval conception of a spherical earth was just something known to the learned or whether it was widely understood. And I show, with multiple lines of evidence, that it was actually very well-known. It's usually a good idea to actually read things before trying to criticise and contradict them.

and they were uneducated because the Church kept them uneducated, so the Church played a big role in making people believe that the Earth is flat.

Pardon? The Church did not "keep them uneducated". On the contrary, the Church was one of the only institutions that provided education for the lower classes at all and one of the few that allowed smart people from that strata to rise to high rank and authority regardless of birth. So that's simply nonsense. Most people were not educated then for the same reason most people were not educated in any period of history before the Industrial Revolution - they didn't need to be and were busy getting on with their lives and work. Same as in Roman times or any other period. So this is nonsense, sorry.

[Fake Messiah]

Pardon? The Church did not "keep them uneducated". On the contrary, the Church was one of the only institutions that provided education for the lower classes at all and one of the few that allowed smart people from that strata to rise to high rank and authority regardless of birth. So that's simply nonsense. Most people were not educated then for the same reason most people were not educated in any period of history before the Industrial Revolution - they didn't need to be and were busy getting on with their lives and work. Same as in Roman times or any other period. So this is nonsense, sorry.

So they didn't need to be educated. If you say so. Great educator.

[TimOneill]

Pardon? The Church did not "keep them uneducated". On the contrary, the Church was one of the only institutions that provided education for the lower classes at all and one of the few that allowed smart people from that strata to rise to high rank and authority regardless of birth. So that's simply nonsense. Most people were not educated then for the same reason most people were not educated in any period of history before the Industrial Revolution - they didn't need to be and were busy getting on with their lives and work. Same as in Roman times or any other period. So this is nonsense, sorry.

So they didn't need to be educated. If you say so. Great educator.

No, most people didn't need education. In pre-modern societies, most people had no need for literacy. So it wasn't that "the Church" somehow kept them from being educated. They had no need of it any more than their Greek or Roman Era ancestors did. The need for widespread literacy rose much later. Understand?

Abd your claim that most people were unaware that the earth was round was wrong anyway.

[Fake Messiah]

People in medieval times didn't need to be educated because that way they were more easily exploited by the aristocracy and the Church to whom they were pretty much slaves. So they certainly needed to be kept ignorant so that they don't learn how to think. Which tells you what kind of time it was.

And yet, despite that, there were numerous peasant revolts where hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This history stuff sounds fascinating. How can I find out more?

[TimOneill]

People in medieval times didn't need to be educated because that way they were more easily exploited by the aristocracy and the Church to whom they were pretty much slaves. So they certainly needed to be kept ignorant so that they don't learn how to think. Which tells you what kind of time it was.

This is a very confused and silly view of how all pre-modern agrarian societies worked. As I said, they had no need of education. They worked the land as their ancestors had done and both they and the upper classes didn't and couldn't think of any alternatives to this arrangement. But they were not "pretty much slaves", though many of their ancestors, in Roman times, had been actual slaves. Medieval peasants had legal rights and privileges that actual slaves could never dream of. So much so that some earned enough income (something slaves tend not to do) to buy their way out of villeinage and chose not to. Then there's the fact there was a whole stratum of (also largely illiterate) fully free peasantry that were not feudal villeins at all. You don't seem to know anything about this period beyond some cartoonish cliches. You could try reading a book occasionally.

And yet, despite that, there were numerous peasant revolts where hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered.

Except if you look at what those revolts were about, it wasn't them demanding a new economic system. Or literacy. The Great Revolt of 1381 in England was sparked by a poll tax, but demanded a return to certain ancient peasants' rights (some of which were imaginary legends) that they considered had been eroded. It was also an appeal to the King, with full acknowledgement of the hierarchy of medieval society as natural and normal. And it definitely wasn't an appeal for greater literacy. The first thing the rebels did when they entered any town was burn those pesky written records and books they saw as symbols of bad government. Again, maybe reading a few books yourself before venturing into historical topics would be a good idea for you.

[TimOneill]

This history stuff sounds fascinating. How can I find out more?

Books. Though there are a few good websites and blogs out there.

Administrator Notice
Link removed per rule 13.

 for example.

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, and the church didn't shit on discovery because it thought that the discoverers were wrong, but because they worried that they couldn't shit on the uneducated peasants if they conceded.

Silly atheists.

Anywho, I'm not sure I can sign on with this idea that agrarian laborers don't need to be educated. A big...biiiig problem..for all of our history, is that they haven't been. We certainly don't tell any of our agrarian children that they should just work the land like their ancestors - like I did, like my dad did, like my granddad did so on and so forth ad infinitum..... because we know better. Hence the extension and land grant systems. The two big issues when I got into this were return entry intervals and irrigation. The biggest social gains in the medieval period came from precisely that. Those peasants were agrarian modernizers and for much of that time they had to drag their silly church along kicking and screaming.

Because the church was invested in the status quo that privleged them, not the one that liberated their serfs.

[TimOneill]

Right, and the church didn't shit on discovery because it thought that the discoverers were wrong, but because they worried that they couldn't shit on the uneducated peasants if they conceded.

I have no idea what that confused sentence is even referring to. When did the Church "shit on discovery"?

Silly atheists.

Some, certainly.

Anywho, I'm not sure I can sign on with this idea that agrarian laborers don't need to be educated.

 

Didn't need. In pre-modern times. Obviously in modern times, as literacy became an essential skill, they did need to be, Because many things had changed. But a medieval farmer did not need to be literate in the way a late nineteenth century farmer did.

A big...biiiig problem..for all of our history, is that they haven't been.  We certainly don't tell any of our agrarian children that they should just work the land like their ancestors - like I did, like my dad did, like my granddad did so on and so forth ad infinitum..... because we know better.

We don't do that because we no longer live in a pre-modern agrarian society.  See above.

 Hence the extension and land grant systems.  The two big issues when I got into this were return entry intervals and irrigation.  The biggest social gains in the medieval period came from precisely that.  Those peasants were agrarian modernizers and for much of that time they had to drag their silly church along kicking and screaming.

Ummm, the Church was a major landowner and was actually at the forefront of all medieval developments of agrarian technology as a result. What evidence is there of it needing to be "dragged along screaming and kicking"?

Because the church was invested in the status quo that privleged them, not the one that liberated their serfs.

Again, evidence please. Like any landowners of the time, churchmen were most interested in what made their land most productive and increased their income.