Funny anti-religious Internet pics

[Kulindahr]

Ahh yes. Data. Apparently Kulindahr you missed this one earlier in the thread:

That doesn't even apply. The Bible is the data set given in the question I was answering.


Don't people actually pay attention to the discussion here? or are you all fundamentalists bound on snatching at the latest thing you see without investigating or keeping track of things?


Besides which, you ignore the fact that many of us came in through Intelligent Design, in the original sense of being led to believing in a Creator via science. What the Bible had to say about itself was irrelevant; such statements are to be expected from any body of literature claiming to be divine revelation.

[TopherGF]

[Kulindahr]

Didn't I post that one already?

It's a good illustration of why friends and I walked out of our first "creation science" seminar. If you're going to do science, do science. It's possible for science to inform theology, but the reverse is only very rarely true... I have yet to find a religious text that purports to have any scientific insight.

[bankside]

That doesn't even apply. The Bible is the data set given in the question I was answering.


Don't people actually pay attention to the discussion here? or are you all fundamentalists bound on snatching at the latest thing you see without investigating or keeping track of things?


Besides which, you ignore the fact that many of us came in through Intelligent Design, in the original sense of being led to believing in a Creator via science. What the Bible had to say about itself was irrelevant; such statements are to be expected from any body of literature claiming to be divine revelation.

Kulindahr, in every rational enterprise, the quality of the data is examined and held to scrutiny, refined, examined for outliers or "noise" and so on.

To be fair, you have done this far more than most people in the Christian tent by reading and comparing translations, contextual documents, etc. In that regard, you may feel that your blithe assertions about it being "data" are well-justified and probably most of the people who are astonished at your use of the word "data" have not pored over it in the same detail that you have.

Yet it still seems astonishing to me - I still have the impression you have not ever deeply considered competing and contrary data, for example from other religious traditions, which must be accounted for. And because I do suspect you of researcher bias; you see what your heart desires to be true in the data. The mathematical elegance of some intuitive idea can guide the researcher in an avenue of enquiry, but it cannot substitute for a researched conclusion supported by evidence. And that's where I base my critique.

In your review of contextual documents, as noted above, you will have seen that the ancient peoples of the middle east had developed every concept known to machiavelli, and suffered, in the aggregate, from every delusion and confusion that can plague any crowd in any period of history.

The bible may be data, but I don't think it is evidence of divinity. It clearly isn't necessarily evidence of divinity. The alternate hypotheses must be considered just as the data must be screened:

• Could it not be a collection of well-intentioned observations about human nature, given a veneer of imagined divinity by those who were trying to harness "Appeal to authority" to reinforce their teachings
• …combined with some confused and possibly delusional witnessing that would be explained in the modern era by conditions observable in a Functional MRI and resolved with the appropriate psychiatric treatment
• …or an accurate historical record of people's widely-held misconceptions - the History of Being Wrong - in the same way that we can read accurate and compelling accounts of Phrenology and its uses.
• …and, given the history of the established church, just some general tyrannical réalpolitique that served to enthral the population and keep them compliant and obedient to those overlords whose interests were thereby advanced.

[JayHawk]

For theology, the Bible is data.

No, you weren't using any information at all -- you were invoking metaphysics.

"Unverified unproven information". Odd -- the question was what the Bible had to say about the Trinity. That presupposed that the Bible is the relevant data set. I showed what the Bible says, and further showed that it can be mathematically modeled.

No the problem is that no matter what the topic Kulindhar is never to be wrong no matter what he must say to get there.

In the end for most people it doesnt matter. Religion is junk. Anyone who believe is deceiving themselves. However that is not my problem it is theirs. What i dont understand is why someone who believes in no harm no foul freedom for ebbybody would jump into a humor thread and try to debate jokes?

[palbert]

No the problem is that no matter what the topic Kulindhar is never to be wrong no matter what he must say to get there. [portion deleted]

A great insight.

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, in every rational enterprise, the quality of the data is examined and held to scrutiny, refined, examined for outliers or "noise" and so on.

To be fair, you have done this far more than most people in the Christian tent by reading and comparing translations, contextual documents, etc. In that regard, you may feel that your blithe assertions about it being "data" are well-justified and probably most of the people who are astonished at your use of the word "data" have not pored over it in the same detail that you have.

Yet it still seems astonishing to me - I still have the impression you have not ever deeply considered competing and contrary data, for example from other religious traditions, which must be accounted for. And because I do suspect you of researcher bias; you see what your heart desires to be true in the data. The mathematical elegance of some intuitive idea can guide the researcher in an avenue of enquiry, but it cannot substitute for a researched conclusion supported by evidence. And that's where I base my critique.

In your review of contextual documents, as noted above, you will have seen that the ancient peoples of the middle east had developed every concept known to machiavelli, and suffered, in the aggregate, from every delusion and confusion that can plague any crowd in any period of history.

The bible may be data, but I don't think it is evidence of divinity. It clearly isn't necessarily evidence of divinity. The alternate hypotheses must be considered just as the data must be screened:

• Could it not be a collection of well-intentioned observations about human nature, given a veneer of imagined divinity by those who were trying to harness "Appeal to authority" to reinforce their teachings
• …combined with some confused and possibly delusional witnessing that would be explained in the modern era by conditions observable in a Functional MRI and resolved with the appropriate psychiatric treatment
• …or an accurate historical record of people's widely-held misconceptions - the History of Being Wrong - in the same way that we can read accurate and compelling accounts of Phrenology and its uses.
• …and, given the history of the established church, just some general tyrannical réalpolitique that served to enthral the population and keep them compliant and obedient to those overlords whose interests were thereby advanced.

And what does any of that have to do with a question of what the Bible says about something?

If someone asked, "What does Marx say about art?" introducing opinions of famous artists would be irrelevant -- the only relevant data would be found in statements by Marx.

[Kulindahr]

No the problem is that no matter what the topic Kulindhar is never to be wrong no matter what he must say to get there.

Making crap up because your irrationality on another topic was pointed out doesn't work.

In the end for most people it doesnt matter. Religion is junk. Anyone who believe is deceiving themselves. However that is not my problem it is theirs.

Not too aware of the world around you, huh?

What i dont understand is why someone who believes in no harm no foul freedom for ebbybody would jump into a humor thread and try to debate jokes?

Maybe you should read the thread again. All I did was comment on ignorance.

[Kulindahr]

[Kulindahr]

[MikeyLove]

OMG! I had to laugh at that one!

[Kulindahr]

OMG! I had to laugh at that one!

Trudeau can bring such a subtle perspective.

[Kulindahr]

No so subtle:

[MikeyLove]

Trudeau can bring such a subtle perspective.

Well, at least I as a Catholic, am not required to believe in a literal 6- 24/hr days of creation. I am allowed to see that both Evolution and Creation are compatible, as the Church sees it that way too.

[JayHawk]

[Kulindahr]

Well, at least I as a Catholic, am not required to believe in a literal 6- 24/hr days of creation. I am allowed to see that both Evolution and Creation are compatible, as the Church sees it that way too.

But you do have to put up with a certain degree of silliness . . .

[MikeyLove]

But you do have to put up with a certain degree of silliness . . .

A certain degree, yes....but not when it deliberately touches on Blasphemy. I used to always joke about those pretty red birds, and white doves when I was at Marytown in Libertyville Illinois back in 1994....."The Cardinals and the Pope are coming!"

[bankside]

Well, at least I as a Catholic, am not required to believe in a literal 6- 24/hr days of creation. I am allowed to see that both Evolution and Creation are compatible, as the Church sees it that way too.

Just so you know, you're actually allowed to believe things that the church doesn't agree with too...

[MikeyLove]

Just so you know, you're actually allowed to believe things that the church doesn't agree with too...

...and who is allowing that....the Easter Bunny? LOL

[looseliam]

[Kulindahr]

Just so you know, you're actually allowed to believe things that the church doesn't agree with too...

...and who is allowing that....the Easter Bunny? LOL

Church tradition, and even a few papal bulls, actually. For starters, you don't have to believe anything that isn't set as dogma; second, you can even question dogma if it goes strongly against your conscience.

For example, I know Roman Catholics who refuse to acknowledge papal infallibility, because the decision was rigged by the pope at the time, and their consciences won't allow them to accept a teaching accomplished by politics orchestrated by the man the decision benefited.

[Kulindahr]

Heh -- I like it.

For accuracy, though, there should be a white wedge labeled "Leviticus? What's that?"

[Ram]

Surely this is the limit:

Buckets of fuck butter.


This one makes me lol.

[MikeyLove]

Church tradition, and even a few papal bulls, actually. For starters, you don't have to believe anything that isn't set as dogma; second, you can even question dogma if it goes strongly against your conscience.

For example, I know Roman Catholics who refuse to acknowledge papal infallibility, because the decision was rigged by the pope at the time, and their consciences won't allow them to accept a teaching accomplished by politics orchestrated by the man the decision benefited.

Papal Infallibility is only in the areas of Faith and Morals, not in anything else. As for the decision being rigged...I think you'd have a hard time proving that one.

There are very few Dogmas that are in fact made in Ex-Cathedera. Once Dogmas are set in stone, they are not to be questioned.

Church Traditions as in the big "T" or the little 't"? The ones that are the big T's are unchangeable, and the little t's are changeable. Now tell me what Traditions of the Church are you talking about, ie; specify exactly which ones....that will make a lot of sense, and I can understand what is being spoken of...not so easy when spoken in general. Also tell me which Papal Bulls you are talking about specifically, not in general.

[MoufOfKhaos]

[Kulindahr]

Papal Infallibility is only in the areas of Faith and Morals, not in anything else. As for the decision being rigged...I think you'd have a hard time proving that one.

There are very few Dogmas that are in fact made in Ex-Cathedera. Once Dogmas are set in stone, they are not to be questioned.

Church Traditions as in the big "T" or the little 't"? The ones that are the big T's are unchangeable, and the little t's are changeable. Now tell me what Traditions of the Church are you talking about, ie; specify exactly which ones....that will make a lot of sense, and I can understand what is being spoken of...not so easy when spoken in general. Also tell me which Papal Bulls you are talking about specifically, not in general.

The rigging of the Council is something that was shown to me by an Augustinian and confirmed by a Jesuit -- and I figure if one of the "pope's shock troops" confirms it, it's no joke.

I don't know the bulls specifically, but they speak on the matter of not being required to violate one's conscience.

At any rate, I don't worry about it much, since any possibility of Rome's bishop speaking infallibly even as defined ended in 1054.

[Kulindahr]

I love it!


Though the whole "zombie Jesus" thing just puzzles me.

[MoufOfKhaos]

^Rising from the dead... much like zombies are supposed to do... puzzles you?

[Kulindahr]

^Rising from the dead... much like zombies are supposed to do... puzzles you?

Oh. Duh.

Big difference between resurrection and reanimation, though.






(A seventh-level cleric can re-animate, but it takes a much higher one to resurrect )

[looseliam]

Heh -- I like it.

For accuracy, though, there should be a white wedge labeled "Leviticus? What's that?"

I'm glad some of them can actually identify the bible. We'll work on on specifics later.

[Kulindahr]

I'm glad some of them can actually identify the bible. We'll work on on specifics later.

Of course they can identify it -- it's the thing they pick up and wave at Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons who come to the door.

[looseliam]

Of course they can identify it -- it's the thing they pick up and wave at Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons who come to the door.

I guess I've been doing it wrong. I use a nail gun.

[loki81]

Heh -- I like it.

For accuracy, though, there should be a white wedge labeled "Leviticus? What's that?"

not to defend anti-gay Christians, but Leviticus isn't really applicable to them.

Zombie Jesus formed a new covenant between man and god which essentially invalidated the old covenant (eg: the old testament)

in religion classes in grammar/high school, we were always told that the OT was really only in "the bible" for historical purposes.

[JUB]

Surely this is the limit:

OMG LMAO!!!

[belamo]

Damn you Kul and a couple more JUBbites above, posing themselves Carl Sagan's question and all that: you are forcing me to write an opuscule aren't you?

[looseliam]

Damn you Kul and a couple more JUBbites above, posing themselves Carl Sagan's question and all that: you are forcing me to write an opuscule aren't you?

Opuscule? YOu know, they have a cream for that.

[belamo]

Opuscule? YOu know, they have a cream for that.

Since you are still around YOu should know that, too often, they just do not work for the plumper ones

[canesnbeach]

the idea that there were no scientific advances between the fall of the Roman Empire and the European Renaissance is a little silly... innovation is almost always cumulative and gradual.

some of the biggest advances during that time period came from highly religious Muslim nations in the middle east.

There were no such thing as 'muslim nations' during the middle ages, the nation-state is a modern invention. While it is true that after the fall of Rome scientific progress diffused from Islam to Christianity (a trend that would not be reversed until the Florentine Renaissance), none of the muslim lands were 'highly religious'. When Saladin left Jerusalem during the 3rd crusade, the focus of the Islamic world shifted from exultation of Allah to organizing the economic and political chaos left behind by the crusaders. The former crusading kingdoms of Antioch, Tripoli, Edessa, et al became a magnet for disaffected Christians and Muslims, who abandoned religious fundamentalism after centuries of bloodshed, favoring instead a return to the classical legacies of Rome, Greece, and Alexandria. Religion, during this time, was subverted in favor of science, a trend that led directly to the Islamic Golden Age (750 - 1300BC) and its advances in astronomy, medicine, trigonometry, and geometrical optics. The age of muslim enlightenment ended in the mid-13th century, when a rebirth of Islamic fundamentalism reacted against the intellectual elites by destroying libraries and madrasahs throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and plunged the muslim lands into their very own Dark Ages, which have arguably lasted until this day.

In the Christian West, the end of the Roman empire marked a return to tribalism, feudalism, and constant warfare, with religion often invoked as rallying cry against decadent excesses (and the scientific advances that made it possible). Philosophers and scientists were targeted as heretics, and either executed or exiled to the -then- more progressive Muslim East. For the roughly 1000 years of the Dark Ages, Europe 'forgot' the earth was round (something the ancients knew very well), practicing medicine was equivalent to witchcraft, alchemy (a precursor to modern chemistry) was branded as 'occultism', and the written works of Plato, Aristotle, Hero of Alexandria (who discovered steam power), Galen, and Ptolemy, once a cornerstone of civilization, passed into obscurity, and then into legend. It was only during the Italian Renaissance, which shifted the balance of power away from the Vatican into the hands of wealthy merchants, and so favored Humanism over Christianity, that science and philosophy rose again to prominence.

To highlight the idea that religion drove human civilization back into the cave, realize that almost all of the scientific 'discoveries' made between the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution had already been discovered by the ancient world. The idea of the atom, the engineering of vast interior spaces, machines that increased productivity, free market economies, and state investment in infrastructure all had their inception with the Greeks, the Romans, and the golden age of Alexandria. This means that as a direct consequence of the religious fanaticism of the Dark Ages, human civilization is about 1000 years behind where it ought to be. The collective loss of reason experienced during that time set us back quite a bit. It is probably true that, had classical advances in science been allowed to flourish from 476-1400BC, we would have colonies on Mars by now.

TL;DR: the world is a shittier place today because religion was allowed to reign unchecked for way too long.

[belamo]

There were no such thing as 'muslim nations' during the middle ages, the nation-state is a modern invention. While it is true that after the fall of Rome scientific progress diffused from Islam to Christianity (a trend that would not be reversed until the Florentine Renaissance), none of the muslim lands were 'highly religious'. When Saladin left Jerusalem during the 3rd crusade, the focus of the Islamic world shifted from exultation of Allah to organizing the economic and political chaos left behind by the crusaders. The former crusading kingdoms of Antioch, Tripoli, Edessa, et al became a magnet for disaffected Christians and Muslims, who abandoned religious fundamentalism after centuries of bloodshed, favoring instead a return to the classical legacies of Rome, Greece, and Alexandria. Religion, during this time, was subverted in favor of science, a trend that led directly to the Islamic Golden Age (750 - 1300BC) and its advances in astronomy, medicine, trigonometry, and geometrical optics. The age of muslim enlightenment ended in the mid-13th century, when a rebirth of Islamic fundamentalism reacted against the intellectual elites by destroying libraries and madrasahs throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and plunged the muslim lands into their very own Dark Ages, which have arguably lasted until this day.

In the Christian West, the end of the Roman empire marked a return to tribalism, feudalism, and constant warfare, with religion often invoked as rallying cry against decadent excesses (and the scientific advances that made it possible). Philosophers and scientists were targeted as heretics, and either executed or exiled to the -then- more progressive Muslim East. For the roughly 1000 years of the Dark Ages, Europe 'forgot' the earth was round (something the ancients knew very well), practicing medicine was equivalent to witchcraft, alchemy (a precursor to modern chemistry) was branded as 'occultism', and the written works of Plato, Aristotle, Hero of Alexandria (who discovered steam power), Galen, and Ptolemy, once a cornerstone of civilization, passed into obscurity, and then into legend. It was only during the Italian Renaissance, which shifted the balance of power away from the Vatican into the hands of wealthy merchants, and so favored Humanism over Christianity, that science and philosophy rose again to prominence.

To highlight the idea that religion drove human civilization back into the cave, realize that almost all of the scientific 'discoveries' made between the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution had already been discovered by the ancient world. The idea of the atom, the engineering of vast interior spaces, machines that increased productivity, free market economies, and state investment in infrastructure all had their inception with the Greeks, the Romans, and the golden age of Alexandria. This means that as a direct consequence of the religious fanaticism of the Dark Ages, human civilization is about 1000 years behind where it ought to be. The collective loss of reason experienced during that time set us back quite a bit. It is probably true that, had classical advances in science been allowed to flourish from 476-1400BC, we would have colonies on Mars by now.

TL;DR: the world is a shittier place today because religion was allowed to reign unchecked for way too long.

In your account you are ignoring the impact, calling it "devastating" would be softening it, of the Mongol invasions, an impact not just on material life, but in the minds and the breaking in the continuity with the civilized heritage that had come from far older times than the Muslim era itself. Just think of the moralIST backlash right after WWII, during the neoVictorian 1950s, or the XIXth century (the "Victorian" era) after the Enlightenment and Napoleonic turmoil: had it not been for the parallel and sustained development of democracy and of science, and of technology to articulate both and made them prevail over Bible&fists, we would be living in a world featured in the wet dreams of the nuts who parasite our supposedly sinful system and society to strive to bring about a fairytale blessed era that didn't exist even in the Bible, less in the world that composed the Bible itself.

[loki81]

There were no such thing as 'muslim nations' during the middle ages, the nation-state is a modern invention. While it is true that after the fall of Rome scientific progress diffused from Islam to Christianity (a trend that would not be reversed until the Florentine Renaissance), none of the muslim lands were 'highly religious'. When Saladin left Jerusalem during the 3rd crusade, the focus of the Islamic world shifted from exultation of Allah to organizing the economic and political chaos left behind by the crusaders. The former crusading kingdoms of Antioch, Tripoli, Edessa, et al became a magnet for disaffected Christians and Muslims, who abandoned religious fundamentalism after centuries of bloodshed, favoring instead a return to the classical legacies of Rome, Greece, and Alexandria. Religion, during this time, was subverted in favor of science, a trend that led directly to the Islamic Golden Age (750 - 1300BC) and its advances in astronomy, medicine, trigonometry, and geometrical optics. The age of muslim enlightenment ended in the mid-13th century, when a rebirth of Islamic fundamentalism reacted against the intellectual elites by destroying libraries and madrasahs throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and plunged the muslim lands into their very own Dark Ages, which have arguably lasted until this day.

In the Christian West, the end of the Roman empire marked a return to tribalism, feudalism, and constant warfare, with religion often invoked as rallying cry against decadent excesses (and the scientific advances that made it possible). Philosophers and scientists were targeted as heretics, and either executed or exiled to the -then- more progressive Muslim East. For the roughly 1000 years of the Dark Ages, Europe 'forgot' the earth was round (something the ancients knew very well), practicing medicine was equivalent to witchcraft, alchemy (a precursor to modern chemistry) was branded as 'occultism', and the written works of Plato, Aristotle, Hero of Alexandria (who discovered steam power), Galen, and Ptolemy, once a cornerstone of civilization, passed into obscurity, and then into legend. It was only during the Italian Renaissance, which shifted the balance of power away from the Vatican into the hands of wealthy merchants, and so favored Humanism over Christianity, that science and philosophy rose again to prominence.

To highlight the idea that religion drove human civilization back into the cave, realize that almost all of the scientific 'discoveries' made between the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution had already been discovered by the ancient world. The idea of the atom, the engineering of vast interior spaces, machines that increased productivity, free market economies, and state investment in infrastructure all had their inception with the Greeks, the Romans, and the golden age of Alexandria. This means that as a direct consequence of the religious fanaticism of the Dark Ages, human civilization is about 1000 years behind where it ought to be. The collective loss of reason experienced during that time set us back quite a bit. It is probably true that, had classical advances in science been allowed to flourish from 476-1400BC, we would have colonies on Mars by now.

TL;DR: the world is a shittier place today because religion was allowed to reign unchecked for way too long.

I haven't heard that whole wall of text, but the highlighted jumped out at me as flatout untrue and characteristic of the renaissance revisionist view of the middle ages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth)

there was no "return" to the feudal state so much as it was an evolution from the Roman system (and it was probably as much a cause of the fall of the Roman Empire as it was a result from). wealthy senators and ex-military leaders sitting on giant farm estates stopped paying taxes and started raising their own armies as Western Roman soldiers retreated from Britain and Gaul... from there, it's a short hop till they start declaring themselves Kings.

[belamo]

I haven't heard that whole wall of text, but the highlighted jumped out at me as flatout untrue and characteristic of the renaissance revisionist view of the middle ages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth)

there was no "return" to the feudal state so much as it was an evolution from the Roman system (and it was probably as much a cause of the fall of the Roman Empire as it was a result from). wealthy senators and ex-military leaders sitting on giant farm estates stopped paying taxes and started raising their own armies as Western Roman soldiers retreated from Britain and Gaul... from there, it's a short hop till they start declaring themselves Kings.

Just like communist "democracies" were "an evolution" from liberal democracies.

[bankside]

I haven't heard that whole wall of text, but the highlighted jumped out at me as flatout untrue and characteristic of the renaissance revisionist view of the middle ages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth)

there was no "return" to the feudal state so much as it was an evolution from the Roman system (and it was probably as much a cause of the fall of the Roman Empire as it was a result from). wealthy senators and ex-military leaders sitting on giant farm estates stopped paying taxes and started raising their own armies as Western Roman soldiers retreated from Britain and Gaul... from there, it's a short hop till they start declaring themselves Kings.

I think people might be confusing flat earth with earth-centred-solar-system.

[belamo]

The "educated classes" never set the general tone of an era, especially in eras in which they are much farther severed from the rest of the population.
It's like saying that, today, since "educated people" do not doubt about the reality of evolution (in a general way, not even entering into darwinism and the "ape" controversy) as a driving force in nature and history, creationist views are irrelevant.

The mere presence of more or less "educated" or "enlightened" views doesn't account for its force; that is why it is not puzzling that the "cultured" Germany up to the 1920s ended up in the Nazi regime: simply because a Thomas Mann, a Magnus Hirschfeld or a Max Planck can not account for the general level of education of a whole country, and therefore have no determinant influence, when any, in the political and economical course or derive of that country.

Beliefs are about guts, not about reason, and beliefs, faith is what ultimately drives populations... even if those guts only send forth shit, it keeps the body alive and working.

[Kulindahr]

I haven't heard that whole wall of text, but the highlighted jumped out at me as flatout untrue and characteristic of the renaissance revisionist view of the middle ages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth)

there was no "return" to the feudal state so much as it was an evolution from the Roman system (and it was probably as much a cause of the fall of the Roman Empire as it was a result from). wealthy senators and ex-military leaders sitting on giant farm estates stopped paying taxes and started raising their own armies as Western Roman soldiers retreated from Britain and Gaul... from there, it's a short hop till they start declaring themselves Kings.

The Empire was already effectively feudal due to the patronage system: anyone who wanted rights and privileges protected had to have a patron, generally one of those wealthy senators, to speak on his behalf. So when the central authority went, the system in place was already basically feudal.

Institutions of learning also depended on patronage. So when the budgets of those wealthy senators were suddenly faced with the need for more than just token security forces, they went Republican: defense spending went up, and everything else got cut.

[canesnbeach]

I haven't heard that whole wall of text, but the highlighted jumped out at me as flatout untrue and characteristic of the renaissance revisionist view of the middle ages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth)

there was no "return" to the feudal state so much as it was an evolution from the Roman system (and it was probably as much a cause of the fall of the Roman Empire as it was a result from). wealthy senators and ex-military leaders sitting on giant farm estates stopped paying taxes and started raising their own armies as Western Roman soldiers retreated from Britain and Gaul... from there, it's a short hop till they start declaring themselves Kings.

While the small intellectual elite did in fact believe the Earth was a sphere (see Thomas Aquinas' writings on the subject), the majority of the population did not. The masses had no access to education, so all knowledge was limited to monasteries and did not extend to the average citizen of the Middle Ages. This was in stark contrast to the classical world, where education in all areas of human endeavor was a pre-requisite for any man who wished to enter public life.

Also, it's a little ridiculous to think feudalism 'evolved' out of the Roman system. The basic requirements for feudal states had been present in the West since the time of Pericles. The reason it never became a social current was because repressive tyrants were always checked by revolutions, and most importantly, because until the fall of Rome, all the citizens of a polis were more or less equal under the law. Among the many populist causes Caesar championed, for example, was the establishment of a legal system for addressing farmer's grievances against the optimates who owned the land. Granted, that was a more a political maneuver than a genuine act of justice, but it had the effect that no one 'landlord' could oppress peasants indefinitely without incurring the wrath of the Emperor (after all, revolts had the unwelcome effect of disturbing the flow of goods into state coffers, so preventing them was paramount).

By the way, the rise of kingdoms had nothing to do with the reason why the Dark Ages were 'dark'. Despotic rulers, if sufficiently atuned to public sentiment, usually managed to sustain economic and scientific progress throughout their domain (see Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Marcus Aurelius, Trajan, Hadrian, Alexander, the Ptolemies, etc). It wasn't kings that plunged Europe in darkness, it was religious fanaticism. In fact, the only difference between the rulers of the middle ages and those of the ancient world, is that the latter paid only lip service to religious doctrine, while the former fully embraced it as a road to salvation (hence the Crusades). Nor is it true that the empire's fall led inevitably to social regression. Empires had come and gone since man first discovered agriculture, but never had there been such intellectual vacuums left in their wake.

[Kulindahr]

While the small intellectual elite did in fact believe the Earth was a sphere (see Thomas Aquinas' writings on the subject), the majority of the population did not. The masses had no access to education, so all knowledge was limited to monasteries and did not extend to the average citizen of the Middle Ages. This was in stark contrast to the classical world, where education in all areas of human endeavor was a pre-requisite for any man who wished to enter public life.

I can imagine a "Far Side" style cartoon where a monk in a field radios ahead to a monastery that a couple of knights are on their way up . . . .

[kallipolis]

By the way, the rise of kingdoms had nothing to do with the reason why the Dark Ages were 'dark'. Despotic rulers, if sufficiently atuned to public sentiment, usually managed to sustain economic and scientific progress throughout their domain (see Caesar, Augustus, Claudius, Marcus Aurelius, Trajan, Hadrian, Alexander, the Ptolemies, etc). It wasn't kings that plunged Europe in darkness, it was religious fanaticism. In fact, the only difference between the rulers of the middle ages and those of the ancient world, is that the latter paid only lip service to religious doctrine, while the former fully embraced it as a road to salvation (hence the Crusades). Nor is it true that the empire's fall led inevitably to social regression. Empires had come and gone since man first discovered agriculture, but never had there been such intellectual vacuums left in their wake.

There was no dark age in Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

The Eastern Roman Empire continued to flourish (as, Byzantium) until its fall to Ottoman conquest in the 15th century.

The structure of the (Catholic) church through its monasteries provided schools, universities, welfare for the poor and hospitals that today would be provided by government whereas, the king collected taxes to pay for his court's comfort and to provide for an army and avoided interfering in matters administered by the church.

Likewise, in the Byzantine Empire the (Orthodox) church provided similar services that served the common good, leaving the emperor to focus on protecting the empire.

The great universities of Europe were originally established as religious institutions such as Oxford University, and Paris University. According to legend Oxford university was founded in 872 when Alfred the Great happened to meet monks there and had a scholarly debate that lasted several days. In reality it grew up in the 12th century when famous teachers began to lecture there and groups of students came to live and study in the town. The university was given a boost in 1167 when, for political reasons, the English king ordered all students in France to return home continuing their education at Oxford.

[belamo]

There was no dark age in Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

The Eastern Roman Empire continued to flourish (as, Byzantium) until its fall to Ottoman conquest in the 15th century.

The structure of the (Catholic) church through its monasteries provided schools, universities, welfare for the poor and hospitals that today would be provided by government whereas, the king collected taxes to pay for his court's comfort and to provide for an army and avoided interfering in matters administered by the church.

Likewise, in the Byzantine Empire the (Orthodox) church provided similar services that served the common good, leaving the emperor to focus on protecting the empire.

The great universities of Europe were originally established as religious institutions such as Oxford University, and Paris University. According to legend Oxford university was founded in 872 when Alfred the Great happened to meet monks there and had a scholarly debate that lasted several days. In reality it grew up in the 12th century when famous teachers began to lecture there and groups of students came to live and study in the town. The university was given a boost in 1167 when, for political reasons, the English king ordered all students in France to return home continuing their education at Oxford.

The steady flourishing of Constantinople as Western Europe fell is just another myth, and it's funny that you try to deny one myth (to the extent to which it IS a myth, as I discuss below) with another one.
The "Byzantine" empire started to rot right after the first VIIth century crisis, when Heraclius had to turn a "Roman" empire of Antiquity into a power able of surviving the Middle Ages. Your vision represents the XIXth century historiographic myth of continuity in the Western world, when the reason why the Roman empire had been split in two and kept that way, as well as all the petty fights all through the first half of the Middle Ages, and until the cold shoulder in the final times around the first half of the XVth century, show that the Byzantine empire had become and was perceived in the developing of the West and in the subsequent political games, as an irritating, heretical, despicable "Oriental" power, acting as a buffer zone between the West and the muslim East.

Again, the Dark Age term is applied to the two different eras making up the so-called Middle Ages, while it truly has nothing to do with the urban revival and all it economical and cultural consequences from the XIth-XIIth century on, but most certainly applies to the centuries of turmoil and "readjustment" after the definitive decay of urban civilization even in Constantinople, urban life in the IXth century was nothing like during Late Antiquity, say the Justinian era.
Clientelism was part of the roman society, but you are mistaking it for the estate burocratic system that sustained the Roman empire. in fact, the crisis of the Republic era showed that that system could not sustain the growth, social, economical and political, of the Roman state. To say that feudalism was a "natural evolution" of the old Roman imperial system, it's like saying that criminal gangs are a "natural evolution" from a well-adjusted society. It's not an "evolution from", it's what remains when you scrap the top, and you could hold more rightfully that the system was precisely a burocratic cap, never well-adjusted with the population and the system below, but you could say the same with the USA, any Chinese state, imperial or commie, or any empire-sort of state or federation, no matter how it be named.

That academical view and judgement tries to link feudalism with the previous system as a means of justifying everything coming down to modern Western civilization down from Classical Antiquity through the Middle Ages, and it was made, like most humanistic crap that people today take for granted, when they don't plainly ignore it, in the XIXth century that wanted to offer a righteous lineal, simplistic explanation, logical and even, of what could rather be considered a Frankensteinish creation according to those elements (Roman system, feudalism...) that had nothing to do with each other as whole political systems beyond personal relationships in a restricted circle.

[kallipolis]

The steady flourishing of Constantinople as Western Europe fell is just another myth, and it's funny that you try to deny one myth (to the extent to which it IS a myth, as I discuss below) with another one.
The "Byzantine" empire started to rot right after the first VIIth century crisis, when Heraclius had to turn a "Roman" empire of Antiquity into a power able of surviving the Middle Ages. Your vision represents the XIXth century historiographic myth of continuity in the Western world, when the reason why the Roman empire had been split in two and kept that way, as well as all the petty fights all through the first half of the Middle Ages, and until the cold shoulder in the final times around the first half of the XVth century, show that the Byzantine empire had become and was perceived in the developing of the West and in the subsequent political games, as an irritating, heretical, despicable "Oriental" power, acting as a buffer zone between the West and the muslim East.

Again, the Dark Age term is applied to the two different eras making up the so-called Middle Ages, while it truly has nothing to do with the urban revival and all it economical and cultural consequences from the XIth-XIIth century on, but most certainly applies to the centuries of turmoil and "readjustment" after the definitive decay of urban civilization even in Constantinople, urban life in the IXth century was nothing like during Late Antiquity, say the Justinian era.

There were ebbs, and flows in the Byzantine Empire typical of any civilisation experiencing continued invasions, and wars nevertheless for all its ups, and downs Byzantium flourished over the centuries until its surrender to Ottoman invasion in the 15th century.

Turmoil and readjustment are permanent features of human civilisation dating back to Hellenistic Greece, even to earlier civilisations such as Babylon and Sumeria that can even be witnessed, and have been replicated in the Europe of the twentieth century with two world wars, and the Communist revolution in Russia. And, of course I should not neglect to mention the civil war in Spain. Spain recovered to flourish again.

What point are you attempting to make?

[belamo]

There were ebbs, and flows in the Byzantine Empire typical of any civilisation experiencing continued invasions, and wars nevertheless for all its ups, and downs Byzantium flourished over the centuries until its surrender to Ottoman invasion in the 15th century.

Turmoil and readjustment are permanent features of human civilisation dating back to Hellenistic Greece, even to earlier civilisations such as Babylon and Sumeria that can even be witnessed, and have been replicated in the Europe of the twentieth century with two world wars, and the Communist revolution in Russia. And, of course I should not neglect to mention the civil war in Spain. Spain recovered to flourish again.

What point are you attempting to make?

Read my whole edit but, in short, "my point" is trying to show how unreasonable is to pretend to reduce historical reality to a lineal, simplistic formula, and then account for the complexities that point the incoherence and unsustainability of that view as mere, anecdotical "ebbs and flows". Your vision is the vision of their own ancestry contrived by XIXth century nations who wanted or needed to consider themselves as a continuousentity through different ages and different political entities: revisionism made official. The logical consequence is that anything "attempting" to show the incoherence of it is equalled with a mere punk attack to it, equalled with "revisionism" precisely.

We know your point: it has been written on any kids' schoolbook for decades.
The problem with investigation in humanities is that, not being inherently more complicated or abstract than other more abstract and complex sciences, it is hindered by prejudices or assumptions, or implications that authorized investigators are not ready or even willing to consider, let alone admit in their... work...