It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dark Ages invented by Atheists?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   
New methods of empirical statistical anaqlysis have uncovered a conspiracy that The Dark Ages are just a fiction created by humanist revionists and unscrupulous Catholic clergy. this4 minute video expalins



It is common knowledge that the Classical Age was followed by many centuries of utter stagnation and decline with virtually nothing happening but wars and famine and the destruction of the priceless ancient monuments. Then, during the Renaissance, the Classical authors re-appear from oblivion, Latin and Greek become resurrected as the intelligentsia Esperanto of the Middle Ages, numerous manuscripts re-appear from oblivion to be copied, enter wide circulation, and vanish again, never to be found.

How preposterous would it be to suggest that there were no Dark Ages to separate the antiquity from the Renaissance - that the "Re-naissance" was in fact the naissance of the Western European culture as we know it? It does contradict everything that we may ever have learnt about history. However, new methods offered by empirical statistics and developed by Anatoly Fomenko, the Russian mathematician, and his colleagues, provide plenty of evidence to support the theory that the Dark Ages are a phantom.




posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   
I believe the dark ages were actually darker than normal. I believe less solar radiation was reaching the Earth's surface and the planet was colder and food was harder to grow due to the cold. With harsher conditions, survival was more important and people did not prosper. Less radiation likely was reaching the Earth due to either debris in the atmosphere (possibly debris from a comet or something?) or more likely the sun was in a solar minimum cycle and was just producing less radiation. We're about to enter another solar minimum cycle after 2012 if not sooner so we'll get to find out. Don't you enjoy living in interesting times?

There is evidence that the climate was very cold during the so called Dark Ages. Imagine if lots of crops failed now due to a freeze in the middle of summer? Food prices would skyrocket and some people would end up starving. Others would ration food. Societies and nations can go to war over food and resources.

[edit on 5-6-2008 by orionthehunter]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:59 AM
link   
orionthehunter is actually right, that was a big cause for all the superstition (crops suddenly dying)... we know that by using *gasp* science *children crying*

Christian history triumphs again.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   
As was the bible created by certain peoples to keep the masses in line and under control through fear.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Reverend SamuelTophatJack
 


I have read the book that is advertised in the video you have posted.
I can stop remembering my astonishment when I was a child seating tight in the class room and listening to the teacher depicting the world history. In my very new child brain the epic history of the world (western) didn’t make any since chronologically, somehow the antics past events for me where all put together and showed an “uncommonsensical” history.
I will advise any one that doubts the history of the world given to us by the intelligentsia to read this book.
kacou



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by orionthehunter
 


I respect your train of thought Orion. This is exactly how one should analyze all topics; crossreferencing. I believe you are probably right in regards to the time based on the climate.
In relations today, yes, it will be interesting to see how we get through this next food drought and what the Earth throws at us next.

I have a hard time though with the concept of written history. We know that the mouth to mouth method either dilutes or amplifies the real version. But can we be sure that the written one doesn't.
If we take into account that many of the scholars back then were in the command of either noblemen or church that would create a slight risk that the "facts" written for us to see are biased terribly much.
So far the only way of knowing if something is true is by determining how many agree on a specific issue. So in a way we're dealing more with faith than fact.

Argh, I'm beginning to ramble. Signing out



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join