The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

The Dark Ages was a time of about 1000 years after the fall of Rome when there was virtually no scientific or social evolution of any kind mainly due to powerful, closed-minded religious zealots who viewed science as a gateway to evil. Imagine how far we'd be if we were not to repressed for all those centuries. Imagine what we'd know. We could be in space by now. We could better understand the realm of the supernatural and beyond. What do you think about this?

Humanity tends to be somewhat slow in figuring things out. We could very well have been in space and already have many things accomplished.

Actually the concept of a "dark age" was expounded on first by Petrach, a 14th century Italian humanist and poet. He did use the religious metaphor of light and dark to describe the difference between the classic Roman times and the centuries afterwards, but he used in with secular connotations.
Petrarch and other humanists considered all things studied, discovered, or created following the fall of Rome to be worthless. The light they tried to recreate was in recapturing the classic Latin language and the art and culture from hundreds of years past. So they sought to return to the past rather than look to the future.
The dark ages weren't created by the Church, but by people outside the church.
That is not to infer that the church did not go through a long period of corruption and oppression; however many of the charges leveled against religion were, in fact, based upon the actions of secular interests.
In later centuries the term was used to describe the years prior to the (at that time) age of enlightenment.

That's true DJ.
Look at man's accomplishments since the late 1800's forward, since the invention of the steam engine, machines and modern technology, yet prior to the period for 10,000 years not really much advancement of any technology at all.
Does make one wonder.

I think it could have advanced another idea as well...man acts before he thinks. It may not be a matter of "Can we do it?"...perhaps it should be "Should we do it?" first.

I think this thread turns a daunting light on the negative aspect of what the centuries has brought on us. I am not sure if the poster of this thread is suffering some negativity ailing him such as mental abuse of some kind or what not, but it does give reason why a thread of this context would come to light in such a manner to convince the world about some sort of "blame game" turn on political abstruction, religious indignation or indignation in general.

I would begin a study as to why the "dark ages" were called this before drawing conclusions based upon bias speculation.

Difinition:

"The Dark Ages (or Dark Age) is a metaphor with multiple meanings and connotations. It is most commonly known in relation to European history, but it is also used to denote other periods from which events are relatively obscure because of a lack of knowledge, with the term "Dark" being used in a non-judgmental sense of "obscure" or "opaque". In addition to periods in human history, "Dark" in this sense has been applied to periods in the history of life on earth and in the history of the cosmos, even."

In this light, the negative connotations would reflect the posters thought process. But, why blame civilization for things that within human nature could be changed by initiate for change? Why not do something about it, such as be a teacher? Instead of just whining about these things?

This post may not make a whole hell of a lot of sense, but when one thinks about what it is actually saying, then they may come to their senses about how society tends to just sit around while the world spins. It is those individual that "rule" the world that make it what it is and the rest just act as little sheep for the slaughter (metaphorically speaking)that makes the world what it is. this is the way it has been since the days of shall I say... Constantine? Only an example.

This thread post is conflicted. You first say religous zealots shakled science discovery, then you pose the question. How much furter advanced our knowledge would take us, then you revert to how we would be more advanced in knowledge of the " super natural" the very existance of adherants to such irrational beliefs continue to shakle science ( stem cell research). Rather obvious is your dogged approach to equate super natural with science, when in fact all thing metaphysical, psi, super natural, etc fail ( when offered a forum, and spot light) to demonstrate anything significant to humankinds advancement. How you are convinced science lacks in knowledge of your pet topic defies logic. What pray tell would come from science " break throughs" into the " unknown forces" of the " super natural"? This thread is rather simulair in content to your science explain super natural thread.

later times like to present an older age as very bad so people cant see how bad their own times are.like this hellhole of a modern world we are in now.id rather live in the 5th centuary than this one!the best thing which could possibly happen to the world right now is a comet impact.

On the other hand, we very well might have destroyed ourselves by now.

who knows? maybe we will never know...

Yep,this world is a hellhole and i'm glad that humanity hasn't escaped it yet to ruin other planets,Hopefully a comet will strike this world and purge it of the plague known as humanity,Science and technology may not be evil but its because of it that this world is the way it is.
I too would rather live in an earlier century.

I think what DJ is trying to explain is that the rulers during the dark ages held back scientific exploration based on shear fear factor and the issue of power of control over the people.

take a look at medicine, heck even doctors turned nasty by paying grave robbers because Cadavers were deemed sacreligious in use for exploration into medicine and disease research.
alot of plagues could have been prohibitted had they not halted that form of research.
Thus opening the fact after a plague to once again allow research to forward.

Just think how many scientist were condemned back then if their labs were stumbled upon.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

The research went on, despite the fact that using human bodies was considered sacreligious it was still done. Perhaps taking a body from the grave to study disease and the human condition was not so bad. But when the bodies weren't available, or weren't as obtainable, was it okay to create your own cadavers?
Perhaps one death to save ten was acceptable. But that translates to 10 to save 100, or 100 to save 1000. Certain "scientists" weren't content to wait for the body to die. At what point does a sacrifice become justified? Perhaps we could ask Mengele. And if one is justified, are 10, or 100, or 1000 just as justified.
This particular argument was not exclusive to the dark ages. It applies even now.
The dark ages were dark to those who thought themselves enlightened. Like those who precipitated the French Revolution. Or the purges of Jews, or gypsies, or blacks, or gays.
The dark ages are today, and they were yesterday, and they are tomorrow. The dark ages are the creation of a man who believes he holds the truth.