Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Celritannia]

No wrath is righteous.

By what objective standard do you determine that?

The fact that wrath blinds an individuals emotions, blocking the ability to think clearly.

It is even in the Bible.

James 1:20 -
[F]or man’s anger does not bring about the righteousness that God desires.

[Farnhamia]

Considering I typed that when I was extremely drunk, yes I am rather embarrassed by it.

But I stand by that Christianity, and the increase in superstitions helped fuel the dark ages.
Yes, there may have been colour etc, but the great artisans, public works, constructions, and engineering of the classical period were long gone.
You can see the decline in work from the great sculpture and mosaics of the Roman Republic and Empire, and the almost cartoonist stick-figure like style of the Bayeux tapestry.
Even the knowledge of medicine in the classical period was more understood. History of medicine in the dark ages was just an aspect of the devil in someway or another.

*points at the Byzantine Empire and Armenia*

Blame the barbarian tribes, not Christianity.

It's a mixed bag. The Goths and the Vandals were Arian Christians. The Franks and the Alemanni were pagans.

[Beggnig]

If I became outraged at someone sending Jews to Auschwitz, that is righteous.

Yes, but the difference is, your not going to kill everyone, are you? You will allow the courts to sort it out.

But in this example the verdict is delivered by the court. God is judge.

[Nakena]

Yes, but the difference is, your not going to kill everyone, are you? You will allow the courts to sort it out.

But in this example the verdict is delivered by the court. God is judge.

Which god?

[Celritannia]

*points at the Byzantine Empire and Armenia*

Blame the barbarian tribes, not Christianity.

What is it with atheists and completely forgetting that there was an entire Christian Roman Empire in the East with perfectly good and scientifically advanced society this whole "Dark Age" time?
The Eastern Romans had no Dark Ages, yet they were about as Christian as you can get.
Edit: Missed out some words.

While the State Religion main religion of the Eastern Roman Empire was indeed Christian, that area was, and had been highly multi-cultural of many faiths and nationalities. Justinian in fact never established Christianity as the main religion of the ERE.

[Celritannia]

Yes, but the difference is, your not going to kill everyone, are you? You will allow the courts to sort it out.

But in this example the verdict is delivered by the court. God is judge.

And if a Judge does not follow the code of law that has already been established?

[Beggnig]

*points at the Byzantine Empire and Armenia*

Blame the barbarian tribes, not Christianity.

It's a mixed bag. The Goths and the Vandals were Arian Christians. The Franks and the Alemanni were pagans.

That's irrelevant. The point is that Christianity is not some sort of poison that makes your society become unenlightened dregs by its mere existence and promotion, not that there weren't Christians (although I wouldn't consider anyone who denies the First Ecumenical Council a Christian) who contributed to the fall of the Western Empire.
What's being debated is the Renaissance idea that Europe fell into a thousand years of darkness because "CROSS MAN IS BAD".

[Beggnig]

But in this example the verdict is delivered by the court. God is judge.

And if a Judge does not follow the code of law that has already been established?

Are you familiar with ex post facto laws?
Without it most of the Axis war criminals would have gotten off Scot-free.

[Celritannia]

It's a mixed bag. The Goths and the Vandals were Arian Christians. The Franks and the Alemanni were pagans.

That's irrelevant. The point is that Christianity is not some sort of poison that makes your society become unenlightened dregs by its mere existence and promotion, not that there weren't Christians (although I wouldn't consider anyone who denies the First Ecumenical Council a Christian) who contributed to the fall of the Western Empire.
What's being debated is the Renaissance idea that Europe fell into a thousand years of darkness because "CROSS MAN IS BAD".

Western Rome did lose out, especially with a great loss to technology. But don't forget, anything the Church did not agree with in this time period, people were executed. Forced Conversions were a major concept, and many pagan cultures were forced to adapt Christian ways.

[Celritannia]

And if a Judge does not follow the code of law that has already been established?

Are you familiar with ex post facto laws?
Without it most of the Axis war criminals would have gotten off Scot-free.

Yes I am, but remember, there was a team of legal professionals that tried the Axis War Criminals.

A singular deity drowning people because they turned away from him? Genocide.

[Beggnig]

*points at the Byzantine Empire and Armenia*

Blame the barbarian tribes, not Christianity.

What is it with atheists and completely forgetting that there was an entire Christian Roman Empire in the East with perfectly good and scientifically advanced society this whole "Dark Age" time?
The Eastern Romans had no Dark Ages, yet they were about as Christian as you can get.
Edit: Missed out some words.

While the State Religion main religion of the Eastern Roman Empire was indeed Christian, that area was, and had been highly multi-cultural of many faiths and nationalities. Justinian in fact never established Christianity as the main religion of the ERE.

So suddenly you admit that the most advanced state of Europe in the "Dark Ages" was at the very least a de facto Christian theocracy? The reason that Bishops in the Orthodox Church wear crowns is because Eastern Roman Emperors were officiators and celebrants in Christian worship as much as Bishops and Priests.

[Beggnig]

Are you familiar with ex post facto laws?
Without it most of the Axis war criminals would have gotten off Scot-free.

Yes I am, but remember, there was a team of legal professionals that tried the Axis War Criminals.

A singular deity drowning people because they turned away from him? Genocide.

Ah, but that's not true. Tokyo had a single chief prosecutor.
By your strange and subjective "singular" standard Tokyo was a miniature genocide.

Also, by what standard do you condemn genocide? How do you know genocide is wrong?

[Celritannia]

While the State Religion main religion of the Eastern Roman Empire was indeed Christian, that area was, and had been highly multi-cultural of many faiths and nationalities. Justinian in fact never established Christianity as the main religion of the ERE.

So suddenly you admit that the most advanced state of Europe in the "Dark Ages" was at the very least a de facto Christian theocracy? The reason that Bishops in the Orthodox Church wear crowns is because Eastern Roman Emperors were officiators and celebrants in Christian worship as much as Bishops and Priests.

I may have jumped the gun a tad and forgot it. But I was mainly refer to the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
I would not call the ERE a theocracy, it did not start off that way, nor was it a theocracy. Traditional Greco-Roman Gods were still worshipped, and much of Greco-Roman Culture was maintained. But the fact is, after the fall of the WRE, the ERE practically sealed itself off.

So If I am leaving the ERE out, it is because I am mainly refering the Western Europe.

[Celritannia]

Yes I am, but remember, there was a team of legal professionals that tried the Axis War Criminals.

A singular deity drowning people because they turned away from him? Genocide.

Ah, but that's not true. Tokyo had a single chief prosecutor.
By your strange and subjective "singular" standard Tokyo was a miniature genocide.

I mean, this is a straw-man comment you are dealing, but here you go.

Eleven countries (Australia, Canada, China, France, British India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States) provided judges and prosecutors for the court. The defense comprised Japanese and American lawyers.

Also, by what standard do you condemn genocide? How do you know genocide is wrong?

I'm sorry, but what? Genocide is never justified. It goes against the basic aspect of the UDHR.

Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word γένος ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -caedo ("act of killing").[1] The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[2][3]

Is any of that a good thing?

[Beggnig]

So suddenly you admit that the most advanced state of Europe in the "Dark Ages" was at the very least a de facto Christian theocracy? The reason that Bishops in the Orthodox Church wear crowns is because Eastern Roman Emperors were officiators and celebrants in Christian worship as much as Bishops and Priests.

I may have jumped the gun a tad and forgot it. But I was mainly refer to the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
I would not call the ERE a theocracy, it did not start off that way, nor was it a theocracy. Traditional Greco-Roman Gods were still worshipped, and much of Greco-Roman Culture was maintained. But the fact is, after the fall of the WRE, the ERE practically sealed itself off.

So If I am leaving the ERE out, it is because I am mainly refering the Western Europe.

This exemplifies a significant bias I would argue.
This would be like saying that Democracies have low GDP on average and excluding NATO members.
The ERE was the most advanced state in Europe and did not have any "Dark Ages" and was Christian.
It's a big and important data point, and I'd doubt it was even intentional on your part but related to the Renaissance insistence that they were "rediscovering" Greco-Roman culture (which I would argue occurred as a result of the Fourth Crusade and the loot from the ERE).
The narrative is that the WRE was the absolute best and then there were weird Greek people but they weren't really Romans anyway.
Without this divide and the neologism 'Byzantine', the Dark Age idea falls apart.

[Beggnig]

Ah, but that's not true. Tokyo had a single chief prosecutor.
By your strange and subjective "singular" standard Tokyo was a miniature genocide.

I mean, this is a straw-man comment you are dealing, but here you go.

Eleven countries (Australia, Canada, China, France, British India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States) provided judges and prosecutors for the court. The defense comprised Japanese and American lawyers.

Also, by what standard do you condemn genocide? How do you know genocide is wrong?

I'm sorry, but what? Genocide is never justified. It goes against the basic aspect of the UDHR.

Genocide is intentional action to destroy a people (usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group) in whole or in part. The hybrid word "genocide" is a combination of the Greek word γένος ("race, people") and the Latin suffix -caedo ("act of killing").[1] The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".[2][3]

Is any of that a good thing?

By what standard do you determine it to be immoral. Not claiming that it is. Simply asking by what standard.
The UDHR is not a moral standard but an agreed statement, if the UN met and repealed it and endorsed genocide, would it become good?

[Celritannia]

I may have jumped the gun a tad and forgot it. But I was mainly refer to the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
I would not call the ERE a theocracy, it did not start off that way, nor was it a theocracy. Traditional Greco-Roman Gods were still worshipped, and much of Greco-Roman Culture was maintained. But the fact is, after the fall of the WRE, the ERE practically sealed itself off.

So If I am leaving the ERE out, it is because I am mainly refering the Western Europe.

This exemplifies a significant bias I would argue.
This would be like saying that Democracies have low GDP on average and excluding NATO members.
The ERE was the most advanced state in Europe and did not have any "Dark Ages" and was Christian.
It's a big and important data point, and I'd doubt it was even intentional on your part but related to the Renaissance insistence that they were "rediscovering" Greco-Roman culture (which I would argue occurred as a result of the Fourth Crusade and the loot from the ERE).
The narrative is that the WRE was the absolute best and then there were weird Greek people but they weren't really Romans anyway.
Without this divide and the neologism 'Byzantine', the Dark Age idea falls apart.

It is not bias at all. I was refering to the fall of WRE, but I should have made that clear.

Yes, I know the ERE was the most advanced state in Europe.

The 4th Crusade was the worst crusade (worst of the worst I should say). It may have brought back the technology and writings, but only after the Crusaders sacked Constantinople, dismantling the political stability of the ERE and eventually allowing the Ottoman conquest of the ERE:

The [4th] Crusade is considered to be one of the most prominent acts that solidified the schism between the Greek and Latin Christian churches, and dealt an irrevocable blow to the already weakened Byzantine Empire, paving the way for Muslim conquests in Anatolia and Balkan Europe in the coming centuries.

[Celritannia]

I mean, this is a straw-man comment you are dealing, but here you go.



I'm sorry, but what? Genocide is never justified. It goes against the basic aspect of the UDHR.



Is any of that a good thing?

By what standard do you determine it to be immoral. Not claiming that it is. Simply asking by what standard.
The UDHR is not a moral standard but an agreed statement, if the UN met and repealed it and endorsed genocide, would it become good?

Of course not. No more than the Anti-Abortion laws in Arkansas are right.
Anything that strips the rights of an individual, or harms an individual is immoral.

[Beggnig]

By what standard do you determine it to be immoral. Not claiming that it is. Simply asking by what standard.
The UDHR is not a moral standard but an agreed statement, if the UN met and repealed it and endorsed genocide, would it become good?

Of course not. No more than the Anti-Abortion laws in Arkansas are right.
Anything that strips the rights of an individual, or harms an individual is immoral.

And how do you know that?

[Farnhamia]

Of course not. No more than the Anti-Abortion laws in Arkansas are right.
Anything that strips the rights of an individual, or harms an individual is immoral.

And how do you know that?

Might I suggest that we at least try to relate the argument to the topic once in a while?

[Celritannia]

Of course not. No more than the Anti-Abortion laws in Arkansas are right.
Anything that strips the rights of an individual, or harms an individual is immoral.

And how do you know that?

Because a human's natural default is not to kill, it's that simple. Nearly every human can feel empathy.

-EDIT-

We do not need a higher power to tell us this.

[Celritannia]

And how do you know that?

Might I suggest that we at least try to relate the argument to the topic once in a while?

Apologies.

[Beggnig]

And how do you know that?

Because a human's natural default is not to kill, it's that simple. Nearly every human can feel empathy.

-EDIT-

We do not need a higher power to tell us this.

So a human's natural default is not to kill therefore it is immoral to kill?
IS to OUGHT.
Why OUGHT I act in accordance with my natural default as human?
A human's natural default is also to make war, and to own slaves, and to commit genocide, as demonstrated by the vast majority of human history, no?
Since you said 'nearly every human' do you admit that there are humans with faulty moral reasoning?
How can you trust your ability to reason to moral conclusions without appealing to that same reason and thus creating a circular argument?

My apologies Farnhamia, it may have seemed irrelevant but prompting the quote:

We do not need a higher power to tell us this.

Was what I was getting at with "How do you know that."

[Celritannia]

Because a human's natural default is not to kill, it's that simple. Nearly every human can feel empathy.

-EDIT-

We do not need a higher power to tell us this.

So a human's natural default is not to kill therefore it is immoral to kill?
IS to OUGHT.
Why OUGHT I act in accordance with my natural default as human?
A human's natural default is also to make war, and to own slaves, and to commit genocide, as demonstrated by the vast majority of human history, no?
Since you said 'nearly every human' do you admit that there are humans with faulty moral reasoning?
How can you trust your ability to reason to moral conclusions without appealing to that same reason and thus creating a circular argument?

My apologies Farnhamia, it may have seemed irrelevant but prompting the quote:

We do not need a higher power to tell us this.

Was what I was getting at with "How do you know that."

No, all the things you mentioned were due to the ideals of a small group of people, not all.
You look at a child, a child will play and interact with other children regardless of their race, gender, sex, etc. What changes children is adult conditioning and the environment around them.

Of course. Psychopaths and sociopaths have the inability to feel empathy.

Because evidence.

Research shows that "being kind is actually our first response. It is our first automatic tendency," she says.

Here is more evidence.

So God saying humans are born with sin in the bible is incorrect according to science.

[Beggnig]

So a human's natural default is not to kill therefore it is immoral to kill?
IS to OUGHT.
Why OUGHT I act in accordance with my natural default as human?
A human's natural default is also to make war, and to own slaves, and to commit genocide, as demonstrated by the vast majority of human history, no?
Since you said 'nearly every human' do you admit that there are humans with faulty moral reasoning?
How can you trust your ability to reason to moral conclusions without appealing to that same reason and thus creating a circular argument?

My apologies Farnhamia, it may have seemed irrelevant but prompting the quote:

Was what I was getting at with "How do you know that."

No, all the things you mentioned were due to the ideals of a small group of people, not all.
You look at a child, a child will play and interact with other children regardless of their race, gender, sex, etc. What changes children is adult conditioning and the environment around them.

Of course. Psychopaths and sociopaths have the inability to feel empathy.

Because evidence.

Research shows that "being kind is actually our first response. It is our first automatic tendency," she says.

Here is more evidence.

So God saying humans are born with sin in the bible is incorrect according to science.

So how do you know that you can reason to moral conclusions properly?
Again, why ought I act in accordance with my automatic behavioural tendency?

Also, that's not what the Bible says, you're quoting writings on 'original sin' by St. Augustine he later mostly retracted in "The Rectractions" at the end of his life.
Ancestral sin is the consequences of the sins of our ancestors, not some genetically inherited curse.
Personal sin is what we choose to do.
Note also that kindness is not automatically right, kindly telling a madman with an axe where his victim is hiding for example.
Plus kindness in itself doesn't stop someone from lust, gluttony, sloth and even pride in being such a 'nice' person.