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

[Jack Thomas Lang]

And yet, compared to that, we see the Baghdad house of Wisdom which was able to save a lot of the great works of Greek philosophers when the Ottoman Empire took over the rest of the Eastern roman Empire.

But remember, the Dark Ages paved the way for further superstition and the downgrading of a once great culture when local warlords, through the authority of the Church, were able to kill any who did not follow the Abrahamic God.

Your knowledge of history is abysmal, suffice to say.

The House of Wisdom began somewhere in the 7-8th centuries, under the Abbasid Caliphate which conquered large parts of the Roman Middle East, existing from 750-1258 AD. They didn't conquer the entirety of the Eastern Roman Empire, which existed and daresay thrived for several centuries, only to begin degrading due to Turkic conquerors, the Latin crusaders and Ottomans, culminating in the fall of Constantinople in 1453. So comparing Arabic scholars and Christian scholars is ridiculous. The Christian monks saved what they could after a complete collapse of the Western Roman Empire. For the time of the library's existence, the Abbasid Caliphate rubbed shoulders with the Byzantines. As you can see, the Eastern Roman Empire outlived the House of Wisdom and Abbasid Caliphate.

You can only argue that if you hold some notion that Roman culture was vastly superior to Western Christian culture, which I find ridiculous. Any study of medieval history will uncover a vibrant and fascinating culture, with beautiful art, architecture, literature and conventions. Yes it was violent, unjust and hierarchical but no more so than Rome.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

What the fuck, you're right. God murdered Jesus to appease himself.

Except Jesus went willingly

Whymst the fucceth would that matter in the slightest.

If Korhal seriously believes that magic and the theory of evolution are related ideas it is entirely useless engaging him in debate.

Please study the definition of “figure of speech”.

It's not our fault that your points are so consistently illogical that we occasionally can't tell whether you're being serious or not.

Remember that time that Satan convinced God to ruin Job's life just to see if Job would still have faith in him even after being betrayed, and it turned out that Satan was right about the fact that you can't be a dick to people and expect them to remain loyal for long, a fact that God was apparently unaware of despite the fact that he's, y'know, omniscient and stuff?

The Bible was written down as a guide for those in the present.

How are we supposed to see that if it never happened?

Can someone more fluent in Korhal than I tell me what this actually means and how it's relevant to what I said?

And an awful one at that, seeing how much of your religion revolves around a magical deity.

Please study the actual nature of God.

Also, do note that my vocabulary is stranger than Tzeentch, so deal with it.

Christians have been trying to come to a consensus on what the actual nature of God is for thousands of years. The issue is so contested that I can't even adequately reply to this because I genuinely don't know what your opinion on the nature of God is (although, tbh, I probably wouldn't care even if I did).

[Neanderthaland]

He got mad at a tree for being out of season, and then killed it. Your making this out to be some profound point is just making Christianity seem increasingly absurd.

He was showing that he controls nature, to prove to the disciples who didn't believe him that he was God.

Make it rain or something. Jesus Christ.

[Neanderthaland]

Not really. You are accusing others of what you know you yourself are guilty of. Fairly textbook projecting.

Also, as is often the case, not really true. Atheists usually inherit most of their morality from their parents, like just about everyone else. Some of it may be reconsidered and reevaluated in light of their experiences, a lot of it isn't. This is typical for any adult.

Without God, there is no ultimate source for objective morality.

That is the point.

Seems like nobody can agree on what "objective morality" is, even among those who do believe in a god. So your point is moot.

[Minzerland II]

Praying is a waste of time and never got me anything good. If higher power wants respect from me, they have to earn it. Still I'd consider myself a "cultural Christian" because of my upbringing.

It reminds me of one of my favourite quotes.

Prayer is like masturbation, it feels good to the person doing it, but it does nothing to the person you're thinking about.

It did pretty well for Trajan, though. :^)

[Hanafuridake]

If praying was anything like masturbating, I'd be a nun

The only god that gives you pleasure from praying to him is Slaanesh. Embrace Excess!

No thanks. Excess is painful.

[Korhal IVV]

Please study the definition of “figure of speech”.

That was not a figure of speech, that was sheer blubbering nonsense expected from a complete ignoramus of biology.

Oh, so I am stupid now?

I guess my valedictorian status and constitent dean’s lister status over the years means I don’t know a dime about biology then.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

That was not a figure of speech, that was sheer blubbering nonsense expected from a complete ignoramus of biology.

Oh, so I am stupid now?

I guess my valedictorian status and constitent dean’s lister status over the years means I don’t know a dime about biology then.

And your degree was in biology?

[Korhal IVV]

Except Jesus went willingly

Whymst the fucceth would that matter in the slightest.

Please study the definition of “figure of speech”.

It's not our fault that your points are so consistently illogical that we occasionally can't tell whether you're being serious or not.

The Bible was written down as a guide for those in the present.

How are we supposed to see that if it never happened?

Can someone more fluent in Korhal than I tell me what this actually means and how it's relevant to what I said?

Please study the actual nature of God.

Also, do note that my vocabulary is stranger than Tzeentch, so deal with it.

Christians have been trying to come to a consensus on what the actual nature of God is for thousands of years. The issue is so contested that I can't even adequately reply to this because I genuinely don't know what your opinion on the nature of God is (although, tbh, I probably wouldn't care even if I did).

Deal with it.

We are just pointing fingers and shouting “You are illogical” at each other at this rate, so meh.

And yet, the three branches of Christianity agree on the nature of God for the most part. A few disagreements here and there, yes, but not enough for it to be a problem.

[Korhal IVV]

Oh, so I am stupid now?

I guess my valedictorian status and constitent dean’s lister status over the years means I don’t know a dime about biology then.

And your degree was in biology?

I have taken all required subjects in biology in the curriculum. Enough to have an understanding of evolution, which I may or may not deny. Or maybe I do. But again, maybe I don’t.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I guess my valedictorian status and constitent dean’s lister status over the years means I don’t know a dime about biology then.

Yes? Your degree is in theology, not biology. On what grounds do you presume that you have an intimate grasp of the foundations of biological science beyond... "a naturalistic explanation with a six pointed magic circle with the face of Charles Darwin in the middle of it"?

And your degree was in biology?

I have taken all required subjects in biology in the curriculum. Enough to have an understanding of evolution, which I may or may not deny. Or maybe I do. But again, maybe I don’t.

if you did have an understanding of evolution you would not utter the following sentence without laughing at it yourself:
"a naturalistic explanation with a six pointed magic circle with the face of Charles Darwin in the middle of it"

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

And your degree was in biology?

I have taken all required subjects in biology in the curriculum. Enough to have an understanding of evolution, which I may or may not deny. Or maybe I do. But again, maybe I don’t.

Depending on the school, that does not necessarily mean anything.

[Korhal IVV]

I guess my valedictorian status and constitent dean’s lister status over the years means I don’t know a dime about biology then.

Yes? Your degree is in theology, not biology. On what grounds do you presume that you have an intimate grasp of the foundations of biological science beyond... "a naturalistic explanation with a six pointed magic circle with the face of Charles Darwin in the middle of it"?

I have taken all required subjects in biology in the curriculum. Enough to have an understanding of evolution, which I may or may not deny. Or maybe I do. But again, maybe I don’t.

if you did have an understanding of evolution you would not utter the following sentence without laughing at it yourself:
"a naturalistic explanation with a six pointed magic circle with the face of Charles Darwin in the middle of it"

I did laugh. What makes you think I am not doing it with a pinch of humour... because that is what I always do?

I may understand it, but that doesn’t automatically mean I accept it. Maybe I do. Maybe I don’t.

This is the explanation you would probably put forward for the existence of a sense of right and wrong: Humans that cooperated with each other had a greater chance of survival than those that didn’t, and groups that killed each other don’t get to reproduce their genes. Thus, the hypothetical caveman who died saving his tribe from a rampaging mammoth may have experienced something less than a survival benefit for himself, but he made it more likely that his siblings and cousins, aunts and uncles, would survive and reproduce their genes–which were also, in part, his. Likewise with the tribesman who was willing to share resources with those in need, even if he suffered personally for his generosity. Similar scenarios can be offered for most other actions we would call good, which leads the naturalist to argue that the development of morality could be explained through what we might call survival of the lucky relative.

[Korhal IVV]

I have taken all required subjects in biology in the curriculum. Enough to have an understanding of evolution, which I may or may not deny. Or maybe I do. But again, maybe I don’t.

Depending on the school, that does not necessarily mean anything.

I studied in two.

One is a state university.

The other is a seminary.

[Hanafuridake]

Yes? Your degree is in theology, not biology. On what grounds do you presume that you have an intimate grasp of the foundations of biological science beyond... "a naturalistic explanation with a six pointed magic circle with the face of Charles Darwin in the middle of it"?

if you did have an understanding of evolution you would not utter the following sentence without laughing at it yourself:
"a naturalistic explanation with a six pointed magic circle with the face of Charles Darwin in the middle of it"

I did laugh. What makes you think I am not doing it with a pinch of humour... because that is what I always do?

[Thuzbekistan]

Points to Confucianism, Plato, Aristotle, and Ancient Mesopotamia

I am very much aware of that.

That still doesn’t answer the question as of why humans regardless of what culture they are have the same sense of morality, if not in different ways.

As this apologetics site states here, all humans have more or less the same moral values.

“If morality is objective, then why do some cultures practice female genital mutilation, cannibalism, infanticide, and other atrocities which we, in the West, deem unacceptable?’
There can be two responses given here:
The first response is that even though not all cultures share the exact same moral facts, most embrace the same, underlying moral values. For example, there are certain tribes that practice senicide (authorized killing of the elderly) due to their belief that everyone in the afterlife will continue living on in the same body that they died with. Thus, in order to ensure that those in the afterlife are capable of hunting, swimming, building houses, etc., the elderly are killed before they become too old to take care of themselves. This act is done with the well-being of the elderly in mind. The moral value that we hold in the West- ”The elderly are valuable and must be taken care of”- is also accepted by these tribes, even though their facts are slightly (well, maybe more than slightly) off.
The second response is that some cultures do, in fact, practice certain things that are straight up morally abominable. Cultures that practice infanticide, female circumcision, widow burning, child prostitution, etc. are practicing acts that are repulsive and morally abhorrent. When a man decides to have his 6-year old daughter circumcised or sold into prostitution, that is not a cultural or traditional difference that we should respect and uphold, rather these are atrocities that need to be advocated against and ended. The existence of multiple moral codes does not negate the existence of objective morality. Are we to condone slavery and segregation since they were once allowed under our country’s moral code? Of course not. We condemn those actions, and rightly so.
Take the example of Nazi Germany: the Nazi ideology consented to the slaughter of millions, but their actions were wrong despite them thinking that they were right. Tim Keller summarizes this point succinctly:
The Nazis who exterminated Jews may have claimed that they didn’t feel it was immoral at all. We don’t care. We don’t care if they sincerely felt they were doing a service to humanity. They ought not to have done it. We do not only have moral feelings, but we also have an ineradicable belief that moral standards exist, outside of us, by which our internal moral feelings are evaluated.
Simply because a society practices acts that are contrary to what is moral does not mean that all moral codes are equal. Moral disagreements do not nullify moral truths.”

Also, as stated there as well:

“By making a judgment on God’s actions and deeming them immoral, the objector is appealing to a standard of morality that holds true outside of him/herself and transcends barriers of culture, context, time period, and social norms. By doing this, he/she affirms the existence of objective morality! But if the skeptic wants to affirm objective morality after throwing God out the window, then there needs to be an alternate explanation for its basis. If not God, then what is it? The burden is now on the skeptic to provide a naturalistic explanation for the objective moral framework.”

The Aztecs beg to differ on all civilizations having the same morality

[The New California Republic]

That was not a figure of speech, that was sheer blubbering nonsense expected from a complete ignoramus of biology.

Oh, so I am stupid now?

I guess my valedictorian status and constitent dean’s lister status over the years means I don’t know a dime about biology then.

And I have an MA in Philosophy and an MLitt in Continental Philosophy, at the top of my class both times, but I don't claim that my Master status applies to Biology.

[Korhal IVV]

Oh, so I am stupid now?

I guess my valedictorian status and constitent dean’s lister status over the years means I don’t know a dime about biology then.

And I have an MA in Philosophy and an MLitt in Continental Philosophy, at the top of my class both times, but I don't claim that my Master status applies to Biology.

That is not really what I meant.

It is absolutely idiotic to call me an ignoramus in biology either way.

[The New California Republic]

I did laugh. What makes you think I am not doing it with a pinch of humour... because that is what I always do?

Hit the nail on the head. It's an old story: argue seriously and then claim it was all in jest when said argument collapses. If NationStates got a dime every time someone did that on the forums then they wouldn't need advertising to pay site costs.

[The New California Republic]

And I have an MA in Philosophy and an MLitt in Continental Philosophy, at the top of my class both times, but I don't claim that my Master status applies to Biology.

That is not really what I meant.

It is absolutely idiotic to call me an ignoramus in biology either way.

Sure it wasn't. And the assessment of your knowledge on said subject was entirely justified in light of the statement you made.

[Neanderthaland]

And I have an MA in Philosophy and an MLitt in Continental Philosophy, at the top of my class both times, but I don't claim that my Master status applies to Biology.

That is not really what I meant.

It is absolutely idiotic to call me an ignoramus in biology either way.

Assuming proficiency in a subject you know little about is textbook Dunning–Kruger. Nothing about your posting history suggests that you are competent at biology.

In fact I'd wager that you can't given an accurate definition of evolution in your own words.

[Korhal IVV]

That is not really what I meant.

It is absolutely idiotic to call me an ignoramus in biology either way.

Assuming proficiency in a subject you know little about is textbook Dunning–Kruger. Nothing about your posting history suggests that you are competent at biology.

In fact I'd wager that you can't given an accurate definition of evolution in your own words.

???????????????

Oh, look at who is stalking someone’s posts... for something I never really talked about in the past few months.

I am wagering that you think I am dumb, but that doesn’t matter. After all, nothing matters in the end anyway.

[Korhal IVV]

Hit the nail on the head. It's an old story: argue seriously and then claim it was all in jest when said argument collapses. If NationStates got a dime every time someone did that on the forums then they wouldn't need advertising to pay site costs.

?

[Coruscanti Nations]

Hit the nail on the head. It's an old story: argue seriously and then claim it was all in jest when said argument collapses. If NationStates got a dime every time someone did that on the forums then they wouldn't need advertising to pay site costs.

And the saying also goes: Know your enemy.

It appears you don’t have a good assessment of how Korhal thinks.

To me, it is usually a jest. The moment I saw the 40K references and whatnot, it is assumable that there is an odd mixture of seriousness and humour rolled into one. And especially the magic circle.

That is not really what I meant.

It is absolutely idiotic to call me an ignoramus in biology either way.

Assuming proficiency in a subject you know little about is textbook Dunning–Kruger. Nothing about your posting history suggests that you are competent at biology.

In fact I'd wager that you can't given an accurate definition of evolution in your own words.

Nowhere do I see him saying “I am a master of biology you plebians.” Only “I am not as stupid as you think.”

[Coruscanti Nations]

He was showing that he controls nature, to prove to the disciples who didn't believe him that he was God.

Make it rain or something. Jesus Christ.

Does it bother you if a random tree withered?

Aside from the Dark Ages being a very questionable term to define the period in question, blaming Christianity for the Dark Ages is rather ignorant. I would argue that the influx of barbarian tribes into the Roman Empire and subsequent collapse played a much bigger part in creating the "dark ages". It becomes even more ridiculous when you take into account that Christian monks were some of the only Europeans transcribing Roman and Greek texts for posterity.

And yet, compared to that, we see the Baghdad House of Wisdom which was able to save a lot of the great works of Greek philosophers when the Ottoman Empire took over the rest of the Eastern Roman Empire.

And really, Rome was doomed to fail after the last great Emperor, Marcus Aurelius.

But remember, the Dark Ages paved the way for further superstition and the downgrading of a once great culture when local warlords, through the authority of the Church, were able to kill any who did not follow the Abrahamic God.

Except that the church openly spoke out against the atrocities committed by warlords.

One reason for the Crusades was to stop Western European infighting, after all.