Hitler And God

[David Sklansky]

Okay, I admit this post will be so simplistic it could have been thought up by a six year old. But it still needs to be said.

Not Ready is fond of invoking Hitler when discussing the subject of right and wrong in a godless world. How can someone say that Hitler was inherently "wrong" to kill six million Jews if there is no God to say he was? He probably had what he thought were good reasons. He probably wasn't just a sicko sadist.

And although I haven't seriously analyzed that statement, I think it is technically correct. Regardless of what the hi falootin philosophers say.

But wait. Inherent in this statement is the common sense (but not strictly logical) implication that God WOULD have considered Hitler wrong. But why? I mean these people will soon burn in hell for eternity anyway. Is God mad at Hitler because a miniscule percentage of them would have converted to Christianity? Or because it is his job, not Hitler's, to torture those that don't? Perhaps. But I don't think this is what Not Ready was getting at. So I think he ought to find a better example than one that even a six year old could find fault with.

[kingofmirrors]

if hitler only killed jews who refused to accept christ, as opposed to anyone with jewish blood, im guessing more than a miniscule percentage would have converted.

maybe that was god's issue. he wanted another crusade?

edit: i think hitler broke a couple commandments too. if you use the bible as the ultimate standard of morality you can answer this question, but that would have pretty serious implications regarding a) the fates of everyone but fundamentalists and b) the nature of god himself.

[PairTheBoard]

You are too corrupt to judge "God's" justice David. Do you know why you can't understand that? It's because you are too corrupt. There is no logical problem here.

PairTheBoard

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Inherent in this statement is the common sense (but not strictly logical) implication that God WOULD have considered Hitler wrong. But why?

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Wont it go something like:

God thinks we should do good things (from the interpreted bible)
Hitler did bad things (as defined in the interpreted bible)
God thinks Hitler was wrong? (by logic, probably backed up with quotes and interpretation of the bible)

Call me dumber than a 6 year old, but I dont get why Hitler is such a bad example of a person most would consider immoral.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I admit this post will be so simplistic it could have been thought up by a six year old. But it still needs to be said.

Not Ready is fond of invoking Hitler when discussing the subject of right and wrong in a godless world. How can someone say that Hitler was inherently "wrong" to kill six million Jews if there is no God to say he was? He probably had what he thought were good reasons. He probably wasn't just a sicko sadist.

And although I haven't seriously analyzed that statement, I think it is technically correct. Regardless of what the hi falootin philosophers say.

But wait. Inherent in this statement is the common sense (but not strictly logical) implication that God WOULD have considered Hitler wrong. But why? I mean these people will soon burn in hell for eternity anyway. Is God mad at Hitler because a miniscule percentage of them would have converted to Christianity? Or because it is his job, not Hitler's, to torture those that don't? Perhaps. But I don't think this is what Not Ready was getting at. So I think he ought to find a better example than one that even a six year old could find fault with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what you're getting at. What difference does it make if a percentage of Hitler's victims were sinners, saints, or would-be converts? God would consider it wrong to destroy precious God-given life. That makes perfect sense to me, and I don't even believe in God. ??

More important in refuting these very weak arguments about mass murderers who happened to be atheists, is to point out that morality does not need to eminate from a singular or central source. Morality is just another product of our evolution and hence, further evidence for it.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Morality is just another product of our evolution and hence, further evidence for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You dont consider this circular?

[Phil153]

Or more simply: "How can you say God is good if you can't say anything about the actions of Hitler?"

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Or more simply: "How can you say God is good if you can't say anything about the actions of Hitler?"

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks. I'm now as smart as a six year old /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[PairTheBoard]

I think Sklansky's point is yet another argument against hell rather than one about God being the Absolute for what's right and wrong. Like he says, it's the 6 year old's observation that it doesn't make sense for God to condemn the killing of people who God just intends to torture for eternity anyway. Although, I suppose you could argue that it does make sense that God condemns Hitler because Hitler sent the Jews on their way to eternal torture sooner than God had intended.

PairTheBoard

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Call me dumber than a 6 year old, but I dont get why Hitler is such a bad example of a person most would consider immoral. </font>

The question is why it is assumed that God considers Hitler wrong. Not why we would.

There is a real problem in attributing our morality to God and that is, we must assume our own sense of morality is perfect in order to do so. And once again, we find ourselves on the merry-go-round of Christian logic.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Morality is just another product of our evolution and hence, further evidence for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You dont consider this circular?

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Evolution is never circular. It's more of a straight line. There is concrete evidence to show how we derived our morality through evolution. I don't see it as circular at all. If this is circular thinking, please explain.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Sklansky's point is yet another argument against hell rather than one about God being the Absolute for what's right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, David's fourth paragraph is gold. I missed it the first time.

Lestat, bunny is right.

[Lestat]

Ok, I get it. So 6 million Jews were going to hell anyway on a technicality about Jesus, so what's the difference when they get there?

Still, it is perfectly reasonable to assume a creator won't take kindly to the destruction of his creation, whether or not said creation is flawed or not. If I create something you don't like, I'd still resent you throwing it in the garbage. That's for me to do, thank you.

Although the aspect I find even MORE interesting/repulsing is the belief that God would've saved Hitler. All he had to do was genuinely repent, while the 6 million innocent Jews he tortured and killed burn in hell for eternity.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think Sklansky's point is yet another argument against hell rather than one about God being the Absolute for what's right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, David's fourth paragraph is gold. I missed it the first time.

Lestat, bunny is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I now see that point. But I still say a creator has the right to be mad at someone else destroying his creation (in this case Hitler destroying God's gift of life), even if that creation is flawed. But I think David goes on to say that this wasn't NotReady's point.

[SNOWBALL]

I don't get why god has anything to do with morality anyway. If god exists then that doesn't change the unmeasurability of morality. It just gives it an arbitrary standard, viz., what god commands is good, and what he forbids is bad, therefore bad and good are just shorthand for god's will.

Either way, there's no objective measure for immorality in the same way that there is an objective measure for the area of a triangle, or the temperature of my oven.

You may counter: "god is the objective measure," but that's just an irreducible axiom. I choose to reject it, and you choose to follow it, but you can't prove your axiom is better than anyone else's. You can't prove that the true measure of right and wrong shouldn't actually be founded around a man named Bill instead.

MORALITY DOESN'T EXIST.

[David Sklansky]

I wasn't trying to make a deep point. I was just trying to give Not Ready a hard time for using the Hitler example. He could have used plenty others that I would have had no problem with.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
You are too corrupt to judge "God's" justice David. Do you know why you can't understand that? It's because you are too corrupt. There is no logical problem here.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

So If I wasn't corrupt I could judge his justice? Anyway at least I'm not filth.

[kickabuck]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why god has anything to do with morality anyway. If god exists then that doesn't change the unmeasurability of morality. It just gives it an arbitrary standard, viz., what god commands is good, and what he forbids is bad, therefore bad and good are just shorthand for god's will.

Either way, there's no objective measure for immorality in the same way that there is an objective measure for the area of a triangle, or the temperature of my oven.

You may counter: "god is the objective measure," but that's just an irreducible axiom. I choose to reject it, and you choose to follow it, but you can't prove your axiom is better than anyone else's. You can't prove that the true measure of right and wrong shouldn't actually be founded around a man named Bill instead.

MORALITY DOESN'T EXIST.

[/ QUOTE ]

Society flourishing adhering to God's morality as opposed to its languishing in the the absence of his morality would be some proof of what is right and what is wrong, no?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So I think he ought to find a better example than one that even a six year old could find fault with.


[/ QUOTE ]


I pick Hitler to save time.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are too corrupt to judge "God's" justice David. Do you know why you can't understand that? It's because you are too corrupt. There is no logical problem here.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

So If I wasn't corrupt I could judge his justice? Anyway at least I'm not filth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, NotReady is the expert on all things filthy. But I think if you weren't corrupt you wouldn't have any problem seeing how just God's justice is. At least I doubt you'd doubt it.

PairTheBoard

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why god has anything to do with morality anyway. If god exists then that doesn't change the unmeasurability of morality. It just gives it an arbitrary standard, viz., what god commands is good, and what he forbids is bad, therefore bad and good are just shorthand for god's will.

Either way, there's no objective measure for immorality in the same way that there is an objective measure for the area of a triangle, or the temperature of my oven.

You may counter: "god is the objective measure," but that's just an irreducible axiom. I choose to reject it, and you choose to follow it, but you can't prove your axiom is better than anyone else's. You can't prove that the true measure of right and wrong shouldn't actually be founded around a man named Bill instead.

MORALITY DOESN'T EXIST.


[/ QUOTE ]



Society flourishing adhering to God's morality as opposed to its languishing in the the absence of his morality would be some proof of what is right and what is wrong, no?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's actually an argument for the secular nature of moralistic codes. Societies that are composed of individuals who can coooperate are more successful than societies that are composed of individuals that destroy one another. Natural selection FTW.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are too corrupt to judge "God's" justice David. Do you know why you can't understand that? It's because you are too corrupt. There is no logical problem here.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

So If I wasn't corrupt I could judge his justice? Anyway at least I'm not filth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, NotReady is the expert on all things filthy. But I think if you weren't corrupt you wouldn't have any problem seeing how just God's justice is. At least I doubt you'd doubt it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

You are the most confusing poster here. I have often said that I believe that if there is a God he would be just. Which is why those religions that postulate that God behaves unjustly, by our common sense standards, must be wrong. You appear to be saying the same thing as Not Ready. That what we perceive to be unjust isn't really. But even though I can't understand most of the stuff you and Not Ready argue about I certainly get the fact that you two aren't on the same page.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
Not Ready is fond of invoking Hitler when discussing the subject of right and wrong in a godless world. How can someone say that Hitler was inherently "wrong" to kill six million Jews if there is no God to say he was? He probably had what he thought were good reasons. He probably wasn't just a sicko sadist.

And although I haven't seriously analyzed that statement, I think it is technically correct. Regardless of what the hi falootin philosophers say.

But wait. Inherent in this statement is the common sense (but not strictly logical) implication that God WOULD have considered Hitler wrong. But why?

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't fully absorbed the theistic basis for right and wrong. God may or may not have considered Hitler wrong but no 'why' can apply. It is an arbitrary standard. (If it wasn't arbitrary but could be worked out from 'why' then it wouldn't matter if there was a God to declare the answers or if there wasn't.) Theistic morality is right and wrong because God said so, with no 'why' possible, even in principle.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
God WOULD have considered Hitler wrong. But why?

[/ QUOTE ]
Thou shalt not kill would seem to cover it.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean these people will soon burn in hell for eternity anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
assuming facts not in evidence here. and I don't mean whether hell exists or not, i mean even assuming it exists, you have no way of knowing who will go to hell or not.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are too corrupt to judge "God's" justice David. Do you know why you can't understand that? It's because you are too corrupt. There is no logical problem here.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

So If I wasn't corrupt I could judge his justice? Anyway at least I'm not filth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, NotReady is the expert on all things filthy. But I think if you weren't corrupt you wouldn't have any problem seeing how just God's justice is. At least I doubt you'd doubt it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

You are the most confusing poster here. I have often said that I believe that if there is a God he would be just. Which is why those religions that postulate that God behaves unjustly, by our common sense standards, must be wrong. You appear to be saying the same thing as Not Ready. That what we perceive to be unjust isn't really. But even though I can't understand most of the stuff you and Not Ready argue about I certainly get the fact that you two aren't on the same page.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to describe to you what I think NotReady's position is on this, and why it is unassailable by your logic. In my view, the whole concept of "justice" should be deemphasized. The paradigm that revolves around "justice" needs to be transcended and replaced by one that revolves around Love.



PairTheBoard

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why god has anything to do with morality anyway. If god exists then that doesn't change the unmeasurability of morality. It just gives it an arbitrary standard, viz., what god commands is good, and what he forbids is bad, therefore bad and good are just shorthand for god's will.

Either way, there's no objective measure for immorality in the same way that there is an objective measure for the area of a triangle, or the temperature of my oven.

You may counter: "god is the objective measure," but that's just an irreducible axiom. I choose to reject it, and you choose to follow it, but you can't prove your axiom is better than anyone else's. You can't prove that the true measure of right and wrong shouldn't actually be founded around a man named Bill instead.

MORALITY DOESN'T EXIST.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that just because morality is more complicated than finding the area of a triangle or measuring the temerature in your oven, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]

You are the most confusing poster here. I have often said that I believe that if there is a God he would be just. Which is why those religions that postulate that God behaves unjustly, by our common sense standards, must be wrong. You appear to be saying the same thing as Not Ready. That what we perceive to be unjust isn't really. But even though I can't understand most of the stuff you and Not Ready argue about I certainly get the fact that you two aren't on the same page.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why on Earth do you believe if there's a God he would be just? Doesn't all available evidence point in the other direction? IMO, if there's a God he's clearly a sociopath at best, albeit a sociopath with good aesthetic sense.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]

Not Ready is fond of invoking Hitler when discussing the subject of right and wrong in a godless world. How can someone say that Hitler was inherently "wrong" to kill six million Jews if there is no God to say he was? He probably had what he thought were good reasons. He probably wasn't just a sicko sadist.

And although I haven't seriously analyzed that statement, I think it is technically correct. Regardless of what the hi falootin philosophers say.



[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't seriously thought about the claim that we can't say that Hitler was wrong to kill six million Jews, but nevertheless you think it is correct despite what philosophers might say? Wow.

What in the world would be your grounds for thinking that Hitler wasn't 'inherently' wrong (not sure what it means to be 'inherently' wrong) in that case?

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So I think he ought to find a better example than one that even a six year old could find fault with.


[/ QUOTE ]


I pick Hitler to save time.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the easy way out; in addition, everyone knows that time = money and it is detrimental Public Relations for Christians to have Mammon occupy so prominently in their posts. Of course you can make a plea that you are just being efficient with your time without regard to any monetary considerations. If that is the case, next time pick Genghis Khan instead of Hitler, for the sake of variety.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

The Jews Hitler killed did not accept Jesus as the son of God, thus they are destined for hell.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
The Jews Hitler killed did not accept Jesus as the son of God, thus they are destined for hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

what you say is good religion, I can't argue that, but you won't find that in the bible.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
The Jews Hitler killed did not accept Jesus as the son of God, thus they are destined for hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Au Contraire: Edith Stein et al.

From Wiki "the Dutch Bishops' Conference had a public statement read in all the churches of the country on July 20, 1942, condemning Nazi racism. In a retaliatory response on July 26, 1942, the Reichskommissar of the Netherlands, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, ordered the arrest of all Jewish converts, who had previously been spared. Stein and her sister Rosa, also a convert, were captured and shipped to the Auschwitz concentration camp, where they died in the gas chambers on August 9, 1942."

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Au Contraire: Edith Stein et al.

From Wiki "the Dutch Bishops' Conference had a public statement read in all the churches of the country on July 20, 1942, condemning Nazi racism. In a retaliatory response on July 26, 1942, the Reichskommissar of the Netherlands, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, ordered the arrest of all Jewish converts, who had previously been spared. Stein and her sister Rosa, also a convert, were captured and shipped to the Auschwitz concentration camp, where they died in the gas chambers on August 9, 1942."

Post Extras


[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting. Hitler killed the jews that didn’t convert, but that’s ok, because they were destined to hell anyway. But he also killed the Jews that newly converted, which is also ok, since newly baptized converts are washed away of their sins and guaranteed a spot in heaven ( at least at the point of their baptism). Seems like Hitler killed two birds with one stone.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Or because it is (God's) job, not Hitler's, to torture those that don't (convert to Christianity)?

[/ QUOTE ]
With as much as you know about the physical laws of our universe, why do you have so much trouble understanding the spiritual laws? You are attacking a misrepresentation of Christianity.

[Gregatron]

[ QUOTE ]
implication that God WOULD have considered Hitler wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, my point of view is that people create God (as opposed to the other way around). Most people think Hitler is evil, and hence so does God. God does not live outside our moral sphere -- he is the embodiment of it.

This is one reason why, as a secular humanist, I don't have a huge problem with God as many others do. He is just a manifestation and receptacle of morality. He is a fairy tale -- a sort of moral avatar.

Of course, this brings up the larger issue of "what is morality?" Which I still struggle with, but often use the Supreme Court criteria for pornography: I can't define it specifically but I know it when I see it! (How's that for not logical?)

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or because it is (God's) job, not Hitler's, to torture those that don't (convert to Christianity)?

[/ QUOTE ]
With as much as you know about the physical laws of our universe, why do you have so much trouble understanding the spiritual laws? You are attacking a misrepresentation of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I perfectly understand that your version of Christianity claims that everyone deserves hell but that God will "save" the believers in Jesus. What you don't understand is that my statement and yours are basically logically equivalent.

[JussiUt]

These Sklansky arguments are pretty weird but sometimes fascinating too. I think the problem here is just that Christianity, belief or God are not things that people have same ideas of. And when you try to challenge one particular set of ideas about those things the person usually isn't able to give logical answers to logical questions because his set of ideas aren't based on logic but on 'belief'.

These are sometimes interesting arguments Sklansky makes but they don't usually end up anywhere. There ultimately isn't much logic in religion by its very nature. Is that what Sklansky is trying to prove here with all these logical games/tests?

[Erik W]

1. Make 2 statements
2. Everyone disagrees with one of those statements.
3. Is the other one true if the first is false?
Thise is were the dog is burried.
Nice try and it will work with those stupid enough to look past the simple logic.

[andyfox]

Because religion involves "faith," defined as belief that is not based on proof.

[RJT]

Leave it to you, David, to come up with such a warped, albeit valid point.

And I am going to go out on a limb here and say that in all the thoughts, discussions, symposiums whatever about the Holocaust, I doubt if anyone has ever described the Holocaust as “ironic”. (That’s basically what you are saying NR is saying.)

You are original.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Au Contraire: Edith Stein et al.

From Wiki "the Dutch Bishops' Conference had a public statement read in all the churches of the country on July 20, 1942, condemning Nazi racism. In a retaliatory response on July 26, 1942, the Reichskommissar of the Netherlands, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, ordered the arrest of all Jewish converts, who had previously been spared. Stein and her sister Rosa, also a convert, were captured and shipped to the Auschwitz concentration camp, where they died in the gas chambers on August 9, 1942."

Post Extras


[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting. Hitler killed the jews that didn’t convert, but that’s ok, because they were destined to hell anyway. But he also killed the Jews that newly converted, which is also ok, since newly baptized converts are washed away of their sins and guaranteed a spot in heaven ( at least at the point of their baptism). Seems like Hitler killed two birds with one stone.

[/ QUOTE ]

But no one is predestined for Hell, and no one knows what their or someone else's ultimate destiny will be. That is inexcusable presumption.

[joes28]

[ QUOTE ]
I have often said that I believe that if there is a God he would be just. Which is why those religions that postulate that God behaves unjustly, by our common sense standards, must be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you believe that god would be just?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
What you don't understand is that my statement and yours are basically logically equivalent.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, they aren't. This is exactly what I meant when I said that you don't understand spiritual laws. For the forgiveness of sins, blood must be shed.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
For the forgiveness of sins, blood must be shed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Say no more!

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
For the forgiveness of sins, blood must be shed.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's interesting to think of the death penalty in this context.

bible=stoning

US= hanging, lethal injection, gas chamber, electric chair

I think Utah had/has firing squad as an option for the death penalty, probably I think from this biblical concept and the mormon influence.

[txag007]

Wow. Unbelievable. My statement had nothing to do with the death penalty and everything to do with the sacrifice of life required for the redemption of sins. You are misrepresenting what the Bible actually says.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. Unbelievable. My statement had nothing to do with the death penalty and everything to do with the sacrifice of life required for the redemption of sins. You are misrepresenting what the Bible actually says.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not really making a claim I'm just saying that the old testament says someting along the lines of that you can't be forgiven without the shedding of blood or something, so apparently when you got killed for breaking the law your blood was shed and you paid the penalty to even the books so to speak.
On the other hand in america when the state puts you to death they do it without the shedding of blood so that in death you still owe, kinda like once you are guilty of a crime you are a criminal forever in america, even if you pay your penalty the slate is not wiped clean you are still a dirty criminal the rest of your life.

[Kaj]

Haven't we already established ad nauseum that there are humanist reasons for denouncing mass murderers and that no will of heavenly spirits beyond the universe are necessary?

Anyone who has failed to grasp this by now is intentionally being close minded and the debate will fall on deaf ears.

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
How can someone say that Hitler was inherently "wrong" to kill six million Jews if there is no God to say he was?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I am a little late on this subject, but I got an answer nevertheless.

Obviously nobody can claim that Hitler was wrong, because the judgement on Hitler depended on the outcome of the war. If Germany had won the war, the verdict would have been entirely different.

The only power to overrule the judgement of the winner is in fact God. Only God could claim that something is right or wrong, because God cannot lose a war and get an opinion enforced to him by the winner.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can someone say that Hitler was inherently "wrong" to kill six million Jews if there is no God to say he was?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I am a little late on this subject, but I got an answer nevertheless.

Obviously nobody can claim that Hitler was wrong, because the judgement on Hitler depended on the outcome of the war. If Germany had won the war, the verdict would have been entirely different.

The only power to overrule the judgement of the winner is in fact God. Only God could claim that something is right or wrong, because God cannot lose a war and get an opinion enforced to him by the winner.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the follow-up question then is why in God's name would anyone care about such a useless thing like calling something wrong?

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Utah had/has firing squad as an option for the death penalty, probably I think from this biblical concept and the mormon influence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had to choose the way how I was executed I almost certainly would pick the firing squad.

hmm...carry on.

[Stormwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have often said that I believe that if there is a God he would be just. Which is why those religions that postulate that God behaves unjustly, by our common sense standards, must be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you believe that god would be just?

[/ QUOTE ]

bayes theorem. if there is a god and his creation is rational and tends toward being just its more likely that god itself is rational and just. the idea of heaven and hell is a rational concept of having justice, if he exists and indeed created those places he is behaving rationally and aiming for justice therefore its more likely he's own nature is just

[MidGe]

Well said. Stormwolf!

[ QUOTE ]


If there is a god and his creation is rational and tends toward being just its more likely...

[/ QUOTE ]

By all reasonable observation, indeed thru the experience of life in oneself and others, it is very obvious that the world and life are not rational and just...

The logical consequences are that, if there is as god, he is not either... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Stormwolf]

[ QUOTE ]

The logical consequences are that, if there is as god, he is not either... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the fact the nature and animals are not rational or just adds one more variable that tends to make my assertion wrong but either way, if god is unjust(as nature in general) it would not make any sense to follow 'rules' set by him since it that would be self-defeating, he would not be concerned with doing justice at the end of your life

In case he is just, the way he found to tell us his rules is questionable for our lives at best and downright dangerous at worst since it contains no justice(bible encouraging killing of infants on his name, homophobia, etc), introducing a religious authority to 'interpret' or 'put in context' holy words introduces a severe problem, you have a human trying to make sense of a message sent by 'God', that subjects it to mistakes, biases, etc. you could call it 'code for justice' but you cant claim its the code designed by this 'god' since it had a human to 'decodify'. Its also interesting that the 'decodification' almost always change with whats socially acceptable and its different every few centuries or so(as with infanticide)

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
How can someone say that Hitler was inherently "wrong" to kill six million Jews if there is no God to say he was? .... I think [this] is technically correct. Regardless of what the hi falootin philosophers say.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is not technically correct. Notready's position assumes that a god is the only source of morality. It is circular reasoning that proves itself.

However, if we accept that morality might have other sources, he is no longer correct, even technically. There ARE other sources of moral values, such as our evolutionary social nature, our biologically directed capacity for empathy, the practical needs of getting along, the need to avoid chaos. Chimps have elaborate rules of reciprocity, but according to the fundies, they have no soul and have not received God's moral code. Ergo, there are other sources of morality.

Further, the existence of a God does not insure the existence of a stable moral framework. Humans would still have to interpret his will. It is we that have to decide whether "thou shalt not kill" means always, or just sometimes. Positing an existence of a God does not free humans of the task of creating moral guidelines. You can do it yourself, or you can accept everything someone else (like a preacher) says, but it's still human construction of morality, not God's.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Notready's position assumes that a god is the only source of morality.


[/ QUOTE ]

My position isn't just about source, but justification.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Notready's position assumes that a god is the only source of morality.


[/ QUOTE ]

My position isn't just about source, but justification.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tautology. DUCY?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Tautology. DUCY?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. ILITOTE.

[r3vbr]

Why would (christian) god be mad with hitler, he killed mostly infidels, isnt that what the church did during the crusades? explain this to me, i am ignorant of religious matters. I want to understand