Hitler And God

[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... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Stormwolf]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ 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