Sorry couldn’t resist this last post.  Whether he was a practicing Catholic as an adult is kind of the question isn’t it?  You don’t just get a stamp of Catholic, or Buddhist, or whatever and that’s your philosophy for life.  Stalin was a seminary student before he lost his faith and rejected Theism.  Hitler’s adult writings and literary proclivities (Nietzche) are what is important, not that he once had a label of “Catholic”.  Hitler’s actions clearly were NOT a logical outworking of what Christ taught! And you NEVER judge a philosophy (Christianity or any other for that matter) by it’s abuses.  Hitler’s actions and those of Stalin, etc. are a logical outworking of Atheism.  Certainly not the only one, but definately a valid one.  Nietzche was one of the few 19th Century philosophers who was not a Utopianist.  He predicted that because of the “death of god” in the 19th century the 20th century would be the bloddiest century in human history.  Was Darwin or Nietzche responsible for what these men did...of course not, but philosphies have consequences if they are taken to their logical end.

I replied to the other post because I was on my PDA and that was the one that came up first.  No, I don’t think you’re a zealot...just speaking in generalities...sorry about that.  I’m always on a bit of an edge when visiting a forum where I might post a view that doesn’t sit well with the status quo...my fault...defensive mechanism I guess.  I appreciate you conversing with me.  Going to watch a movie now...have a nice evening!

Hitler’s actions and those of Stalin, etc. are a logical outworking of Atheism.

Utter rubbish.

wezx - 19 November 2007 08:09 PM

Hitler’s actions and those of Stalin, etc. are a logical outworking of Atheism.

You’re going to have to demonstrate the logic behind this statement if you want to be taken seriously.

Oh I don’t know.  Where do you want to start?  The OT or the NT.  The Bible is full of violence.  In the OT God had so many people slaughtered and sometimes he told his people to kill the others.  In at least one instance, they kept the virgins for themselves.  In the NT, Jesus came not to bring peace but a sword. Not to mention the barbaric cruxifiction.  Need I continue?  Exterminating vast groups of people was not uncommon, esp in the OT.  God, as I said, ordered the extermination too. <-- That’s in response to Wezx statements.

1. I specifically said that those actions were not the logical outworking of what Christ taught, not the Bible in general.  Christ “turned the other cheek”, said “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword”, etc.

2. To fotobits..."Utter rubbish” wow, what a stunning argument based in logic you threw at me.  Would you care to debate the topic or continue to post rude epithets?

3.  I will need you to give me an OBJECTIVE moral law that accounts for your paticular flavor of Atheism.  Perhaps you have certain ethics and moral values...where did they come from OBJECTIVELY?  An objective moral law is one that would exist whether anyone believed in it or not.  Without an objective moral law to define good and evil and an Atheistic worldview based on time + chance + matter, what allows you logically to differentiate bewteen YOUR particular worldview and that of say Stalin or Hitler.  The minute you use the word “better” as in “My world view is better” you have invoked a moral law.  Without a moral law or objective system of ethics your and Stalins worldviews are equally valid.  Please don’t bring up Kant, because don’t forget Kant was a theist.

I guess the ethics of God are being called into play concerning the OT.  Well, I would say this concerning the problem of evil and whether there is a God...I have read this elsewhere and find it quite interesting

In answer to the statement “There can be no god because of all the evil in the world”

Do you believe in Good and Evil?

Do you believe in a moral law so you can distinguish Good and Evil?

If there is a moral law there must be a moral lawgiver? (the complete lack of an objective moral law in the Atheistic worldview demands this)

But therein lies the rub...the moral lawgiver is the thing you’re trying to disprove.

Time + chance + matter does not have the capacity to create a universal objective moral law

I am reminded of when Bertram Russell was asked how he differentiated between good and evil.  Russell said “I differentiate between good and evil like I differentiate between blue and green”.  He was then asked, “But Mr. Russell, you differentiate between blue and green by seeing don’t you?” To which Russell replied “I differentiate between them on the basis of feeling, what else?”

My question to Russell would have been “Mr. Russell, some cultures love their neighbors, others eat them, do you have a preference?”

2. To fotobits..."Utter rubbish” wow, what a stunning argument based in logic you threw at me.  Would you care to debate the topic or continue to post rude epithets?

You made the claim. Prove it. BTW, “utter rubbish” is not an epithet.

wezx - 19 November 2007 08:33 PM

1. I specifically said that those actions were not the logical outworking of what Christ taught, not the Bible in general.  Christ “turned the other cheek”, said “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword”, etc.

He said far more than that and some of it wasn’t very condusive to peace.

I guess the ethics of God are being called into play concerning the OT.  Well, I would say this concerning the problem of evil and whether there is a God...I have read this elsewhere and find it quite interesting

In answer to the statement “There can be no god because of all the evil in the world”

That is not my answer to the question of no God.

Do you believe in Good and Evil?

No, I do not believe in evil.  People can do good things or they can do bad things, but I do not believe in evil.

Do you believe in a moral law so you can distinguish Good and Evil?

If there is a moral law there must be a moral lawgiver? (the complete lack of an objective moral law in the Atheistic worldview demands this)

But therein lies the rub...the moral lawgiver is the thing you’re trying to disprove.

Time + chance + matter does not have the capacity to create a universal objective moral law

I don’t have to disprove “the moral lawgiver”.  Moral law doesn’t need an invisible deity.  I could debate this with you, but it’s late and I really need to sleep, so I’m off to bed for the night.  Between now and when I get the chance, others can debate you though.  Although, I think you actually stepped into this one with your statement.

wezx - 19 November 2007 08:33 PM

1. I specifically said that those actions were not the logical outworking of what Christ taught, not the Bible in general.  Christ “turned the other cheek”, said “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword”, etc.

He (or the NT) also created the concept of hell, and claimed that those who did not follow him would end up there.

wezx - 19 November 2007 08:33 PM

3.  I will need you to give me an OBJECTIVE moral law that accounts for your paticular flavor of Atheism.  Perhaps you have certain ethics and moral values...where did they come from OBJECTIVELY?  An objective moral law is one that would exist whether anyone believed in it or not.  Without an objective moral law to define good and evil and an Atheistic worldview based on time + chance + matter, what allows you logically to differentiate bewteen YOUR particular worldview and that of say Stalin or Hitler.  The minute you use the word “better” as in “My world view is better” you have invoked a moral law.  Without a moral law or objective system of ethics your and Stalins worldviews are equally valid.  Please don’t bring up Kant, because don’t forget Kant was a theist.

We’ve known since Plato’s Euthyphro that moral laws don’t come from God. If they exist, they exist outside of the commands of any being. What makes any being good, (including God, if there is one), is their following of the independent moral strictures.

So the theist and the atheist are exactly on all fours with respect to the “objective moral law”. The atheist just gets rid of all that prescientific fable.

wezx - 19 November 2007 08:33 PM

I guess the ethics of God are being called into play concerning the OT.  Well, I would say this concerning the problem of evil and whether there is a God...I have read this elsewhere and find it quite interesting

In answer to the statement “There can be no god because of all the evil in the world”

Do you believe in Good and Evil?

Do you believe in a moral law so you can distinguish Good and Evil?

I am willing to countenance the existence of morally right and wrong actions, yes. And in the case of God, since he is purported to be all knowing and all powerful, he is responsible for the deaths of millions in natural disasters and from disease every year. So it looks to me like if God were to exist, he would be objectively evil, or at the very least without moral compass.

wezx - 19 November 2007 08:33 PM

If there is a moral law there must be a moral lawgiver? (the complete lack of an objective moral law in the Atheistic worldview demands this)

You really should do some reading in atheistic morality before making such absurd claims. And as for the “moral law”, existence of it precludes a moral lawgiver. Moral laws do not come from persons. They come from the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of actions. Any purported lawgiver who prohibited morally right actions (as the god of the OT did rather frequently) would not in fact be a moral lawgiver, he would be an agent of evil and intolerance.

wezx - 19 November 2007 08:33 PM

Atheistic worldview based on time + chance + matter

A chance? What are you talking about?

I should add that while Kant spoke about God, his moral philosophy does not depend upon God’s existence. It stems from an analysis of our moral concepts, and in particular the concept of being a person, and in coming up with a priori coherent universal moral laws (the Categorical Imperatives) by use of our ordinary concepts.

For more about Kantian ethics, check out HERE. One can be an atheist and follow Kantian ethics quite nicely. As one can be a Utilitarian, or a Secular Humanist.

And as for Hitler, he wasn’t an atheist. Neither was the Wehrmacht, as you can see from some of their kit.

Wezx wrote “Well, you stated that the “farther we get away from Biblical law the more humane we become”.  I merely pointed out that man’s inhumanity to man has certainly not decreased in the absence of “Biblical Law”

More wars, slaughtering, stoning in the streets came about after Christianity entered the civilized world.  Biblical law is made firm only by the tyrants who are in charge.  Tabash was very strong in his words to keep religion out of the American Government. 

Take a look at the influence from the Vatican on world affairs.  The Roman Empire conquered the world and the Vatican sent their Representatives to ensure Jesus was the leader of the Empire.  Have you not read about the Catholic Inquisitions and the indignities that they put all humans through?  This ripped through Spain, Italy, and came to the new world with the Conquistadores who raped and pillage through South America, Central America, Mexico and even the new nation of America. 

This was the Christianity that was supposed to gather up innocent people and show them the way to Paradise.  It was a movement so evil and terrible that these horrible men scared the innocent people to join them or burn in hell.  The problem is that it continues to this day.  If you don’t believe me, look for a revival meeting and go with an open mind but watch your wallet and virtue as both will be removed unless you are very alert. 

I say daily, that I want no church closed but I want all elected religious people to represent all of us as equals and stay away from the U.S. Constitution.

George - 20 November 2007 07:41 AM

wezx - 19 November 2007 08:33 PM

Atheistic worldview based on time + chance + matter

A chance? What are you talking about?

The correct word would be humility.

A world view based on evidence + humility - what we do not know

Well, not much left for me to say.  You guys basically said it all.  I wonder if he ran or if he’ll be back later? Who knows.