Help With A Question?

[Chris_W]

wolpertinger:

That does not follow. Atheists can provisionally grant theistic positions, even though they tend to reach conclusions other than theists.

My mistake. I understood that atheists have concluded there is no God. To grant a provisional theistic position, while tending to disagree, I would have understood to be the position of an agnositic.

 

[Tlaloc]

Chris W:

And so I ask the ateists for an explanation of why they too are horrified at Hitler’s atrocities. Why should we place value on human life if we are merely particles that come together for a time by natural means, and then cease to exists by the same means, just as happens with a blade of grass?

Aesthetics?

 

[Lost_Found]

Hi AnAtheist:wave:

Your profile says you’re from Germany. If you are young enough, do you plan on attending World Youth Day this year?? (You seem to enjoy hanging out with Catholics.)

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

wolpertinger:

Oh, please.

Gee, did I make you spill your coffee?

Now that you mentioned Hitler anyway as well as the reason why you didn’t, there are diametrically opposed views on Hitler’s spiritual beliefs, including that he understood himself to be a devout Catholic.

Who sent hundreds of Roman Catholic priests to die in the concentration camps, mostly at Daccau

However, you cannot exclude Nazi Germany on the grounds of the ringleaders trying to elevate Nazi ideology to an Ersatz religion, because then you have to exclude the Communist regimes on the same grounds.

So atheism is an artificial religion?

And with god? Are there laws to establish order? Who makes the laws? What value is human life if it doesn’t contribute to these laws, if any?

Jesus’ primary law for us is to love God with our whole mind, our whole heart, and our whole strength and to love our neighbor as we love ourself. He asked us to take up our cross and follow him, then he set an example by taking up his cross and laying his life down for us. Of course, you know what happened next.

Your relativistic claim that Christian societies are historically the least brutal falls short of a ringing recommendation of an allegedly loving and peaceful religion - even if it were true.

Relativistic? Apparently you haven’t read your history. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to count the number of deaths; entire towns within Rome sacked by their own leaders all males killed and women and children sold into slavery, for any type of disobedience. The ancient Greeks were even worse if you can believe that. They weren’t conquered by the Macedonians under Alexander the Great. They had already destroyed themselves from within long before and were ripe for the taking.

Once Rome embraced Christianity, after nearly 300 years of brutal persecution, there was relative peace within Rome’s borders. After this the major threat to an individual’s security was due to outside forces; Islam from the southeast, the Mongols from the east, the Germanic tribes(who later embraced Christianity) from the north, and the Vikings(who later embraced Christianity) also from the north.

Warfare was constant and would have completely destablized a weaker society but Christianity held it all together. What grew out of this were the seeds for our society in the United States of America.

What have atheists ever done?

 

[wolpertinger]

Chris W:

And so I ask the ateists for an explanation of why they too are horrified at Hitler’s atrocities.

Common decency? Humanity? Because we evolved that way?

 

[wolpertinger]

MarkAnthonyCozy:

Gee, did I make you spill your coffee?

No, but I am still impressed by the hypocripsy.

Who sent hundreds of Roman Catholic priests to die in the concentration camps, mostly at Daccau

It’s Dachau. Personally, I am indifferent to what religious beliefs Hitler had, if any.

Nazi Germany was populated by almost 100% Catholic or Lutheran Christians. If you wish to make a claim that a single alleged atheist could bow a couple tens of millions believers to his will and have them perform atrocities that violate plenty of the commandments, what kind of picture does that paint of Christianity? Or do want to claim that all the Nazis and their followers were atheists?

So atheism is an artificial religion?

And baldness is a hair color.

Actually, the Communist regimes tried to install Communism as an artificial religion, which disqualifies them by your own standard.

Jesus’ primary law for us is to love God with our whole mind, our whole heart, and our whole strength and to love our neighbor as we love ourself. He asked us to take up our cross and follow him, then he set an example by taking up his cross and laying his life down for us. Of course, you know what happened next.

Relativistic?

Yes - you said that Christian societies are historically the least brutal. Isn’t that a relativistic argument?

What have atheists ever done?

Pushed through women’s suffrage, abolished slavery, founded the US on the principles of secular enlightenment, push science relentlessly forward? Are helpful and charitable (admittedly not on this forum) without an expectation of a reward in the afterlife?

But whatever.

 

[Chris_W]

wolpertinger:

Common decency? Humanity? Because we evolved that way?

**Common decency? ** Hmmm. I have never before heard the holocaust described as a crime against common decency. The idea of “common decency” however, would require the same kind of questions and answers as the issue of the value of human life. That is to say, I would argue that a sincere atheist has no reason to believe in an unwritten moral law (for lack of a better term) which would impress upon our intellect the idea of common decency.

So, rather than confuse the issue at hand, may I suggest we stick to the question of the value of human life? The idea of “common decency” is not an answer to my question; "to what do you attribute the value of human life?"

Humanity? I have no idea what you mean by that. Yes, we are indeed talking about humanity.

We evolved that way? The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, which by definition is limited to observable phenomena and empiracle evidence. Therefore, the fact that we humans acknowlege a higher value to human life than all other life forms is quite outside evolutionary theory.

To say “we evolved that way” is to refuse to give an answer. This seems like an attempt to fill in the unknowns with “evolution”, much the same as AnAtheist (early on in this thread) accused Christians of doing, citing the “God of the Gaps”.

I am hoping you will give this some thought and reply with a serious answer to an important question for atheists to consider. Of course, you are free to ignore my question in this forum, wolpertinger, but if you do ignore it, you will know in the back of your mind that atheism is incapable of answering life’s questions. Athiesm is incomplete.

You said (in about Post #75) “I leave it to the theist to prove that certain questions cannot have a non-theistic answer…”

This question is my answer to your challenge.

 

[StevenAC]

The entrance to Lourdes: If you Believe, no explanation is necessary, if not, none is possible…

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

wolpertinger:

No, but I am still impressed by the hypocripsy.

That’s hypocrisy

It’s Dachau.

Thank you. It knew it didn’t look right but I didn’t have a dictionary or Thesarus on this computer.

Nazi Germany was populated by almost 100% Catholic or Lutheran Christians. If you wish to make a claim that a single alleged atheist could bow a couple tens of millions believers to his will and have them perform atrocities that violate plenty of the commandments, what kind of picture does that paint of Christianity? Or do want to claim that all the Nazis and their followers were atheists?

I was purposely leaving the Nazi’s out. The KKK also considers themselves Christians. As stated before it’s a matter of knowing history. Think of what forces were at work leading up to WWI and the Peace Treaty of Versailles (I probably butchered that one also)
Martin Luther planted the seeds of anti-semitism in some of his later writings. Even the historian Philip Van Ness Myers placed the Aryan race on top the world in some of his writings. The Nazi’s were not killing in the name of God.

And baldness is a hair color.

We called it chrome!

Actually, the Communist regimes tried to install Communism as an artificial religion, which disqualifies them by your own standard.

It’s the closest thing to the ideal atheistic utopia that history has provided us with thus far.

In Europe, two thousand years of bloodshed. In the rest of the world, warfare as usual. Just the usual rough-and-tumble…

You are letting the revisionists lead you. Grab a history book written a century or so ago and compare it to what you read today. Scholarship is gone.

Yes - you said that Christian societies are historically the least brutal. Isn’t that a relativistic argument?

Is that a bad thing?

Pushed through women’s suffrage

More tied to the Christian Women’s Temperance Movement than anything remotely atheistic, there’s that revisionistic history again.

abolished slavery

So Abraham Lincoln was an atheist?

founded the US on the principles of secular enlightenment

The U.S. Constitution was greatly influenced by a local Baptist Church’s charter. I can confirm this if you wish, but my friend with that resource won’t be returning from the Philipines until late tomorrow.

push science relentlessly forward

So all scientists are atheists?

Are helpful and charitable (admittedly not on this forum) without an expectation of a reward in the afterlife?

I follow Jesus because I believe in him. I believe that the words he spoke that are recorded in scripture are true. I have experienced his love in my life first hand and I do apologize and ask you to forgive me if I came across negatively. My brevity with some of these issues was never meant to be mean spirited.

I work with lawyers and polititians on a daily basis. Nuff said!

 

[Drew98]

Chris W:

To what do you attribute the value of human life?

What I mean is, if the value of human life is not derived from the fact that human life was created and elevated by God above all the rest of creation …, then from what does the value of human life come?

The fact that I value human life lies at the core of who I am. It’s a first principle and not derived from anything else.

 

[AnAtheist]

MarkAnthonyCozy:

Do you believe the stories about how Julius Caesar and Nero died and the quotes attributed to them?

Do you believe what was written of what Socrates and Plato said?

I don’t deny, that Jesus might have said what other people say he said. People say all sorts of things. So what? Do you believe what was written of what Muhammed and Buddha said?
It is much more interesting what people say, Jesus did. Some of that I deny. Same applies to Muhammed, Buddha, and a bazillion of other people too.

Saying something and saying “hey, all I say is true” says NOTHING about the truthfullness of what was said before.

1. All I say is true.
2. My last sentence was false.

???

 

[AnAtheist]

jimmy:

I don’t see the destinction. Natural selection is simply driven by the fact that some phenotypes are more advantageous than other phenotypes. Tose that are more advantageous are more likely to be passed on because those species are more likely to survive.

Yes, but that driving force behind selection varies over time. Radiation for example. When the radiation is high, mutation occur more often. There have been occasions when a lot of species were extinct almost simultanously. It is likely that the environment was very much more hostile than today. A hostile environment drives evolution stronger, so the very few observed examples of evolution within the last 150years could be due to the fact that we live in a time of relative tranquility. When the Earth’s climate changes or an asteroid hits us, that may change.

 

[AnAtheist]

Lost&Found:

Hi AnAtheist:wave:

Your profile says you’re from Germany. If you are young enough, do you plan on attending World Youth Day this year?? (You seem to enjoy hanging out with Catholics.)

Hi,
the WJT2005 is just around the corner here. I am 36, is that young enough?

I enjoy a decent discussion and intelligent people capable to discuss, and I don’t if people are Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhists, Wiccan as long they are peaceful. Besides, half of my family is Catholic.

 

[AnAtheist]

Chris W:

Whether or not Hitler was atheist, theist, self procliamed Catholic, or other, is not the point of the question. His actions are merely a powerful example of an obvious objective wrong.

Agreed.

And so I ask the ateists for an explanation of why they too are horrified at Hitler’s atrocities. Why should we place value on human life if we are merely particles that come together for a time by natural means, and then cease to exists by the same means, just as happens with a blade of grass?

Easy.
I am human. I don’t want to be killed by other humans. It is likely that most other humans think alike. Therfore it should be common sense, not to kill each other.

As for the grass: Humans have a natural barrier to kill (“Tötungshemmung”). Interesting side note: Soldiers are trained to supress that barrier. Now, this barrier works well with lifeforms similar to us. We hestitate to kill mammels (qoute from a vegetarian: “I do not eat something that had a face”). We have no problems to kill a fly or a spider, because they are not like us. Plants are dissimilar enough to not even give them a second thought.

Hitler’s regime worked, because people were convinced to be different from others (Arians on one side - inferior races, Jews in particular, on the other). Once you were convinced your enemy is not like you, you are happy to kill him. Works with white against black, Christian against Muslim (or religion A against religion B), Chinese against Indonesians, Working class against capitalists, …

 

[Drew98]

Chris W:

I guess it comes down to whether or not the value of human life is objective or subjective. Theists believe it is objective, deriving from the fact that God created us. That is why we can say murder is objectively wrong.

It’s still subjective because it’s all relative to what God says is right and wrong. He could have just as easily said that human life has no more value than a blade of grass, right? Or are you saying that even God is bound by an objective moral order higher than himself?
Chris W:

But what do athiests think? If it is objective, what determines that objectivity? If it is subjective, then how can you argue that what Hitler did is wrong, (for he too would be entitled to his opinion)?

I don’t see any real evidence that there exists any objective, absolute morality. In fact, I think the concept is nonsensical. But in the case of Hitler I can understand why many people are tempted to resort to such a concept. Simply saying that his beliefs and actions offends our individual consciences does seem a little weak when talking about the Holocaust. It would be very satisfying if there existed some ultimate authority that would say we were right and he was wrong. But then I suppose there would also be the possibility that this authority would say that Hitler was right and we were wrong to oppose him. So maybe subjective morality isn’t so bad after all.

So no, I can’t say that what Hitler did was objectively wrong but can say that I am repulsed by what he did and support the use of force to stop him.

 

[john_doran]

wolpertinger:

I’ve heard this ludicrous theological claim before. It tells me whoever makes such a claim is either mistaken or the god they worship is a moral reprobate for exposing his own fallible creation at such risk. An unjust god, as it were, and therefore not worthy of worship.

ok. can you explain (A) precisely how it’s mistaken, and (B) how god does something wrong by investing his creatures with a faculty that enables them - of their own free will - to separate themselves eternally from god?

as you have no doubt pointed out to others, bald assertions are useless.

 

[john_doran]

Drew98:

It’s still subjective because it’s all relative to what God says is right and wrong. He could have just as easily said that human life has no more value than a blade of grass, right? Or are you saying that even God is bound by an objective moral order higher than himself?

saying “it’s relative to what god says is right and wrong” is what it means to be objective.

even assuming that god could have created a world with a different moral order, the fact is he didn’t. maybe god could have created a world where 1+1=5; but he didn’t. as a result, it is objectively true (i.e. true independently of what anyone thinks) in (at least) this world, that 1+1=2

Drew98:

I don’t see any real evidence that there exists any objective, absolute morality.

fair enough. what kind of evidence are you looking for?

Drew98:

In fact, I think the concept is nonsensical.

interesting. can you explain how? i have never heard that claim before.

Drew98:

So no, I can’t say that what Hitler did was objectively wrong but can say that I am repulsed by what he did and support the use of force to stop him.

so differences in peoples’ personal morality is equivalent to differences in their taste in cuisine? or music? so that being repulsed by pedophilia is like being repulsed by boiled pig brain soup?

 

[john_doran]

bump

 

[wolpertinger]

Chris W:

I am hoping you will give this some thought and reply with a serious answer to an important question for atheists to consider. Of course, you are free to ignore my question in this forum, wolpertinger, but if you do ignore it, you will know in the back of your mind that atheism is incapable of answering life’s questions. Athiesm is incomplete.

If you want a serious discussion, you should start by making your presuppositions explicit and to stop begging the question.

Atheism and theism alike are just a component of a larger world view and in that sense, either one is incomplete. It is therefore nonsensical to ask questions of atheists in general. You also assume a false dichotomy - that all atheistic and theistic world views are alike.

You then beg the question by making unwarrented assumption of what an atheist’s world view should be like and persist in asking an open-ended question.

As to the value of life, human or otherwise, you should start by giving a precise definition of what you mean by that. To me, value is a measurable quality that is intrinsically relative and subjective. It seems like you presuppose that human life is intrinsically more valuable than non-human life and the question is non-sensical to me unless you fill in the blank - valuable in what sense?
Chris W:

This question is my answer to your challenge.

And it already has been debated - ad nauseam - in this forum alone. Questions pertaining to the value of life are moral questions; I consider morality to be innate and of evolutionary origin. Other posters have given similar answers; if that doesn’t satisfy you, so be it.

 

[Chris_W]

Drew98:

The fact that I value human life lies at the core of who I am. It’s a first principle and not derived from anything else.

I would agree, but only in so far as the core of who you are is a creation of God, created in His image and likeness.

Otherwise, what you have said is that the value of human life is subjective. You think it has value, for no reason other than you think it has value. Someone else, say Ted Bundy, could say in his core, he does not value human life. By this reasoning, you cannot say what he did was wrong.