hey ATHIESTS, was Hitler right?

[CalmDownWisWins]

…

An issue is had God not existed, man would have invented Him. Humans have a tendency to contemplate the beyond, the eternal. Now, why would we have created the God that we have in Christianity? Is this a logical, anthropomorphic projection of an eternal diety? Once you get to the more fully reveiled God of the New Testament, doesn’t it seem like a strange make-believe?

God must communicate to us, or CHOOSES to, in ways that we can understand and which doesn’t “mess up” (overcomplicate) His creation any more than necessary so as to educate His creation in the most wise and best way possible.

Only the Second Person of the Trinity is anthropomorphic in “actual physicality”, and that is explained quite well by the Church.

No other “spiritual creation” is anthropomorphic other than in “appearance”, and that is so as to not scare the gnya-gnya out of us any more than necessary.

I’ll leave it to God to explain WHY it’s wise to actually do things the way He did.

That men have THOUGHT that if God wasn’t He would need to be invented doesn’t tell me much more than even they think that God is quite necessary.

 

[ralphinal]

God must communicate to us, or CHOOSES to, in ways that we can understand and which doesn’t “mess up” (overcomplicate) His creation any more than necessary so as to educate His creation in the most wise and best way possible.

Only the Second Person of the Trinity is anthropomorphic in “actual physicality”, and that is explained quite well by the Church.

No other “spiritual creation” is anthropomorphic other than in “appearance”, and that is so as to not scare the gnya-gnya out of us any more than necessary.

I’ll leave it to God to explain WHY it’s wise to actually do things the way He did.

That men have THOUGHT that if God wasn’t He would need to be invented doesn’t tell me much more than even they think that God is quite necessary.

Oops, I wasn;t clear. If you give a man a year and the paper and pens, would he create a God like ours? Nope. No chance. Some of the others, yes, but not ours.

 

[notself]

Do you agree that the golden rule CAN be interpreted to give license to ANY (human) action if the First Law is not also applied?

I’m not arguing that the golden rule is a good rule if properly understood. I’m arguing that it is not possible to understand it properly without also understanding what undergirds it, which is the First Law to Love God Wholeheartedly.

I do not agree that "Love thy neighbor as thyself’ can be interpreted to give license to any human action unless one completel distorts the word love to mean something other than it does.

I am not saying that someone cannot distort it, but people distort the meanings and intent of words all the time. As you said the words have to be properly understood. Most people on the planet understand the meaning of the words. Some just ignore the meaning.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I do not agree that "Love thy neighbor as thyself’ can be interpreted to give license to any human action unless one completel distorts the word love to mean something other than it does.

I am not saying that someone cannot distort it, but people distort the meanings and intent of words all the time. As you said the words have to be properly understood. Most people on the planet understand the meaning of the words. Some just ignore the meaning.

People understand what LOVE means because it is written on the human heart by God. It is inherent in being human. That is the basis of natural law. But it is easily perverted by pride.

When the temptation to pervert the meaning of LOVE to mean “what I want that is not according to God’s law (First Law)” the Second Law is twisted into whatever suits the perverter.

You said above that even the Golden Rule is **license to do anything **if “…one completel[y] distorts the word love to mean something other than it does”, which man does on a more than regular basis if he thinks he can get away with it.

The ONLY way man won’t think he can “get away with it” is by taking God into consideration, either through conscience (given by God) or by the religion of the true God, of which the Church (Catholic) has the fullness of the truth.

We’re really not arguing with each other. You just refuse to call that power which is available to men fro them to NOT misinterpret the word “love” is God, while I can’t call it anything else.

 

[notself]

People understand what LOVE means because it is written on the human heart by God. It is inherent in being human. That is the basis of natural law. But it is easily perverted by pride.

When the temptation to pervert the meaning of LOVE to mean “what I want that is not according to God’s law (First Law)” the Second Law is twisted into whatever suits the perverter.

You said above that even the Golden Rule is **license to do anything **if “…one completel[y] distorts the word love to mean something other than it does”, which man does on a more than regular basis if he thinks he can get away with it.

The ONLY way man won’t think he can “get away with it” is by taking God into consideration, either through conscience (given by God) or by the religion of the true God, of which the Church (Catholic) has the fullness of the truth.

We’re really not arguing with each other. You just refuse to call that power which is available to men fro them to NOT misinterpret the word “love” is God, while I can’t call it anything else.

I might be able to agree with you if I saw any difference in behavior between the average believer and the average non believer. I don’t. Some people who say they believe in God do horrible things. Some people who are atheists live exemplary lives. How do you explain this?

I completely understand that you believe that good works alone will not earn a place in heaven. I am not talking about an afterlife. I am talking about here and now. Most of the people in prison believe in God. Belief God does not ensure goodness. Goodness can exist without belief in God.

I have enjoyed our conversation. Thank you.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I am a fan of John Martignoni. I would have to say, however, that this one is not a good way to discuss with athiests. I think that many of them would not accept that the only objective way that life can have meaning is if there was a God. In fact, this article would probably do more harm than good by making it seem like you think athiests are like Hitler. In fact, I will be surprized if any of them post on this thread.

It’s a brilliant way to be offensive though.​

If any group has to be saddled with Hitler, it’s the CC, & Christians generally: not atheists. He was not an atheist -as has doubtless been pointed out 220 times.

• Atheists do not invoke God
• nor have they a long record of maltreating & murdering Jews
• nor was Austria an atheist country
• nor was Hitler brought up an atheist
• nor were most of his familiars atheists
  Atheism is totally irrelevant to Hitlerism. Catholicism specifically, & Christianity generally, are all too relevant to it.

 

[justinthemartyr]

i am awaiting the great chimpanzee war of this century. when was the last one when they tried to dominate civilization and torture and kill others who they deemed less than themselves?

i cannot recall?

oh, wasn’t it in the 1950s? planet of the apes?

I think that was the wishful thinking of hollywood, just as it is the wishful thinking of some around here.

So why is murdering 6 million plus jews right/wrong?

let’s get off this rediculous topic about apes and back to the dignity of life and the factual existence of the natural law, which is God given and morality which is also God given.

 

[Valke2]

Why human life is sacred is not as important, perhaps, as simply knowing that it is, whether you are a Christian, Atheist, Jew, Muslim, etc.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Why human life is sacred is not as important, perhaps, as simply knowing that it is, whether you are a Christian, Atheist, Jew, Muslim, etc.

Perhaps, but please answer the question.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Why human life is sacred is not as important, perhaps, as simply knowing that it is, whether you are a Christian, Atheist, Jew, Muslim, etc.

We are not speaking of those who believe in God Valke.

We are speaking of athiests, and why they think killing others is wrong.

Or is it?

let the athiests speak.

You have noticed that A

cannot handle this conversation because it goes to the root of his soul and he cannot handle that deep of a topic. He talks around reality.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I might be able to agree with you if I saw any difference in behavior between the average believer and the average non believer. I don’t. Some people who say they believe in God do horrible things. Some people who are atheists live exemplary lives. How do you explain this?

Easily. Most people are lazy stupid “immediate-orists”.

It shouldn’t come as surprising to anyone that the great “turnoff” of the Church is the vast majority of the people OF the Church. This applies to ALL religions everywhere everywhen. That some religions SEEM to be better at actually BEING religious is testament only to the small size and more strident “law enforcement” of the “better” (less hypocritical) religions.

Being a member of the true religion doesn’t mean much more than one has jumped through some very-human hoops. There’s very little “law enforcement” in Catholicism, though arguably more than protestantism, because the required behavior is rather lax (in my opinion). There’s a lot of “hope” that people will come to see the wisdom in it, but that whole “honor system” system of forgiveness leaves for plenty of opportunity to “look holy-ish”, while really appearing a complete hypocrit to anyone with half a brain!

I completely understand that you believe that good works alone will not earn a place in heaven.

NO! Good works without the proper reason for doing them may make one LOOK good (aka “heaven bound”) but lying to yourself simply compounds your sin exponentially (they ARE multiplicative don’t 'ya know!) digging you deeper into your eventual “hole” in the muck.

I am not talking about an afterlife. I am talking about here and now. Most of the people in prison believe in God. Belief God does not ensure goodness. Goodness can exist without belief in God.

I have enjoyed our conversation. Thank you.

You misunderstand me. No one with three brain cells to rub together would say that, “Belief in God ensures goodness”.

Belief in God simply is the acceptance that there is an actual reason to be good, whether anyone actually DOES good or not.

Anyone who does good because they have ANY reason to do so believes in God, whether they call it “belief in God” or not! Their “reason” is some, probably very limited, experience of God, whom they can find out more about if they have a reason to do so, and most thoroughly FROM the Church (Catholic).

It’s ALWAYS the question of NEEDING to find out more about God that brings people to God. If you don’t NEED it, you won’t choose to do that.

The differentiator between “real atheists” and “militant anti-religion atheists (who are in fact fervent religionists themselves!)” is the difference between those who don’t need God at the moment, and those who NEED to NOT NEED God, who show their need of God by childish tantrums at those who know they do need God, to show their “superiority” at not needing the actually necessary.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

It’s a brilliant way to be offensive though.​

If any group has to be saddled with Hitler, it’s the CC, & Christians generally: not atheists. He was not an atheist -as has doubtless been pointed out 220 times.

• Atheists do not invoke God
• nor have they a long record of maltreating & murdering Jews
• nor was Austria an atheist country
• nor was Hitler brought up an atheist
• nor were most of his familiars atheists

Atheism is totally irrelevant to Hitlerism. Catholicism specifically, & Christianity generally, are all too relevant to it.

TRUE! Hitler was NOT an atheist! He was a vehemently religious Hitler-worshipper! His religion was Hitler.

*) Hitlerists, and all anti-religion religionists invoke their god(s) continually.
*) Only the Church has never maltreated their older brethren, the Jews. (Other than those who’ve never come into contact with Jewish people.)
*) Those who became Hitlerists were also quite good at making their case that “Hitlerism” will “get you stuff”. The fact that people were persuaded by them says that people are persuadable of such things.
*) Atheism IS utterly irrelevant to Hitlerism! Being a fervently religious anti-“true religion”-religionist is the only quality in play in regards to Hitler.

When you see someone who is “fervently anti-religious” what you are looking at is a precursor to the kind of Him-deifier (“him” being “other than God”) that was Hitler and his cadre.

 

[estesbob]

Gottle of Geer;:

Catholicism specifically, & Christianity generally, are all too relevant to it.

They are? In what way.

 

[justinthemartyr]

this thread is not about hitler being an athiest, and I never said he was.

This thread is about athiests in general and their inability to explain why murder of another human being is wrong or right, or indifferent.

 

[Kaninchen]

this thread is not about hitler being an athiest, and I never said he was.

This thread is about athiests in general and their inability to explain why murder of another human being is wrong or right, or indifferent.

Perhaps it’s more about your determination to ignore any argument to the contrary?

It seems to me that when people argue that a divinity is necessary for moral behavior what they’re really arguing about is a supposed necessity for Absolute Morality/Truth as laid down by that divinity - from an atheist point of view, of course, the divinity is an invention in order to give the ‘divine’ sanction necessary to transform somebody’s relativism into a proclaimable absolutism.

So, all you’ve done is start a thread saying: “since atheists have no absolute moral basis, it’s not possible for them to judge right from wrong.” All an atheist has to say is: “since theists have no way of establishing (a) ‘absolute morality’ in or of itself and (b) even if it were possible for them to manage that, that their particular ‘absolute moral set’ is the ‘absolute moral set’, we don’t have to take questions like that seriously.”

Of course atheists can’t point to a divinely-ordained ‘absolute morality set’ but, since you can’t establish (as opposed to just proclaiming) that one exists (and it’s yours) . . . you’re actually in the same position.

 

[ralphinal]

this thread is not about hitler being an athiest, and I never said he was.

This thread is about athiests in general and their inability to explain why murder of another human being is wrong or right, or indifferent.

That may be one reason that this approach is a problematic one. Hitler derailed what is a very interesting concept. The question of why is human life special to an athiest is a good one to discuss. More so, why is one life worth any more or any less than any other.

Too many people are hung up on Hitler and what he was and did to see the question.

 

[notself]

That may be one reason that this approach is a problematic one. Hitler derailed what is a very interesting concept. The question of why is human life special to an athiest is a good one to discuss. More so, why is one life worth any more or any less than any other.

Too many people are hung up on Hitler and what he was and did to see the question.

If human life is special to Christians, then why do so many Christians support Capital Punishment and Preemtive War? I have always been confused by this.

 

[ralphinal]

If human life is special to Christians, then why do so many Christians support Capital Punishment and Preemtive War? I have always been confused by this.

I can undestand. The first duty of the state is to care for its citizens. That said, if there is a need, war may be required. That gets into the just war doctrine.

Similar arguement for death penalty. If you look at it from a modern standpoint, there is no reason for it. The Catholic Church teaches as much.

Now, the Church has a poor record of getting all Christians to agree. Many feel that the eye for an eye old law is right. Some just don;t care.

 

[notself]

I can undestand. The first duty of the state is to care for its citizens. That said, if there is a need, war may be required. That gets into the just war doctrine.

Similar arguement for death penalty. If you look at it from a modern standpoint, there is no reason for it. The Catholic Church teaches as much.

Now, the Church has a poor record of getting all Christians to agree. Many feel that the eye for an eye old law is right. Some just don;t care.

Yet, certainly you know many athiest that do not support preemtive war and do not support capital punishment. Why do you think they they feel that human life is special when so many Christians do not?

My point being that the purpose of this thread is to label Chirstians as supporting life as special because of their religion. That no one else who is not Christian truly holds these opinions.

It is clear to me that atheist are as prone to believe human life is special as Christians are. There are atheists who are conscientious objectors just as their are Christians who are.

I wish there were more of each.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Perhaps it’s more about your determination to ignore any argument to the contrary?

It seems to me that when people argue that a divinity is necessary for moral behavior what they’re really arguing about is a supposed necessity for Absolute Morality/Truth as laid down by that divinity - from an atheist point of view, of course, the divinity is an invention in order to give the ‘divine’ sanction necessary to transform somebody’s relativism into a proclaimable absolutism.

So, all you’ve done is start a thread saying: “since atheists have no absolute moral basis, it’s not possible for them to judge right from wrong.” All an atheist has to say is: “since theists have no way of establishing (a) ‘absolute morality’ in or of itself and (b) even if it were possible for them to manage that, that their particular ‘absolute moral set’ is the ‘absolute moral set’, we don’t have to take questions like that seriously.”

Of course atheists can’t point to a divinely-ordained ‘absolute morality set’ but, since you can’t establish (as opposed to just proclaiming) that one exists (and it’s yours) . . . you’re actually in the same position.

The sole difference between so-called atheists and non-so-called atheists is that the atheist MUST state that anything goes in the way of morals and ethics because there is no basis for establishing what “good” means, while the other fellow states that if you disobey THIS PARTICULAR set of morals and ethics you will be punished eventually for it.

In other words, the non-“atheist” makes decisions preemptively based on experience while the “atheist” makes decisions on a case by case basis, if at all.

The “atheist” claims his “method” is better because it allows society to “evolve” into a “better state”. The non-“atheist” claims his method is better because history (experience) tells us that human nature is set and that which “works” has been “revealed” to us by it.

To an “atheist” morals and ethics are not serious subjects. The question to them is “what works” to get me what I want now. If they “agree” with natural law, to at least some extent, then they MAY very well “now want” what is in-line with Godly morals and ethics.

“Morals and ethics” to them are AMENDABLE (variable) TOOLS in the service of “social evolution toward BETTER-NESS” (whatever that means to them). Morals and ethics to non-“atheists” are firm “terrain” which we either take into consideration or are punished by.

The danger of “atheism” is that under ANY stress it transforms into self(serving) idolatry, which is the foundation of slavery.

The result of “atheism” is slavery within illusion. The result of the truth is freedom within reality.