If God doesn't exist, wasn't Stalin a very successful human being?

[User124]

its a Philosphy proven wrong

well then you just contradicted yourself

and your opinion is odd - and why are you pairing Islam with Christianity - they are clearly differnet

How it’s proven wrong?

Free will? It doesn’t explain a lot.

 

[Nimzovik]

Sympathy is natural in the same way that hunger, thirst, or–more to the point–concupiscence and sexual desire is natural.

It is natural for mammals of the same tribe to have sympathy and fellow feeling for each other. For example, no one needed to tell me, to explain to me rationally, that I should love my mother or my father. No one has to tell a mother that she should love her child. The aberration is when the mother does not love the child. That is the more unusual case, the mother that has no desire to protect her young. If it were otherwise, I’m not sure the human race would have survived as long as it has.

This is probably evolutionary; group survival is more effective than individual survival. Wolves travel in packs; humans live in tribes or societies. What the Buddhist, for example, seeks to do, is to extend one’s view of “the tribe” to encompass all of humanity and, ultimately, all of nature. Jesus sought to apply the same corrective to Hebrew fellow-feeling – in 1st century Palestine (as today, all around the world), the tendency is to view tribe only as one’s own countrymen, one’s own ethnicity, or–in the most extreme case–one’s family.

Sharks are fish; they are not mammals, even. I don’t claim that sharks are sympathetic by nature, nor do I have any evidence that they nurture their young. Nor can I discern any sympathy in a crocodile or alligator, nor any other reptile.

Fellow-feeling does appear to be in the nature of mammals, however. I’m not saying that there is also not a good aggression in mammals, but there is sympathy and the need for affectionate contact, as well. There appear to be well-grounded studies concluding that a human infant given food and nourishment, but deprived of affection of human (or any other mammalian) contact, cannot survive.

I also observe that aggression in humans is largely fear-based, as opposed to a drive that needs to be satisfied. Dogs attack those whom they are threatened by and feel afraid of. Humans are similar.

The best example I can give of why humans are not like sharks is in contemplating the profile of the Aurora, CO shooter. This was someone who wanted to hurt as many people as possible. Sympathy or fellow-feeling was seemingly entirely absent, throughout the whole thing. No cries of pain or pleas for mercy would have been of any avail. And, based on even a cursory understanding of this individual’s profile or psychological make-up, I know that this individual was not happy and full of peace. Even before he perpetrated those acts, he was in hell.

Is there any love (sympathy) without God being there to radiate it to His creatures. Methinks not.

 

[eightandsand]

Oh yeah.

Yeah.

Evil is not a being, thing, substance, or entity. Being is either the Creator or his creature. There is nothing in the visible universe that is intrinsically wicked. Sex, gold, alcohol - all these things are good and therefore are desirable. Sinners look only at the material element of a sin and find it good - as it is. Then, when they have abused its goodness, they turn against God because the effects of this misuse have brought them and society misery. Even Satan was once good. He is a good thing gone bad - in fact, a very good thing gone very bad. If he had not had the greatest ontological goodness of a powerful mind and will, he could never have become as morally corrupt as he is. “Lillies that fester smell far worse than weeds.”

God created the Universe for Adam and Eve. St. Augustine reminds us that had Adam and Eve not committed the Original Sin, the Universe would have been filled only with the good and beautiful, no exception. No deformity, no harmful mutations, no disease. None of these things would have existed, except for sin. This is why St. Paul in his letter to the Romans, chapter 8 tells us that the whole universe is groaning in expectation for the revelation of the sons of God; that the entire universe is made subject to a bondage to decay because of the sin of Adam.

The Catechism of the Catholic Churches with authority on these matters:

II. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS

391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy. Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”. The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: “The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing.”

392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels. This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: “You will be like God.” The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.

393 ***It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. ***"There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."

394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning”, who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father. “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil.” In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.

395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but "we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him."

III. ORIGINAL SIN

Freedom put to the test

396 God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” *** The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. ***

Man’s first sin

397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command. This is what man’s first sin consisted of. All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness.

398 In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.

399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness.2 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives.

400 ***The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul’s spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination. Harmony with creation is broken: visible creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject “to its bondage to decay”. Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true: man will “return to the ground”, for out of it he was taken. Death makes its entrance into human history. ***

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

Shalom to all,

Again, the problem is not there isn’t natural empathy amongst human beings, or even animals of lower intelligence for that matter. Clearly there is, and it’s my belief this empathy is a G-d inspired feeling.

The problem, or rather the fact, is this; without G-d, there is absolutely no reason one can give for following a moral code, loving others, and trying to be a “good” person. They are all human constructs, they have no meaning outside of a transcendent, personal, G-d.

It really is that simple. Believe me, to all the people arguing the opposite, I was once an agnostic/atheist at one point in my life, I am well familiar with the argument; there is no, I repeat, no way to defend your position.

This is a conclusion that not only theologians come too, but also many atheist’s who realize how futile life becomes without a G-d there, to provide meaning. ( See, Jean Paul Sarte for instance )

Shalom Aleichem

 

[snarflemike]

Obviously you know very little about Stalin, his pogroms, enslavement of his own people, his megalomania, destruction of Russian agriculture & economy or you wouldn’t write such bizarre idiotic statements.

Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 63,000,000 people while Mao slaughtered at least 73,000,000.

Is that your definition of success?

I know quite a bit about Stalin. Having answered your question perhaps you can now answer mine.

 

[shoe]

Shalom again,

That is not the point my friend. The point is this;

Without a transcendent, personal, source of morality, there can be no basis on which to define objective moral standards. Surely man can attempt to condition his own definitions or rightness or wrongness, but in the end they are merely illusions, much like a mirage on the desert horizon.

Shalom Aleichem

Agreed. People cannot understand or realize what is intrinsically wrong without first understanding or realizing what is intrinsically right. The criteria from which the rules of right and wrong actions are discerned simply do not come into existence from nothing. All laws must come from somewhere. If the laws of right and wrong do not come from the objective and transcendent God, then they must come from the subjective mind of mankind. And if right and wrong come from mankind, then any person - and by extension any nation - can consider any kind of action to be either right or wrong.

 

[eightandsand]

Are you suggesting that if you do believe in evil, then you do believe in God? Everyone would tell you that killing for pleasure is evil, therefore everyone believes in God? Does the Dalai Lama have no conception of evil? Are you suggesting that I have no concept of it?

Go back and read my original post in the proper context. My point was that for the materialist nature is just matter in motion - there is no God, good, or evil. My point was that materialists have no grounds for condemning the actions of God (He doesn’t exist). My other point was that on their own principles, materialists can never condemn any action or person as “evil.” For the materialist, evolved moral traits can only be explained, not condoned or condemned. Nothing that allows the fit to survive can be considered immoral. A materialist must* explain*, never condemn, things like human cannibalism, infanticide, burying one’s parents alive, racial exterminations, genocidal warfare, slavery, and so on. And although the materialists are quick to counter with giving an evolutionary explanation for the appearance of altruism, that does not mean that altruism is somehow better than the above practices or an evolutionary goal. Along these lines of altruism, my other point was that “kindness” means two different things for the Christian and the Materialist. Rival cosmological accounts imply rival views of Nature and rival views of Nature imply rival views of Human Nature. Stalin illustrated this fact nicely. Zbigniew Brzezinski said that “the failed effort to build communism in the twentieth century consumed the lives of almost 60,000,000 human beings, making communism the most costly human failure in all of human history.”

Marxist communism, as you probably know, claimed (in a Messianic sort of way) to be a fullfillment of atheistic principles, going all the way back to Epicurus. It is is still a danger today. In fact, at the apparition of Our Lady of Fatima in 1917, the Mother of God gave many prophetic messages that would come true and she warned that unless her requests were heeded, Russia would spread her “errors” throughout the world, causing war and suffering. What were those “errors.” The Mother of God called them “Communism.” In other words, Materialism in practice. I happen to believe that those “errors” have indeed spread. Unfortunately, they found a home in “the West.” I find it extremely ironic that now “the West” is demonizing Russia, where the Orthodox faith is resurgent and is publicly honored by the State. The 1984 Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart (as requested at Fatima in 1917) appears to be bearing fruit. But it will be a challenge for many of us in “the West” to accept it. Keep your eye on Russia and the developing tensions between “the West.”

 

[april32010]

bizarre idiotic statements.

:clapping:

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

Here are some quotes to chew on;

We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality. - Kai Nielsen, Atheist Philosopher

‘Whither is God?’ he cried, 'I shall tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night and more night coming on all the while? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? . . . God is dead. . . . And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comrort ourselves? - Frederich Nietzsche

“to say that something is wrong because . . . it is forbidden by God, is . . . perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong . . . even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable. . . .” “The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone.” - Richard Taylor, Atheist Ethicist

Shalom Aleichem

 

[snarflemike]

Evil and pain exist, therefore an all loving and all powerful god doesn’t exist.

Good and pleasure and joy and wonder and love and beauty and delight exist, therefore God exists. Checkmate. Perhaps you should now examine your assumptions.

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

All laws must come from somewhere. If the laws of right and wrong do not come from the objective and transcendent God, then they must come from the subjective mind of mankind. And if right and wrong come from mankind, then any person - and by extension any nation - can consider any kind of action to be either right or wrong.

Shalom Shoe;

Absolutely correct. Under a materialistic framework, it would be no worse for one to murder 100 young children, than it would be good for one to feed 100 hungry adults. Both acts would imply some sense of moral badness or goodness, which cannot exist without G-d.

It really is that simple, anything else, is pure silliness.

Shalom Aleichem

 

[User124]

Good and pleasure and joy and wonder and love and beauty and delight exist, therefore God exists. Checkmate. Perhaps you should now examine your assumptions.

Perhaps you should read what I wrote, evil and pain exist, therefore an ALL LOVING and ALL POWERFUL god doesn’t exist.

Evil does not disprove a god, it disproves a loving god, an all powerful god, an all knowledge god. “checkmate”.

 

[snarflemike]

So are you sure that the morality you follow is Godly made and not man made?

All religious parties claim that their particular morality is ordered by a divine God, yet all their moralities is different.

You claimed in another post that you follow objective morality. Do all atheists who follow objective morality follow the same morality?

On a different note, many people have claimed to be Napoleon. Does that prove that there was no Napoleon?

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

Evil does not disprove a god, it disproves a loving god, an all powerful god, an all knowledge god. “checkmate”.

Pure conjecture. The blessing of free will comes with the possibility to abuse that very thing. Stalin, Hitler, any man who kills another man, is not following the will of G-d, and thus, these things happen. G-d does not force us to follow, or to love Him; if He did, how could that be true love?

A relationship with G-d through Yeshua is a love story. Love isn’t always easy, and it can hurt, but it is always redeeming. This is the key to all of life; love. Those who don’t have love, don’t know G-d. Stalin, and Hitler, had not love, and thus, did not know G-d. Their atrocities will not be forgotten; this is one thing we, as followers of Yeshua have, faith in the justice of G-d, and in his restoration of all things through his chosen Mashiach, our redeemer, Yeshua.

Shalom Aleichem

 

[snarflemike]

Perhaps you should read what I wrote, evil and pain exist, therefore an ALL LOVING and ALL POWERFUL god doesn’t exist.

Evil does not disprove a god, it disproves a loving god, an all powerful god, an all knowledge god. “checkmate”.

Yes, I get it, no need to resort to caps. As I wrote, re-examine your assumptions. Perhaps you can list them for us and we can examine them together.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Depends on what your metric of success is. If that isn’t nailed down there can never be agreement on an answer here.

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

Depends on what your metric of success is. If that isn’t nailed down there can never be agreement on an answer here.

Precisely the predicament one comes to without G-d to give such a meaning.

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Hokomai]

Stalin died in his bed, believing he had defeated his enemies, Nazism, conquered much of Europe, created the conditions that led to communist victory in China, and that he had the admiration and love of hundreds of millions throughout the world. His beliefs in this regard more or less corresponded with reality. His belief that he had personally brought forward the inevitable success of communism and the abolition of private property and all oppressive relationships, through his insight that socialism was possible in one country did not correspond with reality. That is the problem with beliefs. They often don’t. He was not a success in a Darwinian sense, as he had few descendants, and did not encourage and environment in which they in turn had descendants. Stalin, after his years in the seminary, seemed to be little troubled by the possibility of God exisiting, although he saw it as extremely funny that his mother still wished he had become a priest, and it was said, though never proved, that he confessed his sins during world war two. The existence of people who do great evil is does make you wish there were a God, but on reflection, non-theist ideas like karma are even better.

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

The existence of people who do great evil is does make you wish there were a God, but on reflection, non-theist ideas like karma are even better.

Shalom Hokomai;

How does a blind universal law, such as karma, make any more sense to you than a G-d who, in His person, upholds a moral law?

Let me ask you this; if the laws in this country (or wherever you may be) didn’t actually have people (IE; police to enforce, judges to sentence, correction facilities to serve time) behind them to keep them relevant, why would you follow such a thing?

This is exactly the situation karma lends to; a blind law, with not ultimate law giver to uphold it. If there is no law giver, there can be no logical reason given to follow a law.

And so we find ourselves back where we started; without G-d, there can be no meaning, no morality, no purpose.

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Bradski]

All laws must come from somewhere. If the laws of right and wrong do not come from the objective and transcendent God, then they must come from the subjective mind of mankind. And if right and wrong come from mankind, then any person - and by extension any nation - can consider any kind of action to be either right or wrong.

Whether something is wrong or not is decided by us. It cannot be any other way. There are no objective moral laws to start with. The bible may mention a few universal guidelines (which we would understand and uphold even without any religious texts), but each has to be interpreted by us as the situation demands.

If you ask someone: ‘Is stealing wrong?’, then the only sensible reply is: ‘Under what circumstances?’ If you blandly state that stealing is morally wrong under any circumstances but could be considered the right thing to do in certain circumstances, then to call stealing ‘objectively wrong’ is to render the term itself meaningless.

Let me ask you this; if the laws in this country (or wherever you may be) didn’t actually have people (IE; police to enforce, judges to sentence, correction facilities to serve time) behind them to keep them relevant, why would you follow such a thing?

If you were an immoral (or even an amoral) person, then quite possible you wouldn’t. But you and I don’t steal because we think we might get caught. We don’t steal because we think someone might be watching (including God). We don’t steal because we know that under most circumstances it is the wrong thing to do.

If we stole things with impunity, then we’d expect others to do the same and we wouldn’t want that. So we treat others as we’d like to be treated ourselves. It’s hardly a surprising position to reach. You might say that you don’t steal because God had declared it to be immoral. It is a divine law. But people who don’t believe in God have no conception of ‘Divine Law’ yet still act morally.

It’s akin to saying that your neighbour has declared that drinking and driving is to be illegal. I do not recognise his authority to make such a law, but yet I would still not do it because I personally know that it’s wrong.

This is exactly the situation karma lends to; a blind law, with not ultimate law giver to uphold it. If there is no law giver, there can be no logical reason given to follow a law. And so we find ourselves back where we started; without G-d, there can be no meaning, no morality, no purpose.

Atheists (and people of religions other than Christianity) still obey moral rules as everyone conceives them to be with no consideration of any ultimate law giver. If we do the right thing without a belief in God, then morality cannot be sourced from the divine.