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

[snarflemike]

He certainly manipulated his environment to his advantage.

 

[empther]

He would be the most successful human being on Earth,
except that he would have nothing since death would be the end.

The rest of us would be even more miserable.

 

[IrishRush]

But God does so Stalin wasn’t. End of story.

 

[eightandsand]

If God doesn’t exist, then nothing that allows the fit to survive can be considered immoral.

If there is no God, then genocidal warfare and racial extermination cannot be condemned, because these things don’t violate the principle of natural selection; they illustrate it admirably.

If there is no God, evolved moral traits (like Stalin’s) can only be explained, not condoned or condemned.

 

[User124]

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

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

If God doesn’t exist, then nothing that allows the fit to survive can be considered immoral.

If there is no God, then genocidal warfare and racial extermination cannot be condemned, because these things don’t violate the principle of natural selection; they illustrate it admirably.

If there is no God, evolved moral traits (like Stalin’s) can only be explained, not condoned or condemned.

Shalom to you;

Hit the nail right on the head. It’s really as simple as that. Furthermore, there would be no way to deem something as “successful” without G-d, because this would require an objective source of meaning on which to base this “success” or lack thereof.

Excellent points.

Shalom Aleichem

 

[tobbias88]

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?

 

[eightandsand]

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

If you don’t believe in God, you don’t believe in evil. For the materialist, nature is just matter in motion - there is no God, good, or evil. But since you believe in evil, you do believe in God. But you incorrectly blame him for evil and pain. That is sort of rich, given that you are a mere creature and that God is the Creator and that another creature (Satan) is the one who is the father of evil and is the one who wants you to blame God for evil and pain. But that is what Satan does, he lies and he is very good at it and he is much smarter than us. That’s why we need to* obey *God’s law. It is the only way to be happy. That’'s what every sinner is seeking: happiness. Satan just makes you look for it in the wrong place, and would like to devour you now and for eternity.

 

[eightandsand]

Shalom to you;

Hit the nail right on the head. It’s really as simple as that. Furthermore, there would be no way to deem something as “successful” without G-d, because this would require an objective source of meaning on which to base this “success” or lack thereof.

Excellent points.

Shalom Aleichem

Thank you.

Shalom to you.

 

[mab23]

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

**that is simply nonsense

what is evil - and evil is defined as an opposition to good and varies depending on your social and cultural background

but if God does not exist their is NO EVIL since everything is just for nothing

and objective Morals don’t exist - therefore

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.**

 

[cerad2]

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?

How one defines success if of course a key point.

If God doesn’t exist, then nothing that allows the fit to survive can be considered immoral.

If there is no God, then genocidal warfare and racial extermination cannot be condemned, because these things don’t violate the principle of natural selection; they illustrate it admirably.

Society as a whole can decide what to condemn. As oppose to ducking your responsibility and letting a god take care of it.

If there is no God, evolved moral traits (like Stalin’s) can only be explained, not condoned or condemned.

Yep.

And do keep in mind that Stalin stopped Hitler.

 

[tobbias88]

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

THis is a naive silly idea. Pain is a sensation; a condition of being a physical entity. Evil exists because of Free Will. Animals, plants & insects ( even when they sting you!) do no evil since they do not have free Will.

The Cosmos only makes sense thru love whether human or divine.

 

[User124]

**that is simply nonsense

what is evil - and evil is defined as an opposition to good and varies depending on your social and cultural background

but if God does not exist their is NO EVIL since everything is just for nothing

and objective Morals don’t exist - therefore

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.**

One of the evils would be, is a god watching Stalin killing billions and doing nothing, that god has to be, not all powerful and not all loving.

What is objective moral values?

Not even people of the same religion share same values about many things.

 

[Glennford]

Yes, extremely successful.

I like the thread.

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

One of the evils would be, is a god watching Stalin killing billions and doing nothing, that god has to be, not all powerful and not all loving.

What is objective moral values?

Not even people of the same religion share same values about many things.

Shalom User124;

Your point would be a valid start to discussion if you too, believed in a foundation which could logically provide for such a moral code on which one could stand and declare something to actually be “evil” or consequently, “good.”

Given the logical fallacy of this reasoning, as a believer, I feel no need to answer your question because, in and of itself, your inquiry does not make consistent logical sense.

One cannot denounce G-d for crimes He (supposedly) commits/committed when the world view one stands behind cannot provide the logical foundation for the very morals being called upon.

The question self destructs.

Shalom Aleichem

 

[mab23]

How one defines success if of course a key point.

Society as a whole can decide what to condemn. As oppose to ducking your responsibility and letting a god take care of it.

Yep.

And do keep in mind that Stalin stopped Hitler.

So Society could condem…

great point…

 

[User124]

If you don’t believe in God, you don’t believe in evil. For the materialist, nature is just matter in motion - there is no God, good, or evil. But since you believe in evil, you do believe in God. But you incorrectly blame him for evil and pain. That is sort of rich, given that you are a mere creature and that God is the Creator and that another creature (Satan) is the one who is the father of evil and is the one who wants you to blame God for evil and pain. But that is what Satan does, he lies and he is very good at it and he is much smarter than us. That’s why we need to* obey *God’s law. It is the only way to be happy. That’'s what every sinner is seeking: happiness. Satan just makes you look for it in the wrong place, and would like to devour you now and for eternity.

The notion of evil and goodness existed before Christianity and Judaism, even among non theistic religions.

I accept the notion of evil and I don’t believe in a god, to me evil has nothing to do with a fictional character called Satan.

 

[mab23]

One of the evils would be, is a god watching Stalin killing billions and doing nothing, that god has to be, not all powerful and not all loving.

What is objective moral values?

Not even people of the same religion share same values about many things.

just because not everyone shares the same values doesn’t mean we don’t have objective moral values

**Objective **simply means that they’re external to us. We don’t make them up. They’re an absolute rule of right and wrong.

Subjective is the opposite, and means they’re internal to us. We make them up. There is no absolute rule of right and wrong.

A lot of people today like to say that morals are subjective. If morality is subjective, then whatever your personal moral standard is should be acceptable. You don’t have a right to expect anyone behave like you think they should, and they don’t have a right to expect you to behave like they think you should.

Evil is indeed a very difficult problem. This is not because it is philosophically or theologically difficult but because it is emotionally difficult

you are creating a false dichotomy

1.Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;
2.or He can, but does not want to.

Yet, biblically and philosophically a third option is that God wants to abolish evil and can, yet He functions on his own timing and He has not done it yet because He has a higher purpose in allowing evil to persist for a time.

 

[YeshuaOrHaOlam]

The notion of evil and goodness existed before Christianity and Judaism, even among non theistic religions.

I accept the notion of evil and I don’t believe in a god, to me evil has nothing to do with a fictional character called Satan.

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

 

[User124]

just because not everyone shares the same values doesn’t mean we don’t have objective moral values

**Objective **simply means that they’re external to us. We don’t make them up. They’re an absolute rule of right and wrong.

Subjective is the opposite, and means they’re internal to us. We make them up. There is no absolute rule of right and wrong.

A lot of people today like to say that morals are subjective. If morality is subjective, then whatever your personal moral standard is should be acceptable. You don’t have a right to expect anyone behave like you think they should, and they don’t have a right to expect you to behave like they think you should.

Evil is indeed a very difficult problem. This is not because it is philosophically or theologically difficult but because it is emotionally difficult

you are creating a false dichotomy

1.Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;
2.or He can, but does not want to.

Yet, biblically and philosophically a third option is that God wants to abolish evil and can, yet He functions on his own timing and He has not done it yet because He has a higher purpose in allowing evil to persist for a time.

Higher purpose, that’s the main excuse for dictators to do evil. I believe in objective morality, good and evil and I don’t believe in gods.

In my opinion, the problem with Islamic and Christian “morality” is that in many cases good and evil are related to sex.