D
Delaine75
Guest
What a shame that you’ve come to that conclusion because evil and pain exist. Evil and pain exist because humans have free will and make really lousy choices a lot of the time.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
If God doesn't exist, wasn't Stalin a very successful human being?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Y
YeshuaOrHaOlam
Guest
Shalom again,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.
The claim to believe in objective morality, whilst, at the same time, not believing in a god to uphold such a thing, is logically inconsistent.
If this is your belief, you are living in a logically inconsistent way. There is no way to argue otherwise.
Shalom Aleichem
U
User124
Guest
So are you sure that the morality you follow is Godly made and not man made?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
All religious parties claim that their particular morality is ordered by a divine God, yet all their moralities is different.
Y
YeshuaOrHaOlam
Guest
Shalom User124,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.
That isn’t really my point of contention so I won’t venture too far into that territory.
Many religions claim authority from above, and yes they do differ; I agree. However, the G-d I follow, the G-d of Abraham, of Issac, and Jacob, is a G-d who revealed that the ultimate truth, the ultimate moral rightness, is that of self sacrificing love.
Anything less than this, is not according to G-d’s will, and thus, is sinful; morally wrong.
Shalom Aleichem
E
eightandsand
Guest
But if society decides that something is “immoral” then it has to be immoral according to something. Providing an evolutionary account of morality is inadequate, because nature (as Richard Dawkins has been so kind to note) really is “red in tooth and claw.” Many of the complaints made against God and the characters in the Old Testament could, with equal justice, be made against natural selection itself. To complain that religion is the main cause of in-group, out-group conflict is merely to complain that it is Darwinian. Rival cosmological accounts imply rival views of morality. Atheism (I prefer Materialism) isn’t merely the absence of belief. Kindess means two different things in two different moral universes. For a Catholic, kindness would mean palliative care for the dying but (since all human beings have immortal souls, and hence differ fundamentally from other animals) it also means that euthanasia would be forbidden. For the materialist, since we are simply matter in motion and there is no such thing as an eternal soul and an eternal destiny, kindess means having medical euthanasia for human beings available as the same kind of humane treatment we give to animals at the veterinarian’s.Society as a whole can decide what to condemn. As oppose to ducking your responsibility and letting a god take care of it.
E
eightandsand
Guest
Satan existed long before the “notion” of evil exsited.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.
U
User124
Guest
Actually it’s a famous philosophy.What a shame that you’ve come to that conclusion because evil and pain exist. Evil and pain exist because humans have free will and make really lousy choices a lot of the time.
That’s your belief, not a fact.Satan existed long before the “notion” of evil exsited.
Y
YeshuaOrHaOlam
Guest
As an aside,Satan existed long before the “notion” of evil exsited.
Be mindful of so quickly dismissing Satan as a fictional character. That statement is one of belief, and until you provide evidence to support that conclusion, it would be wise to not boast in such a manner concerning things which you may not know.
Shalom Aleichem
E
eightandsand
Guest
I will agree with you somewhat. Uncle Joe certainly played a role. But I would say it wasn’t so much Stalin that stopped Hitler as Hitler who stopped Hitler. The Russian winter also helped.And do keep in mind that Stalin stopped Hitler.
E
eightandsand
Guest
Satan existed long before “facts” existed.Actually it’s a famous philosophy.
That’s your belief, not a fact.
U
User124
Guest
Oh yeah.Satan existed long before “facts” existed.
P
Portofino
Guest
By some accounts, yes, Stalin was “successful” in the sense that he made his mark on the world. He became famous and influenced the course of history. With Hitler it is comparable – look how many books have been written about him; how many movies made. How much of an ironic fascination he exerts on many people, even those who despise him. There is even a whole genre of what could be called “Hitler humor” – from Chaplin’s Great Dictator, to the site “cats that looks like Hitler.” This ambivalence is in human nature itself, even in those who believe in God and in objective standards of morality.
I am saying these things because they disturb me, but I acknowledge the ambivalence that human beings have. For another thing, Hitler is a complex personality, a “problem” they want to solve.
But let me make the case, as briefly as I can, for why morality without God is not subjective. The example I will give is that, in a world without God, it is not immoral for me to eat dirt, or drink paint. Does that mean I am free to do so? Why don’t I do so?
There are, as I see it, two basic principles that–while they do not make morality objective in the metaphysical sense–nonetheless do not make it subjective, either. The first principle is that life is preferable to death. Our animal instinct, our very nature tells us this. The second is that pleasure is preferable to misery. Here again, it is our animal instinct and our very nature that gives us these standards. Based on both of them, eating dirt, or swallowing nails, is something that holds absolutely no interest for most people, even though they are free to them. And it’s not even a case of something they need to justify rationally, metaphysically. It’s just what they prefer – what their body prefers, for one thing. It is self-evident to them. The metaphysical critique–because the universe doesn’t care whether you kill yourselves or others, why should you care?–shows a particular point of view of the matter, but not the only one possible. One can just easily answer, but I do care. Life is preferable to death; pleasure is preferable to suffering; as a corollary to the latter, love is preferable to the absence of love. It feels better.
Based on this logic, there are a few angles for what I would call a “non-subjective” morality:
I am saying these things because they disturb me, but I acknowledge the ambivalence that human beings have. For another thing, Hitler is a complex personality, a “problem” they want to solve.
But let me make the case, as briefly as I can, for why morality without God is not subjective. The example I will give is that, in a world without God, it is not immoral for me to eat dirt, or drink paint. Does that mean I am free to do so? Why don’t I do so?
There are, as I see it, two basic principles that–while they do not make morality objective in the metaphysical sense–nonetheless do not make it subjective, either. The first principle is that life is preferable to death. Our animal instinct, our very nature tells us this. The second is that pleasure is preferable to misery. Here again, it is our animal instinct and our very nature that gives us these standards. Based on both of them, eating dirt, or swallowing nails, is something that holds absolutely no interest for most people, even though they are free to them. And it’s not even a case of something they need to justify rationally, metaphysically. It’s just what they prefer – what their body prefers, for one thing. It is self-evident to them. The metaphysical critique–because the universe doesn’t care whether you kill yourselves or others, why should you care?–shows a particular point of view of the matter, but not the only one possible. One can just easily answer, but I do care. Life is preferable to death; pleasure is preferable to suffering; as a corollary to the latter, love is preferable to the absence of love. It feels better.
Based on this logic, there are a few angles for what I would call a “non-subjective” morality:
- the social contract. That a world in which people are causing death to each other, or suffering, is not in anyone’s interest. In a world with the bomb, for example, hurting our neighbor is tantamount to hurting ourselves.
- the insight of wisdom and philosophy. I observe that Hitler and Stalin were not happy human beings, did not have inner peace. I really don’t think they derived true pleasure from anything, in fact, and I certainly don’t envy them. In contrast to this, the great agnostic thinker Robert Ingersoll once wrote, “the way to be happy is to make others so.” This is an objective, non-subjective insight, just as would be the insight that human affection is a greater ingredient to happiness than lifelong social isolation. Indeed, the need for love is real, whether one believes in God or not.
- the fact that sympathy is natural. Shakespeare wrote, “no beast but does not feel some touch of pity.” Adam Smith wrote that sympathy and empathy were natural qualities, as is the need for affection. Any child proves this. It is in our nature to be kind, even though it is also in our nature to be self-centered or uncaring of others. Society tells us it is in our best interest to encourage sympathy, generosity, and fellow-feeling; wisdom tells us that we will be happier that way, in the end. Similarly, the psychologist tells us that the sociopath or serial killer is “ill, sick, unwell” and that the person who cares for the welfare of others is, “healthy, normal.”
N
Nimzovik
Guest
Au contraire.Evil and pain exist, therefore an all loving and all powerful god doesn’t exist.
Free Will exists. Therefore Pain and evil exist.
N
Nimzovik
Guest
Yes, by Atheistic, Evolutionary standards Stalin would indeed rank high (est?) on the list.
How can one argue to the contrary?
*Why *would sympathy be Natural?
Remember, God is gone.
Who is to say sharks are unhappy?
They exist in a society of sorts when they co-operate with other species in hunting a ‘bait ball.’
Why could not Humans be like sharks?
How can one argue to the contrary?
- the fact that sympathy is natural. Shakespeare wrote, “no beast but does not feel some touch of pity.” Adam Smith wrote that sympathy and empathy were natural qualities, as is the need for affection. Any child proves this. It is in our nature to be kind, even though it is also in our nature to be self-centered or uncaring of others. Society tells us it is in our best interest to encourage sympathy, generosity, and fellow-feeling; wisdom tells us that we will be happier that way, in the end. Similarly, the psychologist tells us that the sociopath or serial killer is “ill, sick, unwell” and that the person who cares for the welfare of others is, “healthy, normal.”
*Why *would sympathy be Natural?
Remember, God is gone.
Who is to say sharks are unhappy?
They exist in a society of sorts when they co-operate with other species in hunting a ‘bait ball.’
Why could not Humans be like sharks?
O
oval
Guest
So an animal will be fearful and needy but instinctively to some degree recognize territorial schemes and sacrifice…the cat chase’s down the old and tired. This Stalin could not be limited in nature as the cat, so we can appear less then the animal out of fear…notice appear, we can’t fully absolutely absolutely judge the final soul so the important thing I think is the loss of an example of leadership which has no onto value for role model… and only despised for stimulating unity.
T
teenphilo1
Guest
Bad things happen because people make bad choices-- not because God wills it.
God loves us enough to give us the choice and learn from our mistakes-- He doesn’t choose to make us suffer.
We abuse this love by harming each other.
However, God gave us the gift of free will, so He will generally allow us to live our lives-- even if we hurt each other (and, by extention, Him).
Although He allows us to live out our lives, He constantly calls us back to Himself, so we will stop hurting each other and unite in a love of Him.
If the world responded to this call, we would unite in a love of God.
If we unite in a love of God, we will obey God and not only cease to harm each other, but love each other
If we cease to harm each other, a great amout of suffering in this world would end, and the rest would be reduced greatly.
If suffering would decrease drastically, there would be enough evidence for you to believe in God.
Pain and Suffering are not because of God’s failures-- they are because of ours. To assume otherwise is to be inflated and proud.
To believers: We must be the proof of God’s love by loving others. Then the world will believe.
God loves us enough to give us the choice and learn from our mistakes-- He doesn’t choose to make us suffer.
We abuse this love by harming each other.
However, God gave us the gift of free will, so He will generally allow us to live our lives-- even if we hurt each other (and, by extention, Him).
Although He allows us to live out our lives, He constantly calls us back to Himself, so we will stop hurting each other and unite in a love of Him.
If the world responded to this call, we would unite in a love of God.
If we unite in a love of God, we will obey God and not only cease to harm each other, but love each other
If we cease to harm each other, a great amout of suffering in this world would end, and the rest would be reduced greatly.
If suffering would decrease drastically, there would be enough evidence for you to believe in God.
Pain and Suffering are not because of God’s failures-- they are because of ours. To assume otherwise is to be inflated and proud.
To believers: We must be the proof of God’s love by loving others. Then the world will believe.
M
mab23
Guest
its a Philosphy proven wrongActually it’s a famous philosophy.
That’s your belief, not a fact.
well then you just contradicted yourselfHigher 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.
and your opinion is odd - and why are you pairing Islam with Christianity - they are clearly differnet
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
If you consider being alone, depressed, enraged, miserably paranoid and the object of hatred of those around you to be success, yeah, he was. Certainly his standing as the greatest mass-murderer in the history of the world is unlikely to be successfully challenged. Personally, I think he could have done a lot better for himself.He certainly manipulated his environment to his advantage.
P
Portofino
Guest
Sympathy is natural in the same way that hunger, thirst, or–more to the point–concupiscence and sexual desire is natural.*Why *would sympathy be Natural?
Remember, God is gone.
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.is to say sharks are unhappy?
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.could not Humans be like sharks?
B
Bradski
Guest
Why is natural selection the opposing principle? Why can’t we say that genocide can be condemned because it violates the natural human feelings of empathy and sympathy?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.
Evil and pain exist, therefore an all loving and all powerful god doesn’t exist.
So evil and pain are proof of God’s existence?Au contraire.
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?If you don’t believe in God, you don’t believe in evil.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.