Richard Dawkins on the morality of hitler: Are you kidding me??

[wallstreeterww]

You cant really blame Dawkins, you actually have to give him brownie points on his complete honesty. Dawkins was referring to hitler killing those millions of people in the gas chambers and ovens. As I said before in Atheism, morality is an illusion and it all depends on who is in power. MY jaw nearly dropped to the floor when he made that statement.

Evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question

 

[Kaninchen]

Hm, I’m not a Dawkins fan but . . . . there is a context to it, isn’t there?

What he went on to say was words to the effect of ‘whatever it is, it isn’t the Bible’.

In other words, he was saying something like “It’s interesting to contemplate what it is that tells us that Hitler was wrong, whatever it is it isn’t the Bible.”

Dawkins is such an easy target that quotes taken out of context to say things like ‘Dawkins supports Hitler’ are a bit pathetic really.

 

[manualman]

He DOES have to try to be consistent.

If right and wrong are NOT (as Dawkins contends) things measured by the absolute standards set by God, then they must be maleable human constructs. He’s addressing the difficulty of absolute right/wrong issues that we all instinctively understand, but atheists have a hard time justifying.

In short, cut him some slack. He’s trying to be consistent. I don’t see where he defends the Nazis at all. He’s just having trouble figuring out how to condemn him from a materialistic/atheistic ethical framework.

 

[josie_L]

He DOES have to try to be consistent.

If right and wrong are NOT (as Dawkins contends) things measured by the absolute standards set by God, then they must be maleable human constructs. He’s addressing the difficulty of absolute right/wrong issues that we all instinctively understand, but atheists have a hard time justifying.

In short, cut him some slack. He’s trying to be consistent. I don’t see where he defends the Nazis at all. He’s just having trouble figuring out how to condemn him from a materialistic/atheistic ethical framework.

And yet he feels compelled to ridicule religion at every turn even though he himself does not have the answers to such relevant and pertinent questions to morality.

 

[kalt]

And yet he feels compelled to ridicule religion at every turn even though he himself does not have the answers to such relevant and pertinent questions to morality.

Isn’t that the point? That religion isn’t the right answer to these questions?

One might not know how the universe began, but one will ridicule those who say it was created by a race of giant sloths wearing ballet slippers.

That’s his point - God is like a giant sloth in ballet slippers–a fantastical answer to the question.

It’s been a very long time since I’ve read anything by Dawkins, so if I’ve stated his view incorrectly, please jump in and correct me.

 

[josie_L]

Isn’t that the point? That religion isn’t the right answer to these questions?

One might not know how the universe began, but one will ridicule those who say it was created by a race of giant sloths wearing ballet slippers.

That’s his point - God is like a giant sloth in ballet slippers–a fantastical answer to the question.

It’s been a very long time since I’ve read anything by Dawkins, so if I’ve stated his view incorrectly, please jump in and correct me.

Even if he thought that the idea of a God is fantastical it is dangerous to be promoting a worldview that cannot even provide a basis for understanding or discerning morality.

 

[wallstreeterww]

Isn’t that the point? That religion isn’t the right answer to these questions?

One might not know how the universe began, but one will ridicule those who say it was created by a race of giant sloths wearing ballet slippers.

That’s his point - God is like a giant sloth in ballet slippers–a fantastical answer to the question.

It’s been a very long time since I’ve read anything by Dawkins, so if I’ve stated his view incorrectly, please jump in and correct me.

What most theists like us believe is that with god there is objective morality, why is it that we find what hitler did absolutely disgusting and someone like dawkins and his followers have such difficulty addressing this. Now picture in 20 years an atheist taking the white house and the media itself being controlled by atheists. If they have such difficulty in condeming hitlers actions imagine what they will be capable of doing to the rest of us.
This is why I truely believe that the 10 commandments were truely inspired by god. If atheists of present day have such a hard time coming to grips with calling what hitler did wrong imagine how hard it would have been for someone thousands of years ago coming out with the 10 commandments.

Dawkins is the absolute king of hypocrites but at least he is an honest hypocrite, and yet he claims as most of his militant followers that atheism is peaceful and religion is violent.
I sure hope that Stalin, err opps I meant dawkins ever claims power again.

Not only this but we can go to another example of the illusion of morality under atheism. In 1976 Christopher Hitchens proclaimed Saddam Hussein as a beacon of light in that region, Yet he fully knew of the 1975 amnesty international reports of the deaths and brutalities that saddam committed against his own people.

I guess to an atheist like Hitchens, you gotta break a couple of eggs to make the perfect omelette huh , and its perfectly within his non existent objective moral code to believe in this.

Plus Kalt, he is presuming that the idea of god is fantastical even though many philosophers have shown that it is perfectly coherent to believe in the existence of god (creation ala the big bang), but if we go further and see the atrocities committed by people that think like him its truely horrifying. It would almost make us believe that people like him, stalin, marx, lenin mao and other are the ones suffering from delusions that truely make them some of the most dangerous people in history.

I mean it was dawkins himself that said if he had the power he would arrest religious parents and put them in jail for teaching their kids what dawkins sees (subjectively) as nonsense, yet this is coming from the same man that has difficulty faulting hitler on his atrocities. Clearly to me Dawkins should have studied psychology so that he could be his own therapist which would have saved him lots of money.

 

[AntiTheist]

Oh, I’m seeing a lot of nonsense in this thread. A lot of quotes and ideas taken out of context. I have to say, I like kalt’s post a lot – he was right on the money. Atheists don’t have answers to a lot of big questions, but religions falsely claim to have it all figured out.

Dawkins and Hitchens and the others all believe in some kind of morality, which presents all kinds of problems for them. I’m a different kind of thinker – I’m a moral nihilist. I do not believe that moral statements carry any truth value. Moral statements, to me, are value judgments. They reflect nothing more than the values of the person making the statement, not objective truths about the universe.

I have no problem condemning Hitler on the basis of my values – which come from my natural inborn inclinations, my reason, my upbringing, my social condition, the influence of tradition, the influence of life experiences and probably a lot of other sources of which I’m not aware.

I imagine that a Neo-Nazi would make a very different value judgment, and my values would lead me to condemn Neo-Nazis, too.

What’s interesting is that the people who have carried out atrocities in the world have been, for the most part, moral realists. The Nazis, for example, certainly believed that they were doing good (or, at least, something for the “greater good” of the country). It’s the belief in good, the belief in morality, that is most often used to justify atrocity.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Oh, I’m seeing a lot of nonsense in this thread. A lot of quotes and ideas taken out of context. I have to say, I like kalt’s post a lot – he was right on the money. Atheists don’t have answers to a lot of big questions, but religions falsely claim to have it all figured out.

Dawkins and Hitchens and the others all believe in some kind of morality, which presents all kinds of problems for them. I’m a different kind of thinker – I’m a moral nihilist. I do not believe that moral statements carry any truth value. Moral statements, to me, are value judgments. They reflect nothing more than the values of the person making the statement, not objective truths about the universe.

I have no problem condemning Hitler on the basis of my values – which come from my natural inborn inclinations, my reason, my upbringing, my social condition, the influence of tradition, the influence of life experiences and probably a lot of other sources of which I’m not aware.

I imagine that a Neo-Nazi would make a very different value judgment, and my values would lead me to condemn Neo-Nazis, too.

What’s interesting is that the people who have carried out atrocities in the world have been, for the most part, moral realists. The Nazis, for example, certainly believed that they were doing good (or, at least, something for the “greater good” of the country). It’s the belief in good, the belief in morality, that is most often used to justify atrocity.

That is certainly an interesting belief AT. Can I ask a question?..

Is evil real?

God bless you

 

[AntiTheist]

That is certainly an interesting belief AT. Can I ask a question?..

Is evil real?

God bless you

Calling something “evil” is a value judgment. It’s a really strong way of saying, “I don’t like it.”

You or I might call a murder “evil.” Hitler might call Jewish bankers “evil.” A Hindu might call eating a hamburger “evil.” They’re all examples of values at work.

However, there’s no such thing as “evil” outside of our heads. There’s only what is and our value judgments about what is.

Please note that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and a lot of other atheists would probably disagree with me on this. I’m advancing a particular philosophical position.

Please also note that it is the belief in morality – for example, Hitler’s belief that the Jews are “evil” – that often leads to atrocity.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Calling something “evil” is a value judgment. It’s a really strong way of saying, “I don’t like it.”

You or I might call a murder “evil.” Hitler might call Jewish bankers “evil.” A Hindu might call eating a hamburger “evil.” They’re all examples of values at work.

However, there’s no such thing as “evil” outside of our heads. There’s only what is and our value judgments about what is.

Please note that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and a lot of other atheists would probably disagree with me on this. I’m advancing a particular philosophical position.

Please also note that it is the belief in morality – for example, Hitler’s belief that the Jews are “evil” – that often leads to atrocity.

So then, just to clarify; you do not believe that there is evil in the world?

God bless you

 

[AntiTheist]

So then, just to clarify; you do not believe that there is evil in the world?

God bless you

I believe that “evil” exists only as a value judgment in the minds of people. Certainly there are things that individuals judge to be “evil.” But I’m saying that “evil” doesn’t exist apart from minds that judge things. It’s not “out there” in the world: nothing is evil in and of itself.

I’m not sure how much clearer I can be.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Hm, I’m not a Dawkins fan but . . . . there is a context to it, isn’t there?

What he went on to say was words to the effect of ‘whatever it is, it isn’t the Bible’.

In other words, he was saying something like “It’s interesting to contemplate what it is that tells us that Hitler was wrong, whatever it is it isn’t the Bible.”

Dawkins is such an easy target that quotes taken out of context to say things like ‘Dawkins supports Hitler’ are a bit pathetic really.

I am not sure that Dawkins even really holds this view. Could be wrong, but I don’t think he finds genocide outside of the morality of God to commit (of course, you believers see a greater good in the genocides)

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I believe that “evil” exists only as a value judgment in the minds of people. Certainly there are things that individuals judge to be “evil.” But I’m saying that “evil” doesn’t exist apart from minds that judge things. It’s not “out there” in the world: nothing is evil in and of itself.

I’m not sure how much clearer I can be.

I wish I could continue this conversation but I will be leaving for a week and I would hate to get started and then leave it at that.

Just out of curiousity AT, have you ever used, what is commonly referred to as, *the problem of pain *or *the problem of evil *to try to disprove the existance of God? I have read works by atheists and the problem of pain and or evil often comes up as a proof against the existance of God. I found your comments in this regard interesting, considering that you do not believe that evil is objective.

God bless you

 

[AntiTheist]

Just out of curiousity AT, have you ever used, what is commonly referred to as, *the problem of pain *or *the problem of evil *to try to disprove the existance of God? I have read works by atheists and the problem of pain and or evil often comes up as a proof against the existance of God. I found your comments in this regard interesting, considering that you do not believe that evil is objective.

No, I’ve never used “the problem of evil” as an argument against any god. I’m not in the business of “try[ing] to disprove God.” The burden of proof isn’t on me; it’s on those who claim to believe in such an entity.

Since I don’t think that evil exists, I don’t think that it’s a “problem” that needs to be accounted for in any particular way. I do think that it is a problem for many theologies, though. I don’t mind pointing out that it presents problems for Christian theologies, but I don’t think that I’ve ever used it as an argument for the non-existence of god (which, as I’ve noted, I don’t really make to begin with).

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

No, I’ve never used “the problem of evil” as an argument against any god. I’m not in the business of “try[ing] to disprove God.” The burden of proof isn’t on me; it’s on those who claim to believe in such an entity.

Since I don’t think that evil exists, I don’t think that it’s a “problem” that needs to be accounted for in any particular way. I do think that it is a problem for many theologies, though. I don’t mind pointing out that it presents problems for Christian theologies, but I don’t think that I’ve ever used it as an argument for the non-existence of god (which, as I’ve noted, I don’t really make to begin with).

Thank you :tiphat:

God bless

 

[wallstreeterww]

I believe that “evil” exists only as a value judgment in the minds of people. Certainly there are things that individuals judge to be “evil.” But I’m saying that “evil” doesn’t exist apart from minds that judge things. It’s not “out there” in the world: nothing is evil in and of itself.

I’m not sure how much clearer I can be.

Fair enough, for someone that doesnt believe in god that is a fair enough answer. This goes back to show that without the belief in god and objective morality that anything is possible. I guess there is one good thing I have gotten from my 3 month long debating with atheists which I have been wrapping up now. I learned alot about the historicity of the resurrection, big bang, fine tuning to tell me that tehism cannot be called an incorherent belief system as most atheists keep trying to make us believe, but from what I have found is that with atheism is that they only look at science to prove or disprove everything yet there are things even atheists believe as completely rational thoughts that even science cannot prove. This was very logically brought up by william lane craig and CS Lewis as he made his journey from atheism to theism to christianity. Antitheist, lets say you grew up in a world where the nazis won the girl and it was common to burn people of lesser races in ovens. I sure am glad i dont have to tackle questions like that as I believe in a higher absolute moral code, but if your an atheist whether you are brought up one way or another shouldnt it be the logical route to do anything you can get away with to survive. because If you dont your basically decomposing meat in the ground (didnt know any other way of putting it), to blink into nothingness, never to be seen again. Im also saying that maybe science isnt the be all that ends all and there are things beyond the universe that cannot be proven by science. If there is a god then this universe goes by his orderly rules and he can if he wants to at anytime change these rules.

For me it was the research I did into the resurrection that ended my study . I didnt need to do this as I have felt jesus in my life, but its nice to have gone through the experiment.
This is probably my last or one of my last posts in this section. I will stick to teh regular theological section of thsi forum from now one on the most part

PS I know a nilhist, very nice guy, and I asked him about the difference between a nilhist and an atheist, and he basically said that nilhist just believe what they believe, atheists have a hidden agenda. I take it to me that means that nilhist arent as interested as atheists to preach or try to convert others to their beliefs. I could be wrong.

 

[cthulhubryan]

To someone like Dawkins good and evil are irrelevant without each other as they can only be defined by what they are not.

Without a God to measure “good” against you can define “good” to mean anything. This was part of the terror of Communism, which liberals seem to love so much. Moral relativism is the source of much evil.

Without a moral compass a leader such as Hitler could say “We are good, they are bad. We need more room in which to live so we will force them to leave” and this is okay in his relativistic world. Then, when it gets to be too much trouble to get them to leave you start making them work to build your empire. In this way you are actually ‘helping’ them because despite the fact that they are innately bad you are forcing them to work for something good.

Eventually their innate badness keeps them from doing good work and it takes more resources to watch them than you have available so you kill them in the way that causes the least problems for your people.

It is the same moral problems that allowed Mao and Stalin to kill many many times the numbers of people that did Hitler. It is what allowed the Japanese to rape Nanking and to treat POW’s worse than dogs in WWII.

It is what allows Muslims to carry out Jihad against the innocents of Israel and the West.

 

[AntiTheist]

Antitheist, lets say you grew up in a world where the nazis won the girl and it was common to burn people of lesser races in ovens. I sure am glad i dont have to tackle questions like that as I believe in a higher absolute moral code

Well, if the Nazis had won WWII – which seems an unlikely outcome since Hitler was such a moron – then everything would have happened totally different in history. All of us would be different people (conceived by different parents at different times) with different upbringings and different values.

This would be the case for everyone, whether you were religious or not. There were plenty of religious Nazis, you know.

But sure, I freely admit that if I were a person raised in a Nazi culture, then I would probably think that their values are “good” – and this would be the case for most people raised in that culture, whether or not we were religious.

But what difference does that make? I wasn’t born in a Nazi culture, and I’m not someone else – I’m me, with my set of values.

but if your an atheist whether you are brought up one way or another shouldnt it be the logical route to do anything you can get away with to survive.

I don’t understand the question. No, I wouldn’t do “anything I can get away with” – like, for example, robbing and killing people, do you mean? – because 1) I have no desire to do those things, 2) Doing them would interfere with other desires that I have.

The “logical route” should be to act according to your values given the limitations of the situation.

PS I know a nilhist, very nice guy, and I asked him about the difference between a nilhist and an atheist, and he basically said that nilhist just believe what they believe, atheists have a hidden agenda.

Well, he might be a “very nice guy,” but he’s also either very stupid or being misrepresented by you. Nothing you claim about what he says makes any sense.

 

[josie_L]

AntiTheist; 5981349:

Well, if the Nazis had won WWII – which seems an unlikely outcome since Hitler was such a moron – then everything would have happened totally different in history. All of us would be different people (conceived by different parents at different times) with different upbringings and different values.

This would be the case for everyone, whether you were religious or not. There were plenty of religious Nazis, you know.

They were not religious they were apostates (one can hardly be religious and at the same time persecute the religious, i.e., priests, nuns, bishops, pastors . . .etc and churches in Germany and elsewhere).

But sure, I freely admit that if I were a person raised in a Nazi culture, then I would probably think that their values are “good” – and this would be the case for most people raised in that culture, whether or not we were religious.

This is false as there is no such thing as a homogeneous society, in fact, history is littered with counterexamples of people defying the cultural and societal milieu they are living in in order to follow their conscience.

I don’t understand the question. No, I wouldn’t do “anything I can get away with” – like, for example, robbing and killing people, do you mean? – because 1) I have no desire to do those things, 2) Doing them would interfere with other desires that I have.

How would doing something you could get away with interfere with other desires that you have? And not everyone who robs does so in a pre-meditative manner, for example, an opportunity presents itself wherein during a riot you were able to take a T.V. (since well everyone else is doing it) why not do it?