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

[wallstreeterww]

Josie, I couldnt have put it better myself. Great post:thumbsup:

 

[kalt]

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.

“I don’t know.” is his answer, and it’s sufficient for him. From what I’ve read of him (and of people who share his views) it’s not necessary to know the answer. To them these are just interesting questions.

 

[kalt]

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.

Just to be clear, I don’t agree with you that religion “falsely” claims to have the answer. I was merely stating what I think (from memory) what Dawkins proclaims. I disagree with Dawkins.

 

[kalt]

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.

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.

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.

We must be we. If we weren’t we, they would be them. And you can’t be anyone but you. Someone conceived by different parents wouldn’t merely be a different “you”.–If things were different and you weren’t you, you wouldn’t exist at all to ponder the “What if?” question.

 

[AntiTheist]

Just to be clear, I don’t agree with you that religion “falsely” claims to have the answer. I was merely stating what I think (from memory) what Dawkins proclaims. I disagree with Dawkins.

No, I’m aware – you made it quite clear in that post. I was just noting that your post was the most accurate of the ones I had seen. Good job.

We must be we. If we weren’t we, they would be them. And you can’t be anyone but you. Someone conceived by different parents wouldn’t merely be a different “you”.–If things were different and you weren’t you, you wouldn’t exist at all to ponder the “What if?” question.

Yes, exactly. This is one of the problems I have with these silly hypothetical questions. They’re impossible to answer because they require changing everything in ways that we can’t accurately imagine. Again, a good point.

Josie:

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).

Of course you can be religious and persecute religious people. Look at Northern Ireland, for instance. Nobody says that the people on both sides of the conflict aren’t “religious.” Or in the Middle East, where different sects of Muslims are at each other’s throats. They don’t magically stop being religious because they persecute other religious people.

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.

Well, please note that I said “most.” Obviously, there will always be people who don’t share some values with the majority of a culture, but I think that in a generation that was raised in a Hitler-controlled post-WWII world, the majority of people would grow up thinking that those values are good.

[sheesh, silly hypothetical question]

How would doing something you could get away with interfere with other desires that you have?

Well, I meant that being arrested would seriously impinge on my ability to fulfill other desires. But if I was faced with a situation where I could kill someone and know 100% for sure that I could never be punished for it – again, silly hypothetical – I still don’t think I’d have any desire to do it.

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?

Well, I’ve never been in a riot – honestly, I’d probably not participate in something like that at all because I’d be afraid of being hurt in the confusion.

 

[miguel]

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.

So we can all leave our doors unlocked. And no need for taxes to support the police, the criminal court system, or prisons.

 

[miguel]

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 you don’t see this as a problem?

– and this would be the case for most people raised in that culture, whether or not we were religious…

Sure. The athiests would think everything is hunky dory. But the people who are not athiests (and I bet there’s more of them) would be living in fear.

 

[StrawberryJam]

So we can all leave our doors unlocked. And no need for taxes to support the police, the criminal court system, or prisons.

What do you mean by this comment? Are you of the belief that a non believer would support a system that was tax free?

 

[miguel]

What do you mean by this comment? Are you of the belief that a non believer would support a system that was tax free?

I was following AntiTheists statement to its logical conclusion. If evil doesn’t exist, society doesn’t need to restrain it.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I was following AntiTheists statement to its logical conclusion. If evil doesn’t exist, society doesn’t need to restrain it.

Society does see reasons to restrain persons from harming others, and more.

In a way that your God never seems to do in a consistant manner.

 

[miguel]

Society does see reasons to restrain persons from harming others, and more.

In a way that your God never seems to do in a consistant manner.

He’s your God too.

 

[StrawberryJam]

He’s your God too.

I am open to the idea he could be. I am just not convinced of it, fully yet.

But thank you for telling me what I should think and believe.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

But of course. From the viewpoint of an atheist. morality is simply a matter of convention, and Hitler was no more than unconventional.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

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.

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.

Hitler was anything but a moron, and he came very close to winning the war. I suggest you read what was published on our side in the year 1942. It was the blackest time of the war for us.

 

[StrawberryJam]

But of course. From the viewpoint of an atheist. morality is simply a matter of convention, and Hitler was no more than unconventional.

Are you a former athiest, or a spokesperson representing them all? Or neither?

 

[wallstreeterww]

Society does see reasons to restrain persons from harming others, and more.

In a way that your God never seems to do in a consistant manner.

I think th eten commandments are very consistent unless there is something that you do not understand about them, plus since we believe he does exist his moral codes are for us to follow and hes pretty consistent in that he wants us to follow them. Doctor william lane craig is pretty good at answering the kind of objection that you seem to have on gods inconsistencies. I suggest you visit his site and also go through this forum here. Remember his laws are for US (the human race) to follow. This still doesnt change the fact that without god morals are an illusion. If an atheist could destroy the world right now and start anew with a new human race and a smaller population, while killing off the rest of the human race no one could tell him that hes wrong. In our faith god would absolutely tell us that we are wrong. Thou shalt not murder.
The principle of morals is something that most non believers tend to stay away from because they have no answer for it. This is also the reason that dawkins in his intelligence understands why he should never debate an intelligent theist.

 

[miguel]

I am open to the idea he could be. I am just not convinced of it, fully yet.

But thank you for telling me what I should think and believe.

What do you want me tell you?

 

[AntiTheist]

So we can all leave our doors unlocked. And no need for taxes to support the police, the criminal court system, or prisons.

You need to read my post more carefully. “Evil” doesn’t exist outside of value judgments. I’m not denying that there are things that people label “evil” – I’m denying that “evil” exists independently of human value judgments.

It’s not that tough to comprehend, is it?

And you don’t see this as a problem?

It’s not a “problem”; it’s a fact. The vast majority of people raised in a culture tend to see the culture’s dominant values as “good.” To use another example, if you grew up in a Muslim country, there’s an extremely high chance that you would be a Muslim.

Sure. The athiests would think everything is hunky dory. But the people who are not athiests (and I bet there’s more of them) would be living in fear.

Whether you’re religious or not, if you’re raised in a culture, you’re likely to accept a lot of that culture’s values. That’s one of the reasons that I’m glad we won WWII – because I despise Hitler’s values (and I despise them based completely on my own values).

RobbyS:

Hitler was anything but a moron, and he came very close to winning the war. I suggest you read what was published on our side in the year 1942. It was the blackest time of the war for us.

He had his high points, sure, but Hitler generally made boneheaded move after boneheaded move, culminating in his decision to attack Russia (apparently, he learned nothing from Napoleon).

On top of his ignorance, the chips were stacked against him: the allies had broken the axis code early in the war, and the Russians proved to be far too strong, practically single-handedly defeating the Germans.

 

[kalt]

You need to read my post more carefully. “Evil” doesn’t exist outside of value judgments. I’m not denying that there are things that people label “evil” – I’m denying that “evil” exists independently of human value judgments.

It’s not that tough to comprehend, is it?

It’s not a “problem”; it’s a fact. The vast majority of people raised in a culture tend to see the culture’s dominant values as “good.” To use another example, if you grew up in a Muslim country, there’s an extremely high chance that you would be a Muslim.

Whether you’re religious or not, if you’re raised in a culture, you’re likely to accept a lot of that culture’s values. That’s one of the reasons that I’m glad we won WWII – because I despise Hitler’s values (and I despise them based completely on my own values).

RobbyS:He had his high points, sure, but Hitler generally made boneheaded move after boneheaded move, culminating in his decision to attack Russia (apparently, he learned nothing from Napoleon).

On top of his ignorance, the chips were stacked against him: the allies had broken the axis code early in the war, and the Russians proved to be far too strong, practically single-handedly defeating the Germans.

Actually, everyone in society wants everyone else to be good–to them. Even rapists don’t want to be raped. They know it’s wrong by society’s standards when they rape (this is why they don’t freely admit it to other people), but it’s wrong by their own standards when they are raped. When someone steals a car, they justify it in their own minds (You have more, and they have less. They’re only taking what society won’t “let” them have. etc). But when someone else steals their car, look out–how they’re wronged!

We all know that there are men who think that it’s perfectly moral to have sex with children (boys and girls). And atheists should support them in that, since, in atheist thinking, nothing is objectively moral or immoral. I don’t think you could find one in ten atheists, though, who would stand by and let their 6 year old son have a sexual affair with the 40-yr-old man next door. In fact, if something like that happened, I think 100% of the atheist parents would have the man arrested. I’m not sure how atheists claim that nothing is evil (wrong) and then say that raping children is wrong. But there you have it.

If Hitler was nothing more than “unconventional” (another post), then child molesters are nothing more than “unconventional”.

I know there’s all kinds of talk about not letting others “hurt” someone else. But isn’t “hurt” subjective, too? Men who “love boys” don’t agree that they’re hurting the boys, so who is an atheist to make that value judgement? If there is no objective morality, they an atheist can’t call a child molester wrong.

Parents who kill their kids to save them from the devil don’t think they’re hurting their kids–they’re saving them. Dying in grace and going to Heaven to see God is not merely a “greater good”, it is “the” good. So who are atheists, who don’t believe in objective morality, to say that the parent “hurt” their child? If there is no objective morality, murder is not objectively evil (wrong) in any situation. Murderers are merely “unconventional”, and people aren’t put in prisons for being unconventional–or they shouldn’t be, especially according to atheistic thinking.

Everyone shouldn’t have to live by society’s “conventions” if there is no objective morality. Maybe societies “convention” is wrong. Maybe “Man-Boy Love” is right. At least an atheist can’t say the Man-Boy society is wrong. Atheists can only say that Man-Boy is at odds with this society’s conventions. And if there is no objective morality, who is to say that living by conventions is good? If you can’t say that there is an objective bad, who can say that living by society’s conventions is objectively good?

People know that something is wrong when it happens to them. They question it (or make excuses) when they’re the one doing it.

 

[miguel]

You need to read my post more carefully. “Evil” doesn’t exist outside of value judgments. I’m not denying that there are things that people label “evil” – I’m denying that “evil” exists independently of human value judgments.

It’s not that tough to comprehend, is it?

You said “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.” And I was simply trying to bring you back to earth by pointing out the need to restrain this thing that supposedly doesn’t exist.

It’s not a “problem”; it’s a fact. The vast majority of people raised in a culture tend to see the culture’s dominant values as “good.” To use another example, if you grew up in a Muslim country, there’s an extremely high chance that you would be a Muslim.

I hear what you’re saying. I don’t entirely disagree. Sure, there is a tendency for the mob to follow in lock-step. I wouldn’t necessarily attribute that to the vast majority seeing the dominant values as good. Yes, there’ll be some fanatical Nazis, and some athiests who’ll think everything is hunky dory. Most of the rest will be too intimidated to express disapproval. And the few who are not intimidated will be rounded up and put on trains to Auschwitz.