Posted on 10/06/2007 2:38:18 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
I would object to that to, which is why I didn't do it in any of my posts. The bottom line is with no God morality is whatever the individual wants it to be. No atheist has any "moral" basis for saying their acts are any better or worse than Stalin's. Ultimately, whoever is able to enforce his opinion on others through brute force is "right". Atheistic morality will always ultimately devolve into might makes right.
With due respect,
The very point of atheism as a human philosophy is that it cannot be defined. It cannot be defined in terms of a belief system, nor of any moral code. Thus, to say that atheists are either moral or compassionate is by the very nature of the statement contradictory. Atheists can be neither — because there is — in their own concept of reality, no ultimate measure of morality or immorality, of compassion or hatred, of “good” or “bad.”
These “value judgments” have no meaning to a completely relative universe. One may be a cannibal or a peace corp worker, but neither may be judged — because there are no means by which their choices can be measured in terms in moral or ethical terms.
Children can be read a description of Jesus of Nazareth's teachings and Adolph Hitler's crimes and conclude that Adolph Hitler was not a Christian in any sense of the word.
But the "brights", like you, can not do that. Not too freaking bright, eh?
If you know ANYTHING about the Nazi’s, they were extraordinarily enamored of seances, occult symbols...(snip)....and quite ANTI-CHRISTIAN ideology.
Atheism is a belief system that borrows their moral code form other religions.
Why do you suppose that Adoph Hitler had another master paln to deal with the Christians after he was done conquering Europe?
FTR — I’m a Professor of History dw. I’ve spent years studying stuff you’ve never even heard of. The earlier post citing several quotes from Hitler with regard to Christianity are the tip of the iceberg.
It is a convenient lie to blame Christianity for Hitler. Certainly Christianity has its share of scoundrels and pretenders who do evil for the supposed cause of God, but Hitler was neither claimed nor can he be laid at the feet of the Church.
Children can be read a description of Jesus of Nazareth's teachings and Adolph Hitler's crimes and conclude that Adolph Hitler was not a Christian in any sense of the word.
Which is why the athiest ethic will always boil down to might makes right.
It is a convenient lie to blame Christianity for Hitler.
I was capable of judging that when I was 8. Perhaps you're a slow learner?
Fascinating!
Oyvey.
“He acknowledges the golden rule as a universal moral.”
“He denounces moral absolutes and acknowledges that morals themselves (which are a product of what he calls the evolution of memes, if you care to read his books) can change over time and between cultures and species.”
UndauntedR,
The two statements above are contradictory. One cannot claim that there exists a “universal moral”, and yet at the same time say that there are no moral absolutes.
Further, the statement, “There are no moral absolutes” is a moral absolute in an of itself.
Also, to believe and proclaim that moral absolutes do not exist is a belief that is just as “exclusivist” as any religious belief. Why? Because those who proclaim that there are no moral absolutes believe that all who disagree with them are wrong - just as those who do believe in moral absolutes believe that those who don’t are wrong as well.
I’m not saying that you have to be “religious” to have a morality - it’s just that for the atheist, their “moral” beliefs are merely a code of “preferences” that can be followed or ignored at whim. Why? Because there is no external absolute, transcendent moral basis for their moral beliefs. This is why someone who really believes that there are no moral absolutes (amoral) is a very dangerous person in society. They can commit the most heineous of crimes and yet not violate their “moral” code. On the other hand, those who hold to a Christian morality, must violate the ethical teachings as given in the Old and New Testaments in order to commit crimes against others. To kill someone because they refuse to believe in Jesus as Messiah is a direct violation of Jesus’ teachings to love our enemies and our neighbor. No where in the New Testament is it even remotely taught that Christians are to use violence or intimidation to force “conversions”. Unfortunately, all through history people have committed many cruel and horrible acts in the name of God and Jesus - but all in direct contradiction to New Testament teaching.
It’s nice if some atheists want to follow or mimic traditional, moral behavior, but they are under no particular “moral” obligation to do so. To act as though they are somehow morally superior (and how can that be if there are no moral absolutes) because some atheists voluntarily do moral things (for their own purposes or reasons) rather than out of respect, love and service to God is a fanciful delusion.
Jesus specifically saw this and warned us about it. "By their fruits you shall know them."
Maybe, but mostly I don’t think I am a competent judge of whether or not a person is or is not a Christian. And, I immediately distrust people who believe they are able to reliably do that.
The whole point of the reformation was to assert ideas opposite to that. For example, the idea of salvation by grace. That idea doesn’t allow an examination of a persons deeds in the event of repentance. One of us is confused. Any bets on who?
Do you think you could explain to us not so "brights" why these Christians planned to persecute Christians?
Christians persecuting Christians isn’t a new hobby.
Would you assert that Christians are incapable of persecuting Christians?
When did becoming a Christian confer saintly perfection?
Look fella, this isn't a tough call. When a murdering nut massacres 5 million Jews because they aren't Aryan enough for him, it is pretty clear that he isn't following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
And, I immediately distrust people who believe they are able to reliably do that.
That's OK because I immediately think that people who can't judge Adolph Hitler as an amoral murdering piece of garbage to be loons. Fair is fair, right?
The whole point of the reformation was to assert ideas opposite to that. For example, the idea of salvation by grace. That idea doesn’t allow an examination of a persons deeds in the event of repentance. One of us is confused. Any bets on who?
Certainly, you are as confused as one gets. Grace is the Lord's to give or take as He sees fit. When the Lord commands thou shalt not murder, we can only assume that He means it. While the Lord can certainy bestow grace on the likes of Adolph Hitler that says absolutely nothing about the way Adolph Hitler lived hius life which was a murdering bastard, not as a follower of Jesus of Nazareth.
Some folks are educable some aren't.
Adolph Hitler did not lead a Christian life and the fact that other Christians have sinned has no bearing on that one way or the other.
When you call Adolph Hitler a Christian, it is a lie. It's as simple as that.
So he ackonwledges that morality exits. Wonderful.
Now I ask you. If the rape of a child makes the survival of the selfish gene more likely, is the rape of that child a moral act?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.