Hitler knew he was immoral

[Mr.Badham]

If it could be proved that Hitler knew what he was doing was immoral, would it change any theist's mind about "Atheist Morality"?

What about Stalin, Mussolini and Pol Pot?

If it could be proven that these four knew what they were doing was not moral, would this end the theist claim that Atheists are somehow less moral?

As it stands, I'm not interested in the definitions of proof or morality.

This post is for anyone who uses Hitler and his ilk as "proof" that Atheists are less "moral". If Hitler knows what's moral, but simply chooses to ignore it, does that say anything about morality?

[Skybringr]

I think the point to be made about Hitler is that atheists tend to always blame religion for everything, and Hitler is a prime example of how evil acts can have more to do with other things.

It's very radical to believe religion should be blamed for Hitler's actions when it was about racial purity and eugenics. Their hatred of the Jews had little to do with religion. It would have happened with or without any rally of God's alleged will.

[Gracchus]

[Replying to post 8 by Mr.Badham]

I'm sure he does think the Nazis thought they were right, but that is not remotely troublesome for his position.

He believes that all humans have an innate God-given sense of morality, some of which reject and sin.

Hence why he can believe atheists know right from wrong without any conflict whatsoever.

Actually, even monkeys have a sense of what is fair. What is more they seem to be less likely to ignore it than humans are.

Might make you stop and think, if you weren't religious.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 8 by Mr.Badham]

I'm sure he does think the Nazis thought they were right, but that is not remotely troublesome for his position.

He believes that all humans have an innate God-given sense of morality, some of which reject and sin.

Hence why he can believe atheists know right from wrong without any conflict whatsoever.

Actually, even monkeys have a sense of what is fair. What is more they seem to be less likely to ignore it than humans are.

Might make you stop and think, if you weren't religious.

"Actually" implies it was some sort of counter. I never said he believed only humans have a sense of morality.
I don't see how it'd be a problem for Craig even if other animals were more moral; there are likely a thousand different just-so apologetics that could be used.

I don't see why it would stop and make anyone think, religious or otherwise. The fact that other species have their own moral systems is not particularly surprising to anyone.

[Cephus]

I think the point to be made about Hitler is that atheists tend to always blame religion for everything, and Hitler is a prime example of how evil acts can have more to do with other things.

It's very radical to believe religion should be blamed for Hitler's actions when it was about racial purity and eugenics. Their hatred of the Jews had little to do with religion. It would have happened with or without any rally of God's alleged will.

That's not really the case and Hitler was quite clear that his hated of the Jews sprung specifically from his religious beliefs. Christians have desperately tried to spin things in any other way but his own words on the subject are quite clear.

[Mr.Badham]

I have to admit, this thread is not moving along like I thought it would.

I thought the whole "Nazi" argument was important to religious people.

I thought religious people believed Hitler was a "Model Atheist". I thought Holocausts were implicit with Atheist regimes. I thought eugenics were part and parcel with "Darwinism".

I haven't even offered any proof that Hitler knew what he was doing was wrong, I've merely suggested that I might dig some up if I cared to look.

I think I know what the problem is;
I'm attempting to force religious people to make a claim that can be falsified. I want them to tell me how to change their minds. Tell me what evidence is necessary.

If part of your reason for being religious is because you're afraid of what you'd become if you weren't, then let me prove you won't be that way.

Atheism is not responsible for Holocausts. Catholicism is not responsible for pedophilia. Problems occur without checks and balances. When people who know something is wrong, don't do what they know is right... Atheist or otherwise.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 15 by Mr.Badham]

Don't get me wrong, there are those that do like Dinesh D'Souza, but no educated apologist would.
Things like this are usually said if the atheist party makes claims about negative effects of religion, too.

[Sydney Carton]

[Replying to post 15 by Mr.Badham]

I will ask you a question. Why is anything the Nazis did intrinsically wrong?

Animals are animals and they require no justification for anything they do. A stronger animal will overpower a weaker one for ANY reason that crosses the stronger animal's mind. Why is this considered acceptable in "nature" but not in human society?

If a human is just another kind of animal why should we consider ourselves "better" than our kin? And where would your definition of "better" come from? As the strongest we have the evolutionary right to impose our will on whomever we please.

I will also tell you that I'm not a Christian, Jew, Islamist, Buddhist, white supremacist (eww), or practice any religion or belief.

[Sydney Carton]

[Replying to post 11 by Skybringr]

In an earlier post morality was mentioned among a tribe of monkeys.

If a stronger monkey within this tribe were to "murder" his subjects in order to solidify his dominance over the tribe would we consider this an immoral act? No. We would call it "nature". We would call it evolutionary principles at work.

There seems to be rampant hypocrisy amongst this topic.

[Cephus]

[Replying to post 17 by Sydney Carton]

Which is exactly the point, people need to demonstrate that their particular moral position is actually true and no one can do so. They simply declare, by fiat, that they're right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. They try to smear the other person, falling into logical fallacies in attacking the other person's character, rather than just backing up their own moral position. The fact is, they can't and we all know it, they're just emotionally attached to a particular moral position and therefore, it cannot possibly be wrong.

[Bust Nak]

Animals are animals and they require no justification for anything they do.

Not all, some animals want justification for the stuff they do.

A stronger animal will overpower a weaker one for ANY reason that crosses the stronger animal's mind. Why is this considered acceptable in "nature" but not in human society?

That's only true for the majority of animals, there are notable exceptions. But setting that aside for now, why it is acceptable in "nature" is because the animals in question are not moral agents.

If a human is just another kind of animal why should we consider ourselves "better" than our kin?

Because you are member of my species.

And where would your definition of "better" come from?

Form myself.

As the strongest we have the evolutionary right to impose our will on whomever we please.

No, we have the power to impose our will, rights are a matter of agreement.

If a stronger monkey within this tribe were to "murder" his subjects in order to solidify his dominance over the tribe would we consider this an immoral act? No. We would call it "nature". We would call it evolutionary principles at work.

Not me, monkeys have enough brain power to be considered moral agents; and I would call said monkey immoral.