Harry McCall asks a good question:
There were 42 failed attempts to kill Hitler…. If there is a God seated on his Royal Throne in Heaven, why did he not let [one of them succeed]?
Here are three possible answers:
- God couldn’t do anything about Hitler. But if that’s true, what kind of God is he? And if he can’t do anything about anything, why pray or worship him?
- God could do something about Hitler, but he chose not to. In other words, he would be the most evil being imaginable. If a man could easily stop the Nazis without any innocent deaths, but chose not to, wouldn’t he be evil?
- God doesn’t exist.
I’ll go with #3.
JonJon: I agree. 
Siberia: That’s a question I always ask myself, though in other contexts, would I still be me if I’d... 
Mark Mukasa: I love the Paine pun. xD Awesome article. 
mikespeir: Amen, and amen. 
nomad: “Which is really unexpected and fascinating, when you think about it.” And don’t forget... 
Jabster: @JonJon That’s not something that is limited to theocratic societies but includes any society in which... 
78 Comments
I was trying to think of other answers…
This is my favorite comment from the ‘Debunking’ post:
God gave everyone free will, that includes Hitler and all those who tried to kill him. Do you think God cannot stop Adam and Eve from eating the forbidden fruit? No, simply because he has given them free will. Hitler had chosen to do evil things, and many have chosen to stop him. If you are not given free will, He might just drag you to worship Him on every Sunday…. against your will.
@McBloggenstein: If they can’t condemn any of his actions because they are “mysterious and untraceable,” then logically they can’t praise him for anything good that happens either, because it’s “mysterious and untraceable” and they don’t really know what’s going on.
4. God was on holliday during WW2. As soon as he got back, he made Hitler kill himself.
I’ve heard it said that there needed to be a holocaust so that Jews would get Israel back, paving the way for the second coming, and thus Hitler was all part of God’s ineffable plan.
The obvious problems with this are:
(1) it means that Hitler was a good person, doing what he’d been commanded to do by the High Holy.
(2) it means that God can think of no better way to give Israel back to his chosen people than by first killing six million of them. And twenty million anti-Stalinist Russians, and tens of millions of soldiers. Which brings us back to the omnipotent / omnibenevelent thing…
To show the world what Darwinism leads to.
look up eugenics and Hitler.
Hitler was cosy with pope Pius XII, maybe il Papa put in a good word with his boss?
http://xa2.xanga.com/d038746a37d3121207568/w15126270.jpg
Summer,
Darwin repudiated eugenics.
Hitler was mates with the Pope (Pious XII, unless I miss my guess), so obviously the Pontiff put in a good word with the Lord…
“Oh God, will you keep an eye Mr Hitler, please? I know he’s knocked off a fair old number of Your chosen people, but you weren’t using them for anything, were you? Oh, and that nice Mr Mussolini has just sorted out a nice pad for me, so if you could keep the assassins off his back as well, that would be great…”
God exists, but does what the Pope says. The Pope liked Nazis. QED.
My fourth option to the “why does God allow x evil thing to happen?” was usually that preventing that thing would allow an even greater evil to exist.
To take Hitler as an example, it’s not impossible to think that simply assassinating Hitler would be akin to cutting the head off a hydra. Nazism would not have been defeated. Remember that antisemitism was pretty widespread just about everywhere before the holocaust, and today it’s viewed with distaste (mostly).
I personally put that down to the propoganda war the allies waged against Nazi germany, combined with desperation of the Nazi leadership as their war effort crumbled. Actually, this sounds a lot like Nazi apologetics or even denialism – I want to emphasize, it’s neither; the policies of the Nazi regime were thoroughly evil and I don’t dispute their extent at all.
My point is that *it could have been us* who were herding jews into concentration camps, and while we’re contemplating alternate realities, one were Hitler was assassinated (martyred?) before his warped racial hygeine ideals were taken to their horrific conclusions in central Europe could be one where those same ideals were taken to a much more appalling conclusion across the world.
But then, I watch too many time-travelling movies.
What does this mean for God? I suppose you could kind of view him as struggling to hold back a tide of evil, with the world being “as good as it can be”. Is that a God you can respect?
It also implies, given a God is keeping the world is “as good as it can be” – which isn’t very good, with all of it’s flaws, but presumably would be a whole lot worse if God stopped doing so – that christianity is a fatalistic ideology.
You could argue that this is merely an extension of argument #1, although I suspect that those who hide behind it as an explanation for the dichotomy of good and evil would think otherwise. Personally, I found its implications on the nature of God are unsettling. It wasn’t why I deconverted, but it was a big question mark for me while I held to that faith.
Someone always brings up Darwin when Hitler is mentioned. http://lolgod.blogspot.com/2008/12/dear-frau-hitler.html
@Confused
I’ve heard that line before, too. I think it can be classified as perhaps a more subtle attempt at reason #1 given by Daniel.
Of course, if God has to “struggle” with anything, he’s not omnipotent. And, if the world is only “as good as it can be”, we find ourselves wondering how an omnipotent creator couldn’t make it “more good” or even perfect. The knee-jerk reaction, of course, is to point out the Fall and original sin … but we all know the laughable silliness of those claims.
The Hydra is a good analogy for apologetics. They try to cut off the head of the beast (for the apologists, that’s doubt in God), but each time they do, two more problems grow in its place. This is why most religious folks find it easiest to simply not think too deeply about their beliefs. Here there be dragons.
@summer
LOL. Try reading some history books sometime. And no, the Bible doesn’t count as history.
@Summer,
Darwin was one of the first to realise how evolution works through natural selection. This was a piece of scientific data, not an ethos.
Many others used this information. Many for the overwhelming good of humanity. Some, not so much.
I don’t blame Newton if I drop something. And Darwin isn’t implicated in humanity’s evil deeds.
So Daniel, if given the opportunity, you would kill Hitler?
this is primarily in regards to question 2.
From a utilitarian moral stance it makes perfect sense, but from many others it doesn’t. (I stopped myself from saying “most others” although I think that might be true.) So are you a utilitarian? Or something else which I can’t think of at the moment which would equally support killing Hitler?
Just curious!
Also, w/ regard to darwin and eugenics:
“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
[Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition), vol. I, p. 168)]
@jonboy: Yes, I would have killed Hitler. I’m not in favor of killing or war generally, but sometimes it must be done. He was hurting and killing millions of people. I would have pulled the trigger without remorse.
Wouldn’t you have? Imagine if you just got out of being held in a prison camp for 5 years where most of your friends were tortured and killed, and then you had the opportunity to kill the man behind it all. Wouldn’t you pull the trigger, or would you just hope for someone else to do it?
As for your Darwin quote, not sure the point you are making there. He’s not advocating eugenics. He certainly isn’t saying it was right to kill the maimed or sick — he’s making a point that we can all agree with:
When weak people breed, they usually produce weak children. When two mentally unstable people breed, they often produce mentally unstable children. When two people with AIDS breed, they usually produce children with AIDS.
Do you disagree with that, jonboy?
That one’s dead simple using Christian logic:
If God had let Hitler die the Holocaust wouldn’t have been completed.
Without the Holocaust Israel would not have been created.
The creation of Israel means that the Jews can go back there.
With the Jews in Israel the events described in Revelation are allowed to unfold.
When all that is finished Jesus can come back and end the world.
i now understand why God let this happen. thank you for pointing this out to me.
@summer
@jonboy
The idea of allowing weak members of a species to die off so as to not dirty the gene pool is far from advocating murder or genocide because someone of great influence is racist.
I’m not saying Darwin isn’t right in this observation, I’m simply pointing out how uncomfortably close this is to eugenics. He says “excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
If that isn’t within spitting distance of eugenics, then you can at least see how it could directly give rise to eugenics, right? Maybe I’m too pessimistic…
W/ regard to killing Hitler, there is a difference between saying you would take a particular action, or even that such an action would be justified or necessary, and saying that it is morally right. Many moral codes forbid the taking of life, even non-human lives. A non-utilitarian code might find fault with the intention behind a given action, or forbid an action no matter its motivation.
Yes, I probably would kill Hitler, if I could. And you know, I would probably be lauded for it. But I honestly don’t know if I could kill Hitler and call myself free from guilt. After all, I certainly did kill him, an action I find morally reprehensible. No matter how many lives I saved, it would not change the fact that I had killed someone. It would not make me less of a murderer. Imagining I had even better motivations for doing it than simple common sense is irrelevant to whether or not I remained a murderer after killing someone in cold blood.
Also, this idea that if something wasn’t allowed to happen, that something worse might have happened instead, is purely speculation and should not be seriously considered.
You cannot argue a point using hindsite.
As Daniel said, who wouldn’t have killed Hitler given the chance, especially if you were somehow harmed by his influence, unless you agreed with his views of ethnic cleansing?
Of course looking back one could find outcomes that couldn’t have happened if not for Hitler’s reign, but that is only knowing what one knows now.
I don’t see how anyone could argue, without using hindsite, that killing Hitler would have been the best thing to do at the time.
That isn’t what I argued.
Sorry jonboy, my second comment was not toward you.
I made a mistake though. My last sentence should say “I don’t see how anyone could argue, without using hindsite, that killing Hitler would not have been the best thing to do at the time.”
Personally, I’m betting on 1 or 3 since they best suit my agnostic worldview. However, if I literally believed the scripture (as I once did), I would probably believe it to be something along the lines of Option 2, considering the following:
“If you in spite of this won’t listen to me, but walk contrary to me; then I will walk contrary to you in wrath; and I also will chastise you seven times for your sins. You will eat the flesh of your sons, and you will eat the flesh of your daughters. I will destroy your high places, and cut down your incense altars, and cast your dead bodies upon the bodies of your idols; and my soul will abhor you. I will lay your cities waste, and will bring your sanctuaries to desolation, and I will not take delight in the sweet fragrance of your offerings. I will bring the land into desolation; and your enemies that dwell therein will be astonished at it. I will scatter you among the nations, and I will draw out the sword after you: and your land will be a desolation, and your cities shall be a waste.”
(Leviticus, 26:27)
Threats like these make even the worst acts of mortal men and their political machinations seem relatively mild.
I’ve got an option 4! How about, “God (hypothetically considered or otherwise) is not bound by what humans think he “should” do”.
Also, how do you guys know that the war and the holocaust would have been avoided if Hitler had been killed, in the middle of it OR before?
@ McBloggenstein
Hmm. What you wrote and what you meant to write are equally true, aren’t they? Heck, even with the benefit of hindsight, you can’t say that killing Hitler would have resulted in anything better or worse. we don’t know. Mindless speculation. As I’ve already said, I probably would have killed him, but since it didn’t happen, there is no way of telling whether what happened after that would be better or worse than what actually did.
Also, I’m not saying that Hitler deserved to live. That’s an entirely distinct point. Hitler definitely did not deserve to live, but that doesn’t mean that I would be guiltless or justified in killing him.
What exactly is the point in bringing up Darwin, eugenics or not? It seems as if people are comparing Darwin with the Bible God.
“See, your Darwin is just as bad as our Bible God. So there! Neener neener neener.”
I think that says a lot about the sad case of the Bible God.
Jonboy – “If that isn’t within spitting distance of eugenics, then you can at least see how it could directly give rise to eugenics, right?”
“Give rise”? Why would that even be necessary to “give rise” to eugenics?
This is what I don’t get. Humans have been breeding animals for selected traits for literally thousands of years. We had already applied some of what we learned from that to ourselves well before Darwin. Terms like “good breeding”, “good bloodlines,” and “bad blood” already existed. As far back as in Spanish Inquisition people were suggesting that “jewish-ness” was caused by something in the blood, as a way of accounting for the Jews who would supposedly convert but keep practicing in secret.
So why does Darwin get the blame for eugenics?
Eugenics was, sadly, in the air in Victorian times. Men like Herbert Spencer, the man who essentially started social Darwinism, was influenced by Malthus, Lamark and Comte just as much – or more – than Darwin. I’ll grant you that Darwin, Wallace and Mendel gave the movement a figleaf of scientific respectability, but they can’t be blamed for its creation.
@jonboy
You make a good point, because how do we know what outcome any of our actions will have on the distant future?
But you said this:
What about stopping a genocide?
I think the situation of whether or not to kill Hitler at the time, was not one in which you would ponder it’s reaction many many years ahead, like a president would ponder his/her foreign policy. Hitler was in the midst of committing genocide. There is nothing to ponder. Stopping the killing of millions of people is an immediate issue. There would have been no indication at the time that stopping his genocide could cause even more suffering, so therefore it was the best idea at the time.
I think you diminish the legitimacy given the movement a little too much. Darwin and co. DID revolutionize their field, right? Granted this is my own opinion, and it might be wrong, but either Darwin is one of the most influential thinkers in the history of science, or he isn’t. I have been led to understand that he is, that his books summarized and catalyzed the prevailing scientific discussions of his day. I know it is uncomfortable to think of our heroes as flawed, but surely you wouldn’t diminish their historical importance and influence simply to avoid a little discomfort?
I’ll grant you that they would probably be shocked by the lengths to which eugenics was taken, but Darwin certainly believed in the superiority of some races over others, and he certainly indicates in the quote I posted that weaker animals aren’t allowed to breed except for within humanity; he muses whether or not vaccinations against smallpox were altogether the best course of action since they allowed the weak to survive. (He is not arguing here for eugenics, I readily acknowledge that. But it is easy to imagine this being misread as a case for eugenics.) All I’m saying is that identifying Darwinism or LaMarckian evolution as key historic factors in the development of eugenics is not off-base. Of course Darwin didn’t mean that eugenics was the ideal solution, that isn’t what I’m saying. I don’t even mean that he was personally responsible for it. What I do mean is that his work is a historic influence on it.
And having said all of that, who cares?
He was a brilliant scientist who through careful research came across one of the most powerful and far reaching scientific principles off all time.
If he was raping sheep while he did it, that fact would be equally meaningless. The discussion of whether an evil man did or did not use his findings as an excuse to justify murder is also meaningless.
Darwin is not some authority figure for atheists whose name can be besmirched to throw doubt on the whole movement. He was just an evolutionary scientist, and merely one of many. The theory has progressed far beyond his original ideas. There is no movement within modern evolution promoting eugenics.
So who the f*** cares about what Darwin thought about eugenics at all?
Only people for whom prophets and authority figures are inseparable from the religion they promote. People who are not atheists.
Less than other Europeans of the same generation did (he was nearly thrown off the Beagle for suggesting that blacks didn’t deserve slavery, for example). Yes, he believed that white Europeans were superior to other races, but let’s not pretend that this was anything unusual among white Europeans of his era.
Where animals are deliberately bred, yes.
You read more into that phrase than I do. He points out that people of weak constitutions now live, when they would previously have died, but I don’t see anything suggesting that this is a bad thing.
The key word is “misread”.
In that they came along at the right time for eugenicists with no understanding of biology to pretend some scientific justification, right.
Even assuming you mean “historical” rather than “historic”, I have to disagree. You’re confusing Darwin’s actual work with people’s misconceptions of it. The vast majority of “social Darwinists” have no more understanding of Darwin’s work than “the survival of the fittest”, which (shock!) came from a eugenicist rather than from a scientist, and Darwin always complained was a gross misunderstanding.
If there were a group of people who claimed that the laws of gravity compelled them to throw people from the roofs of high buildings, would you say that Newton bore responsibility for them?
Jonboy -
I think you’re giving in to the heroic model of history. Darwin’s “genius” was in seeing what everyone else already plainly saw, but couldn’t articulate. Remember Huxley’s line about how obvious it was?
The rest of Darwin’s influence comes from his patient and meticulous attention to evidence and detail. It certainly wasn’t his statements about politics. He was a typical Victorian englishman in his way, convinced that the English race was supreme. We could wish it were otherwise, but that would be like wishing the founding fathers had been abolitionists.
Of course, Darwin himself was an abolitionist. As a descendant of Josiah Wedgewood, his family crest showed a chained African slave with the legend, “Am I not a Man and a Brother?” Darwin shows flashes of the Wedgewood spirit from time to time -
“The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the “Beagle,” with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.”
– Descent of Man. Not a typical insight for his fellow englishmen.
Anyway, let me get back to the point. All the tools necessary to generate Galton’s “eugenics” were already in place. Humanity already knew how to breed animals; why not themselves? Just as you breed unwanted behaviors or traits out of a pigeon or a dog, you can breed them out of man. Granted, they might use different words for it, but if Darwin, Wallace, Lamark, Mendel, Erastus Darwin, and all the other early evolutionists had never existed, you still would have had eugenics.
The problem is, there’s some truth to it. We might be able to breed out, say, hemophilia, or certain genetic disorders. Wouldn’t the common good we attain be worth the hardship we force on a few individuals? How about we let Darwin answer this one by finishing off the quote you started above?
“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.”
An “overwhelming present evil.” The end does not justify the means. Thanks, Chuck.
The deal with hitler and god and the jews is, as I understand it, some crazy stuff. There was a movie, “God On Trial”, where some jews were in a camp during WW2. They put God on trial, decided he was not great, or at least not very nice, and that he had pretty much left the Jewish people for the Nazi Christians.
But in the end, they would still not break their covenant.
They had made a contract with God, and even though it looks like the big man upstairs broke it, the Jews were better than that. I guess.
“2. God could do something about Hitler, but he chose not to. In other words, he would be the most evil being imaginable. If a man could easily stop the Nazis without any innocent deaths, but chose not to, wouldn’t he be evil?”
What is this good vs. evil thing? You are discussing whether or not there is a god, but completely missing the irony of the fact that you are making a moral judgement here. In a pragmatic, scientific world, tell me — where do morals fit into the equation?
Hey, I have an idea- instead of hashing all this out amongst ourselves with our puny little minds that are incapable of understanding God’s mysterious ways, and coming up with reasons why we think he does some of the crazy shit he does, why don’t we just ask him? All of us are, after all, supposed to be able to have an intimate relationship with him, right? I mean, I already did ask him about Hitler, as well as a bunch of other stuff, but I’m still waiting for an answer. Maybe he’ll talk to one of you guys since he never answers any of *my* questions.
Hey, how about this for a hypothetical:
Suppose, for shits and giggles, that Hitler supported his genocide with references from Christianity and the Bible, and never used evolutionary theory as a justification. Would we then say that Jesus was somehow responsible for eugenics? That he was “a historic influence” on eugenics?
Somehow, I think not.
Johnny Fargo: There’s a little something called “ethics” which lets us figure out what’s good and bad according to reason, without any recourse to that imaginary baby-killing bastard you bend knee to.
Ahem.
First off, killing Hitler at the wrong point might have made things worse; I’ve heard the British had the chance to hit him some time before Normandy, but didn’t because they knew his successor would probably be an actual general, someone who knew how to fight a war. Hitler’s obsessiveness was a great help to the allies; the Germans might have won on D-Day if they hadn’t had to check back with Berlin.
However, hitting him with a stray bullet during his first coup in 1922 would remove one of the strengths of the Nazi movement, namely his oratory…
It’s possible that something else as nasty might have come out of the swelter that was Germany at that time. I can’t think what else it would be. Communism, maybe, which would have brought the Cold War forwards without the associated nuclear weapons, which would mean it would probably be a hot war.
In any case, the choices on offer sound suspiciously like Epicurus.
Epicurus figured it out in 33 AD. Think about the absurdity. We apparently need to muddle around as meat puppets nurturing our souls to reach acceptance into Heaven. Why not just create pure souls and skip the mortal testing phase? It’s like some grand quality assurance process in which the bad apples are separated from the good. I would think a God would be able to get every soul right every time.
“I’ve got an option 4! How about, “God (hypothetically considered or otherwise) is not bound by what humans think he “should” do”. ”
Yep back to the “unknowable mind of god, unless kemp says otherwise.”
Thats the best you can do?
Sunny Day
“Yep back to the “unknowable mind of god, unless kemp says otherwise.”
Thats the best you can do?”
And apparently the best you can do is mock an argument instead of formulating a response.
“And apparently the best you can do is mock an argument instead of formulating a response.”
LOL, it works for creationists.
Bah. Assuming god actually existed, and his intentions were in fact unknowable, it would not explain why ordinary men have discovered his likes and dislikes and written them down in various holy books.
Perhaps to desert nomads god’s mind is unknowable, but that’s really not saying much.
Daniel, love reading your blog. What I wanted to write was too long, so I’ve posted it on my own blog (shameful self-promotion): http://lazyslackerblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/problem-of-evil-hitler-example.html
I don’t have time to read through all comments here so maybe someone already said the same. The reason why God (if he exists) didn’t kill Hitler, Stalin and other evil people is obvious and I’m suprised that someone of your age can ask such question. Bible says, God created us to be similar to him so he gave us freedom of choice, free will so we can decide our own way of life. That is reasonable, as without free will we would be more like slaves of him. God’s intervension to kill Hitler would be against that law, because everyone, even people like Hitler have a free will and can do what ever they want. All things that happen around us follow the rules of the universe (that maybe was created by God) which means also the rules that people make (like laws). So when someone really bad dies, it is because of those rules – for example rules of nature when he’s old or sick, rules of human laws, when he is sentenced to death etc. He dies exactly the same way as good people, because there can’t be any intervension from ‘heaven’. There is a very big logical mistake in asking such quesions. Instead of asking “why?” try to imagine a world where your “wish” would happen. And soon You will notice that such world cannot even exist. It would be either impossible or totally illogical. I hope I don’t have to explain why.
(sorry for my english, it’s not my native language)
Stoyan: the problem with that idea is that God won’t intervene to save the lives of six million of His chosen people, but he will intervene to set bears on some kids for mocking one of his prophets for being bald.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/2kg/2.html (down near the end, 2:23-24)
Your english is better than some native speakers I’ve seen on the internet, by the way.
I want to grow wings and fly to the Moon.
No? God managed to create a universe in which it’s possible to kill millions of people for a lark, but not grow wings? What kind of sucky “free will” is that?
And that pretty much sums up why religion is worthless.
Free will precludes the meddling of a higher being. We’re not truly free if we have to pray to god or be sent to hell.
On a similar note, wishing is the same thing as praying, only religiously flavoured. I’d have to agree that any world where wishing, or praying, worked, would be totally illogical.
Come to think of it, any variation of the Christian god is illogical.
“Bah. Assuming god actually existed, and his intentions were in fact unknowable, it would not explain why ordinary men have discovered his likes and dislikes and written them down in various holy books.”
This is the longer form of the above: “unknowable mind of god, unless kemp says otherwise”
We’re not mocking you Kemp, you’re just too blinkered to understand the argument.
“God’s intervension to kill Hitler would be against that law, because everyone, even people like Hitler have a free will and can do what ever they want.”
So you are saying god ISN’T omnipotent.
Please, tell us more about what god can not do.
He cannot make a rock so big that He can’t pick it up!
:P
“He cannot make a rock so big that He can’t pick it up!”
He can’t make a biblical literalist see the light of reason.
Only his fellow man and logic can do that.
Sorry to be late to the party.
If a god created life and if that god is all knowing and all powerful then he is responsible for all resulting evil. If, as a parent, you knew before giving birth that one of your children would end up in eternal hell fire, would you follow through and procreate? If you knew that, for whatever reason, that child would be the cause of a horrible holocaust, would you follow through?
If you knew history before hand would you give birth to little Adolf?
The deeper evil in this is the argument that God allows evil so that human beings can love Him out of free will. Is there any more selfish concept in the entire universe?
I wouldn’t kill Hitler.
Hitler made anti-semitism unacceptable where it was widespread.
Hitler thinned the European population to one that was better economically sustainable.
Hitler made the space race possible.
Hitler all but killed the popularity of that awful mustache.
On the down side, his actions led to the creation of Israel which has been the source of most Middle East conflict ever since.
@wazza:
“Johnny Fargo: There’s a little something called “ethics” which lets us figure out what’s good and bad according to reason, without any recourse to that imaginary baby-killing bastard you bend knee to.”
You make an erroneous assumption here. I bend knee to no one.
The problem with “figuring out what’s good and bad according to reason” is that it is ultimately a subjective process. If the world was reduceable to such black-and-white determinism, why do so many people disagree on so many things? Why do people change their minds in the course of their lifetimes?
What makes one person’s judgement “bad” and another “good?”
“And apparently the best you can do is mock an argument instead of formulating a response.”
There is no response, because it isn’t an argument. You just asserted something with no evidence or backing. It’s the same as if I said, “God didn’t kill Hitler because Hitler remembered to wear his god proof underoos and god was powerless!”
If someone mocked me for saying it, they would be right to do so.
Just asserting something as true is not actually an argument. Take a debate class. It might help.
The reason for the disagreement is that a whole lot of people decide completely arbitrarily what is good and bad. That is the essence of religion; an arbitrary normative code of behavior.
If everybody decided what was good and bad through reason rather than religion, I have a feeling there would be a great many fewer disagreements, and those disagreements would be less emotionally charged and compromise would be easier.
This is, of course, speculation, but as things stand, more than half of everybody is not even willing to discuss what is best for everybody. And you think it’s atheists who cause the disagreements?
Fargo: So you’re not a believer in God?
Dan L: Of course there are disagreements. The Kantians believe that killing and using others as mere means is always bad, the Utilitarians believe you have to weigh the consequences, so you can get them yelling at one another across a lecture hall quite easily. Fortunately, the Kantian ethic also prevents them from killing for their ethos, and the Utilitarians don’t see the point. :P
I’ll kill a man in a fair fight. Or if I think he’s about to start a fair fight. Or over woman. Or if I’m getting paid. Mostly when I’m getting paid.
@wazza:
“Fargo: So you’re not a believer in God?”
Strictly speaking, that’s correct. The notion of a God as put forth by Christianity and other religions seems rather silly to me. Clearly, this concept of God is a creation of man. There are other concepts that I consider more universal and sublime. I can’t really call myself a believer in anything, though. I tend to see all systems of belief as temporary conveniences. We go through life playing roles — different roles in different settings, and through different stages of life. Not that this is a “bad” thing. I indulge myself all the time, as do we all. I like to call it “living inside the box.” And when I see someone wrapped in their beliefs and proclaiming that they’ve cornered the market on truth, I just smile and revel in the skill with which they are playing their role.
(BTW, how did you manage to add italics in your text?)
@Dan:
“The reason for the disagreement is that a whole lot of people decide completely arbitrarily what is good and bad. That is the essence of religion; an arbitrary normative code of behavior.”
Yes. And it’s also the essence of any society — even secular ones.
“If everybody decided what was good and bad through reason rather than religion, I have a feeling there would be a great many fewer disagreements, and those disagreements would be less emotionally charged and compromise would be easier.”
I don’t know. I’ve seen some pretty emotionally charged scientific debate and heated disagreements in the engineering business, and religion had nothing to do with it. Perhaps Vulcans can be completely pragmatic. Humans — not so sure.
“And you think it’s atheists who cause the disagreements?”
Not at all. I think we’re all equally responsible.
Sorry, Fargo, just your wording made me think you were a Jebusite…
I use HTML code, for all my italics needs.
And yes, secular cultures have arbitrary rules, but they’re really basic: “We will use reason to decide which other rules we will apply, though emotion will also weight one side or the other”. It’s the flexibility to go with changing opinions that makes secular cultures less volatile. We’re allowed to change the rules. And one of the rules we stick to is that debate is always possible. Many religions simply don’t allow it. It’s the difference between http://www.rationalwiki.com and http://www.conservapedia.com. Rationalwiki debates until everyone’s gone blue; Conservapedia won’t allow any debate at all.
Depends on the individuals involved, as does everything else.
The difference is that those lacking beliefs in the area discussed can usually get along better than those who’s belief system tells their opponent’s position it’s immoral or an abomination.
I have as of yet not seen atheists / agnostics attempt to impose their way of life on believers. On the other hand those of religious belief can’t seem to sit still without attempting to alter the definition of marriage to fit their current world view.
@Johnny Fargo:
I think the statement that the essence of any society is arbitrary rules is not entirely true. In general the rules of a society tend towards making the society function so aren’t always arbitrary and have been developed over time. Take for example laws on ownership of property – without this society itself would find it very difficult to function. Of course this doesn’t mean they are the best rules just not arbitrary. Yes there are arbitrary values that society holds – a sense of justice and equality could be classed as that – but the rules of a secular society are based, generally, on some sort of reasonable argument which doesn’t include my big book says so meaning it must be true
I’m an atheist but I don’t find your explanations particularly powerful. There is a pretty good argument that the Christian God left Earth to Satan’s will for a large part, and he allows things like genocide to happen in order to demonstrate what godlessness can do. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think God offered any sort of favors on Earth for having faith; He only offers eternal salvation once you die. So, in short, God didn’t kill Hitler because he didn’t have to, he was proving a point, and what’s it matter if a few million people died anyway? If the were truly faithful people they’d go to heaven, which is what you’re supposed to be focused on if you’re a believer.
Good day
I sense some deceptiveness in your comment, Robert.
You are an atheist, yet you say there is a good argument that a character you do not believe in left earth to another character you do not believe in to play around with, and allows bad things to happen in order to demonstrate that something you do not believe in has consequences.
Now, either you are a theist who chose to start his comment with a lie in order to make your words carry more weight, or you misspoke.
Which one is it?
Robert – Yeah, Aor pretty much nailed it. That has to be the worst attempt at concern trolling I’ve yet seen.
And while we’re at it: “There is a pretty good argument that the Christian God left Earth to Satan’s will for a large part,”
1) I’d really like to hear that “pretty good argument”
2) Regardless, it’s Zoroastrian syncretism. Any religion with an independent Satan can not be truly monotheistic. Go and do penance for your brush with heresy.
@Robert:
An atheist that thinks there’s a good chance “that the Christian God left Earth …” nope that’s not a definition of being an atheist I’ve heard before – would you care to enlighten me as to how this works?
@Robert
“I’m an atheist…”
Beforan ye forsooketh…
Be ye heedful of thy renunciation, lest ye be smited-eded. …ed
Robert, you know what… my apologies for my somewhat snide comment. (I do hope you have a sense of humor) …I’m going to believe that you believe that you’re an atheist.
I’m not. …seriously. …but many, MANY a time have I wished that there were more atheists in this world rather than what is often the alternative.
I don’t why Hitler killed nearly 11 million people. I don’t know why no one got to him first. What I do know is that he was a f**kin’ fanatic about his ideology.
Just, for the sake of argument lets go with…
3. God doesn’t exist
Now… If one consider themselves of strong atheist beliefs, they must ( must!) abandon any and ALL ideas of God, which means any and all blame for all the evils of this world must be directed at the only thing left… Us. Every good atheist should stop and ask why these hellish scenes, like those at Auschwitz keep playing themselves out over and over and over again thought history?!?
Time and time again there comes along an individual or group that feels that they hold a monopoly on ‘eternal’ truths. …or hold the unequivocal right to power or territory. Why do so many of us forfeit our sense of justice and submit so readily to the authority of others?
My short answer: Fear of annihilation… followed by pure ego-centric desires… along with a deep aversion to really THINK.
“Kill them all; God will know his own”, right?
To Robert’s point here’s how I understand what went down with the whole Jesus debacle. (I don’t know if this is exactly correct; it’s paraphrasing what I’ve heard from my GF who was raised Catholic.)
First, Jesus is crucified and goes down to Hell for the sins of all humans. While He’s down there He collects all the souls and brings them to heaven when He rises. Then He comes back to earth. Meanwhile, Satan notices that hell has become kinda quiet and goes to pitch a hissyfit at God. God says “Fine! If you’re gonna be a bitch about it you can have earth as your domain, but after death the souls of the humans belong to me.”
So, if we accept this mythology, Earth is Satan’s domain and God is essentially bound to not interfere.
Also a nit pick about answer #3, the question necessitates the answers to assume the existence of God. If you answer with “He doesn’t exist,” you violate the assumption that is proposed in the question: “If there is a God seated on his Royal Throne in Heaven”
I disagree that the norms are arbitrary in a secular state. There are clearly some norms that are more efficacious to a stable society and some that are less so. Consider women’s equality. While there are many religious proscriptions against equality for women, many women possess above average intelligence and ability. By allowing women the same rights as men, a secular state would encourage these women to join the work force and achieve, which would both expand the labor market and improve the quality of the labor market. This would improve the economy.
Although it’s obviously only circumstantial evidence, take a quick look at the GDP figures (preferably minus oil) for countries whose legal systems are secular as opposed to those whose legal systems implement religious laws.
The big two (no killing/no stealing) are obviously essential norms for any stable society, so don’t even start with the “western ethics are Judeo-Christian ethics” nonsense.
Please note that I’m not saying that there wouldn’t be arguments, disagreements, etc. However, I believe that if people believe things for real reasons instead of just reading it in a sacred book that they will be more likely to listen to opposing viewpoints.
How about asking ourselves why did WE allow this to happen. For me the existence of God is not relevant here but why we as Human beings decided to ignore the atrocities that were taking place in Europe at the time.
Why did God let Adam sin in the garden for that matter.
If you presume to know the mind of God you presume too much. However, atheists typically think they can explain everything but I ask them if they were present at the big bang.
iamtheenemy: Atheists don’t have to explain everything (or anything). I don’t believe in “God” because there is no credible evidence that “He” exists (the “Holy Bible” does not qualify as credible evidence). I put the “Holy Bible” and ” Harry Potter” into the same category- Fantasy.
I think Believers ought to consider how many human beings have been slaughtered over the ages because they were of the “wrong” religion ( or no religion, or “heretics”, or “infidels”, or “witches”, etc., etc.).
My father was one of many a decisionmaker in WWII. Fact: Hitler was weak, unstable, terrorized his own staff and couldnt make a good decision. He was going insane. Just the kind of leader you want to face in battle. We could have killed him, but decided not to, as someone stronger could have taken over everything. Plus someone new would have stopped a 2 front war with Russia and wiped out the allies. we didnt want that. plus how many brilliant Nazi leaders did Hitler kill or force to suicide? He was his own worse enemy. I am glad he hung in there to the end, with Russians slaughtering Nazis in Berlin trying to save Hitler. Its a lesson many ‘would be’ Hilters think about and it keeps them straight. More german citizens were killed than Jews.
Because Adolf was a GREAT human being, unlike the untermenschen.