Who is to blame for starting WWI?

[Doc]

As Dostoevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted."

A number of non-theists have pointed out that it's a bit unsettling when religious people tacitly suggest it's only their belief in supernatural repercussions that stops them from behaving evilly.

I think that is the point. Besides being a religion, it is a social contract. The question is would you rather have a religion that inherently calls for the death of non believers or one that doesn't?

1iuaeesmall.jpg (95.46 KiB) Viewed 4666 times

[SteveFoerster]

As Dostoevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted."

A number of non-theists have pointed out that it's a bit unsettling when religious people tacitly suggest it's only their belief in supernatural repercussions that stops them from behaving evilly.

Without God, the social Darwinists are right. Without God, we are just another creature struggling to survive. Only the fittest deserve to survive. So killing the weak is simply part of nature. This will lead to a better human race. It is Christian morality that stands in nature's way.

If that were true, post-religious societies like Scandinavia and Japan would be decaying from having been civilised into being gladiatorial hellholes.

But they're not, in fact it's the opposite.

[cassowary]

As Dostoevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted."

A number of non-theists have pointed out that it's a bit unsettling when religious people tacitly suggest it's only their belief in supernatural repercussions that stops them from behaving evilly.

As if mere belief in God places you beyond the influence of the devil! To presume so seems the greatest of vanity.

A lot depends on which god. Different religions give different conceptions of god. If you are a worshipper of Quetzlopoctl, the Aztec god of war, you will find human sacrifices very desirable.

I have written an essay long ago about how Christian beliefs led to human rights

Christianity and Human Rights

I may read your essay and consider it when I have more time at my disposal.

MEANTIME:

My objection was to your tar all with the same brush conjecture: The Communists/Socialists are atheists, so are prone to evil.

In my younger adult tears I personally knew numbers of communists and socialists who to this day I do NOT consider to be evil. Though I did not and still do not agree with their line, the persons themselves usually turned out to be fine individuals.

By contrast, in my formative years and since I have rubbed shoulders with (and suffered at the hands of) no shortage of "christians" who, in various ways, I have reason to believe were actively doing the devil's work.

Being an atheist (defined by a Christian friend of mine as a believer in denial ), I submit, does not automatically place you beyond God's influence. Purporting to be a christian believer does not necessarily place you within it.

I agree with what you say. I speak only generally. There are bad Christians and goof atheists. But atheism is compatible with the ideas that Hitler had. It denigrates the value of human life reducing humans as just another animal subject to the most cruel of nature's law - the survival of the fittest.

[cassowary]

For the Christan, it is the meek who shall inherit the earth. For the atheistic Darwinist, it is the strong who deserves to inherit the earth and the weak must die. Killing off the weak is simply part of nature.

From the point of view of social Darwinism, the most successful human being to date was Gengis Khan.

A Y-chromosome issued from a male living about eight centuries ago was spotted among several millions males in Asia, meaning that they all are descended in masculine lineage from that single man who from date and place can only be Gengis Khan. Therefore he has had the most reproductive success: many wives and children, many sons who themselves had many wives, etc. From social Darwinism point of view that would be the very definition of success.

Gengis Khan is also the man who triggered the largest known massacres of history as a percentage of global population, the conquests he started killed off an estimated 10% of then world population (Hitler is "only" 2%)

From a moral point of view (Christian, other religious, agnostic morals...) the most successful human beings were the most remarkable by their courage, wisdom, teaching of love and selflessness, characters like Christ, Buddha and others prominent among them. Obviously, from such a point of view, people like Gengis or Hitler were total failures.

Christ had no child and Buddha only one. Relative or total failures, from a social Darwinist point of view.

Note that the modern theory of evolution is not reduced to social Darwinism, which is more its perversion. Generally, no matter the truth of the Darwinian theory of evolution, it's quite clear that theory is not applicable to human evolution.

This is quite clear when one remembers that Christ or Buddha had quite a lot of influence on humankind's future, irrespective of their reproductive failure. For we human beings are not determined by our genes!

That was a very good, insightful read. By the laws of nature, Genghis Khan is a success. He was a mass murderer and no doubt rapist. Going by nature's morality, he did the right thing. That was why the social Darwinist - Stocker, Hackl, Ploetz etc thought that Christian morality was outdated and harmful to the human race. It allows for the week and meek to survive when it should be the strong like Genghis Khan to survive and propagate.

It makes perfect sense of the Christian God does not exist. The it is the strong and not the meek that shall inherit the earth.

[SteveFoerster]

I agree with what you say. I speak only generally. There are bad Christians and goof atheists. But atheism is compatible with the ideas that Hitler had. It denigrates the value of human life reducing humans as just another animal subject to the most cruel of nature's law - the survival of the fittest.

The absurdity of argumentam ad hitlerum aside, the continuing assumption here is that only an ethical system with a supernatural basis can be part of a culture, and that's demonstrably untrue.

[cassowary]

I agree with what you say. I speak only generally. There are bad Christians and goof atheists. But atheism is compatible with the ideas that Hitler had. It denigrates the value of human life reducing humans as just another animal subject to the most cruel of nature's law - the survival of the fittest.

The absurdity of argumentam ad hitlerum aside, the continuing assumption here is that only an ethical system with a supernatural basis can be part of a culture, and that's demonstrably untrue.

Wait till the remnants of faith based ethics be erased from post religious societies. It will take generations, maybe even centuries. The Christmas tree, originally worshipped by Pagans is still with us. Cultural habits can last long after the religious belefs that birthed them are dead.

[Doc]

As Dostoevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted."

A number of non-theists have pointed out that it's a bit unsettling when religious people tacitly suggest it's only their belief in supernatural repercussions that stops them from behaving evilly.

Without God, the social Darwinists are right. Without God, we are just another creature struggling to survive. Only the fittest deserve to survive. So killing the weak is simply part of nature. This will lead to a better human race. It is Christian morality that stands in nature's way.

If that were true, post-religious societies like Scandinavia and Japan would be decaying from having been civilised into being gladiatorial hellholes.

But they're not, in fact it's the opposite.

https://www.thelocal.se/20170905/why-sw ... many-malmo

Why Sweden has more fatal shootings per capita than Norway and Germany

[SteveFoerster]

As Dostoevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted."

A number of non-theists have pointed out that it's a bit unsettling when religious people tacitly suggest it's only their belief in supernatural repercussions that stops them from behaving evilly.

Without God, the social Darwinists are right. Without God, we are just another creature struggling to survive. Only the fittest deserve to survive. So killing the weak is simply part of nature. This will lead to a better human race. It is Christian morality that stands in nature's way.

If that were true, post-religious societies like Scandinavia and Japan would be decaying from having been civilised into being gladiatorial hellholes.

But they're not, in fact it's the opposite.

https://www.thelocal.se/20170905/why-sw ... many-malmo

Why Sweden has more fatal shootings per capita than Norway and Germany

The real question is why Malmö has more violent crimes than other Swedish cities. Anyone? Anyone?

[Doc]

As Dostoevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted."

A number of non-theists have pointed out that it's a bit unsettling when religious people tacitly suggest it's only their belief in supernatural repercussions that stops them from behaving evilly.

Without God, the social Darwinists are right. Without God, we are just another creature struggling to survive. Only the fittest deserve to survive. So killing the weak is simply part of nature. This will lead to a better human race. It is Christian morality that stands in nature's way.

If that were true, post-religious societies like Scandinavia and Japan would be decaying from having been civilised into being gladiatorial hellholes.

But they're not, in fact it's the opposite.

https://www.thelocal.se/20170905/why-sw ... many-malmo

Why Sweden has more fatal shootings per capita than Norway and Germany

The real question is why Malmö has more violent crimes than other Swedish cities. Anyone? Anyone?

The easiest Swedish city to walk to from the Middle East?

[cassowary]

As Dostoevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted."

A number of non-theists have pointed out that it's a bit unsettling when religious people tacitly suggest it's only their belief in supernatural repercussions that stops them from behaving evilly.

Without God, the social Darwinists are right. Without God, we are just another creature struggling to survive. Only the fittest deserve to survive. So killing the weak is simply part of nature. This will lead to a better human race. It is Christian morality that stands in nature's way.

If that were true, post-religious societies like Scandinavia and Japan would be decaying from having been civilised into being gladiatorial hellholes.

But they're not, in fact it's the opposite.

https://www.thelocal.se/20170905/why-sw ... many-malmo

Why Sweden has more fatal shootings per capita than Norway and Germany

The real question is why Malmö has more violent crimes than other Swedish cities. Anyone? Anyone?

Muslims