Another weird belief I have is that everyone gets their personal Paradise. So for me, that’d be everyone and everything I love on Earth + everything and everyone that I would have loved on Earth if I’d had a chance to experience it. So no Hitler for me
@zecarlo you can’t interpret things that leave no room for interpretation. I said that holy books are open to interpretation, I didn’t say every single item is open to interpretation
Also, an edit: if you legitimately don’t think Hitler was mentally ill, I don’t think I can take much of what you say seriously anymore. You seem like a smart guy but that’s a little over much
There is nothing mentally ill about trying to secure your social group as the premier group in Europe/the world. He was just doing what man had done since we climbed down from the trees.
Also sounds to me like you’ve created you own variation of Christianity. But thats ok there probably are a hundred variations so your not the first.
Richard Dawkins published The God Delusion in 2006. That lays out an excellent approach for discussing the likelihood of an intelligent creator especially as it pertains to the Judeo-Christian faith.
There really is no grounds for thinking there is any actual literal truth in the bible. I’ve grown more appreciative of the Judeo-Christain faith as of late though and what it contributed to the structuring of western society. But I am just piggy backing on some stuff Jordan Peterson said in one of his discussions. Another great clip of his he discussed Catholicism, Protestantism vs Orthodox Christians. Its a view I very much appreciated and honestly as atheist can embrace. Give it a look. Only three minutes long.
But how does the “fact” that God killed people and ordered people to kill people correlate to your idea that God doesn’t want us to do those things in the name of faith? How does the historical fact that Muhammad killed people in the name of faith correlate to your idea that we aren’t supposed to kill in the name of faith?
Well, all I base it on is having read biographies by highly regarded scholars. But what do those morons know, right? Hitler, most likely had certain personality traits (or defects) but there is no proof he was actually insane. Also, whether or not he was mentally ill does not account for the millions who followed him. It doesn’t account for those who did his dirty work, some were quite content to carry out his orders. Hitler never attended a mass shooting or gassing. Himmler witnessed one mass shooting and became physically ill.
We want to believe that Hitler was mentally ill because we don’t want to believe that a human being, like us, has the capacity for evil he had. We prefer to look for monsters. Joachim Fest said that the worst thing about Hitler wasn’t that he was a monster but that he was a man. We can’t face the evil within us if we go looking for monsters.
I like most of what you wrote… but I can’t get on board with this line of thinking. A person like Hitler is going to heaven because he believes, but the most moral non-believer doesn’t. That seems like a ridiculous position to hold.
Quantum mechanics questions your confidence in that statement. The way I’ve heard it explained is you can either start talking about a multi-verse or you can pretend that things aren’t behaving as they are. It appears you’re going with the later, but there are many physicists who are trying to make sense of what they are seeing, which leads to discussions about a multi-verse. Explaining how things work in our world is not laughable, even if it doesn’t make sense to you (or me beyond a very high level).
that’s fine, but you not understanding is not the same as not possible.
The argument doesn’t prove it. Even on it’s best day, you require a logical leap to go from ‘force that operates outside of what we know the natural laws to be to create the universe’ to ‘has a conciousness and still exists’
How do you prove an argument is wrong? You might be able to prove the conclusion is wrong but in the case of god’s existence, it cannot be proven one way or the other.
It make no sense to you? So your the arbiter of what scientific theories are worth pursuing and which are not? So Alan Guth, Stephen Hawking, Sean Carroll, etc. are laughable to you? Okay.
You either attack the premises as being false or you prove you cannot reach the conclusion from the premises, or you find a logical fallacy in the argument.
And this is why it’s hardly worth discussing in a community that isn’t focused on logic. I don’t care to explain how to properly counter the arguments when you starting from a point of ‘nu uh’.
It’s not an exercise, it’s backed up by solid logic. As I always say, don’t believe me, look it up. Not that you will, because God forbid you challenge you own deeply held convictions.
You can call an argument weak but not wrong. If someone came up with AN argument for god’s existence that even you recognized was full of holes, would that make THE argument for god’s existence just as weak?
Again, you don’t know what you are talking about and I can prove it. All you have to do is answer some simple questions.
Let’s start:
What are you made of?