Was Hitler Really Evil? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Was Hitler Really Evil?

Debate Information

There is no doubt that Hitler was one of the evilest human beings ever to walk the earth.

But, Let's be a bit objective and look at the degree of Hitler's evilness in a balanced perspective.

Hitler the person:
Of the major leaders during WW2, Hitler was the most disciplined and cleanest-living. Unlike Churchill, Roosevelt, And Stalin, Hitler was a strict vegetarian, rarely drank and did not smoke.
He was not anti-Semitic by nature as illustrated by his close relationship with his mentor, a Jew, during Hitler's early years as a budding artist.
Although his "autobiography" outlines extreme anti-racist views, Mein Kampf was mostly written by Rudolph Hess since Hitler was largely illiterate, or most likely, dyslexic. Anti-Semitism was rife throughout Germany at the time and it would be fair to say that a politically ambitious Hitler played the anti-Jew card to gain votes.
It could also be argued that Hitler felt uncomfortable with the "Final Solution" having absolved his responsibility to Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann.

I'm not in any way trying to infer that Hitler was any less evil than we know him to have been since, after all, he was the leader of an organization that committed some of the most appalling atrocities ever committed against mankind.

But, let's compare Hitler's evil with the sort of evil that still continues in the form of a small but ugly undercurrent of hatred and bigotry in modern society.

Hitler had reasoning (albeit flawed) for declaring hatred against minority groups. Yet there are unsavory individuals who declare hatred towards others for absolutely no reason at all other than that they are inherently ignorant and arrogant. Sure, these low-lives are eager to publicly utter what they call "reasons" for their extreme anti-social behavior (e.g., "homosexuality is unnatural"or "it is written") but they are no more than flimsy and insulting excuses.

Are we entitled to label these pathetic, cowardly non-entities eviler than Hitler?
Jean



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • BlastcatBlastcat 261 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    There is no doubt that Hitler was one of the evilest human beings ever to walk the earth.

    But, Let's be a bit objective and look at the degree of Hitler's evilness in a balanced perspective.

    Hitler the person:
    Of the major leaders during WW2, Hitler was the most disciplined and cleanest-living. Unlike Churchill, Roosevelt, And Stalin, Hitler was a strict vegetarian, rarely drank and did not smoke.
    He was not anti-Semitic by nature as illustrated by his close relationship with his mentor, a Jew, during Hitler's early years as a budding artist.
    Although his "autobiography" outlines extreme anti-racist views, Mein Kampf was mostly written by Rudolph Hess since Hitler was largely illiterate, or most likely, dyslexic. Anti-Semitism was rife throughout Germany at the time and it would be fair to say that a politically ambitious Hitler played the anti-Jew card to gain votes.
    It could also be argued that Hitler felt uncomfortable with the "Final Solution" having absolved his responsibility to Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann.

    I'm not in any way trying to infer that Hitler was any less evil than we know him to have been since, after all, he was the leader of an organization that committed some of the most appalling atrocities ever committed against mankind.

    But, let's compare Hitler's evil with the sort of evil that still continues in the form of a small but ugly undercurrent of hatred and bigotry in modern society.

    Hitler had reasoning (albeit flawed) for declaring hatred against minority groups. Yet there are unsavory individuals who declare hatred towards others for absolutely no reason at all other than that they are inherently ignorant and arrogant. Sure, these low-lives are eager to publicly utter what they call "reasons" for their extreme anti-social behavior (e.g., "homosexuality is unnatural"or "it is written") but they are no more than flimsy and insulting excuses.

    Are we entitled to label these pathetic, cowardly non-entities eviler than Hitler?

    we have come to the end of our relationship.
    JeanDee
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat
    we have come to the end of our relationship.

    I tend to think that Hitler was more evil than the ordinary Joe Blow who mouths off racist remarks, for example but I don't think that there is a relationship between the two types of evil. Hitler went one step further in implementing his hatred or, at least delegating tasks and fomenting even more racial hatred through his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels. 

  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 129 Pts   -  
    >>Mein Kampf was mostly written by Rudolph Hess

       There is more evidence to suggest that Mein Kampf was written by the Jesuit Bernhard Staempfle. However that is just a side note, the main problem with your article is coming from your perspective as an "atheist", since it cannot account for morality due to its own personal subjectivity and lack of an absolute standard. 

    Atheism is a worldview driven by faith in a system of thought whose adherents believe the human brain mysteriously came into being from a lifeless soup of chemicals. How can a materialist know that an evolved three-pound mass of tissue can be trusted to give its owner the correct information about anything and claim that certain behaviors are morally right or wrong? - The American Vision

    If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s [thought processes]. But if their thoughts—i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident would be able to give correct account of all the other accidents.  - C.S. Lewis

    “But then arises the doubt,” he argued, “can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions? I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”  - Charles Darwin

    In other words you have no basis on which to proclaim anything as good or evil, in doing so you are merely using the concepts driven by the Christian worldview you believe to be false, thus exposing your atheistic moral proclamations as a fraud.

    An atheist is an “interloper on God’s territory. Everything he uses to construct his system has been stolen from God’s ‘construction site.’ The unbeliever is like the little girl who must climb on her father’s lap to slap his face…. The unbeliever must use the world as it has been created by God to try to throw God off His throne.”  John A. Fielding III

    Also don't you espouse a belief in determinism? If so how can anything be good or evil if it is already determined to happen, morality involves choices, do you believe in free will and the ability to make moral choices?

    "...many leading atheists don’t believe in free will at all. They think it is an illusion. They believe matter is all that exists, and since all matter is subject to the law of physics, so are our thoughts and actions, which are ultimately by-products of matter and prior events. There is no ‘us’ outside of matter that is somehow controlling what we do. Dr Angelo Bottone
    Jean
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • DeeDee 4385 Pts   -   edited October 8

    Were the German people collectively really evil? Everything Hitler put into action needed the cooperation of his people which mostly was willingly given , it’s no secret that the Germans had a highly effective anti Semitic  ideology indoctrination process in  schools and in broader society through , radio , print and film 

    Every German who took part in the daily victimization and demonization of Jews is every bit as guilty as Hitler and others and actually the Diffusion of responsibility is a pathetic excuse used by those when facing justice 



    The diffusion of responsibility for alleged war crimes during World War II was famously used as a legal defense by many of the Nazis being tried at Nuremberg. A similar defense was mounted by the defendants accused in the My Lai massacre. Because of the displacement of responsibility, they did not feel the personal responsibility to help or at least not harm victims, but they felt like they were just following orders, and they did not feel responsible or guilty for their own actions. They blamed those telling them to carry out the orders rather than blaming themselves for the atrocities they had committed. The diffusion of responsibility is a probable cause for many of their feelings and actions, but other possible contributing factors include the existing antisemitism of Germany at that time and the threats imposed by Nazi officials.

    WIKI 


    This collective guilt the Germans said the felt they only felt because they lost , do people really believe as a nation who mostly detested Jews they suddenly realised the “error “ of their ways when they lost? 

    If they won the war this collective detestation of Jews would have remained intact 

    The mass of ordinary Germans did know that concentration camps were full of Jews who were regarded publically as sub -human , they heard Hitler in speeches repeatedly forecast the extermination of every Jew in Germany , the camps and measures leading up to them was gleefully reported daily through media articles , posters and speeches 

    So if Hitler if one is to be consistent was “evil”  so were the entire German nation who gleefully aided and abetted him 





    piloteerJean
  • DeeDee 4385 Pts   -  
    @Blastcat

    we have come to the end of our relationship.


    Great argument. Why do you get so annoyed at people having different opinions to you ? 
    anarchist100SwolliwJean
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4064 Pts   -  
    “Evil” is a tricky concept, somewhat, perhaps, ill-defined. Evil of dictators like Hitler or Mao is easy to observe, as they amassed plenty of power to be able to exercise it on a mass scale - while evil of smaller people who never managed to secure such a position, yet might do even worse things if they could, goes unnoticed to the historical observer. Is it right to measure one’s evil by the degree to which their actions aimed at and/or did harm others, as well as themselves - or should instead one’s potential to commit evil acts when put in a given situation be used as a measuring stick? I am inclined to think it is the latter.

    In the Forgotten Realms universe, there is a clear distinction made between Good and Evil alignment. When thinking about the best, “cleanest” representative of the Evil alignment, most people immediately think of some kind of archdevil from the Nine Hells, who ravages entire worlds, rules a realm in which billions souls are severely tortured every second, corrupts minds of mages in other worlds causing them to wreak havoc there… Sounds reasonable.
    But what about a brigand who robs the occasional merchant on a highway? Well, the total impact of his actions does not compare to that of the archdevil - but were their positions flipped, I do not think that the brigand would cause any less havoc in the world. Everyone does the best (and the worst) with the situation they find themselves in, and many small and petty villains would jump at the opportunity to become archvillains and satisfy their lust for controlling others and taking advantage of their weaknesses.

    Hitler’s life might have played out very differently with even a slight change of variables. Had he been accepted to the Austrian art school, he could have proceeded to become an innocent artist; he probably would not be the most pleasant guy to be around, but no one would consider him evil. On the other hand, some random baker might have found himself in a situation allowing him to take power in Germany, perhaps proceeding to commit even worse crimes against humanity. For instance, had Germany gone communist instead of national-socialist, the consequences both for Germany and the world as a whole would likely be much more severe. The world barely survived one communist superpower; two could potentially bring it down.

    Another interesting mental experiment to make is to consider the following: Hitler running for chancellor of Germany today. Look at it this way: his economical policies are very similar to those of the modern Social-Democratic party that just won the German parliamentary election. As for his other policies, there is strong evidence to suggest that he did not orchestrate those and merely jumped on the bandwagon; there is not much evidence of him espousing extreme nationalistic views before taking a position of high power. He could easily build social platform in line with the zeitgeist of today - and successfully win an election - and not raising anyone’s eyebrows, as his platform would be a typical European left-centrist one. He certainly would not proceed to set Europe on fire; he could just be a regular European politician.

    Now, I am not saying that the reverse is true: that, say, Angela Merkel grabbing power in the Germany of 1933 would orchestrate the Holocaust and initiate a world war. It did take a person of a certain character to do that. But I think that people tend to overestimate the importance of famous individuals in various historical events.

    Regardless of anything, people must take responsibility for their actions. Whatever the case, Hitler died deservedly, and few tears should be shed over it. And yes, if evil means anything, then his actions were certainly evil.
  • exconexcon 279 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    There is no doubt that Hitler was one of the evilest human beings ever to walk the earth.
    Hello S:

    I dunno..  For a guy who eschews religion, you sure do like religious phraseology.   The word "evil" has religious connotations all over it.  It connotes that God, or the Devil made a person evil, or that there is some unseen force at work.. 

    Whereas, as an atheist, I NEVER use that word.  I believe people are bad and wrong all by themselves.  Hitler was a very bad man.  But, nothing made him that way except his own vile self.

    excon
  • exconexcon 279 Pts   -  
    Blastcat said:
    we have come to the end of our relationship.
    Hello B:

    What?  You guys were doing it?? 

    excon

    Deepiloteer
  • exconexcon 279 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:

    Was Hitler Really Evil?


    Hello again, S:

    Nahh..  Is Trump evil??  Nahh..  Hitler had a lot of people behind him..  Trump has a lot of people behind him too..  Do you believe they'd put libs in ovens if Trump told them to???

    I'm not sure they wouldn't.  You?

    excon



    piloteerCYDdharta
  • anarchist100anarchist100 567 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw
    Now see here! We can't be humanizing Hitler! Hitler was pure concentrated badness, to question the sacred narrative makes you a Nazi by definition!
  • piloteerpiloteer 1401 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    It is my belief that hitler was just the best at being evil amongst a nation of evil people. And I don’t believe they’re any less evil today.
    Dee
  • piloteerpiloteer 1401 Pts   -  
    excon said:
    Blastcat said:
    we have come to the end of our relationship.
    Hello B:

    What?  You guys were doing it?? 

    excon

    Just because they had a couple of pants-down hugs, it doesn’t mean they did it.
    anarchist100Deeexcon
  • piloteerpiloteer 1401 Pts   -   edited October 8
    @Neopesdom

    So are we really supposed to believe that your ethical standards from devine command (the idea that morality comes from a deity) are somehow foundational ethics, while an atheists is not? 

    If somebody believes murder is wrong because God says it is wrong, then they are only going on the premise of murder being wrong because somebody else told them they better follow that doctrine or they’ll go to hell.

    But when an atheist believes murder is wrong, they are not guided by the fear of hell. It’s because they believe we all only have one life to live, so it would be immoral to take away somebody else’s one chance at having a fulfilling life for themselves. That’s a genuine foundational reasoning.

    The person who follows devine command was told to reject murder or else, but the atheist came to that conclusion by ethical reasoning, and therefore, they achieved a full bodied genuine morality, and they didn’t need to be scared by the fires of hell to come to that moral truth. So which one of those ethical structures is actually a truly foundational ethical standard?
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom
    There is more evidence to suggest that Mein Kampf was written by the Jesuit Bernhard Staempfle. 
    There is not one shred of evidence whatsoever that Mein Kampf was written by Bernhardt Stempfle.
    your article is coming from your perspective as an "atheist", since it cannot account for morality due to its own personal subjectivity and lack of an absolute standard. 
    The topic has nothing to do with atheism, accountability for morality has nothing to do with atheism and whatever absolute standard means, is anybody's guess. 

    Your post is nothing more than a pathetically contrived load of nonsense which does nothing at all except make a crude attempt (through completely contrived misinformation) at derailing the topic in order to discredit the author by making a personal attack.
    It is totally disgusting, inappropriate and contrary to the standards and rules of the site and sinks lower than the gutter.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    Were the German people collectively really evil?

    They were, and more so I think than many care to admit.

    Anti-Semitism was rife in Germany at the time as it was in America going back to the Civil War and certainly came to the fore with the rise of the KKK.

    There was definitely a high rate of hatred against the Jews preceding the rise to power of Hitler who was able to tap into the sentiment in order to bolster his popularity. What happened next in terms of motivation and who did what, is still open to conjecture. The propaganda minister, Goebbels, was certainly very overenthusiastic about spreading hatred, e.g. blaming Germany's financial state on Jews unfairly running businesses and plundering taxes.

    One could argue that if anti-Semitism was not an issue at all, the Nazis would have taken a different direction altogether....what that would have been, one shudders to think, given the absolute power they had.

  • piloteerpiloteer 1401 Pts   -   edited October 9
    Swolliw said:

    Hitler had reasoning (albeit flawed) for declaring hatred against minority groups. Yet there are unsavory individuals who declare hatred towards others for absolutely no reason at all other than that they are inherently ignorant and arrogant. Sure, these low-lives are eager to publicly utter what they call "reasons" for their extreme anti-social behavior (e.g., "homosexuality is unnatural"or "it is written") but they are no more than flimsy and insulting excuses.

    Are we entitled to label these pathetic, cowardly non-entities eviler than Hitler?
    Yup. We came up with the idea of evil, so it is we who can label whoever we'd like. 

    hitler believed black people were inferior to white people because black people were apes. Modern racists believe black people are inferior to white people because black people are naturally criminals. hitler believed Jewish people were evil because they caused germany to lose WW1. Modern racists believe Jewish people are evil because they are conspiring to rule the world. All of those reasons are equally flawed, and I find no kind of elegance to hitlers flawed reasoning over the reasoning of rubes. hitlers was still just an unsavory declaration of hatred towards others for absolutely no reason at all other than that he was inherently ignorant and arrogant. In other words, he was evil.    

    I think a better proposal would be to make people prove that hitler was more evil than most people  because that would be a hard argument to defend. But to ask if hitler was evil at all?!?! I think Morrissey from the Smiths is evil, so it wouldn't be a hard sell to convince me hitler was evil. 
  • piloteerpiloteer 1401 Pts   -   edited October 9
    Swolliw said:

    Hitler had reasoning (albeit flawed) for declaring hatred against minority groups. Yet there are unsavory individuals who declare hatred towards others for absolutely no reason at all other than that they are inherently ignorant and arrogant. Sure, these low-lives are eager to publicly utter what they call "reasons" for their extreme anti-social behavior (e.g., "homosexuality is unnatural"or "it is written") but they are no more than flimsy and insulting excuses.

    Are we entitled to label these pathetic, cowardly non-entities eviler than Hitler?
    Yup. We came up with the idea of evil, so it is we who can label whoever we'd like. 

    hitler believed black people were inferior to white people because black people were apes. Modern racists believe black people are inferior to white people because black people are naturally criminals. hitler believed Jewish people were evil because they caused germany to lose WW1. Modern racists believe Jewish people are evil because they are conspiring to rule the world. All of those reasons are equally flawed, and I find no kind of elegance to hitlers flawed reasoning over the reasoning of rubes. hitlers was still just an unsavory declaration of hatred towards others for absolutely no reason at all other than that he was inherently ignorant and arrogant. In other words, he was evil.    

    I think a better proposal would be to make people prove that hitler was more evil than others because that would be a hard argument to defend. But to ask if hitler was evil at all?!?! I think Morrissey from the Smiths is evil, so it wouldn't be a hard sell to convince me hitler was evil. 
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar
    And yes, if evil means anything, then his actions were certainly evil.

    Very much so. I think what humanity is doing is placing Hitler (and the Nazi party) on a pedestal as a modern example of what is evil and that we should never ever go there again. There is a lot of good that Hitler did for his (proclaimed) country, e.g. getting production going, getting people employed, raising the standard of living but that goodness was well and truly out shadowed by the ugliness that was to follow.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -  
    @excon
    Whereas, as an atheist, I NEVER use that word.

    As an atheist I use that word to describe theists who promote their beliefs by preying on the weak. Eeeouch, that's going to stir a few people.

    It wasn't my intention to make a religious connection in using the word but I think that when we talk of evil there is not only an implication of religion but also, nowadays, the Nazis and Hitler. That is the connotation that I had in mind.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -  
    @excon
    I'm not sure they wouldn't.  You?

    I would hate to think so however, in light of what happened in those riots one wonders what could happen when a bunch of extremists goes on the rampage claiming allegiance to someone (Trump) who did not want anything to do with such thugs.

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100
    Hitler was pure concentrated badness, to question the sacred narrative makes you a Nazi by definition!

    You are the one placing the "sacred narrative" condition on the whole thing.

    I find nothing wrong with debating the issue and I did make it clear twice that I in no way condone Hitler or the Nazis. 

    Also, the thread was never intended to take on any religious connotation whatsoever. I'm sure you would know by now that if I intended such you would certainly know about it given my penchant for grandstanding over realism in religion.

    No sirree, this is about evil and I will say here quite unequivocally that Hitler is evil personified, oh and he was a devout Catholic.

    Dis that stir the shite enough for you?

  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -   edited October 9
    @anarchist100
    Hitler was pure concentrated badness, to question the sacred narrative makes you a Nazi by definition!

    You are the one placing the "sacred narrative" condition on the whole thing.

    I find nothing wrong with debating the issue and I did make it clear twice that I in no way condone Hitler or the Nazis. 

    Also, the thread was never intended to take on any religious connotation whatsoever. I'm sure you would know by now that if I intended such you would certainly know about it given my penchant for grandstanding over realism in religion.

    No sirree, this is about evil and I will say here quite unequivocally that Hitler is evil personified, oh and he was a devout Catholic.

    Did that stir the shi-te enough for you?

  • anarchist100anarchist100 567 Pts   -   edited October 9
    Swolliw said:
    @anarchist100
    Hitler was pure concentrated badness, to question the sacred narrative makes you a Nazi by definition!

    You are the one placing the "sacred narrative" condition on the whole thing.

    I find nothing wrong with debating the issue and I did make it clear twice that I in no way condone Hitler or the Nazis. 

    Also, the thread was never intended to take on any religious connotation whatsoever. I'm sure you would know by now that if I intended such you would certainly know about it given my penchant for grandstanding over realism in religion.

    No sirree, this is about evil and I will say here quite unequivocally that Hitler is evil personified, oh and he was a devout Catholic.

    Did that stir the shi-te enough for you?

    I'm not sure you understand what I said, I was making fun of the people who can't stand to hear debates such as this, were we don't act as if everything Hitler did was bad, and Hitler did everything that was bad, basically accepting the childish good-guy, bad-guy notion. How they accuse anyone who questions this notion of being one of the "bad guys" seems pretty dogmatic, and religious, don't you think? They seem to think that the whole world is black and white, kind of like how Blastcat got mad at you for posting this debate. do you suppose that he actually read your argument before commenting?
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -   edited October 9
    @anarchist100
    I'm not sure you understand what I said, I was making fun of the people who can't stand to hear debates such as this, were we don't act as if everything Hitler did was bad,

    Okay gotcha.

    Get a load of this one then.....https://debateisland.com/discussion/7588/does-the-usa-lead-the-world

    And this.....https://debateisland.com/discussion/7587/can-you-prove-that-your-god-has-will-send-hitler-to-hell

    If there's anything that gets them going more than religion it's Hitler and America.

    Geez I'm having a good day.

  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 129 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    >>>There is not one shred of evidence whatsoever that Mein Kampf was written by Bernhardt Stempfle.

    As an increasingly prominent Nazi figure, he was the target of Social Democratic satire and portrayed as the anti-Semitic bishop of Miesbach. He idealized Hitler and attacked the BVP, Center party, and their alleged Jewish backers. According to Hitler's personal photographer Heinrich Hoffmann, Stempfle frequently visited Munich and was a member of Hitler's inner circle, joining Hitler "at his corner table at the Café Heck", and advising him on religious issues.[3]

    Multiple authors and eyewitnesses, such as Konrad Heiden[4] and Nazi "apostate" Otto Strasser, report that not only did Stempfle correct the galley proofs of Mein Kampf, but that he indeed copy-edited certain passages. Historian and Hitler biographer Alan Bullock likewise discusses this.[5] -wiki

      Evidence places him at the scene, proves he's a writer and a supporter of the Nazi regime and worked on Mein Kampf as attested to by multiple eyewitnesses, it is not a far stretch to suggest that he played a major role in its development if not its entirety. Nobody needs to use any "ad hominem" attacks against you since you do such a good job in doing it to yourself.

    >>The topic has nothing to do with atheism

    I'm afraid you are not the arbitrator of what has to do with the topic, you absurdly claim that you are an "atheist" like that is a real thing and then go on to talk about good and evil which coming from you is equally absurd.

    >>Your post is nothing more than a pathetically contrived load of nonsense

    Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote that?

    >>in order to discredit the author by making a personal attack.

    As stated before you do a good enough job doing that to yourself. Do you want me to call you a Wambulance?


              

      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom
    I'm afraid you are not the arbitrator of what has to do with the topic,

    Nothing to do with arbitration....you are deliberately derailing the topic. There is no evidence whatsoever that Bernhardt Stempfle wrote Mein Kampf and no amount of quotes taken from nonoperational accounts and extreme websites adds credence to your nutty assertion, although what it has to do with anything one wonders, unless you are going to jump onto some other hairbrained diversion.

     you absurdly claim that you are an "atheist"

    I did not absurdly claim that I am an atheist and I asserted that the topic has nothing to do with atheism, you made that nonsense up.

    You are deluded.

  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 129 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    >>So are we really supposed to believe that your ethical standards from devine command

       You see evil is self destructive, I don't need a divine source to tell me that. What it does tell you however is that there can be no evil in an eternal God, otherwise God would self destruct and thus not be eternal. God is the absolute embodiment of goodness since only that could be eternally sustained. 

       Since we are able to recognize our own imperfections as finite creatures we look to an infinite God to better perfect our own morality, not because He is the source of that morality, but because He has a perfect morality which we can then learn and grow from, since we as children of God are intended for that same eternity, so we must also be perfected, morally speaking. We all can know the difference between good and evil because of moral autonomy, by nature. However the problem comes in when we exercise that same autonomy without an absolute standard, without that divine standard all we are reduced to is a personal moral subjectivity or moral relativism. Even in society we recognize that this type of moral relativism does not work since we have laws that govern our behavior. Societies laws try to become a sort of an absolute standard. In the case of ethical and moral standards Christians recognize the need for an absolute standard also, but adhere to the highest and perfect example of morality, God’s morality.

      Divine Command Theory is the theory that what makes something morally right is that God commands it, and what makes something morally wrong is that God forbids it. Just as societies laws don’t make something morally right or wrong, God’s commands in and of themselves don’t make something morally right or wrong, they are however reflections of a perfect morality.
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • JeanJean 79 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Irrelevant

    @Neopesdom I do not see how atheism has anything to do with the opening post.
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 129 Pts   -  
    @Jean

    >>> I do not see how atheism has anything to do with the opening post.

    Sorry to hear that, thanks for sharing.
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • JeanJean 79 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Irrelevant

    @Dee There is no evidence to support the claim that the German and Austrian people gleefully aided and abetted Hitler and this is not relevant to whether Hitler himself was evil.
  • DeeDee 4385 Pts   -   edited October 9
    @Jean

     There is no evidence to support the claim that the German and Austrian people gleefully aided and abetted Hitler

    Really ? Hey maybe the Holocaust never happened ? I mentioned the German people who took pride(mosty)  in their collective hatred of Jews and did in fact aid and abet Hitler gleefully , I’m sorry you don’t like facts but there you go 

    and this is not relevant to whether Hitler himself was evil.

    It’s perfectly relevant , unless Hitler had so many willing Germans none of this could have taken place , Hitler didn’t kill one Jew he had willing servants to do it for him 

    You ought to do a bit of basic research before you spout of your truly ignorant comments 

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4064 Pts   -   edited October 9
    @Neopesdom

    The concepts of "good" and "evil" are far older than your religion, and, likely, older than any religion. Ever since primal humans started forming tribes and communicating with each other, they had the conception of "right" and "wrong" and the associated concepts of "good" and "evil" - and developed rules congruent with these concepts. Followers of every religion like to appropriate everything and claim that it is derived from their religion; talk to any Muslim, Buddhist or Hinduist, and they will all tell you that "good" and "evil" can only exist in their religion, and those who do not believe in their teachings can have no conceptions of these.

    Determinism does not contradict these. The fact that, on some fundamental level, it is predetermined that this dictator will kill this many people does not change the fact that the act of killing, from a certain perspective, is evil. Evil things can be predetermined, as much as good and neutral things can. It may be predetermined that tomorrow I will experience the most pleasurable sex a human being has ever experienced; that is certainly a good thing for me, even if it is not a result of some dice roll and, instead, of strict deterministic laws of the Universe.

    You define "god" as a source of perfect morality, yet have nothing to say to justify the assumption that such a being exists. It is a backwards reasoning: "god is a source of perfect morality, hence it exists". That is just ridiculous. I can just as well say, "The Flying Potato Monster is a source of perfect potato salads, hence it exists". Then, every time I make a potato salad, I can worship the Flying Potato Monster and believe that I honor him by my cooking. This monster, however, only exists in my imagination, just as your god only exists in yours.

    Neopesdom said:

    Divine Command Theory is the theory that what makes something morally right is that God commands it, and what makes something morally wrong is that God forbids it. Just as societies laws don’t make something morally right or wrong, God’s commands in and of themselves don’t make something morally right or wrong, they are however reflections of a perfect morality.
    That is a silly theory. It randomly declares "god" as the ultimate authority on morality, never explaining why and just postulating it. Why cannot Hitler be the ultimate authority on morality instead? He certainly was in the eyes of many Germans. Yet they were as deluded as Christians who subscribe to this theory. For proper morality cannot derive from anything but reason and rational analysis of facts of nature. And those are incompatible with the idea of "god", any god, let alone the Christian one (which is not among the most benevolent gods humans have ever come up with).
    Prior to the modern purified Christianity, there was over a millennium when much more brutish versions of Christianity dominated the civilized world, with theocratic regimes enslaving nations and heretics burning at a stake daily. Those people just as much believed that the god was on their side, and that, say, burning someone for studying mathematics was a response to a divine command from a perfectly moral god. You can never explain why your vision of god's perfect morality is so much different from theirs without resorting to the same kind of relativism you (erroneously) accuse all atheists of.

    The benefit of having a morality based on reason and logic, rather than "divine commands", is that it is not susceptible to the peer pressure. When you have derived your morality logically, it does not matter to you what morality people around you follow, as you know that your morality is the right one for you. A person who has such morality does not have to always be their church's or their resident ideological leader's lapdog, because they do not believe in external sources of morality. A communist, or a Nazi, or a Christian, or a Muslim may yell into my ear whatever he wants - I will just smirk and say calmly, "Whatever you say, buddy, whatever you say".

    That is not what Germans ruled by Hitler did. Hitler's ideology may have been atheistic, but it was not rationally atheistic, as he replaced the Christian god with a more abstract god - his morals were just as unfounded in reason and logic as yours.
    For that matter, Hitler ruled Germany for just 12 years, while Christian theocrats ruled the entire Europe for more or less ~1200 years (still formally do, with the Pope being widely considered the top moral authority over there - Hitler's followers went through Nuremberg, but Constantine's followers are still among the richest individuals in the world, having their little kingdom covered in gold and worshipers). Yet Hitler nowadays is vilified beyond imagination, while Christianity is considered a fairly benevolent religion... If you ask me, Christianity is far worse than Nazism in terms of its impact on the world.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1401 Pts   -  
    Neopesdom said:
    @piloteer



       You see evil is self destructive, I don't need a divine source to tell me that.
    So what is it about evil that an atheist cannot see is destructive? If you did not come to the conclusion that evil is destructive from the bible, what sense did you use to come to that conclusion that an atheist does not possess? If you were able to come to a moral conclusion without a devine source to tell you, then there should be no reason an atheist cannot reach a moral conclusion without a devine source to tell them.

    Neopesdom said:


       Since we are able to recognize our own imperfections as finite creatures we look to an infinite God to better perfect our own morality, not because He is the source of that morality, but because He has a perfect morality which we can then learn and grow from, since we as children of God are intended for that same eternity, so we must also be perfected, morally speaking.

     Just as societies laws don’t make something morally right or wrong, God’s commands in and of themselves don’t make something morally right or wrong, they are however reflections of a perfect morality.

     Are you arguing that God has set his moral compass to abide by some moral truth that forms our universe?


  • SwolliwSwolliw 1209 Pts   -   edited October 10
    @Jean
    There is no evidence to support the claim that the German and Austrian people gleefully aided and abetted Hitler and this is not relevant to whether Hitler himself was evil.

    There is evidence. The German people democratically voted Hitler and the Nazi party into power. Austria willingly allowed Germany to take over the country.

    The whole gist of the thread is that Hitler would not have realised his ambitions without the support of his people and, as pointed out on this page, anti-Semitism was rife throughout Germany (and the USA) despite Hitler.

  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 129 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    >>The concepts of "good" and "evil" are far older than your religion

    Yes the concepts of good and evil were well known to God before mankind ever existed.  

    >>they will all tell you that "good" and "evil" can only exist in their religion, and those who do not believe in their teachings can have no conceptions of these.

    And yet I told you the exact opposite, "We all can know the difference between good and evil because of moral autonomy, by nature."

    >>Determinism does not contradict these. The fact that, on some fundamental level, it is predetermined that this dictator will kill this many people does not change the fact that the act of killing, from a certain perspective, is evil.

    our now speaking about a different kind of evil altogether, how did we go from moral evil to natural evil, you are paying word games now, running from the argument.

     "Natural evils are bad states of affairs which do not result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. By contrast, moral evils do result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents."

    Determinism removes any moral agents from the "equation" and reduces all evil to natural evil regardless of the act or individual.

    >>You define "god" as a source of perfect morality, yet have nothing to say to justify the assumption that such a being exists.

    The argument presupposed the existence of God, whether such a being exists is a different debate topic altogether.

    >> It is a backwards reasoning: "god is a source of perfect morality, hence it exists".

    That argument was never made, you are simply now trying to create a straw man. The Flying Potato Monster.... blah blah blah

    >>Divine Command Theory ....That is a silly theory. 

    It is a dumb theory, that why I was able to so easily refute it.

    >>Prior to the modern purified Christianity, there was over a millennium when much more brutish versions of Christianity

    If they are not following Christ they are not versions of Christianity, but cults pretending to be at worst, delusional groups at best. Anyone can make any claims, but it is by their fruits that you shall know them. i.e. their actions.

    >>You can never explain why your vision of god's perfect morality is so much different from theirs

    God's morality is given in His Scripture, they do not follow it, it's that simple. They care little for God's truth only their own, if you think that they are actually trying to follow God and not increase their own pocket books then you are the delusional one.

    >>The benefit of having a morality based on reason and logic, rather than "divine commands"

    Correct, in order to love God, you must use reason and logic to determine if what God says is agreeable, remember what I said,  "look to an infinite God to better perfect our own morality, not because He is the source of that morality, but because He has a perfect morality which we can then learn and grow from". Our own morality is based on reason and logic.  I'm glad you see the flaw in "Divine Command Theory" as well.

    >>Yet Hitler nowadays is vilified beyond imagination, while Christianity is considered a fairly benevolent religion... If you ask me, Christianity is far worse than Nazism in terms of its impact on the world.

    That is because you really don't know what true Christianity is and how parts of it have been high jacked by cultists. What you call "Christianity" we identify as the whore of Babylon.

    And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great amazement. (Rev. 17:4-6)

    So we both can identify this abomination as far worse than Nazism, although I go further and believe that Nazism comes from the drunken whore herself, that the two are just different heads of the same beast.
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4064 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom

    There is no difference between "moral evil" and "natural evil", as any proper moral system should derive from the laws of nature. It is only in fantasy religions that a separation between morals and the real world is required.

    If your argument presupposes the existence of god, then, if it is correct, in the absence of god no morals should be possible. Is that really what you think? Can you absolutely not imagine a world in which no "god" exists, yet people still make quality judgements about their actions?

    You should realize, when you say "The Flying Potato Monster... blah blah blah", that your idea of "god" and morality derived from it sounds just as preposterous to those who was not raised on theistic fairytales.

    No, what I think is that everyone who follows "god" ultimately is out to increase their own pocket books: material, emotional, et cetera. In my humble view, no human being would ever subscribe to any religion without some ulterior motive having nothing to do with the immediate benefit of following that religion (which there may be none). You are all gold-seekers, different people just seek different kinds of gold.
    Everyone is a gold-seeker, for that matter. Some people are just not satisfied with false gold and look for real one - and that is not found in ancient scriptures and churches.

    I think that what you are saying is that you love "god" because you prescribe your moral virtues to it. As does every religionist does. Your moral virtues are right because they are god's virtues, and they are god's virtues because they are your virtues. They are not grounded in anything objective and are self-perpetuating. Those medieval witch hunters just as much professed god's virtues as you, their virtues just were different, and thus so were their god's.

    I am sorry, but whenever I hear sentences like "true Christianity", "true socialism" and the like, I cannot help but roll my eyes... Everything is only true when it is done exactly the way you think it should be done; otherwise it is clearly a perversion of the true thing! All those dozens millions slaughtered by communists, Nazis, Muslims and Christians - they just did not get to enjoy the blessing of true communism, true Nazism, true Islam and true Christianity!
  • NeopesdomNeopesdom 129 Pts   -  
    >>There is no difference between "moral evil" and "natural evil"

    There is a difference between a tornado killing someone(natural evil) and a person who kills(moral evil) someone, it is quite evident that one does not have a moral agent and the other has. Even the courts will declare that someone who is not of sound mind has no moral agency and is therefore is not guilty. 

    In general, for a crime to be committed, the actor must intend to commit a crime. - Sanity Evaluations and Criminal Responsibility (apcj.org)

    Moral evil requires intention, a tornado has no intention of anything.

    >>It is only in fantasy religions that a separation between morals and the real world is required.

    Do you really believe that the court system is a religious fantasy land?

    >>in the absence of god no morals should be possible. Is that really what you think?

    "We all can know the difference between good and evil because of moral autonomy, by nature." - Self quote

    For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires.. (Romans 2:14)

    In the absence of God who provides us with moral laws, morality is still possible, by nature, meaning learning from our natural environment.

    Why would you assume that I think the opposite of what I've stated several times already?

    >>I think that what you are saying is that you love "god" because you prescribe your moral virtues to it.

    I found that the morals I've learned by nature are in line with what I read about in Scripture and that Scripture takes it to an even higher level, more so than any human could, especially in such an age of ignorance, superstition, and where extreme cruelty and brutality ruled the day. The moral outlook of the Bible is beyond anything that could of come from such times and places. Even the Code of Hammurabi does not come close to the morality contained in God's Word. Even more so the bible was not written at one time by one person, but over 1500 years roughly starting 3400 years ago and by about 40 different people separated from place and time, yet it's pages come together in perfect harmony with respect to plot, theme and overall coherency. This alone, if not miraculous, would have to be the greatest literally achievement of all time, I choose to believe the former. We need only look at its effect on the civilizations it came in contact with, it metaphorically moved mountains.
      “Never argue with an id'iot They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4064 Pts   -  
    @Neopesdom

    A tornado killing someone is not an evil at all, because there is no conscious actor involved in the act of killing. One cannot make moral judgements about the way nature works, only about the way conscious agents choose to act. Nature is just is, it is never good or evil.

    I think that a lot of elements of the modern court system have been influenced by the ideas associated with the religious fantasy land and have been corrupted by it. That said, courts do not typically employ explicitly religious reasoning in their procedures nowadays, so it is a very indirect - and, at this point, fairly minor - effect.

    Learning from our natural environment and adjusting our actions accordingly is exactly what morals should be about. Morals that are about acting in a way that conforms with the views of some fantasy characters are not morals that are of utility to anyone. The idea of desirability to act in a way that Frodo Baggins would approve of is a ridiculous foundation for a moral system.

    I do not dispute that many morals expressed in the Bible are learned and derived from the patterns humans have observed in nature. What I object to is the idea of using the Bible as the source of morals. If morals are learned from nature and then eternalized in the Bible, then that is great - as long as their connection to nature is what they are grounded in. And if that is the case, then it is of little importance what folklore surrounds them - you can explain them in the framework of the Bible, of Lord of the Rings, of Scheherazade, of Star Wars, of a purely scientific book and so on. Religion in itself here is just a wrapper and is easily discardable and interchangeable with an infinity of other wrappers.
    And I do not mind those wrappers; moral ideas are often much easier to illustrate on a mental experiment, a fictional story, than in purely abstract and general terms. What is important is that one understands that it is merely an illustration and nothing more.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch