Intelligent Design

Violence is Not a Bug of Materialist Metaphysics; It is a Feature

Spread the love

I have already featured the following from Seversky as our quote of the day:

I do not hold that there are no binding moral principles. I say we are entitled to decide for ourselves which moral codes should bind us. This does not mean that abominations like the Nazis or Stalinist Russia or Pol Pot’s Cambodia are inevitable. Those regimes imposed their policies by the most brutal violence and certainly did not seek the opinions, let alone the consent, of those they oppressed.

In my prior post I highlighted the incoherence of the first two sentences. In this post I want to focus on the faulty assumptions in the remainder of the post. Seversky declares that the link between violence and materialism is not “inevitable.” But he is plainly wrong. Materialism posits that rocks and automobiles and dogs and people are manifestations of the same thing: particles in motion. If a person believes materialism is true he must also believe certain corollaries that logically follow. Materialist Will Provine sums these up nicely:

1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . .

Those are not my views. Those are the conclusions of an honest materialist.

The materialist must necessarily believe that human beings are nothing but clever hairless apes with no more intrinsic value than dogs. Eigenstate, who comments frequently on this site, is particularly honest about this feature of materialism. He argues that like a dollar which has no intrinsic value, the only reason a human has any value at all is because he happens to be subjectively valued. If he were not subjectively valued, he would have no value at all. Brutal. But certainly true if materialism is true.

Lenin famously justified murdering anti-communists by quipping, “to make an omelet you have to break some eggs.” Of course, the “eggs” in that sentence represent human lives. And if you are a materialist who believes that a human has no more intrinsic value than an egg, the sentiment makes perfect sense. Similarly, Mao said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

In the absence of acknowledgement of a binding objective moral code, there is only one law, the law of the jungle where the strong prevail and the weak succumb. If a strong man subscribes to Christian ethics, calculations such as “I have to murder X number of people to achieve my utopian political objective” are off limits. That is the very reason Hitler hated Christianity and, following Nietzsche, called it a religion of slaves.

It follows, therefore, that the ultimate method by which the strong impose their preferences on the weak – violence – is not an aberration of materialist metaphysics; instead history has proved many times over that it is a feature of it.

It is now fashionable even among liberals to deplore the 20th Century materialist dictators who killed millions (it was not always so; let us never forget that Stalin was once a liberal hero; he was Time magazine’s man of the year in both 1939 and 1942). But the spirit of violence that motivated those dictators has never gone away. If anything, the spirit that says the strong may sacrifice the helpless if the helpless get in their way is stronger than ever.

The same spirit that led to this in 1945

download

leads to this in 2015:

Arm of Baby Killed by Planned Parenthood

43 Replies to “Violence is Not a Bug of Materialist Metaphysics; It is a Feature

  1. 1
    sean samis says:

    Re:

    Materialism posits BLAH BLAH BLAH.

    As usual, you put words into the mouths of others, impute comments from X to be binding on Y and then beat your straw men into submission.

    sean s.

  2. 2
    OldArmy94 says:

    Sean,

    What about his comments were attacking straw men? What he said is 100% true. It’s only the dishonest materialist who steals from the ethics of theists that would deny such things.

  3. 3
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sean,

    I quoted Provine and Eigenstate. How is that putting words in their mouth? BTW, for your comment to have any force you needed to identify a statement I made about materialism that is not true. Sadly, since you did not do that, you comment falls into the category of “rant.” That’s OK though. Not everyone can make a cogent argument. If all you can do is rant, please feel free.

  4. 4
    redwave says:

    Atheistic-Materialist Regimes and Murder

    Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,00 people murdered

    Jozef Stalin (USSR 1932-39 only) 15,000,000 people murdered

    Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 people murdered

    Kim II Sung (North Korea 1948-94) 1.6 million people murdered

    Tito (Yugoslavia 1945-1987) 570,000 people murdered

    Suharto (Communists 1967-66) 500,000 people murdered

    Ante Pavelic (Croatia 1941-45) 359,000 people murdered

    Ho Chi Min (Vietnam 1953-56) 200,000 people murdered

    Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 people murdered

    Adolf Hitler (Germany 1939-1945) 12,000,000 people murdered

    Approximate Total Atheistic Regime Murders: 106.259 to 125.259 Million People (or, 106,259,000 to 125,259,000 Persons)

    (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/p.....-goodness/)

    And according to the WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.

  5. 5
    Ray Martinez says:

    Barry Arrington: “Violence is Not a Bug of Materialist Metaphysics; It is a Feature”

    Let us hear from a mainstream scholar, Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans writing in “The Third Reich In Power” (2005).

    “Nazism’s use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than substance. ‘Hitler’s studied usurpation of religious functions,’ as one historian has written, ‘was perhaps a displaced hatred of the Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.’ The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science – a Nazi view of science – as the basis for action. Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals” (p.259).

    So the Arrington title is absolutely accurate. While Darwinian Materialists were conducting their biological synthesis—natural selection with Mendelian genetics in the early 1940s—Hitler was in the field selecting his perceived enemies for extinction.

    The 20th century was the first time in history that Materialists gained political power, and look at what they did: murder, Murder, MURDER. All based on Darwinian “science.”

  6. 6
    goodusername says:

    It is now fashionable even among liberals to deplore the 20th Century materialist dictators who killed millions (it was not always so; let us never forget that Stalin was once a liberal hero; he was Time magazine’s man of the year in both 1939 and 1942).

    Apparently other liberal heroes include Hitler, Nixon, Kissinger, Ayatollah Khomeini, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Ken Starr, and George W. Bush.

  7. 7
    Barry Arrington says:

    goodusername,

    Are you denying that Stalin was celebrated in liberal circles in the 30’s or are you just being a smartass? If the former, do you have any evidence whatsoever to support that claim?

  8. 8
    goodusername says:

    Barry,

    There were some liberals who supported Stalin in the early 1930s, but it was hardly fashionable.

    But mainly I was just pointing out how laughable it was to use Time magazine as an indication of someone being a “liberal hero”, as a glance of the list of winners should make pretty clear.
    (And anyway, as they explain ad nauseum – but apparently not often enough for some – it’s about who had the biggest affect on the year “for better or worse”. They even flat out state in the article for Stalin’s 1942 person of the year award, that if Germany had won the battle of Stalingrad that they were going to give the award to Hitler. Imagine Hitler winning the award in the middle of World War II! Obviously, the award isn’t an endorsement.)

  9. 9
    goodusername says:

    Ray,

    Hitler was hardly a materialist. Any reading of what Hitler wrote or said either publically (Mein Kampf, his speeches, etc) or privately (Table Talk, etc) will make that crystal clear. He regularly railed against materialism, atheism, and moral relativism. He often blamed Jews and Communists for both and were big reasons he hated both.

  10. 10
    Barry Arrington says:

    goodusername:

    Hitler was hardly a materialist.

    Wiki:

    Alan Bullock wrote that even though Hitler frequently employed the language of “divine providence” in defence of his own myth, he ultimately shared with the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin a materialistic outlook “based on the nineteenth century rationalists’ certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity”

    We can quibble on Hitler about whether he was a vehemently anti-Christian mystical pagan or a vehemently anti-Christian materialist. But even if we remove his 12,000,000 from the tally, there are still over 100,000,000,000 deaths at the hands of materialists. Your quibble, like your observation above, does not go to the thrust of the post

    goodusername, do you actually have anything of substance to say or do you just want to snipe at the edges?

  11. 11
    goodusername says:

    For being inconsequential whether Hitler was a materialist or not, it sure is proclaimed a lot. I only brought it up after it was referenced in the OP and then in a couple of the responses.

    I don’t say anything 99%+ that it’s mentioned, but every once in a while it’s tempting to say something when you see something repeated like a mantra that is so obviously wrong. Stamping out materialism, athiesm, and moral relativity was a life goal of Hitler (his most common accusation of Jews is probably that they spread atheism and materialism).

    Here’s one of countless examples from Table Talk where he talks about materialists:

    Who’s that little Bolshevik professor who claims to triumph over creation? People like that, we’ll break them. Whether we rely on the catechism or on philosophy, we have possibilities in reserve, whilst they, with their purely materialistic conceptions, can only devour one another.

    The name he was searching for was Oparin, often called the Father of abiogenesis and a forerunner of Stanley Miller.

    Contrast Hitler’s reaction to Oparin with Stalin’s:
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....66681.html

    Does it sound like he “shared with the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin a materialistic outlook”? He elsewhere states: “Where do we get the right to believe that humanity was not already from its earliest origins what it is today?” Doesn’t sound like a “nineteenth century rationalist” to me. 19th century rationalists sound like the people Hitler wanted to “break”.

    It’s hard to find stuff of substance in the OP to respond to, but I’ll take a stab at it:

    The materialist must necessarily believe that human beings are nothing but clever hairless apes with no more intrinsic value than dogs.

    What gives something “intrinsic value”? What does that mean?

    It’s the same issue with “binding objective moral code”. It’s more undefined empty modifiers. So it’s no wonder such debates go nowhere.

  12. 12
    Axel says:

    Judging from a video-clip I was watching the other day, even Hitler baulked at using the expression, ‘survival of the fittest’, preferring to use the term, ‘nature’.

  13. 13
    DillyGill says:

    The current state of affairs would not be so bad if the materialist were to acknowledge fairly the weaknesses of their arguments. The reason that their unfair handling (dismissal by priori commitment) of the argument from design is so problematic is they raise a bunch of brain dead zombies out of the school system who are so indoctrinated that they really think they hold the ultimate truth with their materialist world view.

    Some of the materialists at the top of the tree then claim that any one who does not subscribe to their view is mentally unbalanced and not worthy to be in a position of responsibility. The reality is that the most obvious thing about life is that it is to complex to come about by chance and blah blah blah. People who are unable to see this disturb me greatly

  14. 14
    Axel says:

    ‘Intrinsic’? ‘Objective?’ The dictionary is your friend, goodusername.

    Hitler was a confused, pagan ‘nut-job’, almost entirely focused on geopolitics, i.e. this world, but, like Thatcher and Reagan, ‘into’ the occult, New World paganism, seemingly seeing himself as the messianic superman figure prophesied in its doctrine.

    So, his materialism, like those of his aforesaid peers, does not seem to have been a metaphysical one, but rather a simple repudiation of objective moral values, certainly Christian values, and with a certain satanic personalised slant.

    I suspect the characters mentioned had a premonition that they would cut a figure on the world stage, and it was that which led them to the New Age paganism.

    Had it made moral demands on them, they would have remained, not so much ‘hommes moyen sensuels’, as Aldous Huxley put it, as ‘hommes enormement sensuels’, driven by pride, ambition, avarice, etc, but without any occult fancies. To all intents and purposes, materialists to their finger-tips. In the case of Thatcher, who, incidentally, reintroduced mass homelessness to the UK, ‘hommes’ in the generic sense of course.

    By the way, has anyone quoted the German-Jewish poet Heine, concerning German militarism on here? In 1830, he very confidently made an astonishingly accurate prophesy concerning WWII in particular:

    Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered, the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. … The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. …
    … Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder …
    comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. …
    At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead, and lions in farthest Africa will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll.’

    http://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/quo-heine.html

  15. 15
    EugeneS says:

    How can I solve a problem when I am not even aware if it exists?

    Religion provides an explanation of the origin of evil and presents a remedy for it (which differs from religion to religion, but this is another question). Materialism cannot do such a thing.

    Materialism does not have a means to address the root cause of evil, which is spiritual, simply because it fails to recognize the existence of spiritual reality itself.

  16. 16
    Axel says:

    I very much hope the above quote from the poet, Heine, is not construed as any kind of slur on the German people today – or even then. Our true nature, the true nature of each person of every race, is in Christ.

    Consequently, Sophie Scholl, the young Christian martyr and her friends in the White Rose movement, are more faithfully accurate examples of Germans, today, particularly, when the US and UK are being ruled so very degenerately and have fallen into a kind of madness.

    While our brightest and best are pushing for more nuclear power plants, Angela Merkel, with I believe a doctorate in nuclear physics, after Fukushima Daiichi, closed them down in Germany post-haste, and has extraordinarily successfully moved the country to renewable energy.

    That’s just one example, but such an enlightened and expeditious political act, while inconceivable in the corporatist UK and US, who are more interested in financial swindles than manufacture, is rather characteristic of Germany.

    Read Michael Lewis’ book, Kangaroo, in which he relates his impressions of how the recession affected European countries, if you haven’t already. In contrast I think to all the other countries, he found the money-men in Germany well, strange to relate in the context of high finance, but, well… honest. (I wouldn’t cast such a slur on an American or a Brit, for fear they would suffer dire repercussions).

  17. 17
    harry says:

    EugeneS @15,

    Excellent point!

  18. 18
    harry says:

    Recent discussions on the UD site have demonstrated that those willing to tolerate or actively support child-killing are immune to reason. So be it. There comes a time when explaining the truth must be followed by acting on it. If we don’t eventually act on it then we can legitimately be asked, “If you really believe what you say, why aren’t you [fill in the blank]?

    And what should fill in the blank with regard to the “legal” murder of children? What is the response that is commensurate with the urgency of the situation? What action is appropriate when lethal assaults on Christ in His least and most innocent brethren become routine, often taking place minutes from our homes and places of work?

    It seems appropriate at this point to remind the American visitors to this site that civil disobedience is as American as Mom’s apple pie and baseball. Every major political change in American history has been accompanied by civil disobedience. It seems to be necessary to get the attention of those who are content to live alongside blatant injustice. The Boston Tea Party. The Underground Railroad of the Abolitionists. The Civil Rights movement (Rosa Parks broke an unjust law, which was no law at all, according to Augustine). Peaceful (non-violent) civil disobedience seems to have been necessary, if not the explicit moral obligation of Christians in American history.

    Food for thought.

  19. 19
    Barry Arrington says:

    Barry @ 10:

    goodusername, do you actually have anything of substance to say or do you just want to snipe at the edges?

    I will take your response at 11 as a “no.”

  20. 20
    goodusername says:

    Axel,

    ‘Intrinsic’? ‘Objective?’ The dictionary is your friend, goodusername.

    I understand the dictionary use of the terms. A rock has “intrinsic” values – mass, hardness, volume, etc. Those values are the same regardless if one is a Christian or atheist. They are also objective.

    But in what way do humans have “intrinsic value” under Christianity but not under materialism? In what way is morality objective under Christianity but not materialism? The dictionary isn’t much help there.

    UDEditors: One wonders why goodusername thinks an obvious equivocation on the term “value” helps move the discussion along.

  21. 21
    Starbuck says:

    The answer of course is that there is no difference. It’s all subjective whether there is a god or not.

  22. 22
    bb says:

    “But in what way do humans have ‘intrinsic value’ under Christianity but not under materialism? In what way is morality objective under Christianity but not materialism?”

    Exodus 20 (NKJV – emphasis mine):

    And God spoke all these words, saying:

    2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

    3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.

    4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, 6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

    7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

    8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

    12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

    13 “You shall not murder.

    14 “You shall not commit adultery.

    15 “You shall not steal.

    16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

    17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

    God is the only IS sufficient to ground ought. According to the Judeo-Christian worldview, man is made in God’s image and that gives him intrinsic value.

  23. 23
    goodusername says:

    bb,

    God is the only IS sufficient to ground ought.

    What’s the IS about God that grounds “ought”?

    According to the Judeo-Christian worldview, man is made in God’s image and that gives him intrinsic value.

    Are you saying that you place value on humans because they were “made in God’s image” (whatever that means)? That’s still subjective.

  24. 24
    sean samis says:

    Barry @3

    I quoted Provine and Eigenstate. How is that putting words in their mouth?

    You preceded your quote with

    If a person believes materialism is true he must also believe certain corollaries that logically follow. Materialist Will Provine sums these up nicely:…

    And right after your quote, you wrote that

    The materialist must necessarily believe that …

    These two comments by you attempt to put Provine and Eigenstate’s words into the mouths of other materialists.

    You also wrote:

    And if you are a materialist who believes that a human has no more intrinsic value than an egg, the sentiment makes perfect sense.

    Oddly enough, there are LOTS of materialists who believe humans have much greater value than eggs. But your comments assert that they have to agree with your assessment of them; again trying to misrepresent what your “opponents” actually believe.

    If this kind of fraud is consistent with your “objective morality” then it is objectively broken.

    sean s.

  25. 25
    Axel says:

    ‘But in what way do humans have “intrinsic value” under Christianity but not under materialism?’

    gun: The touchstone of all truth, of all reality, is God, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. What He says, goes. You see everything as intrinsically-homogeneous agglomerations of atoms in flux, He sees what they constitute: a living shell/’tent’ for his Spirit to enliven, together with all the rest of his Creation.

    To believe that we and, indeed, the whole of Creation, are not intelligently designed, even without the benefit of the physicists’ latest findings, has always been a preposterous notion to the vast majority of mankind, surely, inconceivable, from the time we first start trying to make sense of the world, as babies. What would be the sense in it – yet it is perhaps driven by our most primordial instinct, which eventually settles into common sense. We don’t think, ‘Oh I must think; our autonomic intelligence takes charge without conscious prompting. A bit of a digression there. Sorry about that.

    By divine election we are his children, good and bad, each of us, unique and personal in the same way that He is, as the Incarnate son of the Father, insofar as we can know God, can understand the paradoxical mystery of the Most Holy Trinity.

    God defines meaning, in the same way – although absolutely definitively in his case – as we define the meanings of worlds. People can assign different meanings to a word, not accepted by others. Our words do not have intrinsic meanings.

    We can choose to repudiate our adoptive sonship of God in favour of choosing the devil as our father, but that will not render God’s fatherhood of us null. Our sonship will always be intrinsic because God is the sovereign reality and source/maker of reality.

    God’s fatherhood of us is ‘intrinsic’, a relationship proper to Himself by his own choice, and to us, again by his volition. It is a matter of our possessing an intrinsic, proper Name, and non-living matter being intrinsically nonentity, not invested by God with the gift of partaking of his own eternal life.

    All very abstruse, I realise, but a random mass of atoms lacks, jointly and severally, a certain something, a certain ‘identity’. Each of us has a very proper intrinsic identity given us by God and cherished by Him.

  26. 26
    Barry Arrington says:

    Sean @ 24

    Dear readers, notice that Sean is big on invective but tiny on actual argument. OK, you don’t think materailism entails certain logical conclusions that I listed, then argue with me. Tell me why you believe that. BTW “Barry is a poopyhead” is not an argument.

    Oddly enough, there are LOTS of materialists who believe humans have much greater value than eggs.

    Well, since you capitalized “lots” I guess that settles it.

    In seriousness, you are correct, and I never said otherwise. They simply cannot ground that idea in anything other than their subjective preference, which, if pressed, they must admit is no “better” than Lenin’s subjective preference, because there is no objective standard to judge between the two. None of this is controversial Sean. I wonder why you kick against the goads.

    Even eigenstate would agree that a lot of materialists place subjective value on human life in the same way the place subjective value on the intrinsically worthless dollar. But eigenstate’s broader point remains — just as the dollar has no “intrinsic” value, a human life has no intrinsic value to the materialist. You said not one word to rebut your fellow materialist’s logic. And, indeed, if materialism is true eigenstate’s logic seems unassailable.

    Again, Sean, if I am wrong here’s your chance to set forth arguments (not bare assertions) to demonstrate I am wrong.

  27. 27
    Ray Martinez says:

    goodusername (msg #9):

    “Hitler was hardly a materialist. Any reading of what Hitler wrote or said either publically (Mein Kampf, his speeches, etc) or privately (Table Talk, etc) will make that crystal clear. He regularly railed against materialism, atheism, and moral relativism. He often blamed Jews and Communists for both and were big reasons he hated both.”

    Please identify the immaterial deity or concept that Hitler believed in, ordered his life around?

    We know the German dictator deceived the Christian masses to gain their trust, support, and power. In reality he hated the Church and was an apostate. So what other deity is there beside the Biblical deity? Rejection of this deity, in the West, corresponds to Atheism.

    As for Mein Kampf said title was inspired by the concept of struggle as explicated by the Darwinists in behalf of natural selection (fully material agency).

    As for his speeches: prior to his political ascendancy, as implied above, these were filled with pro-Christian propaganda. After becoming Fuhrer he let his true colors show.

    In any event: If Hitler said anything against Atheism or Materialism the same is contradicted by actions of unconscionable mass genocide. In short: You are as you act, and not as you say, if the two contradict.

    Based on the facts mentioned above, and mainly on the fact that he murdered tens of millions of civilians out of personal hatred, reasonable people can easily conclude that Hitler was an Atheist-Materialist.

  28. 28
    John S says:

    they “did not seek the opinions, let alone the consent, of those they oppressed.”

    This is a most ridiculous comment. On what basis should anyone seek the opinions or consent of those they want to oppress? Is it morally wrong for polar bears to gain the consent of baby seals before eviscerating them? How is it any more wrong for a human to oppress another human? The only basis is religion or conscience. And conscience is only good for the individual. What one man calls brutal violence another calls survival of the fittest. How do you decide who is right? Good luck trying to defend the idea of consensus…

  29. 29
    OldArmy94 says:

    Hitler had a strange “upside-down” concept of morality, to be sure. He had a very neatly ordered code to which he made subject the parts of the world he had under his control. The Nazis blended murder, xenophobia and racism with science, the law, and the humanities to create a devil’s brew of wickedness that can still be scarcely believed by some. But, in Hitler’s mind, none of these things were the result of opinionated thinking; he believed them to be true on their own merits. We see this phenomenon in the world of today as the religious fervor surrounding the push to normalize immorality continues to grow. The materialist worships the strange god of “Tolerance” and has written sacred scriptures that define how this god is to be worshipped. To be sure, their religion is full of hypocrisy and blatant inconsistency, but it is embraced by them with a gospel zeal.

  30. 30
    sean samis says:

    Barry Arrington @26

    [materialists] simply cannot ground that idea in anything other than their subjective preference,…

    We’ve done this one before.

    First; there are no objective standards, there are only subjective standards whose supporters claim them to be objective. None of them actually are objective. All standards come to us through the hands of imperfect humans and from nowhere else. UNLESS A DEITY TELLS YOU FACE-TO-FACE WHAT THE DEITY EXPECTS, everything you know about the deity passes through the hands of mere humans.

    If you claim your standards are actually objective, the burden is on you to prove they are; no one is obligated to disprove your claims.

    Second; even subjective moral standards are not mere preferences; reason from facts of nature and the human condition contribute significantly to distinguishing subjective morality from mere preference. You have seen this already from me.

    Even eigenstate would agree that a lot of materialists place subjective value on human life in the same way the place subjective value on the intrinsically worthless dollar.

    One of the nice things about having no religion is having no pope, prophet, or priest telling us what we’re supposed to believe. We get to reason it out ourselves. So what eigenstate thinks has ZERO evidentiary value. I am free to consider it or reject it. Likewise when you quote some “famous atheist” saying something stupid, we get to do a facepalm like anyone else.

    …a human life has no intrinsic value to the materialist.

    You just can’t stop yourself, can you? Again you impute your own worst thoughts or the words of some unliked person as belonging to others. Materialists do recognize the intrinsic value of humans, they just arrive at that by a route different from yours. I bet eigenstate rejects your claims too.

    You said not one word to rebut your fellow materialist’s logic.

    I have before on this site, and to you. But I’ve learned not to bother. You don’t want to hear it.

    Again, Sean, if I am wrong here’s your chance to set forth arguments (not bare assertions) to demonstrate I am wrong.

    Firstly, your assertions are not presumptively correct; you have the burden to prove you are right.

    Regarding my arguments, I’ve done so elsewhere, and you’ve seen it on this site. Respond there. Or open a new thread with the solemn pledge to do this right. I don’t have an obligation to chase you from thread to thread to thread trying to get a fair hearing.

    Do you recall this Barry?

    Therefore, my goal is not only to resist [materialist ethics], but also to make the people who spout it look foolish and stupid (which is usually easy enough) in an effort to stop and perhaps to even reverse the spread of this pernicious and hazardous error.

    Why would I waste my time trying to “set forth arguments” to someone whos STATED GOAL is not rational argument but mistreatment? How does someone debate another who believes them evil? Without a modicum of respect, debate is just yelling at one another.

    sean s.

  31. 31
    Ray Martinez says:

    sean samis (msg #30):

    “….there are no objective standards, there are only subjective standards whose supporters claim them to be objective. None of them actually are objective. All standards come to us through the hands of imperfect humans and from nowhere else. UNLESS A DEITY TELLS YOU FACE-TO-FACE WHAT THE DEITY EXPECTS, everything you know about the deity passes through the hands of mere humans.”

    What is written above says human beings are unreliable sources for revelation. Where did you obtain this idea that human oracles are unreliable?

    And where did you obtain the idea that revelation is valid only if the deity speaks directly to oneself?

  32. 32
    dgosse says:

    Hi Sean

    “First; there are no objective standards, there are only subjective standards whose supporters claim them to be objective.”

    Is this an objective standard or is it your subjective opinion?

    The Greeks, Romans, and Assyrians didn’t seem to have much problem committing genocide. I read a Greek historian’s (I forget which) account of the capture of a city and the subsequent killing of all males of any age and the rape of all the women of childbearing age “as is their custom”. Even the Jews, without the Gospel of Christ, have indulged in some rather diligent cleansing and Christian adventures the same. What can be said is the only reality model that mitigates this human propensity for slaughter is the Christian model and, even then, it’s an uphill battle.

    God bless

  33. 33
    StephenB says:

    sean writes paragraph after paragraph of irrelevant nonsense,….. until he finally gets around to the main challenge of defending materialism, at which time he writes this:

    Regarding my arguments, I’ve done so elsewhere, and you’ve seen it on this site. Respond there. Or open a new thread with the solemn pledge to do this right. I don’t have an obligation to chase you from thread to thread to thread trying to get a fair hearing.

    Unbelievable. Sean’s answer is that he has already answered, as if any materialist has ever provided an answer.

    Why would I waste my time trying to “set forth arguments” to someone whos STATED GOAL is not rational argument but mistreatment? How does someone debate another who believes them evil? Without a modicum of respect, debate is just yelling at one another.

    Even more unbelievable. First sean says that he has already provided the argument. Then he says he cannot provide an argument because Barry is shouting at him.

  34. 34
    goodusername says:

    Ray,

    Please identify the immaterial deity or concept that Hitler believed in, ordered his life around?

    Hitler was a follower of “Positive Christianity”.
    In many places in Table Talk one can see Hitler denying that Jesus is a Jew – one of the tenets of Positive Christianity. Hitler may have got his religion from H. S. Chamberlain, a follower of Positive Christianity and a hero of Hitler’s.

    We know the German dictator deceived the Christian masses to gain their trust, support, and power. In reality he hated the Church and was an apostate. So what other deity is there beside the Biblical deity?

    Hitler does show much greater disdain for mainstream Christianity than what he showed publicly.

    Followers of Positive Christianity did claim to believe in the Biblical deity (or at least what was left of the Bible after they removed what they considered the “Jewish” parts – most of the OT and the Pauline letters in the NT).

    Rejection of this deity, in the West, corresponds to Atheism.

    Wow. There would be a LOT of people (including some IDists on this site) that would be surprised to learn that they are athiests.

    As for Mein Kampf said title was inspired by the concept of struggle as explicated by the Darwinists in behalf of natural selection (fully material agency).

    Uh, no. The title of Hitler’s book had nothing to do with Darwin or Darwinism.

    Hitler originally was going to call the book Four and a Half Years of Fighting Against Lies, Stupidity, and Cowardice. It was Hitler’s publisher, Max Amann, that suggested the more pithy (and marketable) Mein Kampf.

    As for his speeches: prior to his political ascendancy, as implied above, these were filled with pro-Christian propaganda. After becoming Fuhrer he let his true colors show.

    While it would be easy to flood a post with numerous quotes of Hitler from speeches and Mein Kampf attacking materialism and atheism, it would be easy to discount such public utterances as just being politics. That’s why I mostly rely on more on Table Talk. And, if anything, he’s even harsher on materialism and atheism in Table Talk.

    In any event: If Hitler said anything against Atheism or Materialism the same is contradicted by actions of unconscionable mass genocide. In short: You are as you act, and not as you say, if the two contradict.

    Based on the facts mentioned above, and mainly on the fact that he murdered tens of millions of civilians out of personal hatred, reasonable people can easily conclude that Hitler was an Atheist-Materialist.

    Sigh

  35. 35
    Ray Martinez says:

    goodusername (msg #34):

    “Followers of Positive Christianity did claim to believe in the Biblical deity (or at least what was left of the Bible after they removed what they considered the “Jewish” parts – most of the OT and the Pauline letters in the NT).”

    So Hitler was a disciple of Origen, the excommunicated?

    Where does his actions correspond to following Christ? Of course my question is rhetorical. It appears that you’re a victim of propaganda—you believe Hitler, a monster who murdered tens of millions of civilians.

    [Ray: “Rejection of this deity, in the West, corresponds to Atheism.”]

    goodusername: “Wow. There would be a LOT of people (including some IDists on this site) that would be surprised to learn that they are athiests.”

    I completely agree.

    “Hitler originally was going to call the book Four and a Half Years of Fighting Against Lies, Stupidity, and Cowardice. It was Hitler’s publisher, Max Amann, that suggested the more pithy (and marketable) Mein Kampf.”

    Publishers make title suggestions all the time. Hitler was solely responsible for naming his book. He chose the title because he was a full blooded Darwinist. I’ve already supported the claim that Hitler accepted natural selection in message #5 (which you ignored).

    And don’t get me wrong, it’s perfectly understandable as to why you don’t want a monster like Hitler in the Darwin camp. But Hitler wasn’t a Christian.

    Let us hear from another scholar, Ian Kershaw writing in “Hitler 1936 – 1945: Nemesis” (2000):

    “Hitler’s impatience with the Churches prompted frequent outbursts of hostility. In early 1937, he was declaring that ‘Christianity was ripe for destruction’….and that the Churches must yield to the primacy of the state, railing against any compromise with ‘the most horrible institution imaginable'” (pgs 39, 40).

    And Richard J. Evans, “The Third Reich In Power” (2005).

    “In July of 1935….a speaker told a meeting of the Nazi Students’ League in Bernau: ‘One is either a Nazi or a committed Christian.’ Christianity he said, ‘promotes the dissolution of racial ties and of the national racial community….We must repudiate the Old and the New Testaments, since for us the Nazi idea alone is decisive. For us there is only one example, Adolf Hitler and no one else'” (p.250).

    So again, your entire case for Hitler as some sort of Christian is based entirely on an assumption that mass murderer Adolf Hitler told the truth, and was not creating propaganda meant for the masses.

  36. 36
    bb says:

    goodusername: “What’s the IS about God that grounds ‘ought’?”

    He’s the judge of all mankind.

    Isaiah 33:22

    “For the LORD is our judge, The LORD is our lawgiver, The LORD is our king”

    Isaiah 66:16

    “For the LORD will execute judgment by fire And by His sword on all flesh, And those slain by the LORD will be many.”

    As such, He grounds ought. His law is the standard.

  37. 37
    goodusername says:

    Ray,

    So Hitler was a disciple of Origen, the excommunicated?

    Did you mean Marcion? There are some similarities between Marcion and Positive Christianity, but I’m not sure if that’s where they got their beliefs.

    Where does his actions correspond to following Christ? Of course my question is rhetorical. It appears that you’re a victim of propaganda—you believe Hitler, a monster who murdered tens of millions of civilians.

    I didn’t say that Hitler was a Christian, I said he was a follower of “Positive Christianity”. It’s just the name. I don’t know if I’d consider it a form of Christianity or not. It’s certainly far outside of mainstream Christianity.

    I believe that because it’s consistent with everything he said – not just publically but also privately. It would also be very strange to lie about being a follower of a fringe religious sect for propaganda purposes. It also makes sense considering that his biggest hero, Chamberlain, was a follower of Positive Christianity.

    I’d be amazed that that isn’t enough to convince you that Hitler was a follower of the bizarre sect – while at the same time you believe that having “struggle” in the title of a book is evidence of Darwinism – if I didn’t think that you were just trolling at this point.

    There certainly are times he lied – such as the times he showed public approval for Catholicism. And as I said, he had far more disdain for mainstream Christianity than what he showed publicly.

  38. 38

    The worth of human beings was regarded as objective fact by nazi’s, but physically different human beings had different worth. And then there was the paramount worth of the race, racial health, in which regard individuals could be conceived of as bringing the value of the race down, as parasites etc.

    They did teach about natural selection theory at the Hitler schools, and this is actually central to the workings of nazi ideology, and not some kind of ornamental in the ideology.

    http://webzoom.freewebs.com/sp.....Manual.pdf

    Nazism is an expression of the commonly human original sin of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, making what is good and evil into a (scientific) fact.

    People who engage in this sin conceive of choosing to mean to sort out the best result, using the facts about what is good and evil as the sorting criteria.

    By defining choosing in such a way, then every time a choice is made, then they did the best according to the definition of the concept of choosing they use. So they get an ego boost. And if they did not do the best, then the definition says that they did not choose it, so it must have been an accident or something, not their fault.

    That’s obviously an enormously powerful psychological mechanism, which sabotages conscience very efficiently. The phony absolute self confidence that is derived from (scientific) factual certitude about what is good and evil, and the avoidance of any guilt.

    The smugness, arrogance, perfectionism and coldhearted calculating behaviour obviously associated to this psychological mechanism, is very typical of the SS.

    In common judgement, smugness, arrogance, perfectionism, coldhearted calculation are also typical of materialists, atheists, modernists, communists, and many arbitrary individuals.

    Original sin just abounds, and can manifest itself pretty much anywhere, including in religion. However, the official doctrine in religion, the general broad outlines of the structure, of God the holy spirit, and the human soul, choosing which way things turn out, and the existence of them is a matter of opinion, runs directly counter to original sin. The emphasis on faith in religion is a rejection of making good and evil a fact. (altough…. the meaning of all these terms can all be redefined to make it consistent with original sin again)

  39. 39
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Ray M

    So Hitler was a disciple of Origen, the excommunicated?

    The German bishops excommunicated all Nazis, and therefore Hitler, in 1930.

    Nazi ideology was declared to be incompatible with Christian teaching.

    http://www.zenit.org/en/articl.....ated-nazis

  40. 40
    Ray Martinez says:

    goodusername msg #37:

    Did you mean Marcion? There are some similarities between Marcion and Positive Christianity, but I’m not sure if that’s where they got their beliefs.

    Whether Marcion or Origen I withdraw; bad argument on my apart; too much time between either and Hitler to matter.

    I didn’t say that Hitler was a Christian, I said he was a follower of “Positive Christianity”. It’s just the name. I don’t know if I’d consider it a form of Christianity or not. It’s certainly far outside of mainstream Christianity.

    You said “Poistive Christianity” was the immaterial concept that Hitler believed in, ordered his life around. In this context any adjective preceding “Christianity” is throwaway; the same applies to the remainder of your comments seen above. When Hitler is associated with Christianity in a positive light the same presupposes that he was a Christian. Yet you’ve been unable to provide any evidence that Hitler practiced Christianity. His practices or actions correspond to a person who does not believe Christ lives as the Resurrected Son of God.

    Well, you might say, what about the Crusaders? The point holds true: Their actions contradict the New Testament. People who murder are not following Christ.

    And what about the claims of Ravenscroft (and others)? How is the same compatible with “Positive Christianity”?

    I’d be amazed that that isn’t enough to convince you that Hitler was a follower of the bizarre sect – while at the same time you believe that having “struggle” in the title of a book is evidence of Darwinism – if I didn’t think that you were just trolling at this point.

    If a person’s actions contradict their claims about them self then you are as you act, and not as you claim, if the two contradict.

    Hitler titled his book Mein Kampf or “My Struggle” because he was in tune with Darwinian science, namely the struggle for survival seen in the concept of natural selection. AGAIN, I’ve already provided a mainstream citation that quotes Hitler as renouncing God and aligning himself with naturalistic science (msg #5). And I observe that it is no coincidence Darwinists were conducting their biological synthesis while Hitler was in the field selecting his perceived enemies for extinction.

    Direct correspondence exists between “My Struggle” and natural selection. Suddenly you’re unable or unwilling to acknowledge for obvious reasons. For the record: Darwinists never acknowledge damning evidence.

    And you’ve completely ignored other references provided about Hitler’s hatred of Christianity in msg #35.

    If you like you can have the last word. I assure you that I will read it. But I’m through here.

  41. 41
    goodusername says:

    Ray,

    You said “Poistive Christianity” was the immaterial concept that Hitler believed in, ordered his life around. In this context any adjective preceding “Christianity” is throwaway; the same applies to the remainder of your comments seen above. When Hitler is associated with Christianity in a positive light the same presupposes that he was a Christian. Yet you’ve been unable to provide any evidence that Hitler practiced Christianity. His practices or actions correspond to a person who does not believe Christ lives as the Resurrected Son of God.

    From everything Hitler ever said he appears to be a believer in Positive Christianity. That’s all I’m saying. I’m not arguing that Hitler was a Christian. I wouldn’t argue that anyone is a Christian – that’s hardly for me to decide.

    And what about the claims of Ravenscroft (and others)? How is the same compatible with “Positive Christianity”?

    I’m not really familiar with Ravenscroft and had to look him up.
    While many Nazis followed occultic and neo-pagan beliefs, Hitler wasn’t among them. Hitler mocks and strongly castigates the occultists and neo-pagans in the Nazi ranks in both Mein Kampf and Table Talk, as did his second in command Goerring. He did put up with them though, perhaps he liked their fanaticism and found them to be too important. This included Heimrich Himmler, Rudolf Hess, and Alfred Rosenberg.
    I think most people would be surprised how diverse the Nazi party was. Christians of many different sects, atheists, neo-pagans, were all common in the party. While “Positive Christianity” was supposedly the official position of the Nazi party, there weren’t many leading Nazis, other than Hitler, that took it seriously.

    AGAIN, I’ve already provided a mainstream citation that quotes Hitler as renouncing God and aligning himself with naturalistic science (msg #5).

    I tried to find the Sept 1938 speech talked about in #5 but there are several to choose from and none that I could find fit the description. In post #11 I give a couple of quotes from Hitler (actual quotes of Hitler himself – not quotes of people talking about Hitler). Does the first quote sound like someone “aligning himself with naturalistic science”?

    Hitler titled his book Mein Kampf or “My Struggle” because he was in tune with Darwinian science, namely the struggle for survival seen in the concept of natural selection.

    I still really doubt that even you believe that Hitler having “struggle” in the title of his book had something to do with Darwinism (especially considering his original idea for the title).

    Hitler’s ideas about racial struggle aren’t even similar to Darwin’s.

    For Darwin, the struggle wasn’t primarily about struggle between races, but between a race and its environment and between members of a race. Of course, this makes sense as the populations have to be separate in order to form into separate races in the first place. Each race that manages to adapt (the “favoured races”) to its environment then eventually becomes a new species. The whole purpose of Darwin’s theory was to explain the great diversity of life around us. This was via species forming into separate races which in turn form into new species. Of course, if races routinely wiped each other out, the theory would fail to be able to explain the very thing it was created to do.

    It was actually the leading anthropologists prior to Darwin, and Darwin’s opponents, who stressed that there was a struggle between races. You can see this in books like “The Races of Men” by Knox, “Types of Mankind” and “Indigenous Races of the Earth” by Nott and Gliddon, and “Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races” by Gobineau.

    These were the leading books on human races prior to Darwin. They all also denounced evolution. In all of these books, the running theme is that the history of humanity is a history of racial warfare, and that human races will always struggle with each other when brought in contact (this idea was so mainstream at the time that you can even find it in the speeches of both Lincoln and Douglass in their famous debates). Each of these books (and many others of the time) also claim that the white race is the superior race and the only race capable of civilization. Therefore, it was important for the white race to remain racially pure.

    Gobineau’s book is of special importance. He believed that only a particular Germanic group of the white race was capable of civilization and gave this group a name – the Aryans. Therefore, it was the upmost importance for the Aryan race to remain racially pure. He also believed that far too much miscegenation was already taking place and that if something drastic isn’t done – soon – it will be too late to save civilization from doom.

    It shouldn’t be surprising that Hitler was a fan of Gobineau: “The only people entitled to discuss racial questions are those who have read Gobineau and Chamberlain.” (Memoirs of a Confidant, pg204)

    This is why among all of the Nazis’ racial policies and ideas there is one that stands out as THE most important – racial purity.
    How does this compare to Darwinism? Darwin hardly ever spoke about racial purity. And the few times he did he was warning against it! He believed that racially pure populations seemed unhealthy. Not to mention that a population without variation cannot adapt or evolve, as there’s nothing for “nature” to “select”.
    Contrary to conventional wisdom of the time, Darwin saw nothing wrong with race mixing and believed it to be perfectly healthy.
    (The ideas that race mixing was unhealthy and unnatural – not to mention against God’s will- died very hard. Over a century after Darwin there were still anti-miscegenation laws on the books in the US!)

    Some claim that Nazism showed the danger of the new theories on races. But it was just the opposite. It was antiquated theories rearing their ugly head.

    (There’s also this interesting quote from Walter Buch, an early Nazi and friend of Hitlers:
    “When Point 24 of our program says the party stands for a positive Christianity, here above all is the cornerstone of our thinking. Christ preached struggle as did no other. His life was struggle for his beliefs, for which he went to his death.)

    And you’ve completely ignored other references provided about Hitler’s hatred of Christianity in msg #35.

    He did have great disdain for Christianity. As a follower of Positive Christianity he believed it had been corrupted by Judaism. The biggest villain for followers of Positive Christianty was Paul. They believe that the Jew, Paul, corrupted the message of the Aryan Jesus.
    Here’s an example of Hitler from Table Talk preaching Positive Christianity:

    The decisive falsification of Jesus’s doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galilean’s object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that’s why the Jews liquidated Him.
    Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely. When he learnt that Jesus’s supporters let their throats be cut for His ideas, he realised that, by making intelligent use of the Galilean’s teaching, it would be possible to overthrow this Roman State which the Jews hated.

    (And it goes on and on…)
    (Notice you never see Hitler never speaking this openly and passionately and at length about Positive Christianity in public. So, far from claiming to be a follower of Positive Christianity for political reasons, he apparently recognized that being a follower of a fringe religious group, indeed, wasn’t political advantageous, and kept it under wraps, to a degree.)

  42. 42
    sean samis says:

    Ray Martinez @31

    What is written above says human beings are unreliable sources for revelation. Where did you obtain this idea that human oracles are unreliable?

    And where did you obtain the idea that revelation is valid only if the deity speaks directly to oneself?

    To both questions I give the same answer: Logic. The whole argument against “subjective” morality is the fallibility of humans. I argue that a valid moral system can be based on reason and the facts of nature; the typical objection is that humans will misunderstand or misrepresent either or both. “Mere human thought cannot be trusted” they say. Well OK then…

    If that’s a valid objection to my idea, then humans cannot be trusted to convey any revelation to others. They may claim to be speaking accurately and truthfully for some deity, but how can the listener ever be sure? The listener never can be.

    The only way an actual revelation from a deity can be valid without direct, face-to-face communication is if the deity provided the intermediary some highly specific information that the intermediary could not have gotten anywhere else. But even then, we cannot be sure the intermediary isn’t conning us. Even the Bible cautions against false prophets. Short of some clear involvement by God, any revelation provided through another person must be regarded with suspicion.

    sean s.

  43. 43
    sean samis says:

    dgosse @32

    “First; there are no objective standards, there are only subjective standards whose supporters claim them to be objective.”

    Is this an objective standard or is it your subjective opinion?

    Neither. It’s just a fact; like 1+1=2 is a fact. UNLESS GOD SPEAKS TO YOU FACE-TO-FACE all moral standards come to you from other humans, that is simply a fact. Humans are notoriously self-serving; yet another fact.

    Like you wrote, getting humans to be good is an “uphill battle”. Trusting them too much is how you fall into their traps.

    sean s.

Leave a Reply