Do Athiests have morals?

[Rick O'Shez]

Completely useless without the accompanying data.

Yes, the useful figure would be % of population in prison for each faith group. I'm sure somebody has worked it out.

 

[McBell]

Yes, the useful figure would be % of population in prison for each faith group. I'm sure somebody has worked it out.

Your post is a bad argument simply because you are not presenting all the pertinent facts.
You are merely presenting half the data.
Is your presentation of only half the data out of ignorance or dishonesty?

To be an honest presentation you will need present the ratios outside of incarceration and compare them to the ratios of those incarcerated.
All you have done is present the incarcerated half.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

To be an honest presentation you will need present the ratios outside of incarceration and compare them to the ratios of those incarcerated.
All you have done is present the incarcerated half.

I was just agreeing with you - it was Harikrish who posted the figures, not me.

 

[McBell]

I was just agreeing with you - it was Harikrish who posted the figures, not me.

Huh?

Oops.
My apologies.

Seems I need to pay better attention to who is posting what.

 

[Cephus]

Murder and war are part of the animal kingdom - Chimps murder and wage war. Evolutionary biology has strained a bit to try to explain alrtuistic behavior.

No, actually it hasn't. Human "altruistic" behavior (said because there's no such thing as true altruism) is based on enlightened self-interest. We want to be treated a certain way so we treat others that way in hopes that they will reciprocate toward us. It's not altruism, we get something out of it, at least we hope we will.

 

[sun rise]

No, actually it hasn't. Human "altruistic" behavior (said because there's no such thing as true altruism) is based on enlightened self-interest. We want to be treated a certain way so we treat others that way in hopes that they will reciprocate toward us. It's not altruism, we get something out of it, at least we hope we will.

In the science of ethology (the study of behavior), and more generally in the study of social evolution, on occasion, some animals do behave in ways that reduce their individual fitness but increase the fitness of other individuals in the population; this is a functional definition of altruism.[7] Research in evolutionary theory has been applied to social behaviour, including altruism. Cases of animals helping individuals to whom they are closely related can be explained by kin selection, and are not considered true altruism. Beyond the physical exertions that in some species mothers and in some species fathers undertake to protect their young, extreme examples of sacrifice may occur. One example is matriphagy (the consumption of the mother by her offspring) in the spider Stegodyphus; another example is a male spider allowing a female fertilized by him to eat him. Hamilton's rule describes the benefit of such altruism in terms of Wright's coefficient of relationship to the beneficiary and the benefit granted to the beneficiary minus the cost to the sacrificer. Should this sum be greater than zero a fitness gain will result from the sacrifice.

Altruism (biology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nakosis]

An interesting link concerning this. The Evolutionary Biology of Altruism | Psychology Today

People find patterns where they have the self-interest to do so. That's what the mind does, puts together a jigsaw puzzle with many pieces missing, imagine what those missing pieces might be and convinces itself that it has knowledge of the whole picture.

It only means what we already know, that the mind is exceptionally creative.

My objection is simply that if this were genetic then I would have been born with an altruistic trait. I was not. I was not altruistic as a child or an adult. My nature changed as I learned of spiritual ideas and learned the idealism of men I came to admire.

What we need to survive is cooperation not altruism. There are many other ways to gain that cooperation. Like common self-interest. We can work together to accomplish common goals without the need of altruism.

Doesn't seem much of a survival trait. If everyone one in the group sacrificing their own interests for everyone else, then none would survive.

 

[Cephus]

Altruism (biology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Altruism means "the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others." People simply do not help others and get nothing out of it. At the very least, they get a dose of feel-good chemicals in the brain. That jolt of serotonin is a powerful motivator for a lot of people. True altruism, where you get nothing, simply doesn't exist. Whether you do so consciously or purposely or not, you're going to get something from your actions.

 

[1robin]

Yes, actually morality is a byproduct of evolution but there's nothing illusory about it. If you need to believe that your "objective morality" comes from a god that's fine but we understand that it came from evolution. If believing that morality comes from a god makes you more likely to behave morally then go for it. That is what religion is for. But if you are interested in knowing more about where morality actually came from you might read for example The Evolution of Morality

You do not know that, no one knows that, and no one would know that even if it was true, and even if it was true and even if we could know it was true it would be a horrific foundation for morality. However it is not true nor can it possibly be. Evolution (Social Darwinism) can only produce rules or tendencies not moral facts. Even those tendencies if actually based on evolution would be brutal. Hitler literally said he justified his actions by watching nature. If evolution did produce ethics then it would produce horrific ones.

Given evolution why should I not murder every single other person on earth that competes with my tribe for resources and does not contribute to my tribe? Why should we not euthanize the infirm, sterilize the insane, or destroy anyone that burdens the rest of society? Why should you care more about the death of a child than for the thousands of insects you have killed? Both are biological anomalies without inherent worth, dignity, or sanctity.

We are not discussing which moral system makes me act the best, we are discussing the nature of morality given God or without God. In fact without God good, evil, justice, equality between men, the sanctity of life, and rights no longer have any meaning. Even Jefferson (no Christian) knew of no other source for rights except God.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

We are not discussing which moral system makes me act the best, we are discussing the nature of morality given God or without God.

So are you saying that if you became an atheist you would suddenly become completely immoral? Really?

 

[1robin]

You certainly can't do it with God either. The OT is filled of God running around murdering people and ordering his "chosen people" to commit genocide. History is full of case after case of Christians murdering because they thought God told them to. Hitler was absolutely convinced that God ordered the Holocaust. Yeah, real moral there.

No there is not. What separates killing from murder is justification. Claiming God was unjustified is simply beyond our ability to determine. So you do not have access to what you need to in order for your statement to be true. I can explain the justifications God had for even things as shocking as the wars with the Canaanites and Moabites if necessary but I will wait until you request I do so because it takes a while to explain and I have done so in many threads already in great detail. I will list a few comments that bear upon what you have said in no particular order.

1. You simply have no possible way to know if God had moral justification for killing. As a being who has sovereignty over all life and created all life you face a insurmountable challenge to indict him. Now I really can't know he did have justification but I can explain the justification it is claimed he had for his acts. There are a couple I have yet to resolve but virtually all the major judgments I can give the theoretical justification for upon request.
2. It was not Genocide. The Canaanites for example were not killed because they were Canaanites but because of the evil the society had perpetuated. This gets complex but if asked I will explain.
3. Yes history is full of Christians who have killed and claimed God was on their side but the question is was he? I can claim Thor told me to burn your house down but unless Thor exists and actually told me to it is my problem not Thor's. Not one single verse in the NT justifies violence for any reason. The events you refer to occurred long before Christians existed. The OT verses that justify killing unlike the Quran are not open ended and general but apply to a tiny group of people, for a specific time period that ended more than 2000 years ago, and dealt with less than 1% on the ANE.
4. However lets take what Christians have done in context (whether God was involved or not). If you added up the conquests, the 100 years war, the 400 years of the inquisition, the witch trials, plus all the crusades less people died than just in the Atheist utopia under Stalin alone. Even the minor league atheists like Pol Pot, Mao, and Ceausescu killed more than God did in the entire bible and they did not create those lives nor have sovereignty over them.
5. Hitler hated Christianity. He initially courted the church's influence and acted in order to get it. When he did not he turned on them with a vengeance. If you read Hitler's later personal letters when the veneer was off you will easily see this.

Hitler was NOT a Christian. He hated Christianity. If he made any public remarks in support of Christianity, that was because he was in public and would lie or obfuscate to appease a crowd at times. Hitler was opposed to atheism because he was a spiritual man: “atheism… is a return to the state of the animal…” (Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 59). But opposition to atheism doesn’t make anyone a Christian. Nazism was his religion, an authentic religion of his own creation (yes, life is SO much better when people create their own personal religions in a search for “authenticity,” ha).
Hitler’s Table Talk is a compilation of sayings by Hitler in private conversations that were recorded by other Nazis. It is a good source for what Hitler really thought.
“…the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 61
“It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 61
“In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 6
“Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 145
“As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 394
“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 418
“The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the Roman world were proof against this doctrine.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 75-76
“When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 145
“Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn’t, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 343-344
“Pure Christianity—the Christianity of the catacombs—is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 146
“Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it’s the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back fifteen centuries.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 322
“The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 7
“But Christianity is an invention of sick brains : one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 144
“It took fourteen centuries for Christianity to reach the peak of savagery and stupidity.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 314
“Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 7
“We must recognise, of course, that, amongst us, Christianity is coloured by Germanism.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 46
“We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 62
“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 51
“By nature the Duce is a freethinker, but he decided to choose the path of concessions. For my part, in his place I’d have taken the path of revolution. I’d have entered the Vatican and thrown everybody out—reserving the right to apologise later: “Excuse me, it was a mistake.” But the result would have been, they’d have been outside!” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 145
“So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 59
“But, even so, it’s impossible eternally to hold humanity in bondage with lies. After all, it was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed on our peoples by princes who had an alliance of interests with the shavelings. Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 143
“Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers—already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity!—then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 667 (Talk about Islamo-fascism!)
“The priests of antiquity were closer to nature, and they sought modestly for the meaning of things. Instead of that, Christianity promulgates its inconsistent dogmas and imposes them by force. Such a religion carries within it intolerance and persecution. It’s the bloodiest conceivable.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 322-323
“One cannot succeed in conceiving how much cruelty, ignominy and falsehood the intrusion of Christianity has spelt for this world of ours. If the misdeeds of Christianity were less serious in Italy, that’s because the people of Rome, having seen them at work, always knew exactly the worth of the Popes before whom Christendom prostrated itself.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 288
“With what clairvoyance the authors of the eighteenth, and especially those of the past, century criticised Christianity and passed judgment on the evolution of the Churches!” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 88
“When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 59
“The fact that the Japanese have retained their political philosophy, which is one of the essential reasons for their successes, is due to their having been saved in time from the views of Christianity.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 393
“This terrorism in religion is the product, to put it briefly, of a Jewish dogma, which Christianity has universalised and whose effect is to sow trouble and confusion in men’s minds.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 393
“It may be asked whether concluding a concordat with the churches wouldn’t facilitate our exercise of power…. I’m convinced that any pact with the Church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful character of such a compromise. Thus the State will have based its existence on a foundation that one day will collapse.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pp. 58-59
“It is to these private customs that peoples owe their present characters. Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.” -Hitler’s Table Talk, pg 60
More links:


What Hitler actually believed was a combination of Nietzsche, SOCIAL DARWINISM, Tibetan mysticism, and being nuts. He presented Nietzsche's books to both Mussolini and Stalin. I am sure you do not agree with Hitler but you both had the same moral foundations. Social Darwinism. Read his later diaries and letters.

 

[Cephus]

Hitler literally said he justified his actions by watching nature.

Funny, not according to Hitler. In fact, in Mein Kampf, Hitler said:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

 

[1robin]

So are you saying that if you became an atheist you would suddenly become completely immoral? Really?

Quote anything I have said in any thread that even hints at that. This is the same epistemological appeal to emotional victimhood that taints every discussion on morality between an atheist and a Christian. I know it is coming and even if I head it off and explain in detail before hand I get this response anyway so I gave up trying to stop it.

Atheists can be as moral as any Christian but they can't justify their morality on any objective basis. You may not murder anyone but you have no foundation for making murder actually wrong. With God my morals and yours can be true and objectively founded, without God we can still act the same way in a moral context but those morals are not true and have no foundation in objective fact.

 

[1robin]

I see your point. Most of the world don't believe in your God and his "objective morality" so most of the people in the world are immoral or amoral? and the only thing preventing them from murdering other people is that murdering people isn't fashionable in their society.

What? 1 out of 3 people believe in my God. 2 out of 3 or more believe in a God. Your the minority in this context. Regardless none of this is relevant or related to what I was saying.

Let me ask this one. Which is more likely to stop more murders from occurring?

1. The idea that humans have no more value than any other biological anomaly, there is no ultimate accountability, human life has no actual sanctity, man has no inherent dignity, and we are not specially related to the moral locus of the universe.

or

2. We have inherent worth, we are given infinite objective value with the moral locus of the universe, there is ultimate accountability, we have dignity, human life has sanctity, and there is a purpose for each life.

 

[1robin]

God is not morality nor is his morality objective. We should know because we are all created in his image.

That is one bizarre interpretation. We are moral agents like God (that is what in the likeness actually means). We are not morally perfect, infinite in knowledge, power, or glory. We are a pale reflection not redundant duplicates. If God's nature is not objective the word has no meaning.

Genesis 1:26.
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

The objective morality appears to be mans domination of all creation which has been the common theme since the creation of the universe. In fact God has tried to intervene by trying to impose on man his subjective reactions to our actions.

Things have the value their creator assigned. We are his principle creation and so our inherent dominance naturally follows but that dominance is required to be exercised responsibly.

Genesis 11:6
"Look!" he said. "The people are united, and they all speak the same language. After this, nothing they set out to do will be impossible for them!

Ok, what is the point?

Genesis 11:7
Come, let's go down and confuse the people with different languages. Then they won't be able to understand each other."

If these are premise I see no conclusions yet.

So God's morality is subjective. He makes the rules as he goes along. God did not adequately protect the tree of knowledge from Adam. He is now concerned man has grown independent and exercising his free will and domination on the world around him. But that was how and why we were created....to rule over the fish, birds and the universe.

No, God's nature (the moral locus of the universe) does not change but his commands involve two parties. One's nature (meaning us) does change and so God applies his commands based on his unchanging nature over time as our natures change. The exact same way a parents nature is to love their child and does not change but their rules do change as the child ages.

I do not know if the tree is symbolic or literal but the lesson is not about fruit. God's purpose is love, love requires freewill, freewill requires the capacity to abuse it, this necessitates negative results. God gave them the entire planet and said not to do only one thing and explained the consequences. Anything further is coercion not freedom.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Atheists can be as moral as any Christian but they can't justify their morality on any objective basis.

Belief in God is a belief and therefore subjective - I don't see how it's "an objective basis".

 

[1robin]

Yes, but that was not my question. i agree that if your God existed, then it could be the surce of objectivity. I also agree that divine command theory is the one with more phylosophical consistency under the premise of theism. But this explains objectivity only under the premise that such God exists.

That is why this argument is an if then statement. It usually goes like this in formal circles.

1. If objective morality exists then God exists.
2. There is virtually a universal comprehension of an objective moral realm.
3. It is reasonable to conclude there for God exists.

My question concerns the reverse proposition: how do you define the objectivity of a certain, possibly controversial, moral predicate P (e.g. Death penalty for murderers is OK), in the absence of any other assumption or premise?

That is not a ontological question it is an epistemological one. One I get in every case no matter how hard I try to prevent it. The nature of a thing is independent from how we come to know about the thing. I am not really making a point about any specific moral. I am not saying X is true or Y. I am saying that if God exists then there is a set or morals that are objective even if no one knew what is in that set. If you want to discuss what morals are true or objectively factual that is fine but that is another conversation.

More specifically, is it possible to define such an objectivity we can tap on without appealing to any God?

No, in moral contexts the only way a single objective moral fact can exist is if God does.

Ciao

- viole

It seems we are really having a problem connecting here. I hope I understood you correctly but I am still unsure why your saying what you are.

1. Are you trying to see if objective moral facts exists without God?
2. Trying to decide what moral duties exist specifically?
3. Or are you trying to critique my argumentation?

 

[Cephus]

No there is not. What separates killing from murder is justification. Claiming God was unjustified is simply beyond our ability to determine. So you do not have access to what you need to in order for your statement to be true. I can explain the justifications God had for even things as shocking as the wars with the Canaanites and Moabites if necessary but I will wait until you request I do so because it takes a while to explain and I have done so in many threads already in great detail. I will list a few comments that bear upon what you have said in no particular order.

No, you can ASSERT justifications that you BELIEVE God had but you cannot actually explain them because you have no way of actually knowing, any more than you can know that God even exists. Let's just get that out there right now, you've got nothing but blind faith and personal opinion about any of this.

1. You simply have no possible way to know if God had moral justification for killing. As a being who has sovereignty over all life and created all life you face a insurmountable challenge to indict him. Now I really can't know he did have justification but I can explain the justification it is claimed he had for his acts. There are a couple I have yet to resolve but virtually all the major judgments I can give the theoretical justification for upon request.

Neither do you. That's the thing, while I don't pretend to be able to justify any of this, YOU DO! According to you, you know the mind of God, which is more real than you'd want to admit because God is just a figment of your imagination.

2. It was not Genocide. The Canaanites for example were not killed because they were Canaanites but because of the evil the society had perpetuated. This gets complex but if asked I will explain.

You're just rationalizing. The Bible is full of God-commanded evil. Heck, let's look at 1 Samuel 15:3, which reads: "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***." Want to explain how infants, oxen and sheep are evil? Really? Or how about Judges 21:10-24, which reads: "So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes."

Apparently, God can command his chosen people to go out and rape women too. Murder everyone, evil or not, but keep the virgins for yourself! Yeah, that's some ********* deity you have there.

3. Yes history is full of Christians who have killed and claimed God was on their side but the question is was he? I can claim Thor told me to burn your house down but unless Thor exists and actually told me to it is my problem not Thor's. Not one single verse in the NT justifies violence for any reason. The events you refer to occurred long before Christians existed. The OT verses that justify killing unlike the Quran are not open ended and general but apply to a tiny group of people, for a specific time period that ended more than 2000 years ago, and dealt with less than 1% on the ANE.

History is full of people who have killed in the name of lots of supposed gods, you are right. That doesn't mean they did, many of them were insane, many of them were just trying to justify their actions. Hitler claimed he killed because God commanded it too. But what you're not catching here is that nobody has proven God is any more real than Thor. If you burn down my house and claim God told you to do it, it's entirely on you, not on God because God, so far as any objective evidence has shown, isn't any more real than Thor is. Saying "God was only a dick for part of the OT" really isn't that impressive.

4. However lets take what Christians have done in context (whether God was involved or not). If you added up the conquests, the 100 years war, the 400 years of the inquisition, the witch trials, plus all the crusades less people died than just in the Atheist utopia under Stalin alone. Even the minor league atheists like Pol Pot, Mao, and Ceausescu killed more than God did in the entire bible and they did not create those lives nor have sovereignty over them.

But Stalin never acted because of his atheism, he acted because of his communism. He never once ever said he killed anyone because he was an atheist. Never. Not once. The same goes for the others. Atheism was no more involved in Stalin's crimes than he having a mustache was.

5. Hitler hated Christianity. He initially courted the church's influence and acted in order to get it. When he did not he turned on them with a vengeance. If you read Hitler's later personal letters when the veneer was off you will easily see this.

I have. That doesn't change the fact that he made just as many statements claiming Christianity, the RCC supported him and his regime, even after the war when they smuggled Nazis out of Germany under Catholic Red Cross visas. You can't claim that they were afraid of Hitler's vengeance, he was dead. Whether you like it or not or agree with it or not, he said he was a Christian, I'm going to accept that he was a Christian, the same way I'll accept that Stalin was an atheist. After all, Stalin was raised to be a Catholic priest and, once in office, resurrected the Russian Orthodox Church, re-opened many theological schools and the Moscow Theological Academy Seminary, thus doing away with the ridiculous idea that Stalin outlawed religion in communist Russia. But hey, I can accept he was an atheist.

 

[1robin]

Belief in God is a belief and therefore subjective - I don't see how it's "an objective basis".

Because God is a necessary being according to modal logic. Belief in a thing has no relevance to it's nature if it does exist.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Because God is a necessary being according to modal logic.

You'll need to explain that.
I think your assertion that there is an "objective morality" rests on some very shaky circular reasoning - effectively you're trying to prove God by asserting "objective morality" and then trying to prove "objective morality" by asserting God. Like many theological arguments it sounds clever but doesn't stand close scrutiny. Sophisticated eel-wriggling.