Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Exactly where did I misrepresent him. I think I quoted him correctly.

Well you linked him with Hitler...and it's kinda a fact that Neitzche was completely against antisemitism and believed that Germany's warlike ways would end in their destruction. He also would not have approved of fascism, nazism and communism.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Since I am the only one who bothered giving anything beyond declarations my claims stand until you at least attempt it.

Huh? You mean since you included a Wiki link???

Yikes. I don't think I'm up to that level of scholarship.

Anyway, your link actually refuted your claims... so....

 

[1robin]

Well you linked him with Hitler...and it's kinda a fact that Neitzche was completely against antisemitism and believed that Germany's warlike ways would end in their destruction. He also would not have approved of fascism, nazism and communism.

There are three concepts here. Hitler, Nazism, and Nietzsche.

1. I associated Hitler with Nietzsche not Nietzsche with Hitler.
2. I associated some evils with Hitler but they were not really Nazi problems or Nietzsche's.
3. My pointy was that Nietzsche nor Nazism offered any moral clarity to dissuade what Hitler did and may have even set a stage where any objective foundation was ruled out.
4. Nietzsche depresses the heck out of me but I consider him brilliant on predicting what was at stake concerning God. I do not credit him with causing any of it.
5. Like communism and secularism it simply removes the traditional obstacles to what he dis as objective impediments.
6. A moral man may like Nietzsche but his influence does not contribute to the moral man's, morality.

 

[1robin]

Huh? You mean since you included a Wiki link???

Yikes. I don't think I'm up to that level of scholarship.

Anyway, your link actually refuted your claims... so....

It is pretty sad when 1 wiki link is a 100% improvement over your evidence, sad but true. It was a very low bar but apparently you truly were not up to that level. The fact remains I have elaborated on the claim in the past and did want to repeat myself, yet again.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is pretty sad when 1 wiki link is a 100% improvement over your evidence, sad but true. It was a very low bar but apparently you truly were not up to that level.

You're right that when it comes to Biblical scholarship, I am not at the level of typing 'biblical scholarship' into Google and claiming the Wiki link as evidence..

I hope never to be at that level.

The fact remains I have elaborated on the claim in the past and did want to repeat myself, yet again.

Sure. Yeah. If you have no argument or evidence for your position, wouldn't it be best to simply admit that?

Biblical scholars everywhere blush when you claim that they think the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. That is so fifteenth century.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

But we don't need something to tell us what Hitler did was wrong the majority of society decided it was immoral. There's still a handful of individuals who agreed with him. How is morality objective then?

For instance do you consider it moral to own another human being?

 

[1robin]

But we don't need something to tell us what Hitler did was wrong the majority of society decided it was immoral. There's still a handful of individuals who agreed with him. How is morality objective then?

Objectivity means to be independent of opinion. It was required of them even if they did not agree if God exists. This is an example of what lacking moral foundations produces. Popular opinion or might makes right. let me quickly point out just a few of the problems.

1. That would mean that if he would have won and killed off all opposition his actions would have been right.
2. Popular opinion would have also condemned Christ, Gandhi, and MLK.
3. Popular opinion also varies by time and culture and is arbitrary. Majority of who and why those borders?

I can go on but these three are enough to condemn popular opinion as a moral foundation alone. It would be just as best but still the best we can do without God. Thank God for God.

For instance do you consider it moral to own another human being?

That would depend on context. What may be a cultural aspect that was simply a necessary condition of a benevolent act would in other situations be terrible. To adopt a kid is equivalent of owning them for 18 years at least. I would personally not own anyone. However I could grant a situation crated by fallible man and their customs could make owning a human being beneficial for that person. Let me kind of illustrate this because it is a bizarre claim.

Let's say we lived in Persia or Rome and the army had just defeated another culture. The emperor or king dictated that the population of the territory was either to be left to starve and pillage their neighbors, to be massacred, or if their labor was desired could be paid for but they must be adequately provided for as well. That would be a good idea that unfortunately included a terrible aspect. However only with God does man actually have equality. Evolution never produced two equal things in history and a transcendent standard is necessary to make men equal. That's is why Christians died to free men they never met. Even if some of the people that held slaves were Christians there existed an objective criteria to say that they were wrong. Atheism does not include a self correcting objective criteria at all. This allows opposites to both be valid, like protecting the lives of convicted criminals and condemning human lives in the womb. If there is an example of moral insanity that would be it.

 

[psychoslice]

That is a claim to knowledge and has the burden of proof. Prove I created God.

God is a concept, you have never seen a god, so you can only believe there is one, and in that you create a god, just like millions of other people, with all their idea of god, you could say god is your idol that you worship.

 

[Kielbasa]

Lady B, I read your question with interest, but I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what God means to people, vis-a-vis the concept of predestination.

If you believe that God knows what will happen because everything is preordained, as is the case with omnipotence, then God is a horrible creature, because he thinks the best way to have us love him is by teaching us the lessons of sacrifice and death by giving toddlers leukemia. Some people's earthly lives (the children) are rendered meaningless for their purposes, being brief and wracked with pain, while the rest of us get to learn to cope with being miserable. At best, God is cruel and vain, which goes against everything that most religious people are taught to believe. At worst, God is a trickster and toying with people, experimenting for purposes only known to him.

As for evil, I don't buy into the concept of a single, quantifiable good and evil. Everyone has their own standards of what is right and wrong, and such concepts change across cultures and history, such that human sacrifice and genocide were once considered acceptable and bolstered by the religious authorities. If you didn't agree, then YOU were the evil one. God, if he exists, should be afforded the same benefit of the doubt.

 

[Falvlun]

My Lord, unlike man made religions that try and earn their way back to God by cutting others hearts out, taking drugs and dancing till they pass out, or creating 10,000 pages of ceremonies and rules God does 100% of the work in Christianity. Our sole necessity is belief. How in the world can that be too much?

I didn't say it was too much. I said that God's behavior was not reasonable if his desire was to have a relationship.

The cards are not stacked against us, our hearts are stacked against him. People in positions ten thousand times worse than your our ours have believed. There are people that were given miracles that denied him and people unjustly incarcerated or racked with a lifetime of pain that have loved him. It is not the evidence, it the lens through which the evidence is viewed. My case is typical. When I had more evidence that ever I lacked faith. It was only later after the good times and evidence was tempered with suffering and darkness that I could comprehend the contrast. It takes darkness to prove light is valuable and preferable in most cases.

A lucky guess is not an informed choice. Wouldn't God prefer informed believers, rather than those who simply had the good fortune to choose the correct door?

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Just the sheer wonder of creation is enough to spend a lifetime seeking it's possible creator. You have 750,000 of the most scrutinized and treasured words in human history to start with. You can theoretically understand a great deal about God from that source alone. God promises that he will meet anyone who diligently seeks him. Can you truly do that? If not can you therefor blame God. There are also hundreds of millions of people alive who claim to have met a risen Christ spiritually. How many have you requested their testimony from. Faith despite what we might believe has no neutrality. No one is on the fence even if we think we are. I can tell you may have a sincere desire for answers but have an insincere filter your looking through for them. Every statement you make is a complaint.

The beauty of the world could be the result of a multitude of gods, or none. It is hardly concrete evidence of your specific God.

As for sincerely looking for God, he was my best friend. I would wake my parents up on Sunday to take me to church. The first thing I did when I got to my college campus? Seek out a Christian group and a church to belong to.

Believe me when I say that I sincerely thought I knew and loved God.

But the realization that everyone does not have a fair shot at salvation killed Christianity for me; and shortly thereafter, I realized that my belief in God was based on the fact that Christianity said so. And if Christianity was wrong about so much, then why should I trust that it is right about the existence of God too?

Lack of sincerity was not my problem, robin. It was concern for my fellow man that was my downfall.

Death is coming like it or not, and not for any one sin alone. All of us have purposefully or inadvertently causes ripples of damage we will never know the extent of. Might as well not eliminate the only way out.

Your response here has nothing to do with what I stated.

The Bible makes it clear that all lives are punished in the same way, regardless of differences in crime. It also states that there is absolutely no way that we can please God by doing good things. Hitler is just as bad as my grandma. The rapist is just as bad as me.

How do you explain this morally? How do you explain this rationally? How do you explain this in a context of justice?

It is apparent that God is more interested in punishing bad behavior, than encouraging good behavior.

We build museums and give medals to the "innocent" who sacrifice themselves for others. God did not demand anyone die for us. Christ volunteered to fix the mess we created. he is the most beloved man that ever lived and displayed the greatest sacrifice possible. Now if you can hate that can you wonder if you do not find God?

It was not belief in him that he wanted. He said even Satan and the demons belief in him. He wanted us to belief in a sort of generalized fact of the matter. That we blew it, and he fixed it, at his own expense. It is a belief in his character and a reckoning with our he wants faith in. That last sentence does not convey an acceptance of the enormous damage sin has done and the extent of the foul. Allah hand waives sin away, God's perfect justice meant a price must be paid, only he bore it all for those who will accept it. It is not an admission of the facts he wants, it is an admission of the extent and cost of the facts.

Justice:
How exactly is justice served by killing someone who didn't commit the crime? Would you think that justice occurred if the blameless brother served life in prison for his rapist brother?

Purpose:
How does Jesus' death fix any of the damage that sin has caused? It hasn't stopped famine, earthquakes, cancer, people being nasty to each other, poverty.

I suppose you will say that it "paid the debt". What debt? Owed to whom? God? Why did God have to pay a debt owed to himself? Satan? God could just tell Satan to scram.

We don't build museums to people who set the fire to the house and tie up the family so they can't escape, so that they can look like a hero when they die in the process of saving the family.

 

[A grumpy old troll]

Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

244 pages to answer two easy questions.

The OP is Christian, so the first answer to that question is in the first chapter of her own holy book, The Bible. Suffering, pain and unfairness exist as punishment to all of humanity because of original sin, which was the betrayal of the first man and women againest Yahweh. Specifically, a McRib™ woman named Eve was convinced by a talking snake (That Yahweh allowed access in the garden) to eat magic fruit from a forbidden tree ( That Yahweh created there).

So there is your answer for question one there. Debates on Omnibenevolence or the necessitation of suffering to have free-will are irrelvant.

The answer to question two is subjective and can only be answered by you OP. From my reading of the bible, the god Yahweh seems to be a jealous, angry, spiteful, hateful, genocidal, racist and vain god ( did I miss anything?).
I have seen this question asked many times by religous people because it puzzles them yet does not puzzle me.

You are always going to have unanswered questions when a 21st century person with 21st century knowledge tries to rationalize the existence of a diety that was conceptualized by a book that was written in the bronze/ iron age by multiple people.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

244 pages to answer two easy questions.

The OP is Christian, so the first answer to that question is in the first chapter of her own holy book, The Bible. Suffering, pain and unfairness exist as punishment to all of humanity because of original sin, which was the betrayal of the first man and women againest Yahweh. Specifically, a McRib™ woman named Eve was convinced by a talking snake (That Yahweh allowed access in the garden) to eat magic fruit from a forbidden tree ( That Yahweh created there).

So there is your answer for question one there. Debates on Omnibenevolence or the necessitation of suffering to have free-will are irrelvant.

The answer to question two is subjective and can only be answered by you OP. From my reading of the bible, the god Yahweh seems to be a jealous, angry, spiteful, hateful, genocidal, racist and vain god ( did I miss anything?).
I have seen this question asked many times by religous people because it puzzles them yet does not puzzle me.

You are always going to have unanswered questions when a 21st century person with 21st century knowledge tries to rationalize the existence of a diety that was conceptualized by a book that was written in the bronze/ iron age by multiple people.

Great post. Welcome to the forum!

 

[Awkward Fingers]

244 pages to answer two easy questions.

The OP is Christian, so the first answer to that question is in the first chapter of her own holy book, The Bible. Suffering, pain and unfairness exist as punishment to all of humanity because of original sin, which was the betrayal of the first man and women againest Yahweh. Specifically, a McRib™ woman named Eve was convinced by a talking snake (That Yahweh allowed access in the garden) to eat magic fruit from a forbidden tree ( That Yahweh created there).

So there is your answer for question one there. Debates on Omnibenevolence or the necessitation of suffering to have free-will are irrelvant.

The answer to question two is subjective and can only be answered by you OP. From my reading of the bible, the god Yahweh seems to be a jealous, angry, spiteful, hateful, genocidal, racist and vain god ( did I miss anything?).
I have seen this question asked many times by religous people because it puzzles them yet does not puzzle me.

You are always going to have unanswered questions when a 21st century person with 21st century knowledge tries to rationalize the existence of a diety that was conceptualized by a book that was written in the bronze/ iron age by multiple people.

:clap

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Objectivity means to be independent of opinion. It was required of them even if they did not agree if God exists. This is an example of what lacking moral foundations produces. Popular opinion or might makes right. let me quickly point out just a few of the problems.

1. That would mean that if he would have won and killed off all opposition his actions would have been right.
2. Popular opinion would have also condemned Christ, Gandhi, and MLK.
3. Popular opinion also varies by time and culture and is arbitrary. Majority of who and why those borders?

I can go on but these three are enough to condemn popular opinion as a moral foundation alone. It would be just as best but still the best we can do without God. Thank God for God.

That would depend on context. What may be a cultural aspect that was simply a necessary condition of a benevolent act would in other situations be terrible. To adopt a kid is equivalent of owning them for 18 years at least. I would personally not own anyone. However I could grant a situation crated by fallible man and their customs could make owning a human being beneficial for that person. Let me kind of illustrate this because it is a bizarre claim.

Let's say we lived in Persia or Rome and the army had just defeated another culture. The emperor or king dictated that the population of the territory was either to be left to starve and pillage their neighbors, to be massacred, or if their labor was desired could be paid for but they must be adequately provided for as well. That would be a good idea that unfortunately included a terrible aspect. However only with God does man actually have equality. Evolution never produced two equal things in history and a transcendent standard is necessary to make men equal. That's is why Christians died to free men they never met. Even if some of the people that held slaves were Christians there existed an objective criteria to say that they were wrong. Atheism does not include a self correcting objective criteria at all. This allows opposites to both be valid, like protecting the lives of convicted criminals and condemning human lives in the womb. If there is an example of moral insanity that would be it.

There is no such thing as objective morality. Even if a god proclaims some moral code, it is still a subjective one. The problems with Abrahamic morality are well-known and have been picked over to death. Members of the various Abrahamic religions cannot even agree on a clear moral code. The morality of your god is just as self-serving as any human's. It's not based on what is good for humanity, but what is good for its own petty ego. Your god will commit genocide (or command its followers to do so), kill almost all life on Earth, throw billions of us into eternal hell, impose ridiculous restrictions on us that almost no one can really live up to just to serve its own selfish desires. The morality of the Bible god is not based on "love" or "good" for its creations, it's based on "worship me" and "love me". It's based on its own narcissism.

 

[CG Didymus]

A lucky guess is not an informed choice. Wouldn't God prefer informed believers, rather than those who simply had the good fortune to choose the correct door?

A lot of fundy Christians are informed, some are indoctrinated, some are lucky and just born into it and do very little else, but still say, "I know in my heart it's true."

The beauty of the world could be the result of a multitude of gods, or none. It is hardly concrete evidence of your specific God.

Christians love saying this. It gives an answer to the "What about the poor tribal person that never heard of Jesus?" But that person and the rest of us have to deal with the ugly things of creation, tornadoes, tidal waves, volcanoes and things falling at us from outer space. It's kind of weird that God set up the Earth in a Russian roulette game with meteors and comets.

 

[CG Didymus]

There is no such thing as objective morality.

So there's supposedly an "objective morality" from a very subjective thing called "Christianity" that has a very subjective view on who God is. Of course, I guess, his Word, the Bible, is objective. We all agree on what that says and means.

 

[johnhanks]

This is semantic splitting of hairs.

No, it absolutely is not. There is a very clear distinction between the brain's capacity (indeed compulsion) to make right/wrong distinctions and the specific list of rights and wrongs that a given society defines. If you cannot see this distinction, you are not looking very hard.

When I mean morality, as almost everyone does, I mean objective moral truths ... I do not care what language you dress up opinion or preference in morals based on evolution (which validate mass murder and slavery just as well)...

Yes indeed, almost everyone in every society in history has believed they possessed "objective moral truths". And yes, these have often validated mass murder and slavery - which, considering that our moral truths repudiate such abominations, strongly suggests that someone's "objective moral truths" were not in fact entirely objective. How do you demonstrate that your objective moral truths are the genuine article, while those stoutly upheld by the slave-owning Roman were not?

The Jews were not rounded up based on Nazism nor were Arians validated as being superior. That came to pass based on Hitler's and his henchmen's understanding of evolution and a strange Tibetan mysticism.

Surely even you cannot really be suggesting that Hitler became an anti-Semitic Aryan supremacist only after reading Darwin. In Nazism, nationalist and racist thuggery came first; only later did its leaders scrabble around for whatever intellectual underpinnings they thought might lend it legitimacy - including the example of Jesus:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. .. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison

As I said before, no serious argument could be fashioned from this to show that Nazism was based on its adherents' Christian faith; their connection to evolutionary ideas was just as flimsy and confected.

 

[johnhanks]

A consistent theme we read in the posts of conservative Christians in this thread and elsewhere is the alleged role of evolutionary theory as a facilitator of racist and fascist ideologies. If this were indeed the case, it would seem anomalous to say the least that the world's most ardent racists have also been among the most outspoken critics of evolution:

Teaching evolution in South African schools has always been a no-no. Apartheid outlawed it...

The Klan also organized to oppose the teaching of evolution in schools ...

The Klan vowed to take up Bryan's anti-evolution cause, and a defrocked Klan official formed a short-lived rival group called the Supreme Kingdom, "whose primary purpose was carrying on Bryan's crusade against teaching evolution" (Larson EJ. Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion. New York: Basic Books, 1997) ... Writing in the revealingly titled Christian Patriot Crusader, one Christian Identity writer asserts that Jews are satanic, that blacks are not human, and that evolution is a "satanically inspired Jewish fable".

We might also note that in the USA evolution has made least headway in the states which most strongly opposed desegregation.

Why, if evolutionary theory does indeed underpin racism, have racists persistently rejected it and opposed its teaching in their schools?

(PS: purists may rightly say this is off-topic; but this thread has wandered so far in its 290 pages that my conscience is untroubled by the digression.)

 

[1robin]

There is no such thing as objective morality. Even if a god proclaims some moral code, it is still a subjective one.

Morality is not true because picked a selection of actions from a list and pronounced them good. God did not choose morality God is morality, he is the locus of moral truth. Moral truths are part of his eternal nature and mot selected from some external source. In the same way that circles are objective properties of circles and 90 degree angles of squares. Moral truths are an inherent component of an omnipotent and eternal being. At no time, no place, and to no one have they not been true. If that is not objective then the term has no meaning.

Now if God did not exists morality can only be relative, subjective, and ambiguous, it can literally be anything. But with God no fact is more absolute, transcendent, and objective. This Euthyphro dilemma is flawed form it's premise onward.

The problems with Abrahamic morality are well-known and have been picked over to death. Members of the various Abrahamic religions cannot even agree on a clear moral code. The morality of your god is just as self-serving as any human's. It's not based on what is good for humanity, but what is good for its own petty ego. Your god will commit genocide (or command its followers to do so), kill almost all life on Earth, throw billions of us into eternal hell, impose ridiculous restrictions on us that almost no one can really live up to just to serve its own selfish desires. The morality of the Bible god is not based on "love" or "good" for its creations, it's based on "worship me" and "love me". It's based on its own narcissism.

Well hat did not take long. Within a paragraph of insisting on only a morally ontological point the non-theist will launch into pure epistemology. It is like an unstoppable force. I will not bite but I will at least explain why for this first time.

1. God is still the objective source for any possible moral truth even if no one on earth had any idea what they were. In the same way the Pluto existed objectively before anyone was aware of it.
2. His morality cannot be judged by created or evolved people because they have no criteria which supersede him. I hated divine command theory because it seemed to conveniently but it is so true I had to adopt it. If a God exists whatever he did is by necessity right. He is the judge, we have no standards possible to condemn him objectively. I think Allah stinks but I can only say we are not compatible. I have no basis available to declare him wrong. You will I am sure insist otherwise based on emotion but you cannot supply a single meaningful methodology by which you could condemn any omnipotent beings actions objective because they do not exist anymore than round squares.
3. If you think the Jews (specifically their God given laws) wrong then you MUST have a higher standard by which you can judge them. Human intuition and opinion (especially non-God given) is so obviously corrupt and insufficient as to not have any application at all. Whether God is right or wrong can not be determined by human preference and reason.
4. God's perfect moral character is not defined by Levitical law. Levitical law in many cases is said to be the direct result of human weakness and rebellion. For instance divorce and servitude are hated by God but passively allowed as cultural necessities. I have written extensively on both, for example it laws concerning servitude (applying slavery with it's 19th century baggage is not valid) were the most benevolent of any known ANE code.


In summary God's moral code is as absolute and objective as anything possibly could be. There exists no criteria by which to judge the author of moral criteria and truth. The epistemological issues concerning individual Jews do not condemn God and at best are a pale reflection of his moral perfection. Even if you could find some actual deficiency with God based morals there are infinitely more without God as a foundation. A theist has everything available to him that you do plus the possibility of a God given conscience and objective foundations. It is a vast net gain in every category.

 

[1robin]

No, it absolutely is not. There is a very clear distinction between the brain's capacity (indeed compulsion) to make right/wrong distinctions and the specific list of rights and wrongs that a given society defines. If you cannot see this distinction, you are not looking very hard.

I made the distinction, I am certainly not ignoring it. Going way back to the Greeks and the Roman's (mallum in se / prohibitum concepts) morality has two components but one more associated with the term that the other. It can mean actions against a human derived ethical system. This is all that is available without God and is insufficient for justice and truth. The other is it's classic interpretation concerning acts against objective good or evil. This is what people think of when morality is mentioned most of the time and only available if God exists. I can get extremely technical and semantic about the two if you want but since I thought you understood the difference I was hoping to avoid doing so.

Yes indeed, almost everyone in every society in history has believed they possessed "objective moral truths". And yes, these have often validated mass murder and slavery - which, considering that our moral truths repudiate such abominations, strongly suggests that someone's "objective moral truths" were not in fact entirely objective. How do you demonstrate that your objective moral truths are the genuine article, while those stoutly upheld by the slave-owning Roman were not?

It never fails. If you will review you will find no matter how emphatically I make the ontological nature of my claims and resist the epistemological aspect I only get back the latter. You just can't stop it. They are two distinct issues. The fact most people apprehend an objective moral realm is great evidence there is one. Just as getting 2 + 2 wrong does not invalidate objective mathematics getting morals wrong does not discount moral truth. If everyone perceived that Pluto existed but 20% thought it square the worst possible conclusion is that it does not exist. Epistemology has no application or effect on foundations. If God exists moral truths exist even if everyone did the opposite.

Surely even you cannot really be suggesting that Hitler became an anti-Semitic Aryan supremacist only after reading Darwin. In Nazism, nationalist and racist thuggery came first; only later did its leaders scrabble around for whatever intellectual underpinnings they thought might lend it legitimacy - including

It is not my opinion it is his own words.

In Mein Kampf (1924-25), Hitler expressed his views on the natural world, largely as an analogy and justification for his racialist views on human society. It is clear that he saw struggle for survival, and natural selection based on this struggle, as crucial to the lives of animals, as outlined these excerpts:


“”Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency.[2]



“”By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species.[2]
Hitler and evolution - RationalWiki

There is no question social ideas derived from Darwinian evolution were used by him as justification. They had been popularized by Huxley and were a kind of rage at the time. I find many of them logical deductions from evolution but some may not be. The point is he used them and no criteria existed without God to condemn him objectively. It would have been one personas opinion against another without a judge available.

the example of Jesus:
As I said before, no serious argument could be fashioned from this to show that Nazism was based on its adherents' Christian faith; their connection to evolutionary ideas was just as flimsy and confected.

This is a little different but it makes all the difference. Just like evolution Hitler used religion as an excuse to do as he wished. The advantage I have is that I have the bible as a judge. I can show that without doubt he did not have a single verse to justify any of his terrible crimes. It is still a difference of opinion but in this case a judge is available to rule objectively. He in fact never had any faith resembling Christianity (he simply stuck the term on what he invented to legitimize it by association). What he believe is a confusing blending of cult practices, mysticism, social Darwinism, Nietzsche's philosophy, and the desire to court Catholic influence. I need not try and dismiss his claims I can show them wrong concerning Christianity because unlike evolution or atheisms there exists an objective criteria to judge by.