We don't need to "believe" Hitler was evil. We have factual evidence of his actions. we can agree, based on this evidence, that his deeds were indicative of the kind of wholesale damage to society that we define as "evil."
Brother, what kind of response do you expect from a person referred to by you as "real screwballs," being the subject of ridicule in a third party discussion with slyc_willie, Stella, sweetsubsarahh, xssve and anybody else that comes on this thread. You are the gamester. You are a backbiter, a gossip, an accuser of the brothern, and many more such evils described in the Bible. You say you are a Christian but I have not received on word of kindness from you nor do I expect to. You best make friends with the unbelievers because no matter how bad you say I am, no reasonable person is going to believe you are any better than I.
I'm quite content with the Wikipedia definitions thanks, yours are contradictory, to wit: "Value is objective (not intrinsic or subjective); value is based on and derives from the facts of reality (it does not derive from mystic authority or from whim, personal or social)."
Value is in fact, typically subjective in most cases, market economics is based on negotiations over value, determined by supply and demand: how much salt is a Flint stone worth, etc., value changes with supply and demand.
This is ethics, and in ethics, there is both relative and absolute value.
"Reality, along with the decision to remain in it, i.e., to stay alive—dictates and demands an entire code of values. "It objectively requires shelter, food and water in that order to sustain life - are you admitting that you need others in order to survive? That's very humanist of you. (Actually, I did not imply the need of others, but it does rather posit a mother and a father)
Logically, you've skipped a step, but we might allow that in order for any population of organisms to co-exist they need to avoid compromising each others survival to the point of extinction, one might call that a "code of values", since we are talking about a sapient species, specifically, us.
"Unlike the lower species, man does not pursue the proper values automatically; he must discover and choose them; but this does not imply subjectivism." "Lower" is a value judgment, we have not established a hierarchy, so that's superfluous - just picking, on to your defense of the main point, the repudiation of subjectivityYeah, just picking as even you would acknowledge lower forms of life but may not accept 'man' as a higher form
"Every proper value-judgment is the identification of a fact: a given object or action advances man’s life (it is good): or it threatens man’s life (it is bad or an evil). Wait, now we have good and evil, I thought you decided to dispense with mysticism above?(No mysticism, a juxtaposition of bad/evil/life threatening, but you know that)
Life is good, death is bad, we'll leave it at that for the moment.(No, we won't; good/bad equal right/wrong, true/false.)
The good, therefore, is a species of the true; it is a form of recognizing reality. The evil is a species of the false; it is a form of contradicting reality. Or: values are a type of facts; they are facts considered in relation to the choice to live."So nobody dies? Or those who die are false? I'm confused, values are facts, facts are good, life is good, value is life?(You sound confused
It's repetitious, but we're just back to life is good, death is bad, except now death is false and unreal too, so we're really getting into the mysticism now - like wow, it's sooo profound, so death is like, lying - or maybe, lying is like... death? Unreal. Anyway, it's not good, that much is clear.
Sure, you can use it if you want, life is good death is bad, you've sort of established that life has value, which is sort of self-evident in a subjective way - you're life has value anyway, no? You coulda just said that.
Now whose life is better, yours or the kiddo's? Given that both are absolute goods - somebody has to contradict reality by ceasing to metabolate, who's it gonna be?
Here is why the above statement is naive. Your definition of self-evident is incorrect. Requiring no evidence is not part of the definition of self-evident. In logic everything requires a premise, not necessarily evidence or proof, in order to be accepted as a proposition in a logical statement. You twist your words just enough to deviate from the true meaning of logic. The test of logic is not evidence or proof. It is the purity of the deduction and induction process. Most philosophers know this after thinking about it.
See, you can not point out any facts. You simply make accusations most of which are based on lies. That is the measure of your Christianity.
I thought you put me on ignore. Your language labels you so I will not have to call you names. I thought you were leaving the forum. You found out that there were as many people that were at the door saying "so long" as there were people crying for you to stay. How did that feel, seeing how you were really viewed? Keep it up, throwing turds, calling people fuckards, self-righteous, and bullies and before long you will fall over the cliff. If you want to get me out of your head, leave me alone and I will leave you alone.
d
God, look whose talking, another member of RABD.
Of course, Hitler had a superman premise for all his actions and according to atheistic logic, that makes his deeds just.
Then if this true and not a lie, which I think it will be proven to be, why do you keep talking about me in third party conversations? Admit it brother, I am in your head and you are not capable of telling the truth.
I disagree. The dicionary meaning of the ford "faith" is central to (at least most) Christians. You have to believe in the death, rescurresction and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. You don't wait for rationale or proof. You take, a leap, of faith. To try and strengthen your faith with evidence is to doubt it.
"Good" and "evil" are human value assignments, his acts inspire in me feelings of revulsion, and the soldiers who first stumbled upon the concentrations camps certainly thought of it as evil, but such a value assignment is not strictly necessary, even a sociopath would have to conclude that the holocaust was not in the interests of the greater good - in fact, it was instrumental in the Germans losing the war: they devoted a significant proportion of their transportation infrastructure to eradicating Jews, themselves the core of their trained labor force, and left their troops stranded on the banks of the Volga with winter coming on - they were wiped out, and the war turned against Germany. i.e., you can argue against it without even resorting to humanism.
Then do so, the ball is in your court, which is where my reasoning has led.
