Let's take a look at his most recent round of comments, from this morning:
Here is a quote from someone who believed that one needed a religion in order to have an objective moral code:
"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief. The great masses of a nation are not composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people, especially faith is absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life . The various substitutes that have been offered have not shown any results that might warrant us in thinking that they might usefully replace the existing denominations." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 10
I'd've thought better of you than to incite your readers to commit the genetic fallacy, Dr Pulliam.
Besides, it's not like Hitler was a Christian. You're committing your fallacy at the expense of paganism.
I am not saying that the quote from Hitler proves anything, so I am not committing the genetic fallacy. I am merely citing a statement that he made. You are free to interpret it anyway you like.
Hitler was a Roman Catholic as I understand it and he never renounced his faith. Granted, he was not a typical RCC and he was obviously a sociopath, but he was not an atheist, as Hector Avalos clearly shows.
--I am not saying that the quote from Hitler proves anything
Oh, OK. Then...what was the point of posting it, I wonder?
--Hitler was a Roman Catholic as I understand it and he never renounced his faith
I'm no friend of the Roman Church, but I suggest you do read the link.
And I didn't claim he was an atheist. He was a pagan.
In addition, Hitler said in a proclamation to the German Nation February 1, 1933: "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." (My New Order, New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1941, p. 144.)
What is my point? My point is that one can believe that Christianity provides an objective moral code and still commit awful atrocities. The OT is full of these atrocities. So, what good is an "objective moral code" if it can lead to such acts? Christians will say, "well that it is not true Christianity ! But herein lies the problem, if the "objective moral code" of the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, how then can anyone be sure they have the correct moral code? So, to argue that one only has a sure basis for saying whether something is right or wrong, if it is based on the moral code of the Bible is misguided. My question is: "which moral code" because the Bible has several and they are contradictory. Christians cannot agree among themselves on what the "true" moral code is.
--My point is that one can believe that Christianity provides an objective moral code and still commit awful atrocities.
1) Yes, quite. Don't tell me you're unfamiliar with the biblical doctrine known as "sin".
2) I suppose we're back to your "intuiting" that these "atrocities" were "awful", aren't we? But once again, apparently Hitler "intuited" that murdering Jews was self-evidently a good thing. So the objective outside observer has to ask: how do we know who's right between you 2?
--So, what good is an "objective moral code" if it can lead to such acts?
Obviously, it tells you that they are indeed atrocities.
--if the "objective moral code" of the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, how then can anyone be sure they have the correct moral code?
Oy. This is the kind of stuff I see from the least informed atheists on teh Interwebz, sir. It's the same way I know you're questioning me about the moral code of the Bible and not telling me that Jell-O 5 no bones and the further they fly the much. This is a postmodern, worthless, conversation-killer that cuts the throat of ALL communication. Try something else, please.
--Christians cannot agree among themselves on what the "true" moral code is.
Someone who's willing (and able) to repeat the message of the Bible, whether or not he agrees with it, would know that the Bible actually predicts such things. I'm having trouble seeing what good your education did you, to be honest...