If moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God, then God is one confused, mixed up motherfucker... — creativesoul

It's one thing for a person to accept the proposition that a God exists. It's quite another to accept that he exists AND is not a mixed up motherfucker... :razz:

I was just taking that line of thinking to it's logical conclusion...

:wink:

I think we have paid attention.

However, if countries with higher GDP per capita are less likely to tie belief in God to morality, this would appear to confirm the position of theists, viz., that the wealthier people are, the more they are inclined to believe in material possessions and less in God.

Otherwise put, man cannot have two masters, it’s either God or Mammon (Matthew 6:24). And the rich often go for the latter. The article seems to support this. — Apollodorus

Do interests in hobbies music science poetry gardening philosophy count as belief in material possessions?

The title of the thread states it. And you stated it too, for why else did you make this observation:

Some people have moral norms and values despite not believing in God. — creativesoul

Do you think those of us who believe morality requires God would disagree with that? Do you think it presents some kind of a challenge to the view that morality requires God? Or were you just saying stuff?

None of that follows. First, nothing stops God from telling some people to do one thing and others to do another. Second, it is conceptually confused to think God could be confused. God is omnipotent and omniscient and thus is not confused. Third, as God is omnipotent he could have given us perfect knowledge of his attitudes if he so wished. As he has not, this tells us something, namely that he isn't particularly bothered about what we get up to or that we know what his attitudes are.

Comprehension, on the other hand, and non-superficial reading skills, are very good to have on a philosophy website. What you said here I covered in the first one or two sentences in the same post that you are critiquing. — god must be atheist

I was not critiquing anything, mind you.

We differ on well-documented facts — 180 Proof

Facile anti Catholic hatred aside, it is a fact that the Catholic Church resisted Nazism to a greater degree than any other Christian denomination.

It is also a historical fact that the Nazis tried to arianize the Jesus story. They made of Jesus a Viking, and called it "positive Christianity" as opposed to the traditional forms of Christianity. What do you think them darn papists thought of this splendid idea?

Facile anti Catholic hatred aside, it is a fact that the Catholic Church resisted Nazism to a greater degree than any other Christian denomination. — Olivier5

This must be why in Anno Domini 1998 His Holiness the fucking the Pope issued an official apology for the role Catholics had played in and during the Shoah:

http://tech.mit.edu/V118/N13/bvatican.13w.html

The apology was for not having done anything to stop the Holocaust, not for "their role in the Holocaust". Try again, with less hatred in your heart.

Sin of omission – "not having done anything to stop the Holocaust" – is the role played by the Catholic Church in most, predominantly right-wing Catholic (i.e. fascist) countries, which is why John Paul II had apologized to the Jewish survivors. Your denials are ignorant and sad, sir. :shade:

If that's your story, go for it

Any time now, the anti-papists are going to tell us all the good deeds done by the Lutherans, the Evangelicals and the Methodists to stop to Holocaust.

The apology was for not having done anything to stop the Holocaust, not for "their role in the Holocaust". Try again, with less hatred in your heart. — Olivier5

It looks like @!80 is up to his usual tricks, which isn't surprising.

However, the way I see it, the apology was not "for not having done anything to stop the Holocaust" but rather "for failing to take more decisive action". Not for not doing anything, but for not having done more.

Do interests in hobbies music science poetry gardening philosophy count as belief in material possessions? — jorndoe

They can do. Depends on the hobbies music science poetry gardening philosophy. If they have a materialist content, which they tend to do, then yes.

Fair enough.

Nobody did much to try and stop the Holocaust. Even the people in the known and able to do something impactful, like the allied, did very little to try and stop it. So why single out the CC now, if not because of some old anti-catholic prejudice?

Nobody did much to try and stop the Holocaust. Even the people in the known and able to do something impactful, like the allied, did very little to try and stop it. So why single out the CC now, if not because of some old anti-catholic prejudice? — Olivier5

Correct. And being a Nation of Islam supporter doesn't improve things either.

BTW you said that Marx achieved “far more than Hitler”.

Marx achieved far more than Hitler. You can say what you want of Stalin but the USSR was a country of peasants in 1917, and it won the space race less than 50 years later, while also winning the second world war in the meantime... So communism did work for them, in a way that Nazism did not. — Olivier5

However, Marx never achieved anything personally, did he? His only “achievements” were through Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and other dictators and mass murderers.

Of course communism worked for the Communist Party and the whole parasitic class of Marxist ideologists. Unfortunately, it didn’t work for the millions who died from starvation under Stalin or Mao.

And it isn’t true that the Soviets “won the space race”. The truth is that they managed to kidnap more German engineers and scientists and steal more German technology than the Americans and the British.

Operation Osoaviakhim – Wikipedia

It’s a well-know fact that the Soviet Union lived on stolen technology into the 1980s when Reagan stopped that (as well as cutting off financial assistance) after which the regime simply collapsed.

However, Marx never achieved anything personally, did he? His only “achievements” were through Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and other dictators and mass murderers. — Apollodorus

Marx has been the most impactful philosopher of all times, if one excludes Jesus from the race. He inspired millions of people to do things that were nearly unthinkable before him, including a lot of good things too. My experience with people from the ex USSR is that many of the old folks miss the "Soyuz" (Union) and speak fondly of it. You can read the same tone in some Russian novelists, who express well the fear but also the pride that was involved in being a citizen of such a vast and powerful empire as the USSR.

That Marx was wrong on so many points is of course a problem, precisely because he was so impactful. So communism ultimately failed. But as a social experiment it was demonstrably more effective than nazism, which was a total, utter failure. And a great deal of social democracy -- which still survives in Europe -- is about merging a bit of capitalism with a bit of communism. This too is Marx' heritage although he did not expect it.

Marx has been the most impactful philosopher of all times, — Olivier5

He may have been "impactful" due to the massive propaganda by Engels and many others and, as I said, through the actions of his disciples like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

However, Marxist political theory has long been exposed as deliberately ambiguous, inconsistent, and nonsensical. This is the true reason behind communism's abject failure. Marx was a fraud.

"The inconsistency allegations have been a prominent feature of Marxian economics and the debate surrounding it since the 1970s.[1] Andrew Kliman argues that since internally inconsistent theories cannot possibly be right, this undermines Marx's critique of political economy and current-day research based upon it as well as the correction of Marx's alleged inconsistencies.[62]

Critics who have alleged that Marx has been proved internally inconsistent include former and current Marxian and/or Sraffian economists, such as Paul Sweezy,[63] Nobuo Okishio,[64] Ian Steedman,[65] John Roemer,[66] Gary Mongiovi[67] and David Laibman,[68] who propose that the field be grounded in their correct versions of Marxian economics instead of in Marx's critique of political economy in the original form in which he presented and developed it in Capital.[69]

According to Leszek Kołakowski, the laws of dialectics at the very base of Marxism are fundamentally flawed: some are "truisms with no specific Marxist content", others "philosophical dogmas that cannot be proved by scientific means", yet others just "nonsense". Some Marxist "laws" are vague and can be interpreted differently, but these interpretations generally fall into one of the aforementioned categories of flaws as well.[82]"

Criticism of Marxism – Wikipedia

Frederic L. Bender, “The Ambiguities of Marx’s concepts of ‘proletarian dictatorship’ and ‘transition to communism’”

Richard Adamiack, '"The Withering Away of the State": A Reconsideration'

He may have been "impactful" due to the massive propaganda by Engels and many others and, as I said, through the actions of his disciples like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. — Apollodorus

That's usually how people are impactful: by convincing other people to act.

However, Marxist political theory has long been exposed as deliberately ambiguous, inconsistent, and nonsensical. This is the true reason behind communism's abject failure. Marx was a fraud. — Apollodorus

I disagree. I think he was genuine and correct on many issues, like his analysis of the internal contradictions of capitalism and the shameless exploitation of workers. His prescription for the future were ill-founded and did fail, ultimately, but not before having done a lot of good things. Relax and drink your vodka.

Also, IMO it's better to be a "peasant" than to be dead.

Besides, during the forty years of wilderness Marx was talking about, many Hebrews died, some killed by other Hebrews, others killed by God’s plagues, etc.

Exodus 32:

"26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."

God killed many more of them for disobedience through plagues, etc.

"35 And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made …"

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+32&version=KJV

This is what Marx and Engels were talking about: the reactionaries or counterrevolutionaries will be killed.

Engels’ definition of revolution was “the most authoritarian thing that exists; it is the act, whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon; and the victorious party must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries” - Engels, F., “On Authority”, 1874, MEW, Band. 18, s. 308.

And he advocated the “extirpation of entire reactionary nations” which you seem to agree with:

“The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too. Is a step forward” (238).

Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels - Collected Works, Vol. 8, pp. 227 – 238.

Marx's true objective was to seize power. That's why he financed the purchase of arms for an insurrection in Belgium and called on the Communist League to seize power in 1850. Which is why the League was closed down and its members (except Marx who was hiding in England) arrested by the German police.

IMO it's better to be a "peasant" than to be dead. — Apollodorus

You are repeating yourself.

I would rather be a farmer under Stalin than a Jew under Hitler.

I would rather be a farmer under Stalin than a Jew under Hitler. — Olivier5

I don't see any difference. Millions of farmers under Stalin died from starvation, forced labor, or were simply killed.

Plus, it is clear from Marx and Engels' statements that it was their intention to seize power for themselves.

“If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed […] To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party [the democrats], whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition”

Marx & Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, May 1850

I was not critiquing anything, mind you. — Olivier5

Saying that a line of reasoning lacks in an aspect IS critiquing. And critiquing is okay. But not when the alleged missing piece is in the original. That is invalid critiquing.

I am no longer upset, but I do ask you that in the future you read my posts, whether I left it now, in the past or in the future, carefully, from beginning to end, and that you respond when you understood all parts of it. Thanks.

You're one of the most decent respondents to my posts, along with fooloso4, (there may be others whose monikers don't stand out for me at the moment; my apologies for ommitting them in this list here) and I appreciate it, and I value your contribution. This is why I ask of you to do this.

If I ever wish to reply to one of your posts in the future, I promise you that I will read it very carefully first.

I don't see any difference. — Apollodorus

Well, that's you I guess. What about being a black slave in the antebellum South? Would you like that better than being a Jew under Hitler, or a farmer under Stalin?

IMO that's a rhetorical question that has nothing to do with anything.

It has to do with my suspicion that you are just another scatterbrain MAGA internet warrior, busying himself with insulting Marx and Engels ad nauseam for the thrill of it.

If quoting Marx and Engels is "insulting" to them or to you, then that only proves my point, thank you. As for your "suspicion", it has nothing to do with anything either.

Facile anti Catholic hatred aside, it is a fact that the Catholic Church resisted Nazism to a greater degree than any other Christian denomination. — Olivier5

Sancta Mater Ecclesia did what it has always done, more or less successfully (e.g., the Reformation), for so long. That is, what was considered appropriate morally to the extent that didn't endanger its survival as a powerful institution, relatively content with its place and perception of itself as the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The title of the thread states it... Do you think those of us who believe morality requires God.... — Bartricks

Which is it, God or belief in God? Or like me do you hold those to be exactly the same thing?