Was Hitler a christian? and atheist morallity

[Ironside]

What foundation than? survival of the fittest? Than you cannot reject hitlers morality,darwins, or my own favorite.

You cannot give any reason that caging up woman to reproduce and pass on my genes is "wrong", in fact it is survival of the fittest. As hitler and darwin point out,
why not as men are stronger lock them up and force them to have sex with us as we please?.

Hitler was going for survival of fittest, killing off weaker races people. He was helping evolution and survival of the fittest. If you do no harm to others, than you allow weak to survive.

An example on why people think you're new. I've already presented an example on why "survival of the fittest" can very well lead to the development of empathy and morals. Ignoring that and repeating the argument is poor debating style. You're better when it comes to the Bible parts.

Now, moral absolutism. How is it enforced? By God sends you to hell instead of heaven. Or in other terms, the enforcer executes a punishment. While the natural bias (I explained a bit on why such a thing can develop previously) will give preference to certain moral codes, it is that enforcer that keeps it together, when you have people breaking it. The thing is that the enforcer hardly needs to be a God.
Or simply: by saying that fornication is bad is how we keep fornication as bad and punish those who does it. That's all that needs to be done. And since it's disputed (and has lost as an argument is Sweden decades ago) it is losing ground today.
Now, in say the case of rape, we can make a better case since it's a physical and mental assult on the victim. Using deduction (if it's done on me is it good or bad), helped by empathy, we can conclude it's bad, even without an absolute moral arbiter.

I disagree fully, homosexuality is clearly wrong, according to the bible.

I was talking in general. Even the Bible version matters for interpretations. You use the International version? One example is the Destroyer (the entity killing the firstborn in Egypt, generally seen to been the archangel Uriel). Some versions doesn't translate that as an entity,b ut rather the process to determine on who to kil or not.

lol nice, I was just saying all the athiet usually bring up in order the ones you did. I agree though god judges, please bring all these up with genocide/plagues. You truly are bringing up all my favs, though the golden calf is very hard to understand. But the claims of genocide are false, and the circumstances around these show them not to be evil, but loving. Sounds crazy, wait for post. You just need to read entire bible. In fact I would reject a god that did not do what he did., time will show. I guess i will have to do a major objections to bible as I did on twc, plagues,conquest of canon,how can god send people to hell etc. But great topic's, now im all existed.

I'm sure I need to specify anything more on the Flood and Sodom and Gomorra. They were too immoral, destruction pending. Both Noah and Lot has quite morally questionable incidents afterward though. First human stock must have been horrible.

Numbers 25. Yes, God is angry for that some Israelites got seduced into Baal worshipping behind his back. But God is specific that Phinehas saved the Israelites from his wraith, that threatened to put an end to the Isrealites.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

7 When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them—through the Israelite and into the woman’s body. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.

10 The Lord said to Moses, 11 “Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them, so that in my zeal I did not put an end to them.

Retaliation comes in Numbers 31, were Moses are a bit pissed off on the commanders for not killing enough civilians.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

You might justify the sexually active women as a punishment for the seduction, but the boys? Oh, and I do wonder what will happen to all those virgin girls that the sodiers can keep.

Also, if God acts in moral absolutes, then there's no time drift in values. If someone does the same thing as above today, is that good or evil? Does it change if it undisputed that this man is God's chosen?

I am sorry but had you read the bible, you would now that it is clearly if the child follows in sins of father.

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Deut. 24:16
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
Ezekiel 18:20

I'll be brief, either the verses contradict each other (compare to Deut 23:1) or the complement each other. A spiritual crime seems to last longer, while a physical is not transfered.

You claim to have read bible, but I gota say, your theology and claims, fit the bill of a atheist book not the bible.

You can read parts of a book and not be swooshed away by it's message (I've never claimed to have red the whole Bible, only that my source was the parts of the Bible I've red). Your Bible skill should certainly surpass mine. It's the idea of some kind of holy atheist book that's annoys me. There is no such book. Sure it probably exist more than one book attacking Christianity that's been red by a few people, but I never red one of those and neither has most who doesn't believe in Christianity. And of those that have red such books, very few had some kind of relevation to why they stopped beliving.

God uses pharaohs heart, to show egypt and pharaoh that he was the one true god, that the nile,cows,flies etc were not gods, but he alone. It worked to, as many egptians left and joined isreal.

"Then the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children. A mixed multitude went up with them also."
exodus 12 37-38.

Fair enough on that it varies. A few notes though. God hardens pharao's heart when the first born are to die. Bad coincidence perhaps. If I display my superiority and my awesome destructive powers by killing people, cattle, causing chaos and destruction, etc, etc, am I good or evil?

I have no idea were you get this from? eternal slavery idea. Or the idea god created men at diffident times. Please with your great knowledge of bible you have shown, provide evidence from bible.

Genesis 9. Noah gets drunk, his son Ham sees him naked (I've red the interpretation that it means rapes him, which might explain the anger better, but is horribly, horribly messed up), Naoh hears this and curses Caanan (Ham's son) to slavery. This can be interpretated to only one generation, but the slavers using this as justification (the black skin was the physical demonstration of the curse) was on to bloodlines into slavery.

Man created at different times was some idea to justify why black people, that should be slaves (according to the slavers) existed. Not really based on the Bible outside the idea that God created everything and nothing has ever changed.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded[a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father’s nakedness.

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,

“Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said,

“Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.[b]
27 May God extend the territory of Japheth[c];
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his[d] slave.”

I have no idea what your saying, first you claim there are no moral absolutes, I have to ask are you absolutely sure?
than if there are no moral absolutes, how can you say child sacrifice is wrong?. Or it is ok to kill them?. Than something about rape being ok to the bible? The bible says rape is oviusly wrong, could be punished with death in OT.

Than claim morality does exist, do you not see how many times you contradict yourself in a few sentences?. So you cant object to god as being bad, also please bring your thoughts over here. I just put in long response to this same claim on majority opinion and morality.
well above a few posts.

Child sacrifice was common among the Indians in Latin America, so evidently it wasn't a moral absolute for them. Sure they never met God, so they didn't have the true message, but it's still an example on it not being universal. Did they still have morals? Yes, although I'm certain that's there more than human sacrifices I would disagree with.
Can you have strong opinions of morality without having absolute morals? Yes.
Can those opinions change with time? Yes.
Can you have a simple consistant framework to help guide you into what those morals can be? Yes.
If most people have a very similar framework, then you have the basis for how the morality the society will look like.

On the question about God being bad: That's a conclusion drawn from asking myself on the morality of a powerful man doing the same things, while also giving him some leeway (but far from total) because he's acting in a way I can't fully comprehend.

Many atheists point to the Crusades, Inquisition and witch hunts to argue that Christianity is an evil religion. D’Souza takes on these allegations one by one. He argues that the Muslims were the aggressors; conquering the previously predominately Christian Middle East. They went on to conquer parts of Africa, Asia, part of Italy and most of Spain. All the while, they forced conversions at sword-point. Finally, more than two hundred years later Christians attempted to take back the land that was conquered by the Muslims. The First Crusade was a success, resulting in Jerusalem being in Christian possession for nearly a century. Subsequent crusades failed, but without the crusades, D’Souza argues
‘Western Civilization might have been completely overrun by the forces of Islam … The Christians fought to defend themselves from foreign conquest, while the Muslims fought to continue conquering Christian lands’
(p. 206).

A few notes. The Byzantine emperor asked for money or mercs and got those barbarian (Byzantine opinion) crusaders instead. Second, many of the Christians probably had it easier living under Muslim rulers compared to the quite violent disagreeement of the nature of Christ and other things they had with the Bazantine emperor. It was certainly easier to live under Muslim rulers than having those Christian "liberators" separating your head from your body because they couldn't tell that you were Christian. Anyway, while it did weaken the Muslims, they were quite weak and fractioned (that's why the crusader states survived so long) anyway. When they got unified, the remaining crusader states lost very quickly. Incursions into Europe was done by the Ottomans, who conquered Constantinopel and destroyed the Byzantine empire. The empire was critically weakened earlier because of the fourth crusade and left by its fate by the rest of Europe. So, no D’Souza does not have a good case there.

20:th century was certainly a brutal one and the church got worse reputation than it deserves on the inqusition and witch burnings, agreed on that.
Although I'm finding a general lack of the 30-years war, the most brutal war until WW1. While politics got involved, denying the religious element there is folly, in particular since it cut the steam out of all religous wars afterwards.

‘The five major religions of the world, in order of their appearance on the scene, are Hinduism, traditional Chinese folk religion, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. These five religions have approximately 4.85 billion adherents, representing an estimated 71.3 percent of the world’s population in 2007, and they have been around for a collective 11,600 years. During the vast majority of those 116 [collective] centuries, the world has not been in any danger of extinction from weapons of any kind, nor has the human race been in serious danger of dying out from pollution, global warming, overpopulation, or anything else. …
‘Modern science has only been around for the last 350 years, if we date the scientific method back to the man known as the Father of Science, Galileo Galilei. One could push the date back considerably, if one wished, to Aristotle and Archimedes, or forward to Newton and the Age of Enlightenment, but regardless, the dire threat to Mankind described by [“New Atheist” Sam] Harris only dates back to the middle of the twentieth century. In the last sixty years, science has produced a veritable witches’ brew of potential dangers to the human race, ranging from atom-shattering, explosive devices to lethal genetic modifications, designer diseases, large quantities of radioactive waste and even, supposedly, the accidental production of mini black holes and strangelets through particle collider experiments.
‘So, in only 3 percent of the time that religion has been on the scene, science has managed to produce multiple threats to continued human existence. Moreover, the quantity and lethal quality of those threats appear to be accelerating, as the bulk of them have appeared in the most recent sixth of the scientific era.2

And the total number of religious people has never been higher than now (thanks to rapid population growth)... They are evil I tell you!!!

Seriously, you're writing this on a computer, so get off the anti-science horse there. The dangers are more or less a direct consequence of the advantages made. Also, polution, over-population, destruction of habitats are nothing new. What killed off the mesopotanian civilisations? Too much salty soil from irrigation. Easter island? Over-population. The thing that have change is the scale.

Abraham? you do realize both Abraham and god new his son was not going to be sacrafised correct? oh the atheist did not tell you that one.

See, a good person/god does not even ask this as an demonstration of devotion, even if the devoted person would consider this as an acceptable sacrifice. Mock executions are considered torture, even if none dies.

why do people think I am new? I now people dont like what I say, wait till I do creation vs evolution. But you guys have been pretty nice,mature etc compared to most I debate with. When people hate me dont want to hear what I am saying, I think I am on to something good.

You're giving a ton of material, way more than will be answered thoughtfully in total. You keep insisting on some things like it's great wonder bullets and ignores the counter arguments on it, you make large assumptions and generalise your opposition. Your English is a bit sloppy, or it's not your first language.

Taken together, you appear very eager and have recently found what you think is a gold mine, and also as young and inexperienced, but certainly with good potential with training. That strikes people as new.

I suspect I appear somewhat haughty myself.