Quote:
Originally Posted by Megenoita
This isn't true. There are MANY atheist worldviews which do not call him evil (since evil doesn't exist), he just went against what most people consider right and wrong. There is no universal law to call him evil, though. He's just different. This is one of the greatest flaws of atheism. It is so inadequate it can't call Hitler evil (and account for it without being incoherent). Of course atheists don't realize the internal incoherence of their own worldview so they'll call him evil, denounce him, etc., not realizing they're demanding a universal moral law they deny. But really there is no possible atheistic worldview that can definitively call anyone or anything evil--it cannot be established; it can only be opinion.
I fully support batairs points, it is ironic to draw your objective stance against genocide from a god who supposedly carried out several of them, while micromanaging his favorite tribe; not to mention drowning the entire world.
Beyond that, your claim that an atheist cannot call Hitler evil is just wrong.
So what if I don’t have an objective standard to compare too? By my standards what Hitler did was evil, and there is nothing inconsistent about sticking to that.
You say I need to have an objective standard, I say objective standards do not exist, and that the best we can do is well reasoned thought on the subject.
Why is this an automatic win form you?
Are our preferences really invalidated just because they cannot be grounded in objective criteria? I have no objective standard for preferring t-bone steak over lamb chops, but I do.