And end (for now) to the “Atheismusstreit”

(If you’re not sure what “Atheismusstreit” means–google it.)

This is my blog so I declare victory in the argument about atheism and nihilism. Unfortunately, very few who have joined in the argument (from the atheist side) have even understood what it’s all about. I suspect much of their confusion is caused by a misunderstanding of what I mean by “objective.”

But what causes me to declare victory (not for me but for the argument) is the failure of any atheist here to answer my “Hitler question.” One or two have attempted it, but they simply have not understood the question. The question was not why Hitler was wrong to do what he did–as if “wrong” only means mistaken or in violation of rules (whether of nature or community). The question was (and remains) what objective reasons can be given why Hitler would have been absolutely, objectively wrong to do what he did IF he had benefited from it. Nature alone cannot answer that. The most a naturalist can say is that Hitler was acting inconsistently with the altruistic gene or with universal norms decided upon by the majority of people. (“Universal” does not mean “objective.” There was a time when everyone thought the sun revolved around the earth. That was universally believed but objectively false.)

So, for now, I am declaring an end to this discussion in order to move on to other things UNLESS someone wants to address THE QUESTION (I’m not shouting but italicizing without italics because it is too complicated to italicize with this blog program) AS IT IS ASKED–including possibly admitting there are no objective moral norms (in the sense I mean of “objective”) if nature is all there is and therefore….

My next post here will be about the deity of Jesus Christ (in keeping with the season).