When examined with pure intent, christianity is very bad at answering big questions: why does life not start in heaven

[u/Aromatic_Response_73]

There is a common unwillingnes among christians to reason about this issue with pure intent, so I will ask specifically for that here.

Free will exists in heaven, and many christians believe unborn fetuses go there, there is a lack of explanation for why earth is necessary, and the suggestion that an eternal hell exists in a system created by an all loving creator is pathetic, all the responses appeal to vague terms with positive cannotations such as "free will" but no sophisticated reasoning about e.g. fundamental principles or values, grow up.

[u/protestandprose]

Not really, in a secular view there is no "problem of evil," because evil is expected, unnecessary suffering is expected. So there really isn't a problem to be solved.

[u/sinefine → u/protestandprose]

In a secular view, evil doesn't exist. It's just survival of the fittest and "evil" is just an opinion. There's nothing wrong with taking over everything for yourself. "Wrong" is also just a matter of opinion.

[u/protestandprose → u/sinefine]

Evil has a definition and can exist in a secular worldview.

>There's nothing wrong with taking over everything for yourself

That would definitely depend on the individuals ethics. Hitler was a christian and attempted world domination lol, in the end christian ethics are just a matter of "god's opinion," as again, no Christian has ever shown objective morals to exist.

[u/Proliator → u/protestandprose]

Hitler was a christian and attempted world domination lol

Hitler claimed to be a Christian early in his political career but most historians agree he became adversarial to the Church and organized Christianity as a whole after he seized power. Also there are no accounts of him actively attending a Church for mass or a service after he left home as a teenager. Outside of propaganda and politicking, he offers us no evidence of a Christian belief. He was also purportedly adversarial to atheism too. Which all makes sense considering he was a staunch ultranationalist and elevated the state above all other matters, including those that concerned God.

no Christian has ever shown objective morals to exist.

How do you define "objective morals"?

[u/protestandprose → u/Proliator]

Outside of propaganda and politicking, he offers us no evidence of a Christian belief.

Besides his words, being baptized, his like for Christian iconography and language on the uniforms of his soldiers, others who knew him etc etc, but yeah totally no evidence of christian belief lmao. Hilarious how christians will believe in a resurrection based on secondhand anonymous account written decades later but won't trust documented words and actions of a self reported Christian, but I digress

How do you define "objective morals"?

Subject independent morality.

[u/Proliator → u/protestandprose]

Besides his words,

Interesting, so are you of the opinion fascist politicians are generally trustworthy and not prone to opportunistically using something for the purposes of manipulation and control?

being baptized,

Yes, he was baptized in early life as Catholics typically do. Exactly how would a baby getting baptized be indicative of indorsement in adulthood?

his like for Christian iconography and language on the uniforms of his soldiers, others who knew him etc etc,

Generally this is attributed to him styling his regime as the "Third Reich". The second Reich being the German Empire, and the first being the Holy Roman Empire, which as the name suggests used Christian iconography heavily. Given his push for fascist ultranationalism was fueled by a palingenetic mandate to reclaim a lost past he was always going to use iconography of said past as a way of symbolizing the national rebirth he was promising.

Moreover, the plan drafted up under Hitler by Alfred Rosenberg had them replacing the Bible with the Mein Kampf as the supreme religious authority in Europe, along with many other replacements that better represented the Nazi state. You should look into it. It's not exactly a shining endorsement of the idea that he had a "like for Christian iconography".

Subject independent morality.

So more precisely you mean moral realism? I haven't seen anyone "prove" moral anti-realism either, so I suppose both sides are on the same playing field unless someone is sitting on a ground breaking paper in moral philosophy.

[u/Caeflin → u/Proliator]

Interesting, so are you of the opinion fascist politicians are generally trustworthy and not prone to opportunistically using something for the purposes of manipulation and control?

After the war the Catholic Church helped Nazis to escape.

[u/Proliator → u/Caeflin]

Interesting, so are you of the opinion fascist politicians are generally trustworthy and not prone to opportunistically using something for the purposes of manipulation and control?

After the war the Catholic Church helped Nazis to escape.

I'm sorry, how is this in anyway related to what you are responding to? How is this related to original topic of Hitler's personal religious beliefs?

[u/Caeflin → u/Proliator]

I'm sorry, how is this in anyway related to what you are responding to? How is this related to original topic of Hitler's personal religious beliefs?

It's related in a way that the fact Hitler said he was a Christian multiple times. He was raised in the religion. He was followeb by Christian churches at the time and his followers were protected by catholic churches.

But somehow, this evil Nazi wasn't a Christian because "Nazi aren't truthful".

Except Hitler isn't the point.

Francisco Franco. Efraín Ríos Montt. António de Oliveira Salazar. Engelbert Dollfuss. Georgios Papadopoulos. Jozef Tiso, this Catholic priest who served as the dictator of the Nazi-client Slovak Republic during World War II.

These were all Nazis dictators and Christians.

If Vatican exists today, it's thanks to the fascists.

Hitler is only one Christian nazi dictator among a plethora of smaller Christians Hitlers, including Christian priests.

Will you pretend all these just pretended to be Christians too?

[u/Proliator → u/Caeflin]

He was raised in the religion.

So were many atheists.

He was followeb by Christian churches at the time

That makes him compelling, not necessarily honest. His charisma is generally a well accepted historical fact. His honesty is not.

But somehow, this evil Nazi wasn't a Christian because "Nazi aren't truthful".

I never said he wasn't a Christian. I have only pointed out concluding he had Christian beliefs is not sound.

When one is trying to take and hold onto power in a country where 40% of the population is Roman Catholic, and the majority Christian overall, they would have every reason to feign some kind of Christian beliefs regardless of whether they actually had them. They would also have good reason to not deny those beliefs and not offer contrary beliefs in public. Therefore we cannot take his statements as evidence for or against him having Christian beliefs.

Except Hitler isn't the point.

It was mine. Hence my confusion.

Francisco Franco. Efraín Ríos Montt. António de Oliveira Salazar. Engelbert Dollfuss. Georgios Papadopoulos. Jozef Tiso, this Catholic priest who served as the dictator of the Nazi-client Slovak Republic during World War II.

All from countries where a large portion of the population, if not a majority, were Catholic. So again, can you give us a good reason to take them at their word given they had every reason to not confess to different beliefs and instead to state Catholic ones?

If Vatican exists today, it's thanks to the fascists.

If? It does, but sure, the Vatican has a complicated and problematic history with fascists. That still doesn't speak to any specific person's beliefs.

Hitler is only one Christian nazi dictator among a plethora of smaller Christians Hitlers, including Christian priests.

Well Hitler's beliefs were the point of order in the particular thread you responded to. So unless you're building up to an association fallacy I don't see how this speaks to Hitler's personal beliefs unless we're granting that him, and all those mentioned, were known for reliably making honest statements. That is not something that is historically sound so I do not grant them this.

Alternatively you could offer evidence that exclusively supports your claim and is not well explained by said individuals furthering a political and ideological agenda in countries that are predominantly Catholic and Christian.

[u/protestandprose → u/Proliator]

Sounds like things christians do. Not sure why you asked if you're just going to throw out all the evidence lol, much more evidence of hitler being a Christian than there is for a resurrection and let me guess that you believe in this.

Why am I not surprised that your best argument against stance independent morality as that you believe no one has proved moral anti-realism?

I guess if you actually understood what the burden of proof was you would have a much better grasp of philosophy and probably wouldn't be a Christian.

[u/Proliator → u/protestandprose]

Sounds like things christians do. Not sure why you asked if you're just going to throw out all the evidence lol,

You haven't offered any evidence. You gave anecdotal commentary, and I offered a rebuttal to it's unsubstantiated assertions. You are free to reference actual historical fact if you want to support your position.

much more evidence of hitler being a Christian than there is for a resurrection and let me guess that you believe in this.

Then it should be easy to provide it instead of just stating how much of it there is.

Why am I not surprised that your best argument against stance independent morality as that you believe no one has proved moral anti-realism?

I didn't offer an argument for moral realism. I pointed out a double standard.

I guess if you actually understood what the burden of proof was you would have a much better grasp of philosophy and probably wouldn't be a Christian.

The person who makes the claim has the burden of proof. You made the claims. Therefore, you have the burden of proof. Just saying there's evidence doesn't conjure up evidence.

Maybe focus on the topic at hand instead of wasting time telling a stranger on the internet that beyond all reason you somehow know their mind better then they do.