hey ATHIESTS, was Hitler right?

[AgnosTheist]

God gave us religion.

Maybe he gave one to you, but he sure did not give one to me.

Prayer is much more than a morale booster, as it helps us grow closer to God and therefore become able to do His will better, just as Mother Teresa was able to.

I’d sure like to believe that. When I get in an impossibly tight spot, i’d pray for a miracle.

 

[justinthemartyr]

yes, many of us only go to God in prayer when we need Him. I think back to my times in jail and trouble and I would ask God to get me out of this one and I will never…

but of course I did it again.

When I was really ready for a different Way, I turned my will and my life over to the care of Jesus and He took the desire to drink, drug, steal, smoke, cuss and homosexuality away. In the blink of an eye. quite amazing.

 

[AgnosTheist]

yes, many of us only go to God in prayer when we need Him. I think back to my times in jail and trouble and I would ask God to get me out of this one and I will never…

but of course I did it again.

When I was really ready for a different Way, I turned my will and my life over to the care of Jesus and He took the desire to drink, drug, steal, smoke, cuss and homosexuality away. In the blink of an eye. quite amazing.

good for you man, though i’m not sure about the permanency of the alteration in your sexual orientation.

 

[notself]

great, one buddhist claimant among many claims that ALL buddhists do not believe in God, does that make it true?

no.

That is like saying that all mormons believe God the Father had sexual reletions with Mary the Mother of Jesus, when it is a fact that they all do not.

a generality at best.

Something from another Buddhist, Nyanaponika Thera.

Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of God and gods. From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha’s teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha’s teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality.

In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct.

Theism, however, is regarded as a kind of kamma-teaching in so far as it upholds the moral efficacy of actions. Hence a theist who leads a moral life may, like anyone else doing so, expect a favorable rebirth. He may possibly even be reborn in a heavenly world that resembles his own conception of it, though it will not be of eternal duration as he may have expected. If, however, fanaticism induces him to persecute those who do not share his beliefs, this will have grave consequences for his future destiny. For fanatical attitudes, intolerance, and violence against others create unwholesome kamma leading to moral degeneration and to an unhappy rebirth.

Although belief in God does not exclude a favorable rebirth, it is a variety of eternalism, a false affirmation of permanence rooted in the craving for existence, and as such an obstacle to final deliverance.

Among the fetters (samyojana) that bind to existence, theism is particularly subject to those of personality-belief, attachment to rites and rituals, and desire for fine-material existence or for a “heaven of the sense sphere,” as the case may be.

Here is a short biography of Venerable Thera.

Nyanaponika Thera was ordained as a Buddhist monk by Ven. Nyanatiloka Thera (1878-1957). In 1958 he helped to found the Buddhist Publication Society, of which he served as editor-in-chief until 1984, and as president until his retirement in 1988. He passed away peacefully at his residence, the Forest Hermitage in the Udawattakele Reserve outside of Kandy, on the last day of his 57th rains retreat. His many widely-acclaimed books include The Heart of Buddhist Meditation, The Vision of Dhamma, Abhidhamma Studies, and (with Bhikkhu Bodhi) Numerical Discourses of the Buddha. [Source: Introduction to The Vision of the Dhamma (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1992) and “For the Welfare of Many” by Bhikkhu Bodhi.]

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I’m not so arrogant as to believe I am infallible!

Anyway I agree with buddhists who say that whether or not god exists, its not important for the moment. God doesnt really help anyone. Its you who help or condemn yourself. Prayers are technically useful only for raising morale. Thats it!

But you ARE infallible! You know infallibly that you know nothing, other than this, infallibly!

You actually believe in nothing absolutely, and anything provisionally, which is just a wordy way of saying you have no real beliefs other than “whatever works at the time I’d like it to work”.

Ask a buddhist whether his “spiritual progress” is important to him. If he says yes, he’s saying that his “endpoint” is worth striving toward and his endpoint (best possible state) is his “heaven”. The reason for his “heaven” is his God.

Do buddhists know of “demons” and other “spiritual beings”? Do they somehow “deal with” these beings? Their dealings with these beings are their “prayers”, as well as their dealings with “the power behind the great illusion”.

We DO help (accept God’s laws) or condemn (the obverse) ourselves, but the reason we have a choice to help or condemn ourselves is because there actually ARE objective standards of behavior given by God (aka that which established how things work).

Prayers are good only for connecting to truth if done correctly. It’s also very easy to not do it correctly. Your experiences of buddhists, God, help, condemnation and prayer are interesting, but they are only yours. My experiences of these things are different.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of God and gods. From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha’s teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha’s teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality.

In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct.

Theism, however, is regarded as a kind of kamma-teaching in so far as it upholds the moral efficacy of actions. Hence a theist who leads a moral life may, like anyone else doing so, expect a favorable rebirth. He may possibly even be reborn in a heavenly world that resembles his own conception of it, though it will not be of eternal duration as he may have expected. If, however, fanaticism induces him to persecute those who do not share his beliefs, this will have grave consequences for his future destiny. For fanatical attitudes, intolerance, and violence against others create unwholesome kamma leading to moral degeneration and to an unhappy rebirth.

Although belief in God does not exclude a favorable rebirth, it is a variety of eternalism, a false affirmation of permanence rooted in the craving for existence, and as such an obstacle to final deliverance.

Among the fetters (samyojana) that bind to existence, theism is particularly subject to those of personality-belief, attachment to rites and rituals, and desire for fine-material existence or for a “heaven of the sense sphere,” as the case may be.

Since the “strict” buddhist view is that all personality is contrary to “dissolving into the big non-self-thingy” no god is really true, but they do exist as “traps” to snare the “undereducated”.

The power that enforces “kamma” is, … what?

I do like the phrase “final deliverance”, which tells me that there IS in fact some “goal”, although their “goal” is utter nothingness in a way that prognosticates the “ultimate cosmic entropy endpoint” proposed by thermodynamics.

The “matrix-like” aspects of buddhism are profound. One either sees the “wisdom” of buddhism or the “horror” of buddhism based on what one wants in life. Some people absolutely LOVE to “spiritually” recurse up their own backside ad infinitum. Some don’t.

 

[rogue13]

Ah, grasshoppers…so many of you have strayed from the 7-fold path to Nirvana. The original question was a simple one, yet you make it so complex. “Was Hitler right,” and, if not, why not?

If you read the article that prompted this thread, you would see that many of you have misinterpreted what it actually said. Nowhere does it say, or even imply, that atheism caused Hitler. Although, I believe one may rightly assert that Hitler was greatly influenced by atheistic Darwinism - survivial of the fittest and all - and by the eugenicists whose religion it was.

Nowhere does it say, or even imply, that one must believe in God to value human life. However, it does say that if one does not believe in God, then one’s valuation of human life is necessarily subjective. My saying that I have value because of [insert any reason here other than God], is completely subjective. My saying that you have value because of some non-God reason is completely subjective…valuation of humanity, from within humanity itself, is subjective.

If there is no God…no one outside of humanity to place an objective value on humanity…then one may still consider human life valuable, but one has no objective reason for doing so. Plus, the argument Martignoni makes, is that without God, you cannot come up with an objective argument for why a human life has more value than, say, a worm life. Or a bacteria life. Or a dog life. And so on. So, why would it be morally wrong to put an atheist on a hook to catch a great white shark - isn’t that the moral equivalent of putting a worm on a hook to catch a trout? It is, without God.

Why is this important? Some have touched on it…because if our belief system is based on a subjective valuation of human life, then we, or anyone else, can change that valuation at any time for any reason. If it’s okay to legally classify the unborn as non-persons, simply because they are unborn, and then kill them because they are legally classified as non-persons; then why wasn’t it okay for Hitler to legally classify Jews as non-persons simply because they were Jews, and then kill them because they were legally classifed as non-persons? What’s the difference?

An ethical/moral construct that cannot offer an objective reason for why Hitler was wrong to do what he did, and which cannot offer an objective moral reason for why abortion is wrong, results in potential danger to all people at all times. Every atheist/agnostic I know of states that what Hitler did was wrong. When asked why, they point to Kant and others and this system of ethics which they then claim puts objective value on all human life. Then, when asked about their view on abortion, the backtracking begins in earnest. I have yet to meet an atheist/agnostic who believes abortion is wrong. Oh, they’re out there, but they are in the significant minority on this among atheists/agnostics. I hear things like, “Oh, abortion is a difficult moral dilemma.” Why? Or, “Well, what exactly is the definition of a human being.” Well, either it’s killing a human being or its not. And, if it’s not killing a human being, what is it killing? Oh, but of course, all human life has objective value in the atheist system of ethics…yeah, right.

Irrelevant to all of this is whether or not Hitler was an atheist or whether or not the folks who followed him were Christians. Any so-called Christians who followed Hitler, did so by first abandoning Christian principles and teaching. So, one cannot fault Christianity for the fact that quite often Christians act in non-Christian ways. The person is at fault, not the religion.

Also irrelevant to all of this is whether or not one can actually “prove” that God exists. The question is about the system of belief which admits to no God. To turn that around by attacking the “objectivity” of a God-based system of belief, seems to me to be an a priori admission of everything Martignoni asserted in his article about the subjective nature of an atheist evaluation of human life. One cannot “prove” God’s existence as much as one can simply offer evidence of that fact. However, for the sake of argument, if the premise is true that states God exists; and the premise is true that states God created man; and the premise is true that God gives value to man by His love for us; then one must admit that, given these premises, a God-based system of valuation for human life is indeed objective - it comes from outside of humanity. Again, you can argue God or not God, but given that set of circumstances, one can come up with an objective valuation for human life.

So, again, getting back, the question is simple…if you are an atheist or agnostic, was Hitler right to kill the Jews as he did? And, if not, why not?

 

[Plusiplus]

No, I can’t see that he had a right to do it.

We perceive humans as having value because we are herd animals. We are pre-programmed from birth and it’s one of the reasons why humanity has become so successful, though we share the herd behaviour with many other species. The thing that makes humans different is the highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language and introspection which gives us the capability of “overriding” some of the body’s pre-programming (think suicide). We aren’t simple eating and breeding machines like the vast majority of Earths species. Having this capability has many disadvantages but the advantages are large.

You have to understand that genetics is not the only factor deciding how a person will turn out. The environment which the person is interacting with is far more important than anything else.
Kim Yong-il didn’t become a powerful and insane premier because of he’s genes; it was because he’s father was Kim Il-sung. All the Trump kids didn’t get powerful because of their genes; it’s because their father is Donald Trump. Children of parents who have university degrees are more likely to attend university too, but it’s not because of their genes. It’s because of their social relationship with their parents. Muslim suicide bombers don’t blow themselves up because their genes make them do it; they do it because they are indoctrinated.

I’m pretty sure Hitler’s genes were like the rest of ours. He had great ability to articulate and persuade people, but in the end it was all about being at the right place at the same time. He and the Nazi party deeply deceived and betrayed the German people. During the last days of his life he even ordered his generals not to evacuate the people of Berlin. He said his own people deserved to die because Germany was losing the war. “They have brought this upon themselves; they were the ones electing us” (as i remember it). I doubt more of his insanity would have been of benefit for humanity.

So, being capable of interacting and convincing people of your arguments has its disadvantages, but the advantages can be too large to even imagine. Currently darwinistic genetic evolution of the human race is no longer of importance. Science has made us capable of outrunning the genetic evolution that brought us here. We can now cure diseases, we can colonize other planets and we might even be able to prevent our own extinction, e.g. if it threatens us in the form of an asteroid. When we reach the technological singularity (if we don’t wipe ourselves out first) we will become immortal, we will truly be the masters of the universe,** we will create heaven, and we will be gods**.

Good night.

 

[justinthemartyr]

which “disease” can we cure? I am aware of diseases that we can alter or even make seemingly go away, but it never does truly totally go away.

I also do not know of one virus we can even really stop, let alone cure.

As you can see, I am not a doctor or a scientist, so please educate me on this.

 

[rogue13]

Plusiplus, I think you were replying to my post, but I’m not absolutely sure, because if you are replying to my post, then I think you completely missed what I said.

I never said anything about Hitler, or anyone else, doing what they did because of their genes. What I said was that Hitler was greatly influenced by the teachings of atheistic Darwinism - particularly the part about superior and inferior members of a species and survival of the fittest.

Hitler declared the Jews to be non-persons…sub-human beings…not fully human. Can you please give me one objective reason, outside of the existence of a moral law based on the existence of God, for why what he did was wrong?

He did the same thing that we are doing in the U.S. today, he just focused on a different segment of humanity, that’s all. Today, our Supreme Court has legally declared unborn babies to be non-persons…sub-human beings…not fully human. And, since the unborn are non-persons, it’s okay, legally, to kill them. And, many people, particularly every atheist and most Democrats I have ever met, would even say it is morally okay to kill them.

The question is, how can these people then turn around and say what Hitler did was wrong, when they are in favor of the exact same thing he did, they just focus on a different segment of humanity to do it to? The courts in Germany legally declared the Jews to be non-persons. The courts in the U.S. legally declared unborn babies to be non-persons. Since the Jews were non-persons, it was okay to kill them. Since unborn babies are non-persons, it’s okay to kill them. You say that you can’t see that he had a right to do it. Well, why not? Please tell me, from a moral/ethical standpoint, what is the difference between what Hitler did and what we are doing today in this country in regards to abortion? That’s the whole point of Martignoni’s article - why was Hitler wrong?

You said “the thing that makes humans different is the highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language and introspection which gives us the capability of “overriding” some of the body’s pre-programming (think suicide).” So? Is having a highly developed brain the source of a human being’s value? If you say, “Yes,” then I would have to say two things: 1) That’s just your opinion. What if, in someone else’s opinion - let’s say a member of PETA - the inability to hate gives value? Which would put the rest of the animal kingdom above humanity on the value scale…what then? 2) Your argument would mean that the higher someone’s IQ, the more “value” they have as a human being. So, Einstein would have way more value as a human being than a Down’s Syndrome child, right? Now you’re on the road to the kind of atheistic Darwinism that influenced Hitler.

 

[Valke2]

So you would equate every woman that has had an abortion with Hitler?

 

[Kaninchen]

Since the Jews were non-persons, it was okay to kill them. Since unborn babies are non-persons, it’s okay to kill them.

Actually, you are missing a very crucial difference. There was nothing in the Reich Code of Justice to the effect that Jews were not ‘persons’ and therefore it was OK to kill us. The Final Solution was ‘extra-legal’, a culmination of ‘Nacht und Nebel’ policies, not part of the generality of legal process. In other words, there was no law within the rule of which what happened, happened.

Abortion in the US takes place within the context of the ‘Rule of Law’ (that doesn’t make it moral or immoral, it’s just the context) where everybody is subject to the law (whether one agrees with said laws or not).

As an aside, I’d draw your attention to the logical fallacies associated with your Hitler and atheistic evolution contention together with reminding you of the problems of slippery slopes.

 

[justinthemartyr]

There is also an aspect of lowered culpability with many abortions in that the women who are pregnant are not fully aware that it is a child within their womb. With all the junk science out there trying to justify that a baby is not a human being until they are born, or until a certain untold point of progresss within the womb, it can be quite confusing to a mother. Planned parenthood and other abortion mills are good at doing this to a woman who is seeking a solution to what she deems as a problem. Reduce the value and therefore make them less human.

Hitler did the same thing, except that these were fully viable, human beings, fully raised, walking around, making a living, married etc… This was blatent disregard for human life.

 

[rogue13]

First, my response to Valke: No, I do not equate every woman who has had an abortion to Hitler…that is an absurd conclusion to draw from what I have said. However, I do say that every woman who has willingly had an abortion has participated in the murder of a human being. However, as Justinthemartyr points out, the culpability of each of these women depends on the amount of information they had, the conditions in which they were in (emotionally, mentally, chemically, etc.), the circumstances they were in (pressure from parents, boyfriends, husbands, etc.) - in other words, the extent to which they made a free and informed decision about what they were doing will be the extent to which they are culpable. So, they are not guilty of genocide, but they may indeed, depending on the circumstances, be guilty of murder.

Next, my response to Kaninchen: 1) There is no logical fallacy in my “Hitler and atheistic evolution” contention. I went to the link you provided and found that not only have you misunderstood what I said, but that whoever wrote the things at this link has his/her own logical fallacies to deal with. In fact, to rely on Wikipedia in such matters seems to me to be a priori a logical fallacy.

For example: the first 3 things mentioned on that site:

“1. Even if the connection between Darwin and Hitler were true, this is the fallacy of Appeal to Consequences - the consequences of a world view are irrelevant to its truth.”

I don’t recall saying anything about the truth, or error, of the theory of evolution. So, I have not committed the “fallacy of Appeal to Consequences.” You are mistaken to have believed so.

“2. Most scientists agree that evolution is not a direct guide to moral behavior, and it is illegitimate to use it as such. Just because most human beings have sexual desire does not mean that they should always act on it, for instance.”

First of all, not quite clear on the connection between evolution and sexual desire as used in this instance? Secondly, if evolution is true, and if there is also no God, is it morally wrong for a human being to always act on their sexual desires? If so, by what objective moral standard do you say so?

Third, if evolution is true, why is it illegitimate to use it as a guide to moral behavior? Isn’t that a backhanded admission that it has disastrous consequences when used to inform one’s ethical/moral positions? It seems “most scientists” are assuming that anyone who uses evolution as a guide to moral behavior is going to end up doing things that are not moral, doesn’t it? By the way, what right do “most scientists” have to declare that the use of evolution is an illegitimate guide to moral behavior? Are “most scientists” now the arbiters of morality? And, again, it seems that “most scientists” declaring the use of evolution as a direct guide to moral behavior as being “illegitimate” is a tacit admission that to do so has immoral consequences. So, it seems that because they know it will lead to immoral consequences, they claim its use as being illegitimate. Thus, attempting to avoid some ethical/moral problems for themselves.

After all, if we are just animals, then why is one of us killing another one of us considered a priori immoral by “most scientists”? Plus, let’s say a higher species evolves from us - would it then be okay for them to use us as food? As slave labor? As subjects in medical experiments? If not, why not? Darwinism would seem to lead to a “yes” answer here, I mean, if you leave morality out of the question. So, how do “most scientists” come to the conclusion that using evolution as a guide to moral behavior is “illegitimate?” Isn’t that merely a subjective opinion on their part? Perhaps a bit of the circular reasoning fallacy going on here?

“3. A particular person’s misuse of a scientific theory (someone who wasn’t even a scientist, no less) does not invalidate the theory anymore than someone’s misuse of scripture would invalidate religion (e.g., Crusades, Inquisition).”

Again, I said nothing about invalidating the theory of evolution, did I? You are incorrectly applying this “fallacy” to what I have said because you apparently have not understood what it was I actually said. Plus, there is a problem with the comparison here. The fact of the matter is, it is very clear that to act in accord with Judeo/Christian teaching is to act within traditionally moral boundaries. And, to act immorally is to act in an un-Judeo/Christian manner.

[Continued in next post.]

 

[rogue13]

However, it is apparently clear, at least in the opinion of “most scientists,” that to act in accord with the teachings of Darwinism, is to act immorally. In other words, one must act in an un-Darwinian manner to be moral. Which means, the comparison between the “misuse” of this particular scientific theory and the “misuse” of Scripture is not a valid one. It is not the misuse of Darwinism in moral matters that has “most scientists” concerned, it is the use of Darwinism in moral matters that has them concerned.

I am not blaming the theory of evolution for what Hitler did and I am not questioning the truth or error of the theory of evolution, at least, not in this particular argument. Thus, I am not committing the supposed logical fallacy. I merely stated that Hitler and his policies were very much influenced by [American and British] eugenicists who pretty much made a religion out of atheistic Darwinism. Do you deny that? I do contend, though, that if you have a worldview that is informed by atheistic Darwinism, then you have a hard time giving an objective reason for why Hitler killing the Jews was morally wrong. He believed it was okay for the strong to kill the weak. He believed the Aryans were the master race and the Jews were a subhuman race. Therefore, there was nothing wrong with killing them. Survival of the fittest.

Now, regarding the “slippery slope” fallacy that you claim I made. I did no such thing. Never have I said that being an atheist or believing in atheistic Darwinism inevitably leads one to commit genocide or murder or any such thing. All that was stated in that article, which I agree with, is that the subjective valuation of human life leaves the door open for this kind of behavior to result - because there is nothing between the person who holds to this subjective valuation and this kind of immoral behavior, other than they’re own subjective feelings. I have read of atheists who believe abortion is wrong. Every atheist I’ve ever met - not a lot, but several - believe what Hitler did was wrong. The point is, they cannot give me an objective reason for why it was wrong. Can you?

And, finally, I do not believe I am missing a “crucial difference.” I have read that the Nazis did indeed have laws passed that legally rendered the Jews as non-persons. However, I am relying on my memory for that, so let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that you are right and that was never done, at least in regards to the formal legal system of the time. (Weren’t laws passed that legally rendered the mentally-handicapped and others with “defects” as “non-persons,” which allowed them to then be euthanized?) But, as you state it, the “Final Solution” was “extra-legal.” In other words, Hitler had his own set of laws - he was the law of the time. Might made right. Which, I believe, is one of the points in the “Was Hitler Right?” article. The point is, that it was okay to kill the Jews because they were non-persons - whether legally rendered so or extra-legally rendered so. Same with the unborn - it is okay to kill them because they have been rendered non-persons. You have missed the point - the point is not whether it was done legally or extra-legally, the point is that it was done. Jews = non-persons; okay to kill. Unborn = non-persons; okay to kill. The fact that a subset of human beings is being declared non-persons through our traditional legal system is not something to point to as a source of pride for our country or our legal system.

Now, enough of the distractions. Answer the question - if you can - was Hitler right to kill the Jews? And, if not, why not?

 

[Kaninchen]

Again, I said nothing about invalidating the theory of evolution, did I? You are incorrectly applying this “fallacy” to what I have said because you apparently have not understood what it was I actually said.

I’m afraid that it’s becoming very apparent that I’ll never have the faintest idea what it is that you are saying - I can only deal with what I see as the consequences of what it appears to me that you are saying.

Plus, there is a problem with the comparison here. The fact of the matter is, it is very clear that to act in accord with Judeo/Christian teaching is to act within traditionally moral boundaries. And, to act immorally is to act in an un-Judeo/Christian manner.

That’s all very nice but you’d need to establish that as a fact not just assert it - I appreciate, however, that I don’t understand what you’ve said.

 

[Kaninchen]

And, finally, I do not believe I am missing a “crucial difference.” I have read that the Nazis did indeed have laws passed that legally rendered the Jews as non-persons. However, I am relying on my memory for that, so let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that you are right and that was never done, at least in regards to the formal legal system of the time. (Weren’t laws passed that legally rendered the mentally-handicapped and others with “defects” as “non-persons,” which allowed them to then be euthanized?) But, as you state it, the “Final Solution” was “extra-legal.” In other words, Hitler had his own set of laws - he was the law of the time. Might made right. Which, I believe, is one of the points in the “Was Hitler Right?” article. The point is, that it was okay to kill the Jews because they were non-persons - whether legally rendered so or extra-legally rendered so. Same with the unborn - it is okay to kill them because they have been rendered non-persons. You have missed the point - the point is not whether it was done legally or extra-legally, the point is that it was done. Jews = non-persons; okay to kill. Unborn = non-persons; okay to kill. The fact that a subset of human beings is being declared non-persons through our traditional legal system is not something to point to as a source of pride for our country or our legal system.

I realize that I don’t understand what you’ve said but I’d suggest that you’re confusing the psychological basis for the action (amongst the various actors in the Final Solution) with the legal basis for the action.

Now, enough of the distractions. Answer the question - if you can - was Hitler right to kill the Jews? And, if not, why not?

I don’t understand the question, could you restate it?

 

[rogue13]

Forgive me, I didn’t realize you would be so sensitive. But, if you really did understand what it was I was saying, you would have replied to what I actually argued, without asserting that I said things I didn’t say.

Now, if you would like to respond to my actual arguments, or make an attempt to answer the question about Hitler, I would gladly continue. If not, then I will make the logical fallacy of the “argument from silence” - I’ll assume your silence means you have no argument.

 

[Kaninchen]

Forgive me, I didn’t realize you would be so sensitive. But, if you really did understand what it was I was saying, you would have replied to what I actually argued, without asserting that I said things I didn’t say.

Now, if you would like to respond to my actual arguments, or make an attempt to answer the question about Hitler, I would gladly continue. If not, then I will make the logical fallacy of the “argument from silence” - I’ll assume your silence means you have no argument.

 

[justinthemartyr]

Was hitler wrong in killing 6 million plus people, mostly jews?

if not, why?

if yes, why?

simple question, which no athiest can seem to answer.