That assumes that a group of people is subhuman is a flawed premise (to be sure, I agree here, now I'm just playing the devils advocate). But can you rationally say that? Or is that just what your culture and your upbringing have taught you?

I can rationally say that it is important and imperative to the survival of our species to help each other, and to show compassion towards those we might view as less fortunate as ourselves. Any actions counter to this defies any critical thinking or rationality.

The point here is, that even though we consider dehumanizing a group of humans as a flawed premise, for the Nazi's this logic clearly made sense. If you would ask them, they would no consider it to be a flawed premise. The operated under the idea that it was in fact the correct premise, and from there adjusted their policy in a cold, bureaucratic-rationalist way.

A logic making sense to a group of people does not mean that logic was sound. Sure, if you were to have asked them it was the only rational conclusion because that is what they were convinced to believe despite thousands of years of critical thinking that said otherwise. They were hurt and desperate economically, so they allowed themselves to be fooled into believing others were a proper scapegoat.

Aside from that, so far both of you have demonstrated a remarkable ability to let personal moral and ethical convictions stand in the way of pure rational calculation. Good, but all this shows that pure rational behavior is just one flawed premise away from turning into the mass murder of 6 million people.

On the contrary, I believe you have argued precisely the same false idea that pure rationality leads to Nazism. While the factors that lead up to Nazism are important to recognize so that we can avoid such horrors in the future, the root cause wasn't rationalism but typical, common human gullibility and lack of critical thinking and challenging those in power.

Why does the "Political" forum get bogged down in such mindless crap ? Why don't the regular contributors get their effing acts together to see what is REALLY happening in this world with the rise of Right Wing Conservatism and the threat that this entails.

The reason why politics and religion are so closely entwined, at least here in the States, is because the Right Wing Conservatism wishes to push their very Christian views onto the rest of American society.

I personally would love to talk about the important issues that are happening rather than religion. Unfortunately that means arguing with the likes of ID, Guy and MSattler about the origins of our Constitution and which way it should be interpreted and how it should be applied by law.

Being that I know you're an intelligent person, I'm sure at some level you must realize all this. I agree with your frustration in constantly having to have everything come back to religion, and honestly I'm tired of trying to fend off the mischaracterizations leveled toward Atheism, but just as equal respect and equal rights are important to other groups, I would simply like the same for the thing I identify with as well.

Atheism has delivered nothing to mankind or the world for that matter. It has had zero impact on anything.

Faith on the other hand has fed the poor, gave them clothes, put a roof over ones head.

I have to disagree. Modern man has been on this planet about a million years, and no evidence of any religion exists prior to the last 10,000 years. That leaves about 990,000 years where there was no belief system. Clearly food, shelter, and some level of comfort was acquired, and shared by the early human groups.

As a more modern example, I am a very caring person, who will do anything I can for anyone regardless of what they believe, and I have not a single shred of religious belief.

Steve

Thank you Steve. And it's those kinds of comments you responded to that make me want to speak up and defend my views.

Again, if you're building a structure of logic on a flawed premise, then everything that comes after is flawed as well. To further equate the logic of the Nazi killings with capitalism, or to further suggest that Nazism is somehow the epitome of pure rationalism is unequivocally flawed as well.

It isn't that I refuse to see the point you are attempting to illustrate. It is that I think your interpretations and conclusions are highly suspect as being largely incorrect, and if you do indeed equate rationalism or Atheism/Darwinism with either of those premises, it's no wonder that you find Atheism itself disagreeable. I would further proffer that your disagreement with Atheism is just as flawed and incorrect as your assertion of Nazism and capitalism.

Actually I take back when I said that the premise itself was flawed as well. You claimed that any logical premise that starts with 'if we kill this group of people we will all be better off' is inherently flawed. I disagree, Utilitarian logic exactly allows for the murder of whole groups of people as long as an even bigger group significantly benefits from it. Personally I disagree with such reasoning, but to say that Utilitarian logic is not rational is not exactly a correct claim itself. One can therefor make the case that the Nazis employed a form of Utilitarian rationality to come up with the idea to get rid of the Jews. In their eyes, their German society as a whole would benefit from the removal of the Jews. Of course, its hard to argue otherwise, given that 'utility' is a concept that means many things to many people. And while one person might gain no 'utility' from a given action, someone else might.

And likewise that you do not seem to want to see is that just because you believe the Nazis were coldly rational in their killing methods, does not mean that Atheism and pure rationality is cold or inhumane.

The root of your argument seems to rest on the false idea that Atheism/Darwinism is without respect for life, and that only the belief in religion or religious influences are what makes us better at being human.

What? Where did you get the idea that this had anything to do with Atheism? I was arguing against pure rational behavior, I was trying to show that rationality detached from empathy and respect for life (which I might add are two very irrational concepts) can result in crimes that are almost beyond comprehension. This was a challenge to your claim that pure rationality all the time is a good thing.

I can rationally say that it is important and imperative to the survival of our species to help each other, and to show compassion towards those we might view as less fortunate as ourselves. Any actions counter to this defies any critical thinking or rationality.

That same group of weak and unfortunate people might very well be a massive drain on your resources. It might be imperative for the survival of the group that its weakest members are cast out, less they continue to be a drain on resources that might be much better put to use to help the people that are still strong and healthy. Sometimes to defeat a cancer you have to amputate a limb in order to prevent it from spreading to the rest of the body. Hence, your claim that any actions counter to this always defy critical thinking or rationality is just false.

Indeed, compassion and helping out the weakest members of your group is not an act of rational behavior, its irrational. But who said that irrational behavior by definition is bad?

A logic making sense to a group of people does not mean that logic was sound. Sure, if you were to have asked them it was the only rational conclusion because that is what they were convinced to believe despite thousands of years of critical thinking that said otherwise. They were hurt and desperate economically, so they allowed themselves to be fooled into believing others were a proper scapegoat.

Its called Utilitarian logic. If the largest group of people benefit from getting rid of another group of people, then the decision to do so was rational, at least according to utilitarian logic.

On the contrary, I believe you have argued precisely the same false idea that pure rationality leads to Nazism. While the factors that lead up to Nazism are important to recognize so that we can avoid such horrors in the future, the root cause wasn't rationalism but typical, common human gullibility and lack of critical thinking and challenging those in power.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that pure rationality leads to Nazism. I'm saying that pure rationality can result in such a horror like the Holocaust. Those are two very distinct things.

Nazism itself has nothing to do with rational behavior (if anything they abhor it) and the reason they got into power was no different than how Bush or Reagan got into power.

Happy Magic Baby Day!!

Well, I've never heard it called that before :-) Although there was nothing magic about it at all. A lot of biblical scholars believe that Mary simply became pregnant at about 15 by her boyfriend Joseph who was older maybe 25-30. In a small village like Nazareth 2000 years ago, to be an unmarried mother was the height of shame and they would have left in disgrace. As it happened they went to Bethlehem for the census for Joseph, and the child was born there. They married later, maybe the following March, and returned to Nazareth some time afterwards.

However some put the date of the census as 7BC, others at 6AD, so the exact date of Jesus's birth is not really known for sure. However there are enough contemporary accounts surviving, to say that roughly 2000 years ago, a man called Jesus did live and die, but of course there is no evidence that he was the son of God, or any God. He said he was, and his followers believed him. People have a choice whether to believe themselves or not.

That's about the long and the short of it. +1

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Actually I take back when I said that the premise itself was flawed as well. You claimed that any logical premise that starts with 'if we kill this group of people we will all be better off' is inherently flawed. I disagree, Utilitarian logic exactly allows for the murder of whole groups of people as long as an even bigger group significantly benefits from it.

Who asserts that Utilitarian logic is correct?

Personally I disagree with such reasoning, but to say that Utilitarian logic is not rational is not exactly a correct claim itself.

Of course it isn't rational. If Utilitarian logic starts with the flawed premise of "if we kill this group of people we will be better off", then it cannot be defined as rational.

And likewise that you do not seem to want to see is that just because you believe the Nazis were coldly rational in their killing methods, does not mean that Atheism and pure rationality is cold or inhumane.

The root of your argument seems to rest on the false idea that Atheism/Darwinism is without respect for life, and that only the belief in religion or religious influences are what makes us better at being human.

What? Where did you get the idea that this had anything to do with Atheism? I was arguing against pure rational behavior, I was trying to show that rationality detached from empathy and respect for life (which I might add are two very irrational concepts) can result in crimes that are almost beyond comprehension. This was a challenge to your claim that pure rationality all the time is a good thing.

And where did I argue that pure rationalism should be detached from empathy or respect for life? Why would you even think that I was arguing in favor of such a concept without further seeking clarification of my views?

That same group of weak and unfortunate people might very well be a massive drain on your resources. It might be imperative for the survival of the group that its weakest members are cast out, less they continue to be a drain on resources that might be much better put to use to help the people that are still strong and healthy. Sometimes to defeat a cancer you have to amputate a limb in order to prevent it from spreading to the rest of the body. Hence, your claim that any actions counter to this always defy critical thinking or rationality is just false.

Then you teach that group through education and social influence on how to better manage resources. Casting out or killing of them is not acceptable.

Indeed, compassion and helping out the weakest members of your group is not an act of rational behavior, its irrational. But who said that irrational behavior by definition is bad?

I cannot find any way to agree with your assertion that compassion is an act of irrational behavior.

A logic making sense to a group of people does not mean that logic was sound. Sure, if you were to have asked them it was the only rational conclusion because that is what they were convinced to believe despite thousands of years of critical thinking that said otherwise. They were hurt and desperate economically, so they allowed themselves to be fooled into believing others were a proper scapegoat.

Its called Utilitarian logic. If the largest group of people benefit from getting rid of another group of people, then the decision to do so was rational, at least according to utilitarian logic.

Again, who asserts that Utilitarian logic is correct? And that might be the rationale of Utilitarian logic, but that doesn't make it rational. The two concepts are distinctly different, which is what I've been trying to argue.

On the contrary, I believe you have argued precisely the same false idea that pure rationality leads to Nazism. While the factors that lead up to Nazism are important to recognize so that we can avoid such horrors in the future, the root cause wasn't rationalism but typical, common human gullibility and lack of critical thinking and challenging those in power.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that pure rationality leads to Nazism. I'm saying that pure rationality can result in such a horror like the Holocaust. Those are two very distinct things.

Don't put words in your mouth, huh? Sort of like how you thought I was arguing that pure rationalism should be detached from empathy? And I tend to disagree that it was pure Utilitarian rationality that lead to the Holocaust. I refer back to my statement of common human gullibility combined with a lack of critical thinking and challenging the actions of those in power.

Nazism itself has nothing to do with rational behavior (if anything they abhor it) and the reason they got into power was no different than how Bush or Reagan got into power.

Weren't you just arguing that Nazism utilized Utilitarian logic and was rational according to that logic? Now you're saying that Nazism abhors rational behavior?

I can rationally say that it is important and imperative to the survival of our species to help each other, and to show compassion towards those we might view as less fortunate as ourselves. Any actions counter to this defies any critical thinking or rationality.

That same group of weak and unfortunate people might very well be a massive drain on your resources. It might be imperative for the survival of the group that its weakest members are cast out, less they continue to be a drain on resources that might be much better put to use to help the people that are still strong and healthy. Sometimes to defeat a cancer you have to amputate a limb in order to prevent it from spreading to the rest of the body. Hence, your claim that any actions counter to this always defy critical thinking or rationality is just false.

Indeed, compassion and helping out the weakest members of your group is not an act of rational behavior, its irrational. But who said that irrational behavior by definition is bad?

A logic making sense to a group of people does not mean that logic was sound. Sure, if you were to have asked them it was the only rational conclusion because that is what they were convinced to believe despite thousands of years of critical thinking that said otherwise. They were hurt and desperate economically, so they allowed themselves to be fooled into believing others were a proper scapegoat.

Its called Utilitarian logic. If the largest group of people benefit from getting rid of another group of people, then the decision to do so was rational, at least according to utilitarian logic.

On the contrary, I believe you have argued precisely the same false idea that pure rationality leads to Nazism. While the factors that lead up to Nazism are important to recognize so that we can avoid such horrors in the future, the root cause wasn't rationalism but typical, common human gullibility and lack of critical thinking and challenging those in power.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that pure rationality leads to Nazism. I'm saying that pure rationality can result in such a horror like the Holocaust. Those are two very distinct things.

Nazism itself has nothing to do with rational behavior (if anything they abhor it) and the reason they got into power was no different than how Bush or Reagan got into power.

I have to draw the line on that nasty remark. I do not recall any of Bush's or Reagan's men burning down the equivelent of our Rhiecstag. Nor do I recall them launching a night of the long knives either. I could go on, But I hope you get my drift. Your remark is way out of line!!

---

[/quote]

Old James

Nazism itself has nothing to do with rational behavior (if anything they abhor it) and the reason they got into power was no different than how Bush or Reagan got into power.

I have to draw the line on that nasty remark. I do not recall any of Bush's or Reagan's men burning down the equivelent of our Rhiecstag. Nor do I recall them launching a night of the long knives either. I could go on, But I hope you get my drift. Your remark is way out of line!!

Most of his comments are out of line (and I think he just likes to argue), but if you dare call him out for it, Guy will jump in with his Rules for Radicals bs and accuse you of trying to shut down the discussion.

Happy Magic Baby Day!!

Well, I've never heard it called that before :-) Although there was nothing magic about it at all. A lot of biblical scholars believe that Mary simply became pregnant at about 15 by her boyfriend Joseph who was older maybe 25-30. In a small village like Nazareth 2000 years ago, to be an unmarried mother was the height of shame and they would have left in disgrace. As it happened they went to Bethlehem for the census for Joseph, and the child was born there. They married later, maybe the following March, and returned to Nazareth some time afterwards.

Biblical scholars actually don't think that Mary was unmarried, she was married to Joseph and she had other children. Poor old Joseph got written out of the picture so Jesus could fit some Jewish prophesies. There is also no evidence that they even went to Bethlehem as there was no census at the time and even if there was there was no need for Joseph to travel to his town of birth to comply with it.

Also, Jesus was most likely born in September, but his birth date changed to fit in with the pagan and roman festivals at the solstice. Cultural appropriation was a common practice in the Roman empire in order to help it absorb and keep the conquered lands. Which was pretty much the reason that Christianity was forced to separate its doctrine from the revolutionary anti-Roman one that Jesus preached in order for the followers to survive.

However some put the date of the census as 7BC, others at 6AD, so the exact date of Jesus's birth is not really known for sure. However there are enough contemporary accounts surviving, to say that roughly 2000 years ago, a man called Jesus did live and die, but of course there is no evidence that he was the son of God, or any God. He said he was, and his followers believed him. People have a choice whether to believe themselves or not.

Yup. :)

---

Reality Internet Personality

I can rationally say that it is important and imperative to the survival of our species to help each other, and to show compassion towards those we might view as less fortunate as ourselves. Any actions counter to this defies any critical thinking or rationality.

That same group of weak and unfortunate people might very well be a massive drain on your resources. It might be imperative for the survival of the group that its weakest members are cast out, less they continue to be a drain on resources that might be much better put to use to help the people that are still strong and healthy. Sometimes to defeat a cancer you have to amputate a limb in order to prevent it from spreading to the rest of the body. Hence, your claim that any actions counter to this always defy critical thinking or rationality is just false.

Indeed, compassion and helping out the weakest members of your group is not an act of rational behavior, its irrational. But who said that irrational behavior by definition is bad?

A logic making sense to a group of people does not mean that logic was sound. Sure, if you were to have asked them it was the only rational conclusion because that is what they were convinced to believe despite thousands of years of critical thinking that said otherwise. They were hurt and desperate economically, so they allowed themselves to be fooled into believing others were a proper scapegoat.

Its called Utilitarian logic. If the largest group of people benefit from getting rid of another group of people, then the decision to do so was rational, at least according to utilitarian logic.

On the contrary, I believe you have argued precisely the same false idea that pure rationality leads to Nazism. While the factors that lead up to Nazism are important to recognize so that we can avoid such horrors in the future, the root cause wasn't rationalism but typical, common human gullibility and lack of critical thinking and challenging those in power.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that pure rationality leads to Nazism. I'm saying that pure rationality can result in such a horror like the Holocaust. Those are two very distinct things.

Nazism itself has nothing to do with rational behavior (if anything they abhor it) and the reason they got into power was no different than how Bush or Reagan got into power.

I have to draw the line on that nasty remark. I do not recall any of Bush's or Reagan's men burning down the equivelent of our Rhiecstag. Nor do I recall them launching a night of the long knives either. I could go on, But I hope you get my drift. Your remark is way out of line!!

They were voted in though. I think that is the point he was trying to make. They were voted in because people were in a bad way and wanted someone to blame. Always be aware that such things can happen again. The rise of parties in the UK like UKIP are a prime example of this behaviour. Every citizen should be on watch, especially now when the conditions are ripe for a repeat of history.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I have to draw the line on that nasty remark. I do not recall any of Bush's or Reagan's men burning down the equivelent of our Rhiecstag. Nor do I recall them launching a night of the long knives either. I could go on, But I hope you get my drift. Your remark is way out of line!!

They were voted in though. I think that is the point he was trying to make. They were voted in because people were in a bad way and wanted someone to blame. Always be aware that such things can happen again. The rise of parties in the UK like UKIP are a prime example of this behaviour. Every citizen should be on watch, especially now when the conditions are ripe for a repeat of history.

I'm not sure the voting in of Bush or Reagan gave the citizens someone to blame. While I certainly don't agree with either President's views on politics, I think it is disparaging to suggest that Bush or Reagan could have been the preface to something similar to the Holocaust.

Мишель WINS
Blank Space LOSES

Bush or Reagan could have been the preface to something similar to the Holocaust.

16 Years of Their Haters counter the above quote. The Hate for R and B was and still is Intense, and The RATIONAL HATERS Believed a New Holocaust was in The Works.

And Still 'is' with Any GOPTer.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

I have to draw the line on that nasty remark. I do not recall any of Bush's or Reagan's men burning down the equivelent of our Rhiecstag. Nor do I recall them launching a night of the long knives either. I could go on, But I hope you get my drift. Your remark is way out of line!!

They were voted in though. I think that is the point he was trying to make. They were voted in because people were in a bad way and wanted someone to blame. Always be aware that such things can happen again. The rise of parties in the UK like UKIP are a prime example of this behaviour. Every citizen should be on watch, especially now when the conditions are ripe for a repeat of history.

I'm not sure the voting in of Bush or Reagan gave the citizens someone to blame. While I certainly don't agree with either President's views on politics, I think it is disparaging to suggest that Bush or Reagan could have been the preface to something similar to the Holocaust.

I'm not sure either, but again, they got into power the same way. The people voted the Nazi's in. It wasn't some sort military take over. They were voted in.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Мишель WINS
Blank Space LOSES

Bush or Reagan could have been the preface to something similar to the Holocaust.

16 Years of Their Haters counter the above quote. The Hate for R and B was and still is Intense, and The RATIONAL HATERS Believed a New Holocaust was in The Works.

And Still 'is' with Any GOPTer.

' '

Interesting editing of his quote. Do you edit people's posts in your head that way to in order to change the meaning?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Мишель WINS
Blank Space LOSES

I wasn't aware you were appointed judge of the discussion. I also suspect your outcome greatly relies on your biases. I.e., you dislike me, so any deep discussion I'm involved in is going to result in your suggesting I've somehow "lost". BTW - how do you lose a discussion on views?

I have to draw the line on that nasty remark. I do not recall any of Bush's or Reagan's men burning down the equivelent of our Rhiecstag. Nor do I recall them launching a night of the long knives either. I could go on, But I hope you get my drift. Your remark is way out of line!!

They were voted in though. I think that is the point he was trying to make. They were voted in because people were in a bad way and wanted someone to blame. Always be aware that such things can happen again. The rise of parties in the UK like UKIP are a prime example of this behaviour. Every citizen should be on watch, especially now when the conditions are ripe for a repeat of history.

I'm not sure the voting in of Bush or Reagan gave the citizens someone to blame. While I certainly don't agree with either President's views on politics, I think it is disparaging to suggest that Bush or Reagan could have been the preface to something similar to the Holocaust.

I'm not sure either, but again, they got into power the same way. The people voted the Nazi's in. It wasn't some sort military take over. They were voted in.

Agreed, but I think that's where the similarities end. Some of the more extreme Right Wing make the same sort of inferences of Barack Obama, and I think we both know that Obama's politics is not a precursor to Nazism either.

Мишель WINS
Blank Space LOSES

I wasn't aware you were appointed judge of the discussion. I also suspect your outcome greatly relies on your biases. I.e., you dislike me, so any deep discussion I'm involved in is going to result in your suggesting I've somehow "lost". BTW - how do you lose a discussion on views?

How can you tell? I see gibberish. It's sad when Alzheimer's patients are allowed access to the internet instead of getting the care they need

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

I have to draw the line on that nasty remark. I do not recall any of Bush's or Reagan's men burning down the equivelent of our Rhiecstag. Nor do I recall them launching a night of the long knives either. I could go on, But I hope you get my drift. Your remark is way out of line!!

They were voted in though. I think that is the point he was trying to make. They were voted in because people were in a bad way and wanted someone to blame. Always be aware that such things can happen again. The rise of parties in the UK like UKIP are a prime example of this behaviour. Every citizen should be on watch, especially now when the conditions are ripe for a repeat of history.

I'm not sure the voting in of Bush or Reagan gave the citizens someone to blame. While I certainly don't agree with either President's views on politics, I think it is disparaging to suggest that Bush or Reagan could have been the preface to something similar to the Holocaust.

I'm not sure either, but again, they got into power the same way. The people voted the Nazi's in. It wasn't some sort military take over. They were voted in.

Yes they were voted in. But Hitler has his enemy killed or sent to prison. And Im see nothing in those year of Bush or reagan that cant even remotely be called Krystal Nacht. And the Germans had no clue when Hitler was grabbing power about the final solution. Other wise I doubt he would have got elected.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Yes they were voted in. But Hitler has his enemy killed or sent to prison. And Im see nothing in those year of Bush or reagan that cant even remotely be called Krystal Nacht. And the Germans had no clue when Hitler was grabbing power about the final solution. Other wise I doubt he would have got elected.

Well first, I did not mean to offend. Second, Hitler ran on a platform that was openly anti Semitic. Sure, people couldn't have known about the holocaust because at that stage it wasn't thought off yet (as I said, at first the Germans were content with kicking the Jews from their territory, only after they began conquering other peoples territory did they begin thinking of a more permanent solution, which eventually evolved into their destruction). The holocaust only really got underway after Hitler had secured his position to such a degree it would require a massive civil war in order to stop him.

But on other aspects? There are some similarities. Reagan was running for president during a financial crisis and he also promised through extremely simplistic slogans to make everything better. Under him the war against poor people began. Of course, he did not choose to escalate it to the point where poor people would be shipped off to destruction camps, but he did introduce a massive shift in American discourse regarding welfare and poverty. Furthermore, his foreign policy is downright criminal, with invasions, support for military junta's, support for terrorists organizations and increasing tensions with the Soviet Union.

And Bush, well, he was just one small step away from becoming a dictator himself. He continued Reagan's economic policy, his war against the poor, started not one but two illegal wars, operated secreted prisons all around the world, allowed for torture (oh right, 'enhanced interrogation') and introduced a number of laws that turned the US in a surveillance state of which only now we begin to see the scope of. If Bush had wanted, he would have been able to seize power completely and he would have only needed to give the order for death camps to be constructed. Thankfully he didn't, but still, we were (and possibly still are) on the edge of another genocide.