Was Hitler objectively bad?

[HeyItsZeus]

According to my morals, yes. But Nazis will think otherwise obviously.

---

This is one of the largest problems with Atheism. Atheists can be 'good' people. But everything is permissible...

But he was bad for human beings in general, caused a great deal of suffering (an understatement to be sure). That's good enough reason to be opposed to tyrants like Hitler-- there's no need to stray into metaphysics.

How was he bad for the human race? A lot of Europeans didnt like the Jews, if anything he was doing Europe a favour.

I happen to know a bunch of old guys from Sicily who would say otherwise. They say it was forced on them. (My wonderful great grandparents)

[Minimalist]

If he had won, I would be writing Japanese, I just would not be able to say anything bad about the Emporer...

The Japanese had no chance of winning WWII. They lost the moment the first plane cleared the deck of its carrier on 12-7-41.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

This is one of the largest problems with Atheism. Atheists can be 'good' people. But everything is permissible

Bollocks

It's a conceit of the lunar religious right that they have a monopoly on morality.

YET AGAIN: Atheism is simply a disbelief in God(s).NOTHING ELSE IS IMPLIED OR MAY BE INFERRED.

ATHEISM IS NOT: a religion,an ideology,a moral code, a political party,a world view or a club.There is no such thing as an atheist position on ANY topic other than the existence of God.


Atheism is an effect,not a cause.My atheism comes via skepticism. My morality is that of moral relativism, which is NOT equal to immoral.


Do pay attention, there's a good chap.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures:
Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise.[1]
Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not objective or universal but instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of people.[2]
Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that, as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

[solja247]

Being a relativist proves my above point (that everything is permissible without a God)
Who is to say that human sacrficies in Mexico were bad?
Or that murdering innoncent people is wrong?

What if they think its a good thing, to murder innocent people?
If one thinks its good to murder innocent people, should we not let them live a moral life, according to how they define morality?

[Entropist]

Being a relativist proves my above point (that everything is permissible without a God)
Who is to say that human sacrficies in Mexico were bad?
Or that murdering innoncent people is wrong?

...Or the genocide of Midianite men, women and children...? etc etc etc

[Welsh cake]

Although I completely disagree and I do believe Hitler was a bad man, a very bad man, infact I would call him evil...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnL9_rMCe-E

Though you can't deny, like you, he believed in god. I guess we atheists are "off the evil-scale" in your book.

[Zen Badger]

Or that murdering innoncent people is wrong?

Since the bible is full of examples of god commanding that innocent people be murdered I would guess that it isn't.

[solja247]

Since the bible is full of examples of god commanding that innocent people be murdered I would guess that it isn't.

Atheist argument goes like this:

I dont believe in God 'cos SOME theists believe X
I dont like X
Therefore there is no God.

[Zen Badger]

Since the bible is full of examples of god commanding that innocent people be murdered I would guess that it isn't.

Atheist argument goes like this:

I dont believe in God 'cos SOME theists believe X
I dont like X
Therefore there is no God.

No, the atheist arguement goes like this.

There is NO evidence for god

Therefore I don't believe in god.

Please try to pay attention to what we say, it's not THAT hard is it?

[Entropist]

Atheist argument goes like this:

I dont believe in God 'cos SOME theists believe X
I dont like X
Therefore there is no God.

No, the conclusion is just that the Christian god, imaginary or otherwise, is merely a Supreme Asshole. You want to "worship" a genocidal tyrant, that's fine, but then to turn around and talk about Hitler being "evil" in some objective sense (for doing the same thing no less) is ironic to say the very least. Too bad if some atheists feel the need to point out this glaring inconsistency.