Hitler killed 6 million Jews & he was a Christian. Does that mean all Christians are Killers & Terrorists?




  • Point to ponder: In an effort to similar discussion started by some brothers and sisters about http://chatrooms.talkwithstranger.com/topic/358/do-you-think-islam-is-a-religion-of-terrorism/417



  • no because he decided to think that jews were inferior and didnt deserve to live



  • This post is deleted!


  • @tina Nope . Every reliogion has bad believers . Just becouse one out of a thousand is bad that doesn't mean all of them are bad . The majority of them are good .



  • @billus-billus oh cool. So you're an anti-thiest too. Cool. Anti-thiest is a person who is against religion and the belief in god, yes.



  • @alwaysstranger Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by "anti-thiest"? Someone who is against religions? If so, I believe we are on the same page.



  • @billus-billus what's up felloe athiest, I'm an anti-thiest



  • Welllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll, saying Hitler single-handedly killed 6 million jews is a bit of an exaggeration. Not only did he receive large amounts of support from followers and members of his party, the entire SS division was dedicated to the cause without question. Also, Hitler was never much of a Christian to begin with. His only affiliation with the church was after WWI when he became involved in politics which required him to be on good terms with the majority of the German population at the time with were of course Catholics. So, no, just because Hitler killed a bunch of Jews does not mean all Christians are killer. And no, I am not defending Christians because I am one myself. I'm an atheist.



  • is that for real? please check your history.. thankz



  • Hell no lol you're making a huge generalization out of a huge group of people just because one such individual was a shitty person,thats similar to the idea of rascism sexism etc.



  • so someone who is religion wise the same as someone else is part to blame for the other's actions. Sounds soo logical -_-



  • I found my answer here http://www.eabout.men/



  • @sheapard this is the last time i answer you because you aren't even listening but here we go :

    @sheapard said in Hitler killed 6 million Jews & he was a Christian. Does that mean all Christians are Killers & Terrorists?:

    @alwaysstranger ,
      We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species.

    WRONG. And this is evidence that you watched 0 of the videos i sent you.

    Here is one of the many observed species turning into another:

    And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either.

    WRONG. All fossil records similar or not can fit in a branch shape to show the evolution of species into other species over millions of years

    Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
    "Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction.
    That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances.The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.

    Here's the explanation in one of the videos you didn't watch

    Go to 5:45

    http://chatrooms.talkwithstranger.com/topic/1840/hitler-killed-6-million-jews-he-was-a-christian-does-that-mean-all-christians-are-killers-terrorists/157

    i spoke about chance : Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

    No its not. Even if it was 1 in a 100 billion/planet (it's a lot lower than that) it would happen at least 1 time since there are 100 billion planets in our galaxy and it would probably happen a lot more times if you take in consideration that there are about 2 trillion other galaxies onlt in the observable universe

    And by the way scientists already know 1st how to create simple proteins in a lab 2nd how the conditions on planet earth should've been so that they could create protein

    Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (non-adaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.
    natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (non-adaptive) ones.
    As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

    OMG, why the f**k didn't you watch any of the videos i sent you.

    1st evolution is the non-random selection of random variation

    2nd error is that forces of selection change a lot and almost never stay constant for more than a couple million years and also most animals usually travel from place to place

    3rd you are wrong by saying short periods of time unless by short periods of time you mean millions of years in which case you're right

    Here's an explanation of how natural selection works:

    Dude. This is the last time i respond to you because 1st you aren't watching any videos i send you 2nd you don't care if what you believe is true or not, you want to believe what you want to believe because that's what you want to believe 3rd you're a lost cause

    So as a final message here are a couple of fun videos for you:

    Please go watch bleach while enjoying a cold glass of bleach



  • @sheapard hahaha. So you're just using the old "you aren't going to do it because you know you're going to lose". You know I'm stopping to talk to you because i feel like I'm talking to a mentally challenged person



  • @alwaysstranger : yeah, you don't need to care much when the videos r irrelevant nd strolling out of the crux of what's been questioned. go fill up intellectually bro, there is a major gap and it's quite obvious.. it's of no significance to continue on such disparity



  • @sheapard you didn't watch anything i sent you. You aren't even listening to me. Most of what you said is answered in the videos i sent you. I don't care anymore because I'm not going to waste my time giving you the same answer in different formats (text, video, picture...)



  • @alwaysstranger you've got a major intellectual gap and just relying on the surface part of Evolution postulates, but when faced to its micro-level, you tend to be shutoff and bring irrelevancies for sake of argument..
    Whatever dude, Human evolution is still nonsensical and that doesn't makes someone unscientific .



  • @alwaysstranger ,
    We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either.

    Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
    "Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances.The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.

    i spoke about chance : Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
    Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (non-adaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

    i hate to continue, but serious there's a kind of intellectual gap as seen from your supposedly sitcoms with regards to discussing Human evolution. because there are some important criteria that supports evolution , but taking these criteria to a micro-level, it fails to uphold its consistency to the claim its trying to support



  • @sheapard i think we should end this conversation because nothing is going to change your opinion on anything. In the words of Penn Jillette:



  • @sheapard so you don't believe in evolution because i don't understand what it's actually postulating, is that the reason?


Log in to reply
 


Looks like your connection to Free Chat Rooms Online - StrangerBook - Social Community was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.