Best make sure you don't have one, then!

I see no difference between your position and that of the agnostic vis-a-vis life on Mars.

There is no proof either way.

Semantics? Sloppy! "I don't believe in God" implies there is a God not to believe in, as you'll know.

Requiring A Notable Sum Of Money?

quote:

---

See, I actually think that irrational belief systems are destructive and dangerous.

---

You indeed did well, to read into my CHARLIE impression as being elementary DECEPTION:

Deed Entails Covert Elusive Pretences That Is Otherwise Nothing.

That is what Descartes wondered. He thought he used quite a severe form of scepticism to throw out anything he could not be poeitively sure of. He obviously lived before TV, Computers, VR and the Matrix, so he used the idea that demons could be supplying the sense data to him.

He then realised that something must be aware of the sense data, even if it was fictitious. Whatever was aware of it was himself. So, he came up with "Cogito Ergo Sum".

I am afraid that is all we can be sure of. In fact, even that has been under attack since then. Instead of "I think therefore I am" it could be "There are thoughts, therefore something is" (see Russell "The problems of Philosophy" and Ayer "Language Truth and Logic").

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Collins: I have met lots. I would claim to be one such.

---

Sure it is reasonable to say that, since I don't see God, therefore there isn't one.

It is equally reasonable to say that, since we exist, something or someone must have caused that existence.

Existence could be random, causeless and purposeless. But if I have a choice about what to believe, it is much more satisfying to me if cause and purpose are involved. After all, everything within creation operates on that basis. Why not exptrapolate?

Philosophy trys to make sense of the world and remove as many assumptions as possible.

We can say that conciousness exists (using the Cogito). We can say that there is sense data.

We then have two options. The sense data is real (in the usual sense of the word) or the sense data is fictitious. If it is fictitious, then the fiction must be made by something.

We can say that if it is a fiction, it is remarkably good. The fiction works according to laws that we can fathom. That would point to a 'real' world but it is by induction, not deduction, so it is not known to be true, only very probably true.

There is no empirical way of finding out which is actually true, but we can apply Occams razor and remove the fictitious argument because a real world is simpler than a real world that is created as a fiction by something (this is not about God, who, if sustaining the world, is doing it as a fundamental part of reality, not creating a fiction for us all).

Solipsism (the belief that the world is just part of ones own imagination) fails the Occams razor test too.

So, we have a reasonable method of saying that the world is real.

Descartes having shown that we exist because we think said that the next thing that we could be sure of without a doubt was the existence of God. He claimed that only God could make reality follow laws, and that it was therefore impossible to be an atheist scientist!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
John, please don't take this the wrong way, but judging by both your history of posting on the Ship and your website, I'd say that wasn't actually true.

---

Hmmmm... We might be heading for a discussion like Humpty-Dumpty word definition here...

The experiences I had, which are mostly 15 years old at least, are far removed in time from my moving away from Christianity.

Obviously I would be lying if I said that there weren't lingering regrets about this and that.

I don't think there are many people on this board who can honestly say their experiences of churches and other Christians has been uniformly happy from day one.

All I can say is that I am sure for myself that it was bitterness at my experiences, whether you think them gross and that unstandable or otherwise. But I'm not a psychologist, least of all one capable of analysing myself.

I'm just very glad to be out of it. But I thankfully maintain friendships with plenty of people who wildly disagree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
It is perfectly okay to just make assumptions, but for a philosopher that isn't an option. Remember philosophy means 'lover of knowledge.'Philosophy trys to make sense of the world and remove as many assumptions as possible.

---

You can't avoid making assumptions.
Philosophers make assumptions.

I do not think that they count as assumptions.

quote:

---

Are you convinced that empiricism is an adequate epistemology?

---

Yes. I see no reason that empiricism combined with logic is not adequate. I am willing to listen of you can show me any reason for thinking otherwise. Well, not any reason. I won't take your word for it or believe it just because a particular book says so. I mistrust my own subjective views on things, so I would mistrust your at least as much.

quote:

---

That Logic and Philosophy will never lead beyond that?

---

I cannot know this, as it is an inductive argument, but it probably won't.

And is empirisicm and logic adequate to explain Life, The Universe and Everything?

Yes. We have a good hypothesis for everything at the moment. Some things (such as the start of life) are more hypothetical than others, but we have enough to use as a logical, empirical system without needing to invoke anything greater.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
Yes. We have a good hypothesis for everything at the moment. Some things (such as the start of life) are more hypothetical than others, but we have enough to use as a logical, empirical system without needing to invoke anything greater.

---

What it boils down to is that it is not a valid question to ask "What happened before the universe?" No, this isn't a cop-out. Space and time did not exist before the Big Bang. So questions like 'where?' and 'When' have no significance.

Hawking describes it (in 'A Brief History of Time) as going to the North pole and when there asking where North is from there in terms of the Gobe you are standing on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill:

Semantics? Sloppy! "I don't believe in God" implies there is a God not to believe in, as you'll know.

---

hmmmm...

i don't believe in the easter bunny. does he exist now too ?

i don't believe in a huge pile of gold at the bottom of my garden ( well its worth a try

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akeldama:
(until finding faith in 1993) and I think that's because I was brought up in a strong Roman Catholic family and really resented missing Chopper Squad to go and sit in a draughty church hearing words that meant nothing to me. The schools I attended as a child never engaged the faith intellectually, you were just supposed to believe it. And I found, even at a very young age, I didn't believe a word of it. So you can imagine Sunday morning became a complete pain in the arse for me, as did Easter when we went to church nearly every day.

---

Most of the athiests I know are ones who have had bad childhood experiences of sitting in hideous services, listening to long, boring services and seeing people who apparently have no real interest in being there. I actually think one of the reasons I am a Christian today is because of my good experiences in church as a kid. We attended a real kid friendly church, the minister bought a whole bunch of plastic instruments and encouraged the kids to 'play' their own instruments during the singing - and we had really good childrens church, stuff to keep the kids attention and fully involve them in the life of the church. I recall church being the fun highlight of the week and I can still recall the Bible stories and stuff we learned - 20 years later! So sad that so many people have been turned off Church because of being forced to go to something so dire and boring.

[UBB corrected]

Well, I am actually a little further in than the blurb where I got that from.

If we consider the two sentence "martyrs suffer" and "martyrs exist" they are both grammatically the same, but we can speculate about their suffering, but we cannot speculate in the same way about their existence. This is because, as Kant said (as Ayer said!), existence is not an attribute. Existence is assumed in the sentence "martyrs suffer."

Then when we consider the lines "unicorns are fictitious" and "dogs are faithful" we see that dogs must exist in order to be faithful, but to say that unicorns must exist in order for them to be fictitious is contradictory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
Call me a logical positivits if you like, but that is how I am, until shown to be wrong.

---

You seemed to understand Paul Davis' view pretty well. Since it takes energy to seperate two gravitationally attracted objects, gravitational attraction can be considered as negative energy. Davis' view is that the sum of negative gravitational energy and positive energy (mass and radiation) is zero. The universe is hence just a very interesting arrangement of nothing. Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle comes in 2 forms; the more famous is that you can't simultaneously know the precise position and speed of particles, but there is also a similar relationship between energy and time that means virtual particles can "borrow" energy from the universe - the more energy they have the shorter the time they exist for. A zero energy particle (or universe) can exist for eternity. Of course, virtual particles exist within a universe governed by the laws of physics, including Heisenberg uncertainty. It begs the question, if the Universe is some form of virtual particle, what does it exist in? and why does that something have to governed by the same laws as our universe?

quote:

---

So, you cannot even be sure that your own body exists, as that could be a figment of your imagination.

---

quote:

---

What I would question is whether these feelings are signs of anything other than my mind. I get a feeling of joy when listening to certain music, but that joy, though it feels greater than me, is contained within my mind.

---

quote:

---

I will repeat, if there is no evidence, then to all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. Call me a logical positivits if you like, but that is how I am, until shown to be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by doug:

i don't believe in the easter bunny. does he exist now too ?

---

Doug: No, the Easter Bunny is just make-believe. The Tooth Fairy is Real, though. Sadly, some people do not believe in Her because of negative childhood experiences. Some don't believe in her because they just never bothered to put their tooth under their pillow in the first place!

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Collins:
To put it another way, the "I had terrible experiences so I left" is to me about as patronising as "Christians only stay in it because it gives them a nice warm feeling about a big guy up there looking after them".

---

Fair enough. Obviously, I don't know you, and despite previous discussions, I cannot really say that I could know how you tick.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
I see no reason that empiricism combined with logic is not adequate. I am willing to listen of you can show me any reason for thinking otherwise.

---

My old Psych Systems professor used to point out that none of the systems we studied were adequate to explain "feelings of warmth and intimacy."

Empiricism and logic are inadequate to explain this kind of thing. The human drive to understand such concepts as love and the meaning and purpose of life is fairly strong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by doug:
i don't believe in the easter bunny. does he exist now too ?

i don't believe in a huge pile of gold at the bottom of my garden ( well its worth a try

---

I don't believe in Warp Drive!! When do I get my Starship?!? Cool. This is better than shopping on the Internet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
<....>
Hawking describes it (in 'A Brief History of Time) as going to the North pole and when there asking where North is from there in terms of the Gobe you are standing on.

How did the Big Bang happen? Well, one idea is the 'Free lunch' theory'<....>

---

Yup. I love reading Hawking and have no argument with his cosmology. I recognize the fallacy of talking about anything 'before' the Big Bang.

As an aside, S.A. or Alan, is the Free Lunch theory the same one that says the Big Bang is the result of a defect in the quantum vacuum?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It begs the question, if the Universe is some form of virtual particle, what does it exist in?

---

Don't you also have to ask what that precursor stage exists 'in,' ad infinitum. It seems that from an atheist or agnostic point of view, one must then either accept an infinite regress or at some point an uncaused cause as the beginning to the Universe.

S.A., previously I had asked:

quote:

---

That Logic and Philosophy will never lead beyond [empiricism]?

---

quote:

---

Sceptical Atheist:
I cannot know this, as it is an inductive argument, but it probably won't.

---

Doesn't the Free Lunch theory, in attempt to explain how the Universe came to be, already go far beyond what we can know empirically about the precursor state to the Big Bang?

Alan, is there a term for this thing we're trying to talk about or can it only be accurately described with mathematics? Saying the Big Bang sprang from some aether or continuum sounds like so much 1950's sci-fi.

Hey, I have a problem now.

quote:

---

It is perfectly okay to just make assumptions, but for a philosopher that isn't an option. Remember philosophy means 'lover of knowledge.'
Philosophy trys to make sense of the world and remove as many assumptions as possible.

---

all philosophy starts from some basic premis which I would call an assumption other wise everyone would have come up with Identical philosphies

Each one of us posting here has underguiding assumptions that make us tick.
for instance my teenage atheism was based upon a fairly strong belief that i did not exist and simply a figument of an imagination (cheered up when i read about Berkeley) now am convinced that this is incorrect but no evidence has come my way to show me this i have I guess faith that this is so.
I am beginning to consider that what ever position we take it takes faith we might dress it up as reason and logic but it takes faith. Some one said earlier that agnosticism is generally lazy I probably agree but there are aohter agnostics who have come to that conclusion after careful thought.

SA said

quote:

---

I see no reason that empiricism combined with logic is not adequate. I am willing to listen of you can show me any reason for thinking otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gill:

Which is real-er - the Tooth fairy or Charlie?

---

Thank you for sinking your teeth into the Tooth Fairy question. Clearly, she is the only real One. Charlie is hypothetical. Sorry, Charlie! Other gods are just myths.

As a matter of fact, is this statement something people of all religions can agree on?:

quote:

---

I don't deny that the music is sense data, but if you are prepared to take the sense data as reliable, (in order to avoid a solipsistic meltdown) why suddenly assume that the more transcendant feelings it provokes are internalised and somehow less real? If you are prepared to explain this away, why not go the whole phenomenological hog and question the validity of the sense data itself?

---

I do not make any claims to necessarily trust the validity of sense data, but I do know there is sense data. There is a difference. I do not assume that transcendent feelings are internalised, I have no reason to think any other way. My feelings come from my brain, my brtain is inside my skull. What reason should be given to think any other way?

quote:

---

You demand empirical evidence for something that cannot provide it(proof denies faith and all that). I could get just as picky and say I only accept proof I see with my own eyes. This would mean I am unconvinced that the moonlandings took place 'cos I wasn't on them and the films, pictures etc could be fakes. At the end of the day, so called empiricists have to take stuff on trust and make assumptions like everyone else.

---

That would take scepticism further than even I would take it. I have reason to accept sense data as generally reliable. If I see a photo, I will take it at face value unless there is a particular reason not to. I do that with all my sense data. I can see no reason why I shouldn't. The photo's/films etc could be fakes, but what reason do you have to think so?

So, I will reiterate, I use logic, which I do not consider an assumption, but it would be a possible argument to take, and I would be unable to show the reason why I trust logic as it is self-evident. Maybe that is it, Question for you, is something that is self-evident an assumption? I have always thought not, but maybe….

quote:

---

you have faith that logical positivism is a better route to ultimate truth than theological revelation, spiritual experiences etc. But you can't prove this to be the case anymore than I can prove that Jesus wants me for a sunbeam Epistemologies are still based on ontological assumptions.

---

No, I cannot prove it, but I can provide an impressive amount of evidence that it can arrive at truth. I make no claims about 'ultimate truth' which, as I am mortal, is probably unknowable, which means I have little interest in that. I am interested in any truth that can get to know. There isn't enough time to even learn all of that!

Reason:

quote:

---

But anyone who has sincerely prayed to Her and established a relationship with Her knows that She is Real.

---

quote:

---

Empiricism and logic by themselves take you nowhere in this arena. However, if spiced up with a few metaphysical assumptions, they can be part of a pretty satisfying conception of existence.

---

I have a very satisfying conception of existence, thank you! It is more than enough to explain all the things that your prof. Said were unexplainable. It allows me to live a life of love, joy and contentment without causing any contradictions with the seemingly arid world-view.

Willy:

quote:

---

S.A. or Alan, is the Free Lunch theory the same one that says the Big Bang is the result of a defect in the quantum vacuum?

---

I think Alan explained that it is, the 'defect' isn't really a defect, but a 'feature' (I sound like a computer programmer now!) of the uncertainty principle. BTW Alan, did you know that Heisenberg was right at the spot I am now? I am not sure when though!

Alan has a point about why the whatever-was-before should behave why what-is-now. It is a point that I am stuck on. See, I don't know everything. Yet. .

quote:

---

Doesn't the Free Lunch theory, in attempt to explain how the Universe came to be, already go far beyond what we can know empirically about the precursor state to the Big Bang?

---

We know (or at least Paul Davies claims to know) the relative strengths of the forces, and that they cancel each other out. We know that QM shows that things that paricles and anti-particles that cancel out are being created all the time, so we have some evidence to suggest this as a hypothesis. That is not as good as a theory, but it is better than speculation.

quote:

---

Alan, is there a term for this thing we're trying to talk about or can it only be accurately described with mathematics? Saying the Big Bang sprang from some aether or continuum sounds like so much 1950's sci-fi.

---

I am afraid the sci-fi people have taken the terminology. We must talk of the 'space-time contimuum' if we are to be accurate when talking about space (at least in terms of extremes like huge gravity and high speeds). The aether is a little dated now, though.

quote:

---

It seems that from an atheist or agnostic point of view, one must then either accept an infinite regress or at some point an uncaused cause as the beginning to the Universe.

---

quote:

---

for instance my teenage atheism was based upon a fairly strong belief that i did not exist and simply a figument of an imagination (cheered up when i read about Berkeley) now am convinced that this is incorrect but no evidence has come my way to show me this i have I guess faith that this is so.

---

I also went through a time wondering about my very existence. I can now accept that sense data is evidence (not proof!) that there is reality. The discovery that I could not, even in theory, disprove 2+2=4 showed me that something was solid. I have yet to find out that this isn't the case, but it would make little difference now, I think.

quote:

---

I am beginning to consider that what ever position we take it takes faith we might dress it up as reason and logic but it takes faith. Some one said earlier that agnosticism is generally lazy I probably agree but there are aohter agnostics who have come to that conclusion after careful thought.

---

No. I would disagree. I would say that there is no faith in knowing that 2+2=4. I would say that there is no faith in saying that something is perceiving sense data. I label that 'something' as 'me'. That is a label for it, not an assumption. I was the one who said that some (I don't think I said 'generally' ) agnostics were lazy, and I wholeheartedly endorse your point that others have applied careful thought and come to that conclusion.

[/quote]
My point is that atheism is an emotionally easy and intellectually difficult stance.[/quote]

quote:

---

Sounds a bit like Mr spocks approach to life which is some times shown to be incomplete
basically there is more to life than this.

---

So, I have it emotionally easy because my emotional life is stunted? I sense a little misunderstanding about how fulfilling atheism can be as a world view.

quote:

---

The theory of causation is one that some philosophers think is imposed by us on reality. It is also pointed out that it is an inductive argument so, there could possibly be exceptions. I will hide behind that at the moment, although it is unsatisfying, I have to concentrate on other points and consider that at a later date.

---

Fair enough. OTOH, wouldn't a logical positivist accept the validity of causation by the overwhelming demonstrability of it?

I struggle with the illogic of uncaused entities -- whether they be God or the Universe.

It does assume that QM worked before the BB, OK?

What we know about the universe is that there are parts of it that are unknowable. Just follow me a moment, please.

When the BB happened, the rate of expansion meant that the universe expanded quicker than the speed of light (though no one part exceeded that, of course). So, we live in one section of an even bigger universe. This means we do know we are part of a much bigger picture. Wait a sec, I don't know where this is leading myself.

Lets start again. I personally have no problem with a vacuum with virtual particels existing before the BB. As Alan pointed out (I think) the uncertainty principle means that virtual particles, which always appear in matter/antimatter pairs which annihalate, of immense energys can come into existence but only for a miniscule amount of time. If a pair of virtual particles appeared with immense energy, then, because of relativity, they would bend the space-time continuum due to E=MC2. If the energy was string enough they would be "pinched out" of the what-was-before and have a real existence outside anything that what-was-before could conceive. This is not prohibited by the laws of physics as we know them, because teh totality of energy in a particle-antiparticle pair is zero. So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) is not broken.

So, our universe could very conceivably be producing new universes all the time. Which leads to infinite regression, I guess.

So, in conclusion I can take the philosophical uncaused cause or the scientific (well based on known scientific) infinite regression.

Which is it? I don't know, but I prefer the scientific point of view.

Basically, I don't know, and I doubt I ever will, but there are possibilities that stop it from being impossible either philosphically or scientifically. That will have to do for now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
Freddy:I have a very satisfying conception of existence, thank you! It is more than enough to explain all the things that your prof. Said were unexplainable. It allows me to live a life of love, joy and contentment without causing any contradictions with the seemingly arid world-view.

---

SA, I think it is just great how you are willing to sit and respond to all these peppershot questions. This discussion has been pretty instructive for me.

I'm not meaning to question whether your concept of existence is satisfying. I'm sure it is just fine.

I am still curious as to how a monistic worldview accounts for "feelings of warmth and intimacy," and other questions such as:
What is the purpose of life?
What is the nature and cause of happiness?
What are a person's long run future prospects? Do you just disappear when you die?

Maybe the answer is simply - who knows, or who cares, or what does it matter?

quote:

---

I am still curious as to how a monistic worldview accounts for "feelings of warmth and intimacy," and other questions such as:
What is the purpose of life?
What is the nature and cause of happiness?
What are a person's long run future prospects? Do you just disappear when you die?

---

Hey I'm an Evilutionist .

The purpose of life is to pass on genes. The cause of happiness is a hormonal change in the brain. Its nature is to make one feel good. Hmmm. Too reductionist.

We feel happy when our desires are met. This could be the basic drives or the "higher" desires. This can also be linked to gene carrying. A simple animal will follow its drives for food/sex etc in a basic way, that will lead to fulfillment. That could be described as happiness, and in a small way would bring warmth and fulfilment. Humans, having a distended cerebral cortex have an increased ability to feel this in a more abstract way.

A persons long term future prospects? Death and Taxes.

Hey. Mr Logic!! What do you know that WITH? And can you rely on it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by The sceptical Atheist:
Thanks Willy! I point out that I don't know, and wil have to leave it, but you 'woouldn't let it lie' (in my best Vic Reeves accent).
It does assume that QM worked before the BB, OK?
<....>
Cop out or what?

---

No, not a cop-out. I think it's a sign of a growing, healthy worldview. I'd have more of an issue if one didn't admit to some assumptions.

Please don't feel that I'm banging on you about this. You're discussion has been going in the directions that I've been pondering so I just grabbed your tail, hung on tight and applied the goad.

I won't get into trying to refine the definitions of atheist, agnostic or theist again, as that went over like a lead balloon.

I was once convinced that logic and empiricism would eventually explain all, but I'm coming to the opinion that all worldviews proceed from one unprovable assumption, which is, what came 'before.'

(it just occurred to me that maybe the agnostic doesn't fit that definition. must go back to that.)

A theist presupposes God. Other metaphysical worldviews presuppose a spiritual realm of some type. Material monists, atheists et. al., presuppose a physical world only. I think we've come to the point where we can say that an atheist must take it on 'faith' (hehee) that there was either an uncaused event or an infinite regress. Davies' model is fascinating, but it makes me nervous simply becuase it sounds so much like a theological construct. (in general form, not the particulars)

You made the comment about intellectual laziness. I am trying to avoid that because I feel that among atheists that I hang out with, there is an infuriatingly glib acceptance of the party line. Scepticism of ones own scepticism isn't quite acceptable, you see.

Anyway, doesn't it all boil down to the competing presuppositions?

• God is an uncaused entity
  
• The Universe is an uncaused entity
  

I have a reply to your thread "An Introduction" where I started thinking about this. I think I will go back to that and break it out into its own thread soon.

--
Hey! My 51st post! I should be a shipmate! Can I have some rum now?

I can see that you are constructively trying to discover my worldview, so if you want to rake up old territory I have no problem. Sometimes I get ratty and lash out when it seems like a fundy response. I forget that here people actually try and learn.

quote:

---

I feel that among atheists that I hang out with, there is an infuriatingly glib acceptance of the party line. Scepticism of ones own scepticism isn't quite acceptable, you see.

---

I guess you are probably right. I am glad to say I try and avoid that. I have about an hour ago found this note I wrote to myself in May:

quote:

---

I must be careful about pragmatism – It must not be used to accept things for which there is no evidence.
Check
1.Is there evidence?
2.Could there be, in theory, evidence against proposition.
So, for a pragmatic view, we must take one of the following attitudes towards a non-falsifiable position:
a. Reject it
b. Don’t waste time thinking about it.
Unless more evidence comes in.

---

That shows I think that I am sceptical about my own scepticism. It also shows that I need to get a life.

In the Introduction thread, I pointed out that my position of atheism was one that I could hold from a rational point of view.

If that is the case, then rationlly I can reject the God as first cause argument. It would be contradictory for me to say that God dosn't exist, but at that point in time when we cannot say anything, God caused it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
I have no doubt that the belief system which inspired the Final Solution (which may be expressed rationally) seemed entirely reasonable to Hitler. Do you agree?

---

I believe Hitler used faith more than reason to validate the Final Solution:

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
-Adolf Hitler, mein kampf

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I am still curious as to how a monistic worldview accounts for "feelings of warmth and intimacy,"

---

Neurotransmitters and hormones.

quote:

---

What is the purpose of life?

---

You are presupposing that there is a purpose.

quote:

---

What is the nature and cause of happiness?

---

Neurotransmitters and hormones resulting from the satisfaction of 'needs' which are nothing more than homeostatic mechanisms seeking equilibrium.

quote:

---

Do you just disappear when you die?

---

When the person dies, the brain dies. So, yes.

I'm feeling epecially monistic today.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:
I believe Hitler used faith more than reason to validate the Final Solution.

---

Quite possibly. But the word I used was "reasonable", not "reason", and you appear to have completely avoided addressing my point...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:
I believe Hitler used faith more than reason to validate the Final Solution:

---

These are early quotes. Are they not as likely to be attempts to keep his vile message cloaked in respectability to make it more palatable in the beginning? Did Adolf speak that way once he gained absolute power?