In Mo'sMan's defence, he isn't racist or promoting Hitler's actions. He just hasn't stated his argument and defense very clearly.
He's trying in a roundabout way to prove that there are absolute truths, rights and wrongs, given by god, that govern our morals. He is attempting to prove that ethics cannot be arbitrarily chosen by majority or by force, and along the way proposing that human ethics and morals can't possibly have evolved naturally.
He also rebuts every disputing opinion with the fact that the writer can't prove it based on hard evidence (which is generally valid), thinking that by default his opinion is therefore shown to be true (which is not valid). Remember the epistomology thread?
Mo'sMan, did I represent your objectives correctly? Just trying to get the thread bad on track....