(Ed) Hitler's Atheism [Archive] - Page 2

CWL

27th January 2003, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
To believe in atheism is no different than believing in Nazism and Stalinism. Men have no right to interfere in the beliefs (freedoms) of others that include the potential for an omnipotent being.

Another few points I would like to make:

If Hitler's extermination of Jews was really directed towards their belief in God, why could a Jew not renounce his faith and be spared?

The answer is simple. Nazism was not so much about religious intolerance, as about racial intolerance (or rather, intolerance in general). I cannot see why non-belief in God is a necessary element in such an ideology. History is abundant with examples to the contrary.

What about Mussolini - Hitler's greatest ally - and his Lateran Treaty with the Holy See of February 1929? At the time, the Pope spoke of Mussolini as "a man sent by Providence". Were Mussolini and his Catholic followers also atheists?

What about Hitler's other important ally, the Japanese? Was the Emperor of Japan, considered by his subjects to be of divine origin, a renouncer of the divine? Were the kamikaze bombers, who zealously sacrificed their lives in this belief, in reality atheists?

I also ask all posters in this thread to consider the ending of one of Hitler's lengthy speeches (quoted from a Bavarian Political Police Report on Hitler's Speech in Augsburg, 6 July 1923):

Majority resolutions of a parliament cannot save us; only the value of a unique personality can do that. As Fuhrer of the National Socialist Party, I see my task as assuming full responsibility. We do not rely upon committees and majorities. We are aware that our path will be thronged with thorns. National Socialists demand from their leader that he renounce all vanity and expressions of personal admiration; he must not worry about what the majority of people want him to do, but must carry out whatever his conscience before God and man tells him is necessary. Unlike other parties, we did not write a party platform designed to enlarge the number of [parliamentary] mandates without regard to the well-being and even at the expense of the individual and the whole nation. That is not the creative path taken by the great lawgivers such as Christ, Solon, etc., but is the way pursued by little men who worry so much about their parliamentary dignity.

Thus, in our program we did not make promises. Instead we insisted:

1) You are a German. You should treasure your fatherland higher than anything else in the world. Your first responsibility in this world is to be a good German. You must not beg for the rights of your people, but demand them. Heaven blesses only those who use their fists to secure their rights.

2) Citizenship rights belong only to those who are worthy and have German blood. German citizenship must become the powerful cement which binds together everything German throughout the world.

3) Our State should not be the plaything of financial interests, but rather should offer to all its citizens the opportunity to maintain themselves honorably in this world. We demand that the State be freed from all unworthy interest payments and compulsory obligations.

4) The State must see to it that property and real estate speculation cease. Property belongs only to those who have built. The Reich exists in order to protect its people, its race. In our State, the press, art, and literature will not be free, but handmaidens of the State in order to educate the people to a sense of honor and decency. We want this state to be based upon true Christianity. To be a Christian does not mean a cowardly turning of the other cheek, but a struggle for justice and a fighter against all injustice.

Those are IMHO not the words of an atheist. Of course, JK may be right when he says that Hitler was only lying to get the masses to play along. This assertion of JK's however leads to two remarks:

1) What evidence is there that Hitler was lying - that he did not himself believe in what he was saying?

2) What JK is saying is in reality that Hitler had to use religious arguments in order to make people follow his agenda. He needed to get the ear of the majority who were non-atheist. In this lies a fundamental contradiction for the case JK is trying to make. He is in fact saying that the rethoric of Nazi Socialism was religiously tinted because the majority of people were not atheists. Thus, JK is himself saying that the atrocities were in fact carried out in the name of God by people who believed in God - otherwise Hitler's religious rethoric would not have been necessary.

headscratcher4

27th January 2003, 07:32 AM

Well, I stepped out for the weekend and returned to find that there is still some life left here, though I am not sure that any of this can lead to any further, productive discussions. A couple of comments on what has been posted the last couple of days.

JK…

I say this as someone who has made every effort, and will continue to make every effort, to treat you and your ideas with respect and civility.

However, I fear that you would rather rant – ok, I’ve been known to do so to – than coherently address questions and issues posed to you. My point is, as the minority (at least on this forum) I would have hoped you would have been more willing to defend your position by proof, counter-arguments, facts and logic than mere continual reassertion of propostitions lacking in all of the above. Once again, saying something is so doesn’t mean that it is so -- not without something more than the assertion that you are right, or that the things asserted are “fact.”

With respect to your last post directly to me, once again, I note that you’ve taken the opportunity to reassert your claims yet have continually and consistently failed to address any of the points – more particularly “facts” that with which I have so successfully countered your arguments. In particular, you have not once addressed (and CWL has now also raised the point) my demonstration that anti-Semitism as practiced by the Nazis could only arise from a deistic/theistic (and more particularly Euro—Christian) foundation than from “atheism” as used in any normal definition of the word.

Specifically:

JK: “It is understandable that religious atheist fanatics don't want to be associated with Hitler. I can understand why religious atheists would want to distance themselves from having to peer into the actions of the most evil atheist in all of history--Adolph Hitler.”

Indeed. However, you begin with a completely erroneous position. You start from an ideological position – i.e. you want Hitler to be an atheist as it confirms your bias – and as a result nothing that contradicts that assertion gets in the way of your position. The bottom line is that you’ve shown nothing to prove this proposition.

JK: ”Stalin was an atheist too and he is "celebrated" for the "diversity" he brought to the world via atrocities etc, and is glorified in US universities.”

This is completely off point…Stalin’s acknowledged “atheism” isn’t the point you were trying to make. We can talk about the evils of Stalin (indeed, I would likely agree with you that Stalin’s 30 million plus are easily as egregious and horrible as Hitler’s crimes), but what Stalin’s beliefs or lack of beliefs have to do with Hitler, his personal beliefs or the philosophy of Nazism it beyond me and has been from the start – save, of course your desperate and insupportable effort to associate not only all evil but everything you personally disapprove of with “atheism” and do so by using an apparently singular definition of the word that no one else, at least here, can recognize.
________

JK to Girl6: "Look, everyone wants to rewrite history, especially atheists. I understand that. The problem is that no amount of historical revisionism can make Hitler a Christian. Hitler was an atheist 100%.”

Perhaps here we some of the nub of your problem. Though you’ve never discussed it, you continue to make a fundamental error – hopefully it is merely ignorance and not fanaticism. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, one need not be a “Christian” to not be an atheist. If that is not true, than please show why. While some have indeed argued that Hitler was a “Christian,” not only have many disputed that contention here (Nova and I as prime contenders), but also more importantly, it – as has been repeatedly shown and never rebutted by you – is a false dichotomy. The issue isn’t, really, whether Hitler was a Christian, it is whether Hitler was an atheist – i.e. someone who believed there was no God or no proof for God.

As has been repeatedly shown there is much evidence that Hitler believed that he acted under a “higher” authority or God. You may reject that “proof” of course because it doesn’t fit with your view of humans being either “Christian” or “atheists” (with some give for Jews as precursors of Christianity). However, if Hitler believed in a deity and his mission/actions were proof of that deity, than by any reasonable, normal or allowable definition of the word “atheist” Hitler wasn’t an atheist. You can redefine words but at some point it becomes delusional – sort of like receiving messages from mars on one’s fillings.

Second, you are left with “actions” and underlying “philosophy” both from Hitler and from Nazi’s to prove your assertion as you reject so much of Hitler’s and Nazi words. However, and once again, I have conclusively shown that the actions taken by both can be seen as COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with the religious and specifically Christian traditions in Europe over the last thousand years.

Your argument that only an atheist could murder Jews is belied by hundreds of years of History – and history that predates Luther and the reformation. You’ve never addressed these “facts” and ignoring them doesn’t make them either go away or make them revisionist.

Further, as I have repeatedly demonstrated, evil atheists are capable of killing millions – Stalin proved that – however, targeting Jews because they are Jews (genetically) makes no sense. You’ve not shown anything to dispute this assertion. Killing Jews, ALL JEWS SIMPLY BECAUSE GENETICALLY THEY ARE JEWISH, is only understandable in the context of a long history of anti-Semitism inspired by the Christian Church. This doesn’t mean that Hitler was a Christian; it merely means that his “actions” and Nazi philosophy is perfectly understandable as an offshoot of general Christian/Catholic philosophy prevalent in Europe for over a thousand years.
____

Just two examples – one explicitly anti-Semitic, one not (BTW – you NEVER address any of the examples I, CWL, Nova or anyone else gives…I can only assume it is because you can’t – either you don’t know enough history or you don’t like to think of their implications for your assertions).

In the 1240s, the King of France, Phillip-Augustus, in concert with the Church, imprisoned all Jews in Paris and confiscated their property, closed their synagogue and expelled them from the City. Was this the act of an atheist? Was the cooperation of the Catholic Church an act of godless men?

Some years after that, the same king and his son conducted an Inquisition on behalf of the church in Southern France to stamp out the “Cathar” Heresy. Not only were individuals tortured and burned at the stake for their failure to accept orthodox Christianity as defined by the Catholic Church, but at the behest of the Church, several whole villages were rounded up, lead to their church, locked inside and burned to death – men, women and children (I note a resemblance to Nazi atrocities). This crusade and inquisition undertaken at the behest of the Catholic Church, acts of atheists?

Nova Land

31st January 2003, 02:18 PM

I intended to get back to this thread sooner, but time often flies by faster than one would like.

First off, thank you to CWL for the book references. I was able to find 2 of the 3 books, and enjoyed both. I didn't find as much on the Goebbel's broadcast as I'd hoped, but learned a good bit of other interesting stuff from the book about Hitler's last days.

(One question the book reminded me of: why did Hitler marry Eva Braun before committing suicide? I can imagine religious justifications for it, but am hard-pressed to think of non-religious ones, and the religious ones that come to mind don't really square with Hitler's professed beliefs. It's a trivial point, since people often do strange and inconsistent things -- and people who commit suicide are not the most sensible people to begin with -- but it seemed an interesting point to ponder.)

Jedi: since you didn't list any specific Hegel or Nietzsche references, I did not read any works by them during this trip. (There were more than enough things I did know about and wanted to look up to keep me busy the entire time, and I still had to drag myself away with many things left to look up another time.) So I am still puzzled about what it is you believe and what evidence it is you base this on.

I'll be making another trip in a few weeks, so if you have sources that you think provide evidence for your views please list them and I'll make an effort to find and read them. CWL's method is an excellent one: make an interesting point, and provide places where others can look it up for themselves. If you followed CWL's example on this, you would probably have more people understanding what it is you are saying and possibly even agreeing with some parts of it.

There is material out there which supports some of your views, even if you are reluctant to cite it. I was browsing through Bullock again (even though you had said you did not consider Bullock a reliable source) and found a passage which seems to relate to what you're saying about Hegel / Nietzsche, and which also lends some support to your belief that Hitler was an atheist.

QUOTE: ------------------------------------------------------------
A hundred years before Hitler became Chancellor, Hegel, in a famous course of lectures at the University of Berlin, had pointed to the role of "World-historical individuals" as the agents by which "the Will of the World Spirit", the plan of Providence, is carried out...

It may well be questioned whether Hitler ever read Hegel, but like so many other passages in 19th century German literature -- in Nietzsche, in Schopenhauer, in Wagner -- it finds an echo in Hitler's belief about himself. Cynical though he was, Hitler's cynicism stopped short of his own person: he came to believe that he was a man with a mission, marked out by Providence, and therefore exempt from the ordinary canons of human conduct.

HItler probably felt some such belief about himself from an early period. It was clear enough in the speech he made at his trial in 1924, and after he came out of prison those near him noticed that he began to hold aloof, to set a barrier between himself and his followers. After he came to power it became more noticeable. It was in March, 1936, that he made the famous assertion already quoted: "I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleep-walker." In 1937 he told an audience at Wurzburg:

However weak the individual may be when compared with the omnipotence and will of Providence, yet at the moment when he acts as Providence would have him act he becomes immeasurably strong. Then there streams down upon him that force which has marked all greatness in the world's history. And when I look back only on the five years which lie behind us, then I feel that I am justified in saying: That has not been the work of man alone.

Just before the occupation of Austria, in February 1938, he declared in the Reichstag:

Above all, a man who feels it his duty at such an hour to assume the leadership of his people is not responsible to the laws of parliamentary usage or to a particular democratic conception, but solely to the mission placed upon him. And anyone who interferes with this mission is an enemy of the people.

It was in this sense of mission that Hitler, a man who believed neither in God nor in conscience ("a Jewish invention, a blemish like circumcision") found both justification and absolution.

END QUOTE. -- (from Allan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, pp 351 - 352)
------------------------------------------------------------

Note that Bullock expresses the opinion Hitler "believed neither in God nor in conscience" immediately after talking about Hitler's belief in "Providence".. Bullock obviously does not see a contradiction between belief in "providence" and no-belief-in-god.

Bullock appears to be a knowledgeable and reasonable person. I therefore accept that it is possible for a reasonable person to hold a definition of god which does not include the "Providence" Hitler refers to.

I therefore also accept that there are reasonable definitions of the terms god and atheist by which it could be said that Hitler was an atheist. They are not the definitions I normally use, they do not appear to be the ones Jedi is using, and they do not seem to be the definitions anyone else in this thread is using, so in one (important) sense these definitions are irrelevant. However, I hope it serves as a reminder that it is neither obviously true nor obviously false to say that Hitler was an atheist. Either belief is conceivably a reasonable one, depending on the definitions one uses. Simply saying "Hitler was an atheist" or "Hitler was not an atheist" tells us very little. It is only meaningful when we understand what the person saying it means by it.

Jedi has asserted that "Hitler was an atheist", and I believe the statement is meaningful to him. I would still like to understand just what it is he means.

Jedi's definition of atheist (as best I can fathom it) sounds odd to me. However, I believe Jedi is right that it is not an unusual one in other circles. Listening to Christian radio programs, I get the feeling there are a number of people who would find what Jedi is saying to make perfect sense. Dismissing Jedi's definition or his views without first understanding them is as unreasonable as accepting them without understanding them.

Jedi, I really wish you would define what you mean by atheist, so that others of us can understand what it is you are saying. I realize there is a certain degree of risk involved in doing that, but hope you will be willing to take that risk.

Even if you are still unwilling to state clearly what your definition of "atheist" is, I'd be interested in your opinions on this passage from Bullock. Is this part of what you had in mind with your own reference to Hegel and Nietzsche? Do you feel Bullock's analysis is on the mark here, and if not what would you put differently?

Also: you have said previously that you consider Bullock an unreliable source. Who do you consider reliable? Unless you were alive during the Hitler years and experienced things directly, you need to rely on some source for the historical facts you choose to base your opinions on. I know you have made comments in the past about "historical revisionism", so it would be useful to know which sources you consider historical and which you consider revisionist.

Nova Land

3rd February 2003, 01:30 AM

Some people in this thread have been inclined to dismiss the evidence of Hitler's views that can be found in the published "table talks." Here is a passage (from Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp 95- 96) that may be helpful in assessing their worth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amid his political associates in Berlin, Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church, but in the presence of the women he adopted a milder tone -- one of the instances where he adapted his remarks to his surroundings.

"The church is certainly necessary for the people. It is a strong and conservative element," he might say at one time or another in this private circle. However, he conceived of the church as an instrument that oculd be useful to him. "If only Reibi [this was his nickname for Reich Bishop Ludwig Muller] had some kind of stature. But why do they appoint a nobody of an army chaplain? I'd be glad to give him my full support. Think of all he could do with that. Through me the Evalangelical [Protestant] Church could become the established church, as in England."

Even after 1942 Hitler went on maintaining that he regarded the church as indispensable in political life. He would be happy, he said in one of those teatime talks at Obersalzberg, if someday a prominent churchman turned up who was suited to lead one of the churches -- or if possible both the Catholic and Protestant churches reunited. He still regretted that Reich Bishop Muller was not the right man to carry out his far-reaching plans. But he sharply condemned the campaign against the church, calling it a crime against the future of the nation. For it was impossible, he said, to replace the church by any "party ideology". Undoubtedly, he continued, the church would learn to adapt to the political goals of National Socialism in the long run, as it had always adapted to the course of history. A new party religion would only bring about a relapse into the mysticism of the Middle Ages. The growing SS myth showed that clearly enough, as did Rosenberg's unreadable Myth of the Twentieth Century.

If in the course of such a monologue Hitler had pronounced a more negative judgment upon the church, Bormann would undoubtedly have taken from his jacket pocket one of the white cards he always carried with him. For he noted down all Hitler's remarks that seemed to him important; and there was hardly anything he wrote down more eagerly than deprecating comments on the church. At the time I assumed that he was gathering material for a biography of Hitler.

Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Goebbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide.
-------------------------------------------------------------

From Speer, then, we have verification that Hitler did indeed engage in the type of after-dinner ramblings recorded in Hitler's Secret Conversations.

More than 300 of these were hand-recorded at the time and later transcribed from these notes, translated, and published in the volume I've been quoting. How reliable is this material?

1. The most reasonable assumption is that these are indeed transcriptions of the notes made of Hitler's after-dinner remarks.
We know such remarks occurred and that notes were taken to capture them. There are about 600 pages of ramblings recorded; creating these from scratch would have been a major undertaking. Obviously they are not word-for-word accurate, but they probably capture the gist of Hitler's remarks.

2. How candid was Hitler being? As Speer noted, he modified his remarks somewhat depending on who was present. This is a normal thing that people do. However, there does appear to have been a reasonable consistency to his remarks. No one has commented on his saying one thing one day and saying the opposite another. Quite the contrary, it sounds as if he repeated the same ideas many times.

Would it be possible for someone to lie consistently, over and over and over, in the course of unscripted informal ramblings in the somewhat relaxed (and less guarded) state people are in after eating a meal? Yes, it would be. It would be especially possible to do so on one or two key points that a person strongly wished to conceal if the person were careful either (a) to avoid talking about in detail, or (b) to follow the same formula each time in talking about it.

So if we were to find Hitler repeating a set formula on a subject, and rarely straying from that, we would have reason to be suspicious of whether that represented his true feeling on the subject. If, on the other hand, we find Hitler to be expansive on a subject, and to ramble on about it from different angles, we could place greater weight on what he said representing his actual views.

3. Based on what Speer says about Bormann, two cautions come to mind. One is that Bormann seemed interested in anything anti-religious that Hitler said and took extra pains to make sure these were recorded. The note-taking was done by hand, so it is quite possible that the transcriber might occasionally miss some remarks (or that some table-talks went entirely unrecorded). Since Bormann wrote down notes on significant anti-religious remarks, and presumably checked to make sure the note-taker had gotten these, there is less chance of anti-religious remarks being omitted than pro-religious ones. That means we should be careful not to assign greater weight to anti-religious views simply because they appear more often in the table talks than pro-religious ones.

4. The other caution that comes to mind is that, since these are translations of transcriptions, the remarks are not word-for-word accurate. Often a significant difference in meaning can be obtained by very minor wording changes. (The insertion of words such as "only", for example -- there is a large different between "I care about money" and "I only care about money.") It seems unlikely to me that entire sections were dramatically re-written, but I could easily imagine a wording change here and there.

What does that mean in terms of how much reliance can be placed on passages in the recorded table talks? For me, it means I would place greater reliance on a detailed passage than on a short quip, and I would want to examine comments carefully with an eye and ear toward alternate shadings of meaning. (I'll give an example of this soon, using a previously quoted passage from the "table talks", to illustrate what I mean.)

Nova Land

5th February 2003, 03:33 PM

Some analysis on a couple of Hitler's shorter remarks about religion.
Table Talk # 47

...I find it a real absurdity that even today a typewriter costs several hundred marks. One can't imagine the time wasted daily in deciphering everybody's scribbles. Why not give lessons in typewriting at primary school? Instead of religious instruction, for example. I shouldn't mind that.
As noted previously, I don't think as much weight can be given to brief remarks as to lengthy, detailed rambles. This short comment provides a good example.

Hitler, while talking about the high price of typewriters, appears to make a dig at religious instruction in schools. What does it tell us of Hitler's religious beliefs? Very little.

It's compatible with Jedi's theory that Hitler was an atheist -- an atheist certainly could feel this way. But it's also compatible with Hitler being a Christian who thought the schools were doing a lousy job of religious instruction, or a non-Christian theist who resented the schools indoctrinating kids with beliefs he didn't approve of, or any number of other possibilities.

Without knowing why Hitler was making a dig at religious instruction, all we can glean from this is that Hitler appeared not to be happy with religious instruction in schools.

Even so, there is information to be gleaned. This passage indicates that religious instruction was occurring in the German public schools, and that the Nazis permitted this to happen even though some aspect of this apparently was not pleasing to Hitler. The obvious reason for allowing this instruction to continue is that it would have been politically damaging to end it -- i.e. a significant number of the German people favored religious instruction in the schools and would have been upset with Hitler if he had come out against religious instruction.

This implies that, whether or not Hitler was secretly an atheist, he believed religious belief was important to a significant portion of his followers. By checking up on the kind of religious instruction being done in the schools, we would get a strong indication of the dominant religious belief among Hitler's supporters in the populace.

NOTE: in later table talks, such as # 100, Hitler does talk at greater length about his own school experiences and his rebellions against religious instruction. This brief dig at religious instruction may make more sense after people have read those remarks.
Table Talk # 43

... The precept that it's men's duty to love one another is theory -- and the Christians are the last to practice it! A negro baby who has the misfortune to die before a missionary gets his clutches on him, goes to Hell. If that were true, one might well lament that sorrowful destiny: to have lived only three years, and to burn for all eternity with Lucifer!...
Although Hitler referred to Hell and Lucifer in this comment, there is little to be gleaned from it concerning Hitler's religious beliefs. Certainly it's too thin to justify a conclusion that Hitler believed in Hell or Lucifer; this is the kind of dig at theology that an atheist could easily make.

(And a theist could easily make it as well. Different varieties of Christians have gotten deeply upset with each other over differing interpretations of how salvation is supposed to work.)

If we had an actual recording of the remarks, we might be able to gather from the exact words and tone whether Hitler believed the notions of Hell and Lucifer were nonsense, or only that this particular doctrine of salvation was nonsense. But we don't.

What we have here is a translation of a transcription of a minor comment. A lot of our impression of what he was saying comes from the exact wording -- and this is the translator's wording, not necessarily Hitler's. "If that were true, one might well lament..." gives a strong impression that Hitler did not believe non-Christian babies went to Hell. That may or may not be what Hitler actually meant.

In a longer passage, we could expect to receive help in being clear on the meaning from the way he expanded the point, from additional details he provided, or from general redundancy in what he said. In a short passage such as this, though, a very slight change of wording could provide an entirely different meaning.

Hitler, as recorded here, starts by talking about Christians lacking true love for their fellow humans. It's not clear whether he believed Christians should be loving and aren't living up to that, or whether he believed the doctrine of loving one another is stupid in itself.

The wording leads us to believe he is criticizing Christians for a nonsensical doctrine of Hell which contradicts their key teaching about loving one another. With a slightly different emphasis, however, he could actually have been saying the reverse: that "unsaved" babies do go to Hell because God is harsh, and that it is the "precept" that people are supposed to love one that is the nonsensical doctrine.

I'm not saying he was saying that, only that in a short undetailed remark like this it is more important to be aware of how a slight misperception by the note-taker, or by the translator, could yield something very different from what Hitler actually intended. It is easy to miss a raised eyebrow, a mocking tone, and to take a sentence to mean the exact opposite of what is intended.

That's one example of how a short passage might mean something very different from the way it appears in the translated "table talks". Creative people could probably find many additional possible interpretations.

With those caveats about shorter passages in mind, let's look at a longer passage...

Nova Land

5th February 2003, 03:56 PM

In several previous posts, Jedi has asked how Hitler could have been a Christian and hated Judaism. Wasn't Jesus a Jew? Isn't Christianity based on Jewish writings (the old testament) as well as Jesus' teachings (new testament)?

In the following table talk, Hitler explains some of his beliefs about Jesus, the founding of Christianity, and the relationship between Christianity and Judaism. (This is one of several table talks in which he goes on at length about these matters.)

There is a lot I find interesting here. I'll refrain from highlighting or pulling out these parts yet, so others can read this for themselves first.

Jedi: I assume from your previous posts that you haven't read this table talk yet. After you do read it, I'd be interested in your analysis of it. (Even if you think it is pure propaganda, I'd be interested in what particular messages you think Hitler was trying to send with it, and to whom.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Table Talk # 49
21st October 1941, mid-day

When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn't know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clearsightedness on Christianity and Christians. You should read what he says on the subject.

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded His as the sone of a whore -- of a whore and a Roman soldier.

The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galilean's object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated Him.

Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely. When he learnt that Jesus's supporters let their throats be cut for His ideas, he realized that, by making intelligent use of the Gallilean's teaching, it would be possible to overthrow this Roman State which the Jews hated.d It's in this context that we must understand the famous "illumination". Think of it, Romans were daring to confiscate the most sacred thing the Jews possessed, the gold piled up in their temples! At that time, as now, money was their god.

On the road to Damascus, St. Paul discovered that he could succeed in ruining the Roman State by causing the principle to triumph of the equality of all men before a single God -- and by putting beyond the reach of the laws his private notions, which he alleged to be divinely inspired. If, into the bargain, one succeeded in imposing one man as the representative on earth of the only God, that man would possess boundless power.

The ancient world had its gods and served them. But the priests interposed between the gods and men were servants of the State, for the Gods protected the City. In short, they were the emanation of a power that the people had created. For thst society, the idea of an only god was unthinkable. In this sphere, the Romans were tolerance itself. The idea of a universal god could seem to them only a mild form of madness -- for, if three peoples fight one another, each invoking the same god, this means that, at any rate, two of them are praying in vain.

Nobody was more tolerant than the Romans. Every man could pray to the god of his choice, and a place was even reserved in the temples for the unknown god. Moreover, every man prayed as he chose, and had the right to proclaim his preferences.

St. Paul knew how to exploit this state of affairs in order to conduct his struggle against the Roman State. Nothing has changed; the method has remained sound. Under cover of a pretended religious instruction, the priests continue to incite the faithful against the State.

The religious ideas of the Romans are common to all the Aryan peoples. The Jew, on the other hand, worshipped and continues to worship, then and now, nothing but the golden calf. The Jewish religion is devoid of all metaphysics, and has no foundation but the most repulsive materialism. That's proved even in the concrete representation they have of the BEyond -- which for them is identified with ABraham's bosom.

It's since St Paul's time that the Jews have manifested themselves as a religious community, for until then they were only a racial community. St. Paul was the first man to take account of the possible advantages of using a religion as a means of propaganda. If the Jew has succeeded in destroying the Roman Empire, that's because St Paul transformed a local movement of Aryan opposition to Jewry into a supra-temporal religon, which postulates the equality of all men amonst themselves, and their obedience to an only god. This si what caused the death of the Roman Empire.

It's striking to observe that Christian ideas, despite all St Paul's efforts, had no success in Athens. The philosophy of the Greeks was so much superior to this poverty-stricken rubbish that the Athenians burst out laughing when they listened to the apostle's teaching. But in Rome St Paul found the ground prepared for him. His egalitarian theories had what was needed to win over a mass composed of innumerable uprooted people....

Whilst Roman society proved hostile to the new doctrine, Christianity in its pure state stirred the population to revold. Rome was bolshevized, and Bolshevism produced exactly the same results in Rome as later in Russia.

It was only later, under the influence of the Germanic spirit, that Christianity gradually lost its openly Bolshevistic character. It became, to a certain degree, tolderable. Today, when Christianity is tottering, the Jew restores to pride of place Christianity in its Bolshevistic form.

The Jew believed he could renew the experiment. Today as once before, the ojbect is to destroy nations by vitiating their racial integrity. It's not by chance that the Jews, in Russia, have systematically deported hundreds of thousands of men, delivering the women, whome the men were compelled to leave behind, to males imported from other regions. They practiced on a vast scale the mixture of the races.

In the old days, as now, the destruction of art and civilization. The Bolsheviks of their day, what didn't they destroy in Rome, in Greece, and elsewhere? They've behaved in the same way amongst us and in Russia...

In the old days, the destruction of the libraries. Isn't that what happened in Russia? The result: a frightening levelling-down.

Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots. Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism.

Yesterday the instigator was Saul; the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul has changed into St Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

c4ts

5th February 2003, 04:08 PM

Table Talk isn't a very reliable source on Hitler's beliefs, since they appear to be shifting all the time, and some may have been fabricated to make Hitler look more insane than he already was. Mein Kamph is better becasue Hitler wrote it himself, and much of it is anti-semetic ranting. If there is one thing we do know about Hitler's beliefs, it is that he was an anti semite, and Mein Kamph is consistent with that fact. I haven't read Table Talk, and I want to know if it is consistent with Hitler's views in Mein Kamph.

c4ts

5th February 2003, 05:12 PM

This is really just speculation, but I think Jedi Knight may be confused about this part in Mein Kamph (I apologize to all who might be offended by Hitler's views, but be glad you're not persuaded by them):

from http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/

It is evidence of a very superficial insight into historical developments if the so-called folkists emphasize again and again that they will adopt the use of negative criticism under no circumstances but will engage only in constructive work. That is nothing but puerile chatter and is typical of the whole lot of folkists. It is another proof that the history of our own times has made no impression on these minds. Marxism too has had its aims to pursue and it also recognizes constructive work, though by this it understands only the establishment of despotic rule in the hands of international Jewish finance. Nevertheless for seventy years its principal work still remains in the field of criticism. And what disruptive and destructive criticism it has been! Criticism repeated again and again, until the corrosive acid ate into the old State so thoroughly that it finally crumbled to pieces. Only then did the so-called 'constructive' critical work of Marxism begin. And that was natural, right and logical. An existing order of things is not abolished by merely proclaiming and insisting on a new one. It must not be hoped that those who are the partisans of the existing order and have their interests bound up with it will be converted and won over to the new movement simply by being shown that something new is necessary. On the contrary, what may easily happen is that two different situations will exist side by side and that the-called philosophy is transformed into a party, above which level it will not be able to raise itself afterwards. For the philosophy is intolerant and cannot permit another to exist side by side with it. It imperiously demands its own recognition as unique and exclusive and a complete transformation in accordance with its views throughout all the branches of public life. It can never allow the previous state of affairs to continue in existence by its side.
And the same holds true of religions.

But if you read further:

Here again the Catholic Church has a lesson to teach us. Though sometimes, and often quite unnecessarily, its dogmatic system is in conflict with the exact sciences and with scientific discoveries, it is not disposed to sacrifice a syllable of its teachings. It has rightly recognized that its powers of resistance would be weakened by introducing greater or less doctrinal adaptations to meet the temporary conclusions of science, which in reality are always vacillating. And thus it holds fast to its fixed and established dogmas which alone can give to the whole system the character of a faith. And that is the reason why it stands firmer today than ever before. We may prophesy that, as a fixed pole amid fleeting phenomena, it will continue to attract increasing numbers of people who will be blindly attached to it the more rapid the rhythm of changing phenomena around it.

Catholics can't disown Hitler completely. After all, he says he learned something from the Catholic Church. But what did he learn from atheism? According to him, all Jews were atheists because they're all Marxists.

It was at this time that the first ideals took shape in my breast. All my playing about in the open, the long walk to school, and particularly my association with extremely 'husky' boys, which sometimes caused my mother bitter anguish, made me the very opposite of a stay-at-home. And though at that time I scarcely had any serious ideas as to the profession I should one day pursue, my sympathies were in any case not in the direction of my father's career. I believe that even then my oratorical talent was being developed in the form of more or less violent arguments with my schoolmates. I had become a little ringleader; at school I learned easily and at that time very well, but was otherwise rather hard to handle. Since in my free time I received singing lessons in the cloister at Lambach, I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal. For a time, at least, this was the case. But since my father, for understandable reasons, proved unable to appreciate the oratorical talents of his pugnacious boy, or to draw from them any favorable conclusions regarding the future of his offspring, he could, it goes without saying, achieve no understanding for such youthful ideas. With concern he observed this conflict of nature.

That bit of nostalgia was in the first chapter. Here's the first line of the book:

TODAY it seems to me providential that Fate should have chosen Braunau on the Inn as my birthplace.

Why would an atheist hold Fate or providence responsible for anything? Of course, "Fate" and "providential" may have other German meanings.

And there's more:

In any case, this period before the War was the happiest and by far the most contented of my life. Even if my earnings were still extremely meager, I did not live to be able to paint, but painted only to be able to secure my livelihood or rather to enable myself to go on studying. I possessed the conviction that I should some day, in spite of all obstacles, achieve the goal I had set myself. And this alone enabled me to bear all other petty cares of daily existence lightly and without anxiety.
In addition to this, there was the heartfelt love which seized me for this city more than for any other place that I knew, almost from the first hour of my sojourn there. A German city! What a difference from Vienna! I grew sick to my stomach when I even thought back on this Babylon of races. In addition, the dialect, much closer to me, which particularly in my contacts with Lower Bavarians, reminded me of my former childhood. There were a thousand and more things which were or became inwardly dear and precious to me. But most of all I was attracted by this wonderful marriage of primordial power and fine artistic mood, this single line from the Hofbrauhaus to the Odeon, from the October Festival to the Pinakothek, etc. If today I am more attached to this city than to any other spot of earth in this world, it is partly due to the fact that it is and remains inseparably bound up with the development of my own life; if even then I achieved the happiness of a truly inward contentment, it can be attributed only to the magic which the miraculous residence of the Wittelsbachs exerts on every man who is blessed, not only with a calculating mind but with a feeling soul.

I had come to know this state formation better than the so-called official 'diplomats,' who blindly, as almost always, rushed headlong toward catastrophe; for the mood of the people was always a mere discharge of what was funneled into public opinion from above. But the people on top made a cult of the 'ally,' as if it were the Golden Calf. They hoped to replace by cordiality what was lacking in honesty. And words were always taken for coin of the realm.

It must be said that such a territorial policy cannot be fulfilled in the Cameroons, but today almost exclusively in Europe. We must, therefore, coolly and objectively adopt the standpoint that it can certainly not be the intention of Heaven to give one people fifty times as much land and soil in this world as another. In this case we must not let political boundaries obscure for us the boundaries of eternal justice. If this earth really has room for all to live in, let us be given the soil we need for our livelihood.

To me those hours seemed like a release from the painful feelings of my youth. Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time.
A fight for freedom had begun, mightier than the earth had ever seen; for once Destiny had begun its course, the conviction dawned on even the broad masses that this time not the fate of Serbia or Austria was involved, but whether the German nation was to be or not to be.
For the last time in many years the people had a prophetic vision of its own future. Thus, right at the beginning of the gigantic struggle the necessary grave undertone entered into the ecstasy- of an overflowing enthusiasm; for this knowledge alone made the national uprising more than a mere blaze of straw The earnestness was only too necessary; for in those days people in general had not the faintest conception of the possible length and duration of the struggle that was now beginning. They dreamed of being home again that winter to continue and renew their peaceful labors.
What a man wants is what he hopes and believes. The overwhelming majority of the nation had long been weary of the eternally uncertain state of affairs; thus it was only too understandable that they no longer believed in a peaceful conclusion of the Austro-Serbian convict, but hoped for the final settlement.
I, too, was one of these millions.[QUOTE]
(Looks like Hitler wasn't a skeptic.)
[QUOTE]Any attempt to combat a philosophy with methods of violence will fail in the end, unless the fight takes the form of attack for a new spiritual attitude. Only in the struggle between two philosophies can the weapon of brutal force, persistently and ruthlessly applied lead to a decision for the side it supports.
(Thinks Marxism's lack of theism is a sign of failure, yet he blames the Jews for Marxism. As a philosopher, he makes about as much sense as Franko on free will.)
For these people change their convictions just as the soldier changes his shirt in war – when the old one is bug-eaten. In the new programme everyone gets everything he wants. The farmer is assured that the interests of agriculture will be safeguarded. The industrialist is assured of protection for his products. The consumer is assured that his interests will be protected in the market prices. Teachers are given higher salaries and civil servants will have better pensions. Widows and orphans will receive generous assistance from the State. Trade will be promoted. The tariff will be lowered and even the taxes, though they cannot be entirely abolished, will be almost abolished. It sometimes happens that one section of the public is forgotten or that one of the demands mooted among the public has not reached the ears of the party. This is also hurriedly patched on to the whole, should there be any space available for it: until finally it is felt that there are good grounds for hoping that the whole normal host of philistines, including their wives, will have their anxieties laid to rest and will beam with satisfaction once again. And so, internally armed with faith in the goodness of God and the impenetrable stupidity of the electorate, the struggle for what is called 'the reconstruction of the Reich' can now begin.

.The folk conception must therefore be definitely formulated so that it may be organically incorporated in the party. That is a necessary prerequisite for the success of this idea. And that it is so is very clearly proved even by the indirect acknowledgment of those who oppose such an amalgamation of the folk idea with party principles. The very people who never tire of insisting again and again that the conception of life based on the folk idea can never be the exclusive property of a single group, because it lies dormant or 'lives' in myriads of hearts, only confirm by their own statements the simple fact that the general presence of such ideas in the hearts of millions of men has not proved sufficient to impede the victory of the opposing ideas, which are championed by a political party organized on the principle of class conflict. If that were not so, the German people ought already to have gained a gigantic victory instead of finding themselves on the brink of the abyss. The international ideology achieved success because it was organized in a militant political party which was always ready to take the offensive. If hitherto the ideas opposed to the international concept have had to give way before the latter the reason is that they lacked a united front to fight for their cause. A doctrine which forms a definite outlook on life cannot struggle and triumph by allowing the right of free interpretation of its general teaching, but only by defining that teaching in certain articles of faith that have to be accepted and incorporating it in a political organization.

I could keep on quoting for days (although I'm rather sick of Hitler's contradictory ramblings already). Now why do you say Hitler was an atheist again? Because he was evil? Because he hated Jews and Communists for no apparent reason?

Given what Hitler says in his book, I'd say he was a theist (and therefore not an a-theist). But sure, there's no conclusive evidence.

Aardvark_DK

5th February 2003, 08:00 PM

The only person to claim that Hitler was an atheist is Jedi Knight and he has left the discussion...

So... how about those Buccaneers?

Bjorn

5th February 2003, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
The only person to claim that Hitler was an atheist is Jedi Knight and he has left the discussion...... and he backed out when intelligent questions started piling up ... without leaving any evidence for his point of view, or explaining the rather eccentric and contradictory definitions of atheism in the first place. How would you rate this thread as an experiment on a civilized exchange of opinions?

c4ts

6th February 2003, 12:01 AM

JK's original position on the topic was interesting. Although it lacked substance, he countered a lot of arguments that hadn't been made. It was interesting because after he finished countering those arguments, he contradicted himself by fulfilling the counter arguments. His definition of atheism hinges on the point that "all atheists ever do is think about God as an enemy" demonstrates the flawed reasoning he said he was not going to use in the beginning of the thread. Because if what he said were true, then atheism is in opposition to God (and therefore opposed to his religion), and he also concludes that anything that treats God as an enemy is evil. So this is basically the syllogism he denied at first. The whole of the thread is everybody explaining to JK that he is erroneous, and instead providing actual counter arguments. He does not accept any opinion but his own, and "Jedi Knight vs. the R&P forum" is not a civilized exchange of opinion, so I'll give it 2 becasue there were still civilized posts in response to JK. By the way, I'm originally from Tampa, so BUCS RULE! (And to think that just a few years ago, they wore orange and sucked.)

In the meantime, is there a similarity between JK's reasoning that atheism is evil, and Hitler's reasoning that Marxism is Juddaism?

CWL

6th February 2003, 01:55 AM

Bump dammit!

Although I agree that the "debate" with JK was non-existent as he refused to consider any arguments or evidence presented to the contrary of his beliefs, there are some very intresting and learned opinions expressed in this thread.

Why must it die, why, why? :eek:

Nova Land

6th February 2003, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Although I agree that the "debate" with JK was non-existent..., there are some very intresting and learned opinions expressed in this thread.

Why must it die, why, why? :eek: I'm surprised people are declaring it dead. I'm still very interested in the topic and hoping to continue looking into it.

I find it easier to pursue something like this when several people are looking into it together and talking about it together. For one thing, there's so much material out there that having more people around to wade through it is a big help -- I've never been able to wade all the way through Mein Kampf myself, so I'm very grateful for posts such as C4ts's above.

For another -- and this is the reason I was (and still am) hoping for Jedi's participation -- different people see material differently, and are often able to shed new light on material by seeing it from an angle other people may miss. Jedi has a very different take on Hitler, and atheism, and many other subjects, than most other people here. As such, he may be able to point to things we might otherwise overlook, or help us take a second better look at something we might otherwise brush aside.

Jedi could probably respond quickly with quips to every post made here, but quick quips are not the point. What's especially called for is source material to support his views, and analysis of the source material others have presented. Digging material up and analyzing it takes time. Even if Jedi has read many sources to base his views on, locating and assembling that material, and presenting it in readable form, is not a spur-of-the-moment task. If / when Jedi has time to dig his material up and share it, or to read and comment on the material others have presented in this thread, I'll be interested in reading it. I see no need to rush him, or to criticize him if it's not something he has time for or interest in at the moment. There are plenty of other people with material and with insights into the material.

It's often a day or so in between when I have the chance to post to this thread, but this does not seem a thread that needs to move very quickly. If several days sometimes go by between responses, that just allows more time to reflect (or to look up things people mention). Hitler has been dead close to 60 years, so if it takes a few months to wade through various sources he'll probably still be in the same shape when we finish.

CWL

6th February 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Nova Land
It's often a day or so in between when I have the chance to post to this thread, but this does not seem a thread that needs to move very quickly. If several days sometimes go by between responses, that just allows more time to reflect (or to look up things people mention). Hitler has been dead close to 60 years, so if it takes a few months to wade through various sources he'll probably still be in the same shape when we finish.

You are right of course. Sorry, but I am an impatient soul...

Jedi Knight

6th February 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by c4ts
JK's original position on the topic was interesting. Although it lacked substance, he countered a lot of arguments that hadn't been made. It was interesting because after he finished countering those arguments, he contradicted himself by fulfilling the counter arguments. His definition of atheism hinges on the point that "all atheists ever do is think about God as an enemy" demonstrates the flawed reasoning he said he was not going to use in the beginning of the thread. Because if what he said were true, then atheism is in opposition to God (and therefore opposed to his religion), and he also concludes that anything that treats God as an enemy is evil. So this is basically the syllogism he denied at first. The whole of the thread is everybody explaining to JK that he is erroneous, and instead providing actual counter arguments. He does not accept any opinion but his own, and "Jedi Knight vs. the R&P forum" is not a civilized exchange of opinion, so I'll give it 2 becasue there were still civilized posts in response to JK. By the way, I'm originally from Tampa, so BUCS RULE! (And to think that just a few years ago, they wore orange and sucked.)

In the meantime, is there a similarity between JK's reasoning that atheism is evil, and Hitler's reasoning that Marxism is Juddaism?

Well all atheists do is think of God. They think of God so much they go out of their way to try and make it illegal for everyone else to think of God.

Is censorship skepticism?

JK

c4ts

6th February 2003, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Well all atheists do is think of God. They think of God so much they go out of their way to try and make it illegal for everyone else to think of God.

Is censorship skepticism?

JK

To the best of my knowledge, laws affect actions, not thoughts. You cannot make certain thoughts "illegal" through law, but you can prevent certain thoughts through dogma and censorship. Censorship is far closer to despotism than skepticism, for the despot not only provides misinformation, but demands that it be accepted as truth regardless of any reasoning or logic, denying free thinking while at the same time redifining free thinking as blind acceptance or faith. Hitler wrote about it, I quoted him, perhaps you should look over the quotes I provided. Skepticism is the refusal to believe, or blindly accept things without reason, and therefore runs contrary to despotic censorship.

Also, how do you know what other people are thinking? Are you a telepath?

Jedi Knight

6th February 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

To the best of my knowledge, laws affect actions, not thoughts. You cannot make certain thoughts "illegal" through law, but you can prevent certain thoughts through dogma and censorship. Censorship is far closer to despotism than skepticism, for the despot not only provides misinformation, but demands that it be accepted as truth regardless of any reasoning or logic, denying free thinking while at the same time redifining free thinking as blind acceptance or faith. Hitler wrote about it, I quoted him, perhaps you should look over the quotes I provided. Skepticism is the refusal to believe, or blindly accept things without reason, and therefore runs contrary to despotic censorship.

Also, how do you know what other people are thinking? Are you a telepath?

What "laws" are you referring to?

You must admit that atheists always think of God. You have to admit it. To not admit that will throw you into the "denial" column.

Atheists do what--they do everything in their collective power to "remove" faith from populations. Atheists think "God" is the enemy. Are you trying to say that in the atheist self-perpetuated war against religion that the atheist isn't going to think about his #1 enemy (God)?

You..hmmm..have got to be kidding me.

JK

Girl 6

6th February 2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

What "laws" are you referring to?

You must admit that atheists always think of God. You have to admit it. To not admit that will throw you into the "denial" column.

Atheists do what--they do everything in their collective power to "remove" faith from populations. Atheists think "God" is the enemy. Are you trying to say that in the atheist self-perpetuated war against religion that the atheist isn't going to think about his #1 enemy (God)?

You..hmmm..have got to be kidding me.

JK

I find this to be a curious comment, Jedi Knight. I certainly DON'T think about God in any way, shape or form most of the day. I don't find God to be the enemy here on earth. And, I don't work actively to remove faith from the population.

I am baffled by what you *think* atheists do. I take it that you are NOT an atheist. You can't possibly know what atheists do or think. I think it's rather presumptuous of anyone to claim that they know what someone else is thinking, in general.

I don't want to derail the conversation regarding Hitler's atheism, though. So, excuse my interruption here. I just wanted to voice my opinion regarding what you said.

G6

thaiboxerken

6th February 2003, 06:32 PM

"You must admit that atheists always think of God. You have to admit it. To not admit that will throw you into the "denial" column."

This is false, I think about sex much more than I think about a god or gods. It's just that I'm not afraid to tell people what I think of their silly god-beliefs when they try to impress them upon me. You don't know what all atheists think, please stop with your strawmen.

"Atheists do what--they do everything in their collective power to "remove" faith from populations. Atheists think "God" is the enemy."

Some atheists might do this, but do you have any statistics to support your assertion that a majority of atheists have this goal?

I personally thing that god beliefs and superstitions in general are the enemy to mankind's learning process.

"Are you trying to say that in the atheist self-perpetuated war against religion that the atheist isn't going to think about his #1 enemy (God)?"

What war? It seems to me that many of these atheist organizations in the USA are fighting for the right to practice or not practice religion in the USA. They are fighting to keep church out of government and the state out of teaching religion. This is a secular cause that benifits both the religious and nonreligious.

Jedi Knight

7th February 2003, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6

I find this to be a curious comment, Jedi Knight. I certainly DON'T think about God in any way, shape or form most of the day. I don't find God to be the enemy here on earth. And, I don't work actively to remove faith from the population.

I am baffled by what you *think* atheists do. I take it that you are NOT an atheist. You can't possibly know what atheists do or think. I think it's rather presumptuous of anyone to claim that they know what someone else is thinking, in general.

I don't want to derail the conversation regarding Hitler's atheism, though. So, excuse my interruption here. I just wanted to voice my opinion regarding what you said.

G6

Hi Girl6 ;)

I heard that you mentiond me at the Amazing Meeting. That was very nice of you to do that. Perhaps I will be able to attend the Amazing Meeting '2004 and get to meet all the nice people at JREF.

Now, you have basically replied to my stitch about atheism in the context that I am claiming that I "know" what an atheist thinks, and therefore I am "claiming" some "hidden" knowledge or perception about atheists and atheists as humans in general--that is untrue.

Put what I said into the context of actions. That is the entire basis of my argument about Hitler being an atheist. If a person "says" that they are a Christian and yet performs the actions of an anti-Christian (anti-Christ actions), are they really Christians?

Isn't it a very safe and also a very clear window into what people truly remain loyal to in ideology by looking at what they "do" and not what they "say"?

Agnosticism is pure skepticism. Agnosticism allows folks to believe in religion and the omnipotent being because agnosticism is in the middle--agnosticism also allows atheism because agnosticism doubts. You will not find agnostics (true agnostics) meddling into the affairs of religion because the agnostic skeptic (the only pure skeptic) has the discipline to understand the possibilities that potentially exist and cannot be dismissed, while the atheist goes into the game dismissing.

Now, the atheist doesn't even want to hear about God. If you found something that hurt your ears when you listen to it, do you turn the volume up, or do you turn it down? The atheist turns the power off when he can so there is no volume. The agnostic won't touch the dial but will form a silent thought about what he is hearing.

That is what I meant by the atheist stitch I mentioned and one that you have quoted and replied to. The atheist must think of God because the atheist has declared himself (or herself) to be an atheist. It just is.

The atheist has dismissed God openly. In my argument that Hitler was an atheist, as a fascist Hitler would naturally enjoy the benefits to state power that atheism can bring to totalitarianism. Stalin enjoyed them. When you have no competition for power in your state, it is easier to rule with absolute power. Absolutist regimes of any form simply find the sharing of political power with religions unnatural.

Now, knowing that then, religion is the ultimate form of human freedom of thought. Since atheism attacks religion and God as being a lie, then it is clear that to the atheist they must proselytize their "truths" to those that do believe in some form of omnipotent being.

Why wouldn't they? That would be a lie to say they didn't when their actions clearly demonstrate over and over historically that they do. It really has nothing to do with "claiming" what people think--that is what atheists have a problem with when dealing with religious people of faith, not vice versa. Most religious people think it is natural for humans to think of a higher power of some form and that it is inherently unhealthy not to.

It is two sides of a battery, oppositely charged, and both groups think of God simply by labling themselves as being a part of one or the other group. The only group with true neutrality is agnosticism.

Like I said, I don't need to read people's minds when I see the agendas of all groups take shape. Actions always speak louder.

JK

CWL

7th February 2003, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
What "laws" are you referring to?

You must admit that atheists always think of God. You have to admit it. To not admit that will throw you into the "denial" column.

JK,

Well, you can sign me up for the "denial" column. Not much point in thinking of something one doesn't believe in. I think you are looking at this from a perspective where theism is the "natural state". Well, for me it isn't. I was not raised a theist and I have lived all my life in a very secular society where the existence or non-existence of God is rarely discussed in daily conversations. I do not, and I do not have any reason to, "always think of God".

Atheists do what--they do everything in their collective power to "remove" faith from populations. Atheists think "God" is the enemy. Are you trying to say that in the atheist self-perpetuated war against religion that the atheist isn't going to think about his #1 enemy (God)?

You..hmmm..have got to be kidding me.

JK

How can one view something one does not believe in as an enemy? Belief in a supreme being as such is not the enemy. Ignorance is. When the belief in a supernatural being leads to fanaticism and anti-intellectual behaviour, every intellectual (theist and atheist alike) needs to exercise their freedom of speech to battle such tendencies - just like fanaticism and anti-intellectual behaviour which is not based on supernatural belief as such needs to be battled (your old favourite, communism, is a good example of the latter category).

My point is that non-believers in God are not the enemy as such either, JK.

----

But we are straying. One (hypothetical) question which is essential in order to assess if any debate with you can progress as to the question of Hitler's atheism is the following.

You obviously firmly belive that Hitler was an atheist. Do you agree that he could have believed in a god despite the atrocities for which he was responsible?

Aardvark_DK

7th February 2003, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by CWL
You obviously firmly belive that Hitler was an atheist. Do you agree that he could have believed in a god despite the atrocities for which he was responsible?
And on a related note: JK, do you believe that any Christian person in the history of Christianity has done a bad thing? And if they have was it because they were suffering from temporary atheism?

edit: I'm not holding my breath for your answer. So far you have failed to answer a single question put to you by anyone here. NovaLand and Headscratcher have both written long carefully thought out posts to you and you have completely ignored them. And we're still waiting for your evidence regarding the celebrating of Stalin and Communism at universities.

headscratcher4

7th February 2003, 07:15 AM

This is all a little off topic, but ....

. religion is the ultimate form of human freedom of thought.

Perhaps...but it would seem that is true only when the religious are not in "power". Most of human history would suggest that when a "religious" movement triumphs, it goes long and hard to suppress the beliefs of anyone who is in conflict with the victorious ethic. It need not be "Christian" -- BTW, from your deffinition as it has evolved, I suspect there's never been any christians in government since Jesus, for "Christian" governments seem to act in very un-christian ways -- but Christians are a good example in the west.

Throughout this discussion, numerous examples, un-refuted, have been posted of where "Christians" in power, Christian Churches in power -- MEN AND WOMEN WHO BELIEVED IN GOD AND THUS NOT ATHEISTS -- went out of their way to burn, torture, murder and steal from their neighbors or people they had defeated militarilly, and usually in the name of their god.

So, just given the bloody history of Western Civilization, reaching back at least to the establishment of the Christian Church as the official church of the Roman Empire, we can conclude, possibly, two things:

a). No Christian can ever rule, becuase once they come into power they become Atheists- i.e. killing, maiming, torturing, stealing, closing down competing churches and religions, etc. in order that their religion prevails (note, in this country, the drive by right-wing Christians to make America a "christian" country (by that they mean Protestant), and thus not have to give much consideration to the rights, beliefs not only of other "christians" but certainly not people with religious beliefs other than christian).

Or

b). Religion run amok is indistinguishable from any political or ethical philosophy run amok...only the technology of death and distruction gets better.

At the core, I can only conclude that JK is a "Christian" but a "Christian" of a unique kind -- his is a "christianity" of one. It is a pure, perfect, in-human kind of religion that has no root in the reality that most understand, feel, see day to day.

For JK, it seems, in this pure religion, there is no evil and to do "evil" as he decides it, is to cross over and to be an apostate -- more importantly to embrace the religion of atheism (as no one who really believes in God, or at least the "christian" version of god, could do "evil"). Further, when evil is done, by those who proclaim themselves to believe in god, they are clearly lying -- and JK alone seems able to descern the lie.

We have passed beyond a place where fact, logic, history, etc. have any meaning.

Nova Land

7th February 2003, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

If a person "says" that they are a Christian and yet performs the actions of an anti-Christian (anti-Christ actions), are they really Christians?
This is an interesting (and not unreasonable) idea, but it leads to complications that need to be resolved if it is to be of any use.

What are "anti-Christian" actions? It may sound intuitively clear, but what does this actually mean? Is maintaining a system of racial discrimination anti-Christian? Is dropping an atomic bomb on a populated city anti-Christian? Is passing laws requiring people to contribute to a state-sponsored church, or to take part in state-sponsored religious activities, anti-Christian? Is torturing people to force them to convert to Christianity anti-Christian? What about torturing them to confess to crimes, or torturing them to punish them for crimes? Where are the lines drawn?

People who sincerely considered themselves to be Christians have done many deeds over the centuries that later generations considered to be horribly wrong -- the Crusades, the witch-hunts, the Inquisition, religious wars, persecution of Jews, support of slavery, etc. etc. etc.

How many "anti-Christian" acts can a person perform, and how serious do these need to be, before the person can no longer be considered Christian? Are all adulterers automatically non-Christian, or is there a permissible level of extra-marital sex? How much work can a person do on the sabbath before you consider them non-Christian?

If your principle is strictly applied, then it would seem as if there have been almost no Christians in history. Is that indeed your contention -- that Christians are a rarity, throughout history and in the world today?

You also seem to be equating "non-Christian" with "atheist". That would make atheists the most dominant group in the world's history. Jefferson (slave-owner) would be an atheist. Benjamin Franklin (sexual libertine) would be an atheist, as would Martin Luther King. Gandhi was non-Christian, therefore atheist. Are there any significant historical figures who do not qualify as atheists, and on what grounds?

You've given the example of Hitler as someone whose actions mark him as a non-Christian (despite the fact he publicly claimed to be Christian). Do Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Duvallier, and other dictators whose regimes committed atrocities also qualify? If so, what about governments that provided support to these regimes -- should they be considered atheistic as well? Suppose a country ran a training school that taught the soldiers and leaders of brutal regimes how to torture and "disappear" people? Would the people who supported such a program qualify as atheists?

And does this principle work in the other direction as well? If a person "says" that they are a non-Christian and yet performs the actions of a Christian, are they really non-Christians? Gandhi, for example, claimed not to be a Christian but his actions would seem to be how we might hope Christians would behave. (That would be interesting -- Gandhi would be both an atheist and a Christian!)

The idea of judging people by their actions rather than their words sounds good in theory. Is there a practical way to apply it? Please elaborate on how your system for classifying people as atheist and Christian actually works in practice.

Nova Land

7th February 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by c4ts

Table Talk isn't a very reliable source on Hitler's beliefs, since they appear to be shifting all the time, and some may have been fabricated to make Hitler look more insane than he already was. Mein Kamph is better becasue Hitler wrote it himself, and much of it is anti-semetic ranting. If there is one thing we do know about Hitler's beliefs, it is that he was an anti semite, and Mein Kamph is consistent with that fact. I haven't read Table Talk, and I want to know if it is consistent with Hitler's views in Mein Kamph.
I think both the "table talks" and "Mein Kampf" are worth considering. Neither one should be accepted uncritically, but both are potentially good sources of clues to what Hitler's actual beliefs were.

I started with the "table talks" because Jedi had previously quoted material from them in support of his belief that Hitler was an atheist. It turns out Jedi does not actually consider them a good source (so I am puzzled by his initial use of them -- the only source he has quoted from so far). Even so, I think they are a good source to examine, so I'm glad he steered me to them.

You mention his anti-semitism as a good test for authenticity. The "table talks" pass that test with flying colors! I have largely left out his racial rants in reproducing passages, in order to focus on what he said about religion. Thus I've included his attacks on the Jewish religion, but largely deleted his attacks on the Jewish people. But the racial rants are there.

"Hitler's beliefs... appear to be shifting all the time." Hitler's beliefs as expressed in the "table talks" seem reasonably consistent over the 4-year span during which they were being recorded. They also seem quite consistent with his actions during that time. They are inconsistent with his public utterances -- which is what I'd expect and why the "table talks are of interest." It is common with public figures that what they say publicly and what they express privately are often at variance, and the latter is what I put more reliance on.

"some may have been fabricated...". It seems well-established that Hitler did indeed conduct these after-dinner conversations and that there were indeed notes taken of Hitler's parts. So these are not "fabrications" in the sense that the "Hitler diaries" (or other phony materials that have been produced over the years) were.

There are, as I've noted before, more than 300 of these rambles in the volume, coming to about 600 pages. It seems unlikely that these were significantly doctored during the 4-year period they were being recorded, for several reasons. (1) No evidence of doctoring has been produced. (2) The remarks recorded in the table talks seem consistent with the remarks his contemporaries say he actually expressed in them. (3) If Hitler had looked over the notes and seen himself quoted as saying something significantly different than what he had actually said, he seems the kind of person to throw a rather nasty tantrum.

It's possible major revision was done after Hitler was dead, but again there is no evidence of any such thing. Altering that much material without leaving traces is difficult. Anything involving Hitler comes under heavy scrutiny; so far, in 50 years, no evidence of an effort to fabricate the material (or to alter it significantly) has come to light.

the most reasonable possibilities as far as inaccuracies in the "table talks" are that the note-taker may have written down some comments incorrectly and that some meanings have been altered in the translation. That would apply more easily to individual passages, however, than to the work as a whole.

So I would be cautious in placing too much reliance on any single passage from the table talks, especially brief comments (which would be more vulnerable to mistakes). But if something appears in a lengthy passage, and appears in several other places as well, it seems reasonable to accept it is something Hitler said to his associates following a meal.

In weighing the evidence about people's beliefs, I generally place more weight on what they are known to have confided in private to their close associates and less weight on what they have said in carefully controlled public statements. I would also place more weight on detailed statements than on brief ones.

For example, if a contemporary politician said "I'm [for / against] gun control", I would pay less attention to that than to a statement explaining which particular measures they supported and which ones they opposed, or giving a detailed philosophy underlying their position. And I would place less credence in a statement made to a nominating convention about how sincere they were in their [support / opposition] than I would in pillow talk with a spouse explaining what they really felt and why. It's too bad Eva Braun died in the bunker; I would love to read her diary or her memoirs.

Mein Kampf presents an interesting challenges. On one hand, it is something Hitler wrote in order to sway people, and thus might be something to give less weight to. On the other hand, he wrote it before becoming a prominent public figure, and it may indeed be heart-felt rather than manipulative. I've never been able to wade all the way through it (although I should make another effort). I'm inclined to give more weight to what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf than to what he said later in his public speeches and press releases. By then he knew people were paying attention, and he said things for political purposes. Whether to give Mein Kampf more weight, less weight, or the same weight as the table talks is something to think about after examining both.

Jedi Knight

7th February 2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by CWL
Well, you can sign me up for the "denial" column. Not much point in thinking of something one doesn't believe in. I think you are looking at this from a perspective where theism is the "natural state". Well, for me it isn't. I was not raised a theist and I have lived all my life in a very secular society where the existence or non-existence of God is rarely discussed in daily conversations. I do not, and I do not have any reason to, "always think of God".

That is a load of BS--not the "denial" you admit to, but the part where you said: "I do not, and I do not have any reason to, "always think of God."

If you are an atheist as you claim to be you are putting yourself into a category where you are proselytizing against God. To be an atheist is to be anti-Christian (antichrist activity) or any other religion.

It simply has to be that way. See it?

Then you said: My point is that non-believers in God are not the enemy as such either, JK.

I agree. I don't look at people that way, except for communists and radical Islamists. But atheism already removes tolerance for all religion and all religious thought. That is what atheism does. It is a 1% minority population opinion and not a popular one.

JK

Nova Land

7th February 2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight (in response to CWL)

That is a load of BS--not the "denial" you admit to, but the part where you said: "I do not, and I do not have any reason to, "always think of God."

If you are an atheist as you claim to be you are putting yourself into a category where you are proselytizing against God. To be an atheist is to be anti-Christian (antichrist activity) or any other religion.Not true. An atheist is a person who does not believe in god. Some atheists do choose to proselytize against god, just as some theists choose to proselytize for god, but you should not confuse some with all.

It is quite possible to believe in god without feeling a need to proselytize others, and it is quite possible not to believe in god without feeling a need to proselytize.

The need to proselytize is a characteristic of some believers and non-believers. It is not part of the definition. If it is, you will have to find a new term to refer to people who do not believe in god but feel fine allowing others to believe as they will.

As a theist who does not have any desire to proselytize, I have no problem believing in the existence of atheists who feel the same way.

Jedi Knight

7th February 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Nova Land
Not true. An atheist is a person who does not believe in god. Some atheists do choose to proselytize against god, just as some theists choose to proselytize for god, but you should not confuse some with all.

It is quite possible to believe in god without feeling a need to proselytize others, and it is quite possible not to believe in god without feeling a need to proselytize.

The need to proselytize is a characteristic of some believers and non-believers. It is not part of the definition. If it is, you will have to find a new term to refer to people who do not believe in god but feel fine allowing others to believe as they will.

As a theist who does not have any desire to proselytize, I have no problem believing in the existence of atheists who feel the same way.

Alright, if an atheist is alone, he sits alone and does not think about God nor does not proselytize against God. He simply sits there and says: "there is no God".

The instant that same atheist forms a religious group with other atheists, then he automatically proselytizes. Then he becomes active in "doing away with" all that bad thought about the omnipotent being that the rest of the 99% majority population thinks about.

Take a look at this forum. You have hundreds of people on this forum who say people who believe in religion are "stupid believers". Then these same people high-five each other at how "cool and fashionable" they look.

That is proselytizing, the difference being it is proselytizing for humanism over the omnipotent being.

JK

Nova Land

7th February 2003, 02:31 PM

Here is some analysis of the extracts from Mein Kampf that C4ts posted. This will run long, even quoting only the key parts of the passages, so I'm probably going to break this into several posts.
From the first quoted passage:

... For the philosophy is intolerant and cannot permit another to exist side by side with it. It imperiously demands its own recognition as unique and exclusive and a complete transformation in accordance with its views throughout all the branches of public life. It can never allow the previous state of affairs to continue in existence by its side.This tells us what Hitler thought about competing philosophies. It does not tell us what his own religious beliefs were.

While this passage was selected to refute Jedi's views, it actually seems to harmonize well with what Jedi has said about Hitler's desire to squash any competing philosophy and dominate completely.
Second quoted passage:

Here again the Catholic Church has a lesson to teach us. Though sometimes, and often quite unnecessarily, its dogmatic system is in conflict with the exact sciences and with scientific discoveries, it is not disposed to sacrifice a syllable of its teachings. It has rightly recognized that its powers of resistance would be weakened by introducing greater or less doctrinal adaptations to meet the temporary conclusions of science, which in reality are always vacillating. And thus it holds fast to its fixed and established dogmas which alone can give to the whole system the character of a faith. And that is the reason why it stands firmer today than ever before. We may prophesy that, as a fixed pole amid fleeting phenomena, it will continue to attract increasing numbers of people who will be blindly attached to it the more rapid the rhythm of changing phenomena around it.
Hitler praises the Catholic Church for its inflexibility. Nowhere in this passage does Hitler praise the doctrines themselves or argue that the Church is correct.

My reading of this passage is just the opposite, that he is admiring them for standing fast even when they are incorrect, and that he considers people who are attracted to Catholicism to be blind. Hardly a ringing endorsement of Catholicism, or religion in general!

I will need to look up this passage myself to read it in context for clues to Hitler's intent. (I wish I read German, as the translation may change the nuances.) But as I read it, Hitler is admiring the Catholic Church as one general may admire a brilliant enemy. Unless the passages surrounding this praise the Church's doctrines, I would take this as support for the view of Hitler as anti-religious rather than religious.
From the third passage:

...I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals... Hitler talks about enjoying the festivals. Again he passes up a chance to say anything good about the religious doctrines themselves.

The passage continues:
As was only natural the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal. For a time, at least, this was the case.Hitler talks about looking up to the priest (as a father figure?) for a time, implying this is something he outgrew. (This ties in nicely with material coming up in the table talks about his childhood relation with clergy.)

Note that he has nothing good to say about any religious doctrine in this passage -- no talk about belief in god, the importance of Jesus in his life, enjoyment of the bible, or anything like that. He enjoyed church festivals, and he at one point looked up to an authority figure. I see nothing in that to contradict the possibility of Hitler being an atheist as an adult.

Nova Land

7th February 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

... if an atheist is alone, he sits alone and does not think about God...

The instant that same atheist forms a religious group with other atheists, then he automatically proselytizes....
No. It is quite possible for atheists (or any other group) to get together to socialize. When you hold a minority belief, it's sometimes nice to hang out with people who have a similar belief and know what you're talking about and what you've been through.

That does not mean they are proselytizing each other, or have any intention to proselytize people outside the group. Not everyone finds proselytizing fun. Some people have other ways they prefer to spend their time.
Take a look at this forum. You have hundreds of people on this forum who say people who believe in religion are "stupid believers". Then these same people high-five each other at how "cool and fashionable" they look.

That is proselytizing...I didn't say that no atheists or humanists proselytized. I said that not all did. I suspect the number who do proselytize is probably significantly less than the number who don't. It's just easier to notice when a person is proselytizing than when a person isn't.

If the topic of atheism is raised, and an atheist discusses their beliefs, that is not proselytizing in my book. Proselytizing is going out of one's way to bring up the subject and try to bring others to one's way of belief. Come on: haven't you noticed a lot of people on this board who don't do that?

Jedi Knight

7th February 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Nova Land

No. It is quite possible for atheists (or any other group) to get together to socialize. When you hold a minority belief, it's sometimes nice to hang out with people who have a similar belief and know what you're talking about and what you've been through.

That does not mean they are proselytizing each other, or have any intention to proselytize people outside the group. Not everyone finds proselytizing fun. Some people have other ways they prefer to spend their time.
I didn't say that no atheists or humanists proselytized. I said that not all did. I suspect the number who do proselytize is probably significantly less than the number who don't. It's just easier to notice when a person is proselytizing than when a person isn't.

If the topic of atheism is raised, and an atheist discusses their beliefs, that is not proselytizing in my book. Proselytizing is going out of one's way to bring up the subject and try to bring others to one's way of belief. Come on: haven't you noticed a lot of people on this board who don't do that?

Yes, there are nice people on this board that I like to talk to. But check this out and see if you notice a trend with atheists. On this forum what do atheists do all the time? They ask a question to each other all the time. It is a question that is so obvious that it jumps right off the website almost daily.

The atheists ask themselves here: "why don't other people get it?" We have "all the answers" and the "others" just "don't get it". That is why they are woo woo's, kooks, etc etc.

Every single day I come here to read that form of logic in a thread in a new posting. Now, if 99% of the population doesn't "get it", why don't they?

JK

Nova Land

7th February 2003, 03:53 PM

Continuing with analysis of the passages C4ts quoted from Mein Kampf:
Fourth quoted passage:

TODAY it seems to me providential that Fate should have chosen Braunau on the Inn as my birthplace.In quoting this passage, C4ts asks, "Why would an atheist hold Fate or providence responsible for anything? That's an interesting question (why some atheists would) but not a reason to believe none do.

An atheist (by the definition some of us use) is someone who does not believe in a god. Some people -- both anti- and pro-atheist -- think more can be deduced from that. For instance, some anti-atheists in this forum assert that atheists must, by definition be immoral. The evidence does not seem to support such a belief. Some pro-atheists in contrast seem to assert that atheists must, by definition, be rational in all aspects of their life. Again, the evidence does not seem to support such a belief.

Many atheists are quite rational, in many areas of life, and it is quite possible that atheists on average are more rational than theists on average. But there is no evidence to show that atheists can't also hold irrational beliefs. An atheist can be a racist, can believe in UFOs or vampires, can make insane decisions about personal relationships, and conceivably could even be a Republican.

Can an atheist believe in Providence? If one defines god to include Providence, then obviously an atheist could not believe in Providence. But not everyone sees a belief in "special destiny" as the same as belief in a god.

I guess the key question is, "What did Hitler mean?" Did Hitler believe in a cosmic being which guided people's lives, or did Hitler think the universe was in motion and natural forces would cause some things to happen?

It's quite possible for a person who has an optimistic view of humanity to believe that civilization will progress over time and become more humane, without necessarily believing in a god; or for a more pessimistic person to believe that there will always be wars and poverty (again without having to believe in a god); or for someone to look at the skies and believe that eventually humanity will find a way to fly to the stars, or to hold any number of beliefs and feel these things are "destined" to happen.

Hitler seemed to believe he was a special person, destined to be a major player on the world stage. Is it possible to believe such a thing without believing in a god? I don't see why not. The next question, then, is did Hitler believe that?

In order to know whether Hitler's belief in his destiny was connected to belief in a god or not, we need to refer to passages where he expounds on his beliefs, or where people who knew him closely say what he told them about his beliefs. Mere passing references to "fate" or "providence", such as these, may be more related to his writing style than his religious beliefs.
Fifth passage:

If today I am more attached to this city than to any other spot of earth in this world, it is partly due to the fact that it is and remains inseparably bound up with the development of my own life; if even then I achieved the happiness of a truly inward contentment, it can be attributed only to the magic which the miraculous residence of the Wittelsbachs exerts on every man who is blessed, not only with a calculating mind but with a feeling soul.
This talks about being "blessed" with "a feeling soul". This is religious language, but does it indicate religious belief?

Religion permeates the English language -- and, quite likely, German. It is very difficult to write or speak without using such words and phrases (as some atheists have indicated in threads in this forum, I believe).

Atheists can be moved by music, by works of art, by breath-taking scenery. An easy way to express it is that it "touched the soul". Are there no atheists here who have ever used such an expression? I'm a pacifist, but I often use expressions with military overtones just because they are so common and non-violent alternatives are often a bother and a distraction.

In recent years various groups have become more aware of language and made more efforts to remove undesirable connotations from their speech. Some vegetarians try to avoid talking about "the meat of the matter"; some pacifists try to avoid talking about being "hit by an idea"; and I assume some atheists are trying to avoid "bless", "soul", etc. But would this have been common in Hitler's time? (And would Hitler have subscribed to such a liberal, PC way of thinking?)

What I would consider good evidence is Hitler actually elaborating about the soul -- what he thinks it is, where it came from, etc. Trying to deduce too much from his word choice in a non-religious passage seems stretching.

Sixth passage:

...But the people on top made a cult of the 'ally,' as if it were the Golden Calf. They hoped to replace by cordiality what was lacking in honesty. And words were always taken for coin of the realm...
Using the Golden Calf as a metaphor gives us no clue to Hitler's actual religious beliefs.
Seventh passage:

It must be said that such a territorial policy cannot be fulfilled in the Cameroons, but today almost exclusively in Europe. We must, therefore, coolly and objectively adopt the standpoint that it can certainly not be the intention of Heaven to give one people fifty times as much land and soil in this world as another..."the intention of Heaven"? Now that's an odd wording! Is Heaven a thinking entity?

Again, this is trying to draw deductions from the language, rather than getting evidence from the actual ideas. Hitler has not expressed an actual belief in heaven here, he has used the word as a poetic way to express an idea. If an atheist were to describe an exotic dessert as tasting "divine" or a back-rub as feeling "heavenly", would that indicate they had been converted to theism? Sometimes an expression is just an expression.

Darat

7th February 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Nova Land
...snip...

"the intention of Heaven"? Now that's an odd wording! Is Heaven a thinking entity?

Again, this is trying to draw deductions from the language, rather than getting evidence from the actual ideas. Hitler has not expressed an actual belief in heaven here, he has used the word as a poetic way to express an idea. If an atheist were to describe an exotic dessert as tasting "divine" or a back-rub as feeling "heavenly", would that indicate they had been converted to theism? Sometimes an expression is just an expression. [/B]

Nova Land - the "intention of Heaven" isn't an unusual phrase - especially in older, less contemporary English - it's just a flowery way of saying "God".

Nova Land

7th February 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Yes, there are nice people on this board that I like to talk to.And aren't some of them atheists?
But check this out and see if you notice a trend with atheists...

The atheists ask themselves here: "why don't other people get it?" We have "all the answers" and the "others" just "don't get it". That is why they are woo woo's, kooks, etc etc.

Every single day I come here to read that form of logic in a thread in a new posting.Yes, there are people who post threads that seem designed to taunt theists.

But haven't you been known, on occasion, to post some provocative threads in hope of getting a reaction from people who you don't think "get it"?

The fact that some atheists enjoy proselytizing for atheism, or that some theists enjoy proselytizing for theism, or that some conservatives enjoy proselytizing for conservatism, doesn't mean that is true of all atheists, theists, or conservatives.

You've asserted that all atheists, by definition, proselytize on behalf of atheism. My experience tells me that is not the case. Are you sure that every atheist on this board starts threads such as the ones you've described?

thaiboxerken

7th February 2003, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

On this forum what do atheists do all the time? They ask a question to each other all the time.

Well, I'm an atheist and I don't talk about god all the time on this board. Look in other sections and you'll see me talking about other nonsense besides god, "Chi" is a big one. But, if you only stay in the religion threads, of course all you'll see people talk about are gods and religion.

The atheists ask themselves here: "why don't other people get it?" We have "all the answers" and the "others" just "don't get it". That is why they are woo woo's, kooks, etc etc.

Hardly :rolleyes:
Do you have supportive evidence for your absurd insinuations?

Every single day I come here to read that form of logic in a thread in a new posting. Now, if 99% of the population doesn't "get it", why don't they?
JK

The population that believes in a god is hardly 99%. And the population that believes in the same god gets even lower.

thaiboxerken

7th February 2003, 04:25 PM

"conceivably could even be a Republican. "

Hey now, no need to take a stab at us atheist Republicans. I simply make too much money to vote democratic. I work damn hard to feed millions on welfare.;)

Nova Land

7th February 2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Darat

The "intention of Heaven" isn't an unusual phrase - especially in older, less contemporary English - it's just a flowery way of saying "God".
It's a flowery way of saying "God" -- yes, agreed. So Hitler is using flowery language.

That's precisely the point. Is the reference to heaven / god intended as flowery metaphor or as literal indication of his religous belief? People often refer to heaven, god, soul, and other religious things in their speech, without intending any religious statement.

"Heaven only knows!"

"God damn it!"

"That woman would try the soul of a saint."

"These are the times that try men's souls."

"I think I've died and gone to heaven!"

"When hell freezes over."

Yes, one can excise all these, and any other religious allusion, from one's speech. But how many people do?

I believe in weighing the evidence. A conclusion based on a possibly metaphorical word choice carries little weight, whether it supports or disagrees with what I'd like to believe. If Jedi were trying to use something this slim to back up his beliefs, would people be so non-skeptical?

The remaining passages from Mein Kampf are more substantial. And even these, slim as they are, are worth considering in the larger picture. Even metaphoric language can be revealing, especially if a person repeatedly uses certain phrases or images. But let's be aware of the difference between a passage in which Hitler says, "God has chosen me to carry out his work" and one in which he says, "Oh my God, it's dinner time already!"

Nova Land

7th February 2003, 05:16 PM

Concluding my analysis of the passages from Mein Kampf that C4ts posted
Eighth passage:

...Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time.

A fight for freedom had begun, mightier than the earth had ever seen; for once Destiny had begun its course, the conviction dawned on even the broad masses that this time not the fate of Serbia or Austria was involved, but whether the German nation was to be or not to be.

For the last time in many years the people had a prophetic vision of its own future. Thus, right at the beginning of the gigantic struggle the necessary grave undertone entered into the ecstasy- of an overflowing enthusiasm; for this knowledge alone made the national uprising more than a mere blaze of straw.
The intent of the passage seems to be to stir the reader with emotion about the grand struggle Germany was to be engaged in. He uses religious language and images to do this. The obvious question arises: how much of this is what he truly felt, and how much is simply calculated to manipulate his audience, whom he believes to be religious? Hitler would not be the first national leader to use religious appeals to motivate the troops. The same skepticism we need to apply to the "table talks" needs to be applied to these passages.

Also, the way he expresses this is interesting. He was "overpowered by stormy enthusiasm..."? As young people, we often are carried away by our emotions. At some point years ago, if Hitler is to be believed, he did believe in god and heaven. Did he still believe in it at the time of writing Mein Kampf, or had he put it aside as a childish "enthusiasm"? Hitler doesn't say.

My reservations notwithstanding, this is evidence worth considering. Hitler directly states that (at some point in his life) he had a belief in a god.
Ninth passage:

Any attempt to combat a philosophy with methods of violence will fail in the end, unless the fight takes the form of attack for a new spiritual attitude. Only in the struggle between two philosophies can the weapon of brutal force, persistently and ruthlessly applied lead to a decision for the side it supports.This is an intriguing passage, but what does it mean? While the word "spiritual" can have religious overtones, it is not clear that is the intended meaning here. Does Hitler elaborate on this idea?

It sounds like he's saying you have to fight a philosophy with a competing philosophy. I have no problem imagining an atheist saying that.
Tenth passage:

And so, internally armed with faith in the goodness of God and the impenetrable stupidity of the electorate, the struggle for what is called 'the reconstruction of the Reich' can now begin.As in the 8th passage, Hitler is using religious language in his call to people to take part in a grand struggle. He seems to have no interest in talking about his religious beliefs themselves, only in using the words as rallying cries. This indicates he believes his potential followers to be religious, but does not tell us much about whether Hitler truly was.
Eleventh passage:

A doctrine which forms a definite outlook on life cannot struggle and triumph by allowing the right of free interpretation of its general teaching, but only by defining that teaching in certain articles of faith that have to be accepted and incorporating it in a political organization.Here Hitler is arguing that only one doctrine should be allowed and people should be indoctrinated with it. There is nothing here about the doctrine being correct (which is important to most religions, including Christianity). Hitler's sole concern seems to be with dominance. That does not show Hitler was an atheist, but does not contradict such a belief either. C4ts selected this to refute Jedi's belief, but it seems quite consistent with what Jedi has maintained about Hitler.

thaiboxerken

7th February 2003, 07:07 PM

""My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)"

How does this speech figure into the belief of Hitler being atheist.. No wait, I'll answer that myself- Hitler was merely lying to gain popularity amongst his people. But wait, how would this speech motivate a nation of atheists, this certainly throws a wrench in JK's assertion that German was atheist during WWII.

thaiboxerken

7th February 2003, 07:13 PM

"I thank Heaven that a portion of the memories of those days still remains with me. Woods and meadows were the battlefields on which the 'conflicts' which exist everywhere in life were decided.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)"

There is a slim possibility that it's just a figure of speech that Hitler is using, but I think one really has to reach to make this seem anything other than a confirmation of Hitler's belief in a Heaven.

"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)"

Hmm. Does the "figure of speech" arguement work well with this quote as well?

Nova Land

7th February 2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
""My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter... For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)"
Thanks! This is good evidence -- clearly not simply flowery language or metaphor, but a clear strong statement. Hitler could be lying, but as you point out if so he is lying to people whom he believes to be Christians, not atheists.
... this certainly throws a wrench in JK's assertion that German was atheist during WWII. Not necessarily. The speech is from 1922, and I think Jedi's exact wording implied that Germany was atheist from 1932 to 1940.

Why and how he believes Germany became atheist in 1932 (or ceased to be atheist in 1940) I am not at all clear. But there is no inherent contradiction between Hitler appealing to the Germans as Christians in 1922 and Jedi's contention that the German's were atheists in 1932.

thaiboxerken

7th February 2003, 11:00 PM

"Why and how he believes Germany became atheist in 1932 (or ceased to be atheist in 1940) I am not at all clear. But there is no inherent contradiction between Hitler appealing to the Germans as Christians in 1922 and Jedi's contention that the German's were atheists in 1932."

Hmm.. I think it is, as one doesn't use jesus to motivate people to be atheist. But here are some other excerpts from speeches.

"Except the Lord built the house they labour in vain.... The truth of that text was proved if one looks at the house of which the foundations were laid in 1918 and which since then has been in building.... The world will not help, the people must help itself. Its own strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it we may wage the battle of our life.... The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty-- of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us....
We are all proud that through God's powerful aid we have become once more true Germans.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in March 1933 "

"While we destroyed the Centre Party, we have not only brought thousands of priests back into the Church, but to millions of respectable people we have restored their faith in their religion and in their priests. The union of the Evangelical Church in a single Church for the whole Reich, the Concordat with the Catholic Church, these are but milestones on the road which leads to the establishment of a useful relation and a useful co operation between the Reich and the two Confessions.
-Adolf Hitler, in his New Year Message on 1 Jan. 1934 "

"We have experienced a miracle, something unique, something the like of which there has hardly been in the history of the world. God first allowed our people to be victorious for four and a half years, then He abased us, laid upon us a period of shamelessness, but now after a struggle of fourteen years he has permitted us to bring that period to a close. It is a miracle which has been wrought upon the German people.... It shows us that the Almighty has not deserted our people, that He received it into favour at the moment when it rediscovered itself. And that our people shall never again lose itself, that must be our vow so long as we shall live and so long as the Lord gives us the strength to carry on the fight.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech to the "Old Guard" of the Party at Munich on 19 March, 1934 "

Nova Land

7th February 2003, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

"I thank Heaven that a portion of the memories of those days still remains with me. Woods and meadows were the battlefields on which the 'conflicts' which exist everywhere in life were decided.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)"

There is a slim possibility that it's just a figure of speech that Hitler is using, but I think one really has to reach to make this seem anything other than a confirmation of Hitler's belief in a Heaven.Page reference, please? I'd like to look this one up in context. From the brief portion presented here, I see nothing to indicate more than figure of speech.

People use the expression "thank heaven" all the time with no religious intent. What is there about "woods and meadows" or "conflicts" that leads you to read more into this?

It would be good to use standards here that can also be applied to other cases where a person's religious beliefs are in question. It is not only heinous people such as Hitler in question; there are some very decent people, such as Einstein, whose precise religious beliefs have been subject to debate. If the use of phrases such as "thank heaven" shows Hitler was a theist, is use of similar language good evidence that other people who used such language were theists as well?

This is interesting. Jedi seems determined to declare the overwhelming majority of humanity to be atheists, and you appear to be offering a standard which would put the overwhelming majority (including, I suspect, quite a few people who consider themselves atheists) back into the theist camp.
"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)"This is a good piece of evidence; a clear statement, not flowery language.

I've seen this one referred to before, so it should be easy enough for me to find if you don't have the page reference, but if you do have the page reference it would be appreciated.

Aardvark_DK

8th February 2003, 03:43 AM

JK, do you believe that any Christian person in the history of Christianity has done a bad thing? And if they have was it because they were suffering from temporary atheism?

And we're still waiting for your evidence regarding the celebrating of Stalin and Communism at universities.

CWL

8th February 2003, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

That is a load of BS--not the "denial" you admit to, but the part where you said: "I do not, and I do not have any reason to, "always think of God."

If you are an atheist as you claim to be you are putting yourself into a category where you are proselytizing against God. To be an atheist is to be anti-Christian (antichrist activity) or any other religion.

It simply has to be that way. See it?

Then you said: My point is that non-believers in God are not the enemy as such either, JK.

I agree. I don't look at people that way, except for communists and radical Islamists. But atheism already removes tolerance for all religion and all religious thought. That is what atheism does. It is a 1% minority population opinion and not a popular one.

JK

JK, I am sorry but you are just dead wrong. I am myself a non-believer (I usually categorize myself as a secular humanist, but I have no objection to the term "atheist" being used about myself, as far as it connotes doubt as to the existence of, or non-belief in, God). Most of my friends and relatives (and a large number of people in Scandinavia in general) hold the same view.

I am not "proselytizing against god" in any way, nor do any of the people of the same persuasion that I know. I respect religious beliefs and people are most welcome to them - as long as such thinking does not become fundamentalist and anti-intellectual. Again, the enemy is not religion, but ignorance. Non-belief in god as such does not remove any tolerance.

You seem to indicate that christians are tolerant towards other beliefs. Excuse me if I beg to differ slightly...

I and the people I know tend to think of religion as a very private business which neither the state, nor any friendly neighbors (christian or otherwise) should interfere with. Do you know of many christians that share this view?

As to your 1%, I suggest that you submit your source. Perhaps there was a significant number of people who answered "no religious affilation". How many are "agnostics"? How many are "humanists"? How many refuse to answer?

This graph from www.adherents.com (http://www.adherents.com) (which shows the major beliefs of the world population) clearly indicates that your 1% figure may not be entirely accurate:

http://www.adherents.com/rel_pie.gif

Again, we are off topic. You omitted to answer my hypothetical question:

Do you agree that Hitler could have believed in a god despite the atrocities for which he was responsible?

A simple yes or no will do.

Jedi Knight

8th February 2003, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Nova Land
Are you sure that every atheist on this board starts threads such as the ones you've described?

Absolutely, either that or they contribute to threads started by other atheists. Atheism is not true skepticism. Skepticism is doubt. Atheism does not doubt--it is convinced of an outcome and treats it as fact minus evidence.

JK

Jedi Knight

8th February 2003, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
And we're still waiting for your evidence regarding the celebrating of Stalin and Communism at universities.

Here is the evidence part 1 (http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2637).

Here is some more evidence about missing diversity (http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=1003).--the missing diversity being non-communists.

Here is some more evidence for you to read (http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2642).

Here is some more evidence about commencement speakers (http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2638) that is interesting.

Here is some more for you to read (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2660).

Here is some more to check out (http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=2722).

Here is some more if you haven't read (http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=2725) enough already.

Here is some more to cap it off (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2713).

JK

CWL

8th February 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Absolutely, either that or they contribute to threads started by other atheists. Atheism is not true skepticism. Skepticism is doubt. Atheism does not doubt--it is convinced of an outcome and treats it as fact minus evidence.

JK

...and doubt as to the existence of God in the absence of any evidence (my personal stance) is what in your dictionary? I am not "convinced of any outcome" as you put it - I do not believe in a supreme supernatural being because I see no evidence therefor. How is that not being a "true skeptic"? Should we be "agnostic" as to the existence of unicorns as well? Or, should we doubt their existence until the contrary has been proven?

BTW, you have failed to respond to two other questions I have asked you:

1) What is your source for your statement that "atheism" is a "1% minority population opinion"?

2) Do you at least admit the possibility that Hitler could have believed in a god despite the atrocities for which he was responsible?

(Point being that if you do not admit such a possibility, any discussion with you as to whether or not Hitler was an atheist seems rather pointless. Your mind is then made up no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. I would personally not call this a skeptical position - as HS4 so puts it, we have in such case "passed beyond a place where fact, logic, history, etc. have any meaning".)

Aardvark_DK

8th February 2003, 08:03 AM

JK, we can easily agree that political correctness is rubbish and a a lot of people take it to ridiculous extremes, but apart from that I was unable to find a single reference to Stalin in any of the links you provided. Maybe I just missed it?

And I ask again: Do you believe that any Christian person in the history of Christianity has done a bad thing? And if they have was it because they were suffering from temporary atheism? Popes? Crusaders? Inquisitors? Were they Christians at the time they did various horrible things?

Jedi Knight

8th February 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by CWL

...and doubt as to the existence of God in the absence of any evidence (my personal stance) is what in your dictionary? I am not "convinced of any outcome" as you put it - I do not believe in a supreme supernatural being because I see no evidence therefor. How is that not being a "true skeptic"? Should we be "agnostic" as to the existence of unicorns as well? Or, should we doubt their existence until the contrary has been proven?

BTW, you have failed to respond to two other questions I have asked you:

1) What is your source for your statement that "atheism" is a "1% minority population opinion"?

2) Do you at least admit the possibility that Hitler could have believed in a god despite the atrocities for which he was responsible?

(Point being that if you do not admit such a possibility, any discussion with you as to whether or not Hitler was an atheist seems rather pointless. Your mind is then made up no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. I would personally not call this a skeptical position - as HS4 so puts it, we have in such case "passed beyond a place where fact, logic, history, etc. have any meaning".)

Let me ask you this--if you really "doubt" about the existence of an omnipotent being, then you have no problem whatsoever with people who do believe in one, right?

JK

Jedi Knight

8th February 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
JK, we can easily agree that political correctness is rubbish and a a lot of people take it to ridiculous extremes, but apart from that I was unable to find a single reference to Stalin in any of the links you provided. Maybe I just missed it?

And I ask again: Do you believe that any Christian person in the history of Christianity has done a bad thing? And if they have was it because they were suffering from temporary atheism? Popes? Crusaders? Inquisitors? Were they Christians at the time they did various horrible things?

Stalinism = leftism on univerity campuses. Every single one of those links was a description of university Stalinism.

JK

c4ts

8th February 2003, 12:11 PM

Jedi Knight

8th February 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

That would depend on the person.

No, the person has nothing to do with it. If you "doubt" God, how can you actively try to "kill" other people's Gods? How is it possible to "doubt" God and then tell other people, regardless of who they are, that they should abandoned their belief in them?

It makes no sense and once again is another brilliant Jedi observation.

JK

c4ts

8th February 2003, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

No, the person has nothing to do with it. If you "doubt" God, how can you actively try to "kill" other people's Gods? How is it possible to "doubt" God and then tell other people, regardless of who they are, that they should abandoned their belief in them?

It makes no sense and once again is another brilliant Jedi observation.

JK

Your observation makes no sense, indeed.

Observation: My roomate has "rejoice in the glory of the Lord" hanging on his wall, and a metal cross hanging over his bed, but I don't need to bother him about it or scoff at him. His beliefs are his business, not mine. Demanding that he take the poster down isn't going to benefit either of us.

However, unlike my roommate, abandoning your belief would benefit others, if not yourself, because not only do you try to make your beliefs everybody's business, you post things that are either contradictory or in direct conflict with reality, in a very vindictive manner. If you act on your convictions that all atheists are evil, for example, and that evil should be eliminated, then you're no better off than Hitler.

thaiboxerken

8th February 2003, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Here is the evidence part 1 (http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2637).

JK

LOL. What's your next source of evidence... the onion?

thaiboxerken

8th February 2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Stalinism = leftism on univerity campuses. Every single one of those links was a description of university Stalinism.

JK

Please provide valid evidence of this assertion. Are you going to imply that democrats are all Stalin's followers? Does this mean that all right-wingers are Inquisitionists?

Aardvark_DK

8th February 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Stalinism = leftism on univerity campuses. Every single one of those links was a description of university Stalinism.
So anything that you consider "leftist" - and I imagine that must be quite a bit - is the same as Stalinism?

---

And I ask again: Do you believe that any Christian person in the history of Christianity has done a bad thing? And if they have was it because they were suffering from temporary atheism? Popes? Crusaders? Inquisitors? Were they Christians at the time they did various horrible things?

Jedi Knight

8th February 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Your observation makes no sense, indeed.

Observation: My roomate has "rejoice in the glory of the Lord" hanging on his wall, and a metal cross hanging over his bed, but I don't need to bother him about it or scoff at him. His beliefs are his business, not mine. Demanding that he take the poster down isn't going to benefit either of us.

However, unlike my roommate, abandoning your belief would benefit others, if not yourself, because not only do you try to make your beliefs everybody's business, you post things that are either contradictory or in direct conflict with reality, in a very vindictive manner. If you act on your convictions that all atheists are evil, for example, and that evil should be eliminated, then you're no better off than Hitler.

You just don't "get it". I said on this thread in particular that Hitler selected atheism as the natural tool for the advancement of the Nazi state. There was no room for religion in the National Socialist agenda because fascists do not share power. Name one non-crony religious leader empowered by Hitler in Nazi Germany.

The atheist without political ambition and alone in his wanderings is perfectly harmless. The atheist who seizes state power is wicked. Just ask the survivors of the Nazi onslaught for proof of that.

That is not "vindictive"--it is historical fact.

JK

c4ts

8th February 2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

You just don't "get it". I said on this thread in particular that Hitler selected atheism as the natural tool for the advancement of the Nazi state.

Jedi, since I understand how Hitler could encourage belief in his lies instead of belief in God, but that does not appear to be what he actually did it, nor does that even make him an atheist. So I don't understand why atheism is "the natural tool for the advancement of the Nazi state," nor do I understand why the title of the thread is "Hitler's atheism" when it looks like Hitler was a theist, and therefore not an atheist at the same time in the same respect.

There was no room for religion in the National Socialist agenda because fascists do not share power.

So alliance is not a sharing of power? For it seems if Fascists did not share power, then they could not ally with each other.

Name one non-crony religious leader empowered by Hitler in Nazi Germany.

I can't define

The atheist without political ambition and alone in his wanderings is perfectly harmless.
Not necessarily. The athiest without political ambition with a loaded gun pressing the barrel to your skull, is harmful enough without political ambition. I think you are confusing injustice and ambition with atheism.

The atheist who seizes state power is wicked.
The fact that they seize state power makes them wicked. It doesn't matter if they are atheist or not.

Just ask the survivors of the Nazi onslaught for proof of that.
I have spoken with a few holocaust survivors, I have even visited the holocaust museum in D.C., and all but one of them said they don't know why Hitler would do such a thing. The one guy who thought he knew why attributed it to basic insanity, and he lectured to my middle school class.

That is not "vindictive"--it is historical fact.

JK

Then supply some more credible evidence.

Jedi Knight

8th February 2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by c4ts
Then supply some more credible evidence.

Nazi Germany and World War II? History books? How much evidence do you need? Hop on down to the library and read about it. You do have a library card, don't you?

JK

Aardvark_DK

8th February 2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Nazi Germany and World War II? History books? How much evidence do you need? Hop on down to the library and read about it. You do have a library card, don't you?
The problem is, JK, that you have provided no evidence what so ever that the Nazis were atheists. You said:
The atheist who seizes state power is wicked. Just ask the survivors of the Nazi onslaught for proof of that. That is not "vindictive"--it is historical fact.
But it not an historical fact that Nazi Germany was an atheist state and it does not become an historical fact just because you repeat it over and over and over.

Your "evidence" so far, as far as I can see, is that Christians couldn't have done what the Nazis did because Christians believe they have to answer to God. Is that correct? And if that is correct then I think you should answer these questions:

Do you believe that any Christian person in the history of Christianity has done a bad thing? And if they have was it because they were suffering from temporary atheism? Popes? Crusaders? Inquisitors? Were they Christians at the time they did various horrible things?

c4ts

8th February 2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Nazi Germany and World War II? History books? How much evidence do you need? Hop on down to the library and read about it. You do have a library card, don't you?

JK

If you can find a history book that says Nazi Germany was an atheist state, then quote it here. If you can find someone who knew Hitler and isn't senile or anything, who says Hitler was an atheist, then introduce him or her to this forum. I have been to the library. I have read many books thoroughly. I have yet to read a book that actually says the Nazis were atheists. (In comparison, I have read many books that say the Communists were atheists). I don't know who told you Hitler was an atheist, but he or she was probably mistaken. Your conclusion that the Nazis were atheists is highly unlikely, although not impossible, yet instead of making further arguments to support your claim with evidence or valid reductios, you go on to assume that you're already correct and you repeat yourself.

CWL

9th February 2003, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Let me ask you this--if you really "doubt" about the existence of an omnipotent being, then you have no problem whatsoever with people who do believe in one, right?

JK

You are most welcome to ask me anything. The answer is simple: correct, no problem whatsoever. Again people's religious beliefs are a private matter - neither the business of the state, nor of anyone else. My only problem with belief in an omnipotent being is when it gets in the way of critical thinking (extreme Islamism or other fundamentalist movements being prime examples).

Now, since I am willing to answer your questions, perhaps you would care to answer mine?

I take the liberty of repeating myself:

1) What is your source for your statement that "atheism" is a "1% minority population opinion"?

2) Do you at least admit the possibility that Hitler could have believed in a god despite the atrocities for which he was responsible?

Jedi Knight

9th February 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
The problem is, JK, that you have provided no evidence what so ever that the Nazis were atheists. You said:

Sure I do. The fact that Nazi Germany existed is proof. The Nazi nation-state system was developed under ideology of Hegel and Niezche (God is dead, in order for a perfect nation-state to evolve all populations must walk away from the omnipotent being, and humans are the true "supermen").

JK

Aardvark_DK

9th February 2003, 12:04 PM

Thus ends the discussion.

Jedi Knight

9th February 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
Thus ends the discussion.

Well, when I present historical facts, what else is left to say?

JK

Aardvark_DK

9th February 2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Well, when I present historical facts, what else is left to say?
Since you have consistently ignored all historical facts presented to you by Headscratcher and NovaLand, there is indeed nothing left to say.

Jedi Knight

9th February 2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

Since you have consistently ignored all historical facts presented to you by Headscratcher and NovaLand, there is indeed nothing left to say.

Nothing has been ignored. When an evil atheist like Hitler says something and then does the opposite, do we give credit to his "words" or actions? If we give credit to his "words" that would mean we have to ignore the 6,000,000 Jews he put inside ovens which would be dismissing factual history. Orwell talked about what you want, but I side with real history.

JK

thaiboxerken

9th February 2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Nothing has been ignored. When an evil atheist like Hitler says something and then does the opposite, do we give credit to his "words" or actions?

He did exactly what he said he wanted to do. He thought himself as a warrior of jesus, here to avenge jesus' death upon the jews, among other things.

If we give credit to his "words" that would mean we have to ignore the 6,000,000 Jews he put inside ovens which would be dismissing factual history. Orwell talked about what you want, but I side with real history.

JK

If we ignore words, then we ignore why people do certain deeds like this. If we simply went off of actions and subjective interpretation of what a "true" christian is, then we ignore reality. Your logic could be used for any religion or circumstance. I could, with just as much validity, say that Hitler couldn't be atheist because atheists can do no evil. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? You do the same thing by implying that christians can do no evil.

We are not ignoring the holocaust, in fact, we are learning from it and learning what causes people to think such ways. Hitler believed in Jesus and the bible. No matter how perverse or unchristian you think he was, all the evidence points to his actual belief in these things. Of course his translation is different than yours, and this often happens. But Hitler easily could've used the bible to justify his actions.

Titus 1:10-11 To Paul, Jews are unruly liars "whose mouths must be stopped."

John 5:16,18 John, with his usual anti-Semitism, says that the Jews persecuted Jesus and "sought to slay him

John 7:1 John says that Jesus "would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him."

John 8:44 Jesus calls his opponents (the Jews) the sons of the devil.

Your position is the dishonest position that all christians are perfect.

Aardvark_DK

9th February 2003, 02:08 PM

JK, don't you think that it's about time you answered the following questions (that I have put to you several times already)?

Do you believe that any Christian person in the history of Christianity has done a bad thing? And if they have was it because they were suffering from temporary atheism? Popes? Crusaders? Inquisitors? Were they Christians at the time they did various horrible things?

c4ts

9th February 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Sure I do. The fact that Nazi Germany existed is proof. The Nazi nation-state system was developed under ideology of Hegel and Niezche (God is dead, in order for a perfect nation-state to evolve all populations must walk away from the omnipotent being, and humans are the true "supermen").

JK

You've obviously never read a single book by Niezche. You've got the facts right, but you're using them entirely out of context.

Jedi Knight

9th February 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
JK, don't you think that it's about time you answered the following questions (that I have put to you several times already)?

Do you believe that any Christian person in the history of Christianity has done a bad thing? And if they have was it because they were suffering from temporary atheism? Popes? Crusaders? Inquisitors? Were they Christians at the time they did various horrible things?

I usually don't answer obvious, non-thinking questions like this one but since you think I am dodging it I will answer to make you feel better.

Every religious faith has had people who have done bad things. Doing bad things is human nature. There are no innocent humans. That is where the theory of "sinning" comes in. Now, with that said, no Christain ever put 6,000,000 Jews inside ovens. Nothing comparable. In fact, atheists like Hitler and Stalin were responsible for 150,000,000 deaths last century. Every other religious faith combined couldn't equal that.

JK

thaiboxerken

9th February 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Every religious faith has had people who have done bad things. Doing bad things is human nature. There are no innocent humans. That is where the theory of "sinning" comes in.
JK

So christians can "sin" but only to a certain extent huh? Do you have any evidence of this or scientific data, what is the severity of the sinning that a christian can do? It seems that all you are really doing is an equivocation, you are merely trying to equivocate atheism with immorality and by doing so you can make such absurd statements such as "only an atheist can do what Hitler did." You are a dishonest fool.

thaiboxerken

9th February 2003, 06:08 PM

" no Christain ever put 6,000,000 Jews inside ovens."

LOL. The basis for this claim is what we are debating. Was Hitler a christian, atheist or theist? Using this arguement is fallicious as it assumes that you've already won the debate.

CWL

10th February 2003, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Nothing has been ignored. When an evil atheist like Hitler says something and then does the opposite, do we give credit to his "words" or actions? If we give credit to his "words" that would mean we have to ignore the 6,000,000 Jews he put inside ovens which would be dismissing factual history. Orwell talked about what you want, but I side with real history.

JK

JK,

IMHO you have been doing quite a bit of ignoring in this thread. Several questions have been put to you (not only by me) which you do not answer.

Notwithstanding, I will make another attempt to explain to you why your claim that "Hitler lied about his belief in God to get the German people to follow his agenda" undermines your own case.

In saying that, you are in fact saying that the German people were theists and needed theist arguments in order to follow Hitler. Hence you are yourself saying that the atrocities of Nazi Germany were in fact carried out by theists!

You have yet to explain this contradictory nature of your main hypothesis that "the atrocities could only be carried out by atheists" and your claim that Hitler "feigned theism for the masses".

---

BTW - I note that you have seem to have accepted the intellectual capacities of at least one atheist. Didn't you know, Orwell was an atheist (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=11385). Hate to break it to you, but he was into socialism too.

Aardvark_DK

10th February 2003, 02:53 AM

headscratcher4

10th February 2003, 07:21 AM

Well, once again, go away for a weekend, and all hell breaks loose. I note, with appreciation, that Nova and a couple of others continue to try and stick to the core of the assertion: “Hitler was an atheist.” However, their brave attempts to interject facts, logic and sources into the discussion have seemingly fallen on deaf ears. Alas, for there are some very interesting statements from the texts cited – if potentially inconvenient.

I also note, reading back through the thread, that many of my most brilliant points have been completely ignored. I assume it is because the insights are, well, staggeringly insightful (if not redundent), well reasoned and beautifully logical. I can only imagine that addressing them would present the most difficult of challenges, and thus it would be better to be ignored. So, I conclude by thinking that I’ve essentially proved the case in opposition to the proposed assertion (Hitler was an atheist) as, in particular, JK has done nothing to refute my arguments (even to call them silly, etc).

Just a reminder, my core argument is that Hitler and Nazism arose out of a cultural context that included a vast amount of Christian inspired anti-Semitism. More importantly, killing Jews just for being Jews, and killing ALL Jews, is an action completely antithetical to any form of atheism (note, not that atheists could not perpetrate mass murder, only that killing Jews for genetic reasons is the action of a state/philosophy that is rooted in some form of conviction in the existence of a higher authority, a chosen people mentality, a Manichician (sp?) view of Good vs. Evil as differing faces of God, etc.)

Now, having looked over the posts from the last couple of days, I am going to Cherry pick. JK, as you have avoided commenting, refuting or acknowledging so many of my points, I will only respond to those that interest me and not to complete arguments. Further, my comments will mostly be observational as opposed to hard refutation…now, if I weren’t ignored, I’d waste even more time on it, so you all are lucking JK is ignoring me.
_________
JK: “Absolutist regimes of any form simply find the sharing of political power with religions unnatural”

An interesting observation. It brings to mind the question of what, ultimately, is the goal of religion? Using Christianity as an example for the purposes of this discussion, is the goal of Christianity to share or control all “political” and “temporal” powers? I thought, again citing Christianity, that it was spiritual salvation. Further, I would argue, as many of the great Christian philosophers and martyrs have, that spiritual salvation can be had without achieving political power of any form (indeed, political power has been known to pervert the spiritual message, as has form over function in the exercise of spirituality).

Further, I note that throughout the history of western culture, and again I use Christianity purely as an example, wherever the “church” (be it Catholic or Protestant) has either shared power with the state, or (in the case of the Papal States) controlled power absolutely, not only are other religions persecuted, but inevitably Jews have the worst of it.

JK: “Religion is the ultimate form of human freedom of thought…”

Again, an interesting statement. However, it would seem to be preposterous. Religion by necessity is the ultimate in opposition to freedom of thought. If there is a god, and (again, as an example) a Christian God, there can be no “freedom” of thought. Specifically, freedom of thought, doubt, belief in some other God(s) is a sin and not only will bring about eternal damnation on the individual freethinker, but must is usually crushed in an effort to prevent the “free thinker” from polluting the spirituality of the believer. So often, throughout history, the religiously oppressed have left one oppressive society to set up an alternative society where everyone thinks like they do about god – not to establish “freedom” of worship. In the US, for example, The Puritans persecuted the Quakers, the Protestant establishment persecuted the Mormons, the Mormons tried to build a Mormon utopia, and on and on.

I repeat: religion is the antithesis of freedom of thought and must be by necessity, definition and philosophy. Now, for JK’s argument that “atheism = religion,” than there is some merit to his construction. However, as most (to use a JK expression, 99%) of the users of the word “atheist” don’t conceive of it as a religion or equate “atheism” with “religion” or “worship” (as has been pointed out numerous times, this is an interesting conceit of JK and a few others on other threads), the analogy seems to fail.

JK: “If you are an atheist as you claim to be you are putting yourself in to a category where you are proselytizing against God. To be an atheist is to be anti-Christian (antichrist activity) or any other religion.”

I quote this along with the statement above. If you accept the definition that JK puts forth – atheism = religion – than the point has a modicum of merit. However, that is as may be. What I find interesting about the statement is its relationship to the above assertion that “religion is the ultimate form of freedom of thought.”

Now, putting aside for the moment the inherent contradiction of that statement with the belief that atheism = a religion (ergo, atheism would be part of the ultimate freedom of thought…) I am particularly struck by the lack of any historical or practical awareness of the above assertions. For instance, to be a Christian must, necessarily to be anti-any other religion. It isn’t that Christianity is a menu item (I’ll have a little Christianity today, please), to be a Christian is to view the world in a Christian context – Judeo/Christian context to be more precise.

Thus, it is that there is only one god, and only one way to spiritual salvation and “heaven” (through Jesus). All other religions are inherently in error. More importantly, they are sinful, idolatrous, anathematic, heretical, etc. More importantly, they are dangerous to Christianity, as their philosophies and errors might lead true Christians astray from the true path. In this respect, Christians in political power have, when not constrained by instruments such as the US Constitution and which requires that civil life respect and tolerate religious and political diversity, been so ready to drive those they disagree with to destruction. Just go look at the history of Jews under “Christian” government, or Quakers, or American Indians, or Aztecs or African slaves (whose religion was suppressed). And on and on.

Now, just to make it clear, I am not arguing that Christianity is unique. Moslems, Hindus, Jews, etc. have all done it or are doing it now. It is the nature of “religious” belief, in short, not to respect freedom of thought, but to repress all that which offends the concept of heaven.
____

JK: “take a look at this forum. You have hundreds of people on this forum who say people who believe in religion are ‘stupid believers’….”

Indeed, and I digress for a moment, but so? Not that it matters, but I’ve visited many religious sites (usually Christian), where the evil of those who do not believe as they believe is lamented, condemned and hated. While this observation of yours is consistent with your contention that Atheism is a “religion” (and, thus should be no surprise to you that those who think alike [or ‘worship’] alike, as the case may be, might find disbelievers in the message to be blind or “stupid” or evil. However, it doesn’t answer the inherent contradiction of the “religion” is the ultimate freedom of thought vs. “atheism” is the antithesis of religion theme that runs through your arguments….

___

JK: “You just don’t ‘get it”. I said on this thread in particular that Hitler selected atheism as the natural tool for the advancement of the Nazi state. There was no room for religion….”

This is just flat-out contradicted by history and fact, to which you have only responded with assertion and misdirection.

First, I note that you’ve argued that Hitler had to use the words and concepts of Christian Europe in order to dupe people into his madness. Specifically, your argument has essentially been that Hitler and Nazism were secret “atheists” and the theist/deist pieties he (and they) spouted about mandates from heaven, etc., were mere propaganda. But than, there must have been a plan to depose religion over time, for no true atheist, it seems to me, could stand to have his legacy be the perpetuation of a perverted deist/theist religion…i.e. he would want to believe that there would come a time when there would be no other god but Hitler (sort of the Kim Il Sung methodology). Can you show us that plan? Cite it?

I note, in addition, that the crazies in the SS highirarchy, were hell-bent (if you’ll pardon the expression) to re-establish pre-Christian, “Germanic” Tribal beliefs and worship. Hitler, as has been pointed out repeatedly, thought this was plain silly. However, I raise it to point out that as “atheists” these supposed “atheists” would have replaced one set of false beliefs with another? Seems silly.

Generally speaking, atheists are proud to proclaim their atheism. Hitler’s words show no such inclination.

Second…”no room for religion”. Huh? Of course there was room for religion. Hitler signed a concordant with the Catholic Church. He co-opted the leaders of the Protestant churches. There were “chaplains” in the army to minister to believing Germans. Because you don’t want to recognize that the Christian mainstream churches (foolishly) opted for stability and Hitler and to be part of the establishment, doesn’t negate the fact that the established churches existed and functioned.

More importantly, and this is the core of the issue, individuals – rightly or wrongly – who attended those churches AND participated in the regime (either tacitly or actively, a’la Goldhagen’s books on the participation of the average German in Nazi atrocities) believed in God – and specifically, that they were Christian. Now, you may conclude that these were un-Christian acts, and that their faith was misplaced, but – to use your statistical method – 99% of them found some way to keep their faith and compromise with the Nazi regime. That doesn’t suggest that there was no room for religion. It might suggest that Christianity adapted to the evil – and in some cases embraced it. I might suggest, as I have (without refutation from you) that Christians throughout Europe had a tradition of persecuting not only Jews but also anyone who did not share their state Christianity. However, what it doesn’t do is get away from the fact that individually, these people believed not only in God, but also, presumably, the salvation of Christ.

____

JK: “Nazi Germany and World War II, history books…. you don’t have a library card do you?”

Have to respond to this little piece of intellectual shenanigans. You’ve never cited a book. You merely make assertions. So, it is a bit, well, amusing to hear you lecture someone about not being well-enough read on the topics. Perhaps it would help if you would name which books in particular you believe prove your point.

For my own part, when I read this statement, I counted the books on my home library shelf on WWII, Nazism, Fascism and Hitler. They number 46. I can say with confidence that I’ve read at least 40 of them – even cover to cover. They include Shire, Hitler, Trevor-Roper, Speer, Ardent, and on and on. In not a one of these volumes has anyone made the assertion that Hitler was an atheist. Now, that is not to say that they say Hitler was a “Christian” (as I repeatedly have said, I don’t believe he was), but not a one says Hitler was an atheist. That is not to suggest that Hitler wasn’t an atheist, rather only to suggest that as a revisionist, the burden is completely on you to refute, dispute and reconstruct the known facts to reach a reasonable, believable and supportable conclusion. You’ve not done so. You’ve never done so.

Finally,

JK: “ When an evil atheist like Hitler says something and then does the opposite…”

Here, I think is my biggest argument with you. You have continually dismissed Hitler’s words and argued look to his actions. First, and ignored, have I demonstrated to you that Hitler’s actions were completely consistent with Theist/Deist and Christian tradition in Europe (with respect to Jews in particular).

Second, Hitler – throughout his career – was completely up front not only about his antipathy for Jews, but his desire to do something about them to save Germany. There are no flowery words; there are only threats, hatred, libels, slander and more threats against the Jews. I am not the first to point out that no German can claim to not have heard Hitler’s message about the Jews, but only thought he was bluffing of puffing. Hitler said the Jews must be taken care of; he set out to do it.

In short, his words and deeds in this most critical of matters is completely consistent. COMPLETELY. So, at the very least, when Hitler says things along the line of … it is our mission from God/Heaven to deal with the filthy Jews….there is every reason to believe NOT ONLY that he was going to get the Jews, but that he saw himself as a mission under “God”.

Now, it might not be any god you recognize, but seemingly Hitler did. And, by believing himself under a “god” he is not an atheist…no matter how much you torture the definition.

CWL

10th February 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
In short, his words and deeds in this most critical of matters is completely consistent. COMPLETELY. So, at the very least, when Hitler says things along the line of … it is our mission from God/Heaven to deal with the filthy Jews….there is every reason to believe NOT ONLY that he was going to get the Jews, but that he saw himself as a mission under “God”.

Now, it might not be any god you recognize, but seemingly Hitler did. And, by believing himself under a “god” he is not an atheist…no matter how much you torture the definition.

I believe the above sums it all up. My compliments to you HS4.

Jedi Knight

10th February 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by CWL

I believe the above sums it all up. My compliments to you HS4.

But what Headscratcher failed to mention was "Hitler's God". Hitler's God was the same as the God worshipped by the Nazi state--the humanist God. The atheist God. Man.

Are you still clapping knowing that?

JK

Aardvark_DK

10th February 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Hitler's God was the same as the God worshipped by the Nazi state--the humanist God.
Evidence, please? Since you're so well read regarding Nazi Germany I'm sure you'll have no difficulty quoting several respected Hitler/Nazi biographers.

And by the way, considering that you once said that you had respect for Headscratcher, it is striking that you consistently ignore him and fail to address any of his points. Why is that?

headscratcher4

10th February 2003, 12:51 PM

Now, it might not be any god you recognize, but seemingly Hitler did. And, by believing himself under a “god” he is not an atheist…no matter how much you torture the definition.

I'm quoting myself here.

I note, again, that with one small exception, JK has ignored most of what I've written...because, of course, it is otherwise irrefutable evidence of the weakness of his own assertions.;)

The point was that one can, with respect to the Jews, believe Hilters words. Indeed, Hitlers words and actions were completely consistent. Now, Hitler repeatedly and continually talks of his mission, and of his belief that he has been chosen by god/providence etc. and the German people had been chosen by God/Providence to be a superior people. It says nothing about the "god" of humanism...also, JK, again, completely ignores the point that the Humanist God of Atheism (I assume he would construct some title like that) doesn't require the death of the Jews, All Jews, Every Jew for genetic and religious reasons. As has been pointed out repeatedly and coninually ignored, is that atheism/atheists/humanists/Commies what have you -- those who destroy and murder in the name of a new man-based philosophy -- couldn't care less about killing a Jew or all Jews just for being Jews. They (as proved by Stalin) kill those who fight their rule or who would contest their philosophy. A former Jew, an apostate Jew, a Jew who'se children would grow to worship the state is not a danger to the state.

Only a genetic Jew, a Jew who is cursed of god, is a threat to a state under a higher, supernatural power that guides the universe...

Oh well, back to square one...

Aardvark_DK

10th February 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Oh well, back to square one...
Indeed, we don't seem to be going anywhere.

c4ts

10th February 2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

I'm quoting myself here.

I note, again, that with one small exception, JK has ignored most of what I've written...because, of course, it is otherwise irrefutable evidence of the weakness of his own assertions.;)

The point was that one can, with respect to the Jews, believe Hilters words. Indeed, Hitlers words and actions were completely consistent. Now, Hitler repeatedly and continually talks of his mission, and of his belief that he has been chosen by god/providence etc. and the German people had been chosen by God/Providence to be a superior people. It says nothing about the "god" of humanism...also, JK, again, completely ignores the point that the Humanist God of Atheism (I assume he would construct some title like that) doesn't require the death of the Jews, All Jews, Every Jew for genetic and religious reasons. As has been pointed out repeatedly and coninually ignored, is that atheism/atheists/humanists/Commies what have you -- those who destroy and murder in the name of a new man-based philosophy -- couldn't care less about killing a Jew or all Jews just for being Jews. They (as proved by Stalin) kill those who fight their rule or who would contest their philosophy. A former Jew, an apostate Jew, a Jew who'se children would grow to worship the state is not a danger to the state.

Only a genetic Jew, a Jew who is cursed of god, is a threat to a state under a higher, supernatural power that guides the universe...

Oh well, back to square one...

And another thing:

Hitler says Juddaism is evil because it is Marxist, and Marxism is evil because it is atheistic.

Jedi Knight says Nazi-ism is evil because it is fascist, and fascism is evil because it is atheistic.

So it looks like Jedi Knight and Hitler are saying essentially the same thing, only JK is calling Hitler an atheist, and Hitler is calling the Jews atheists. The Jews opposed Hitler's fascist regime. Hitler opposed the moral teachings of Catholicism (or did he?). What's going on here? Why are the two so similar? (I hope it's just coincidence.)

CWL

10th February 2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

But what Headscratcher failed to mention was "Hitler's God". Hitler's God was the same as the God worshipped by the Nazi state--the humanist God. The atheist God. Man.

Are you still clapping knowing that?

JK

No I am not clapping after that statement, and I certainly do not "know" that. Atheists and humanists (and I should know, I consider myself one) do not refer to any "God" that I know of when justifying their actions, they have no use for the term. Hitler did (frequently). That should be your first clue that he was not an atheist (and I think it is rather safe to say that he was certainly not a humanist).

It seems to me you desperatly want Hitler to be an atheist. Otherwise you would be willing and able to present evidence for your assertions. Otherwise you would be prepared to seriously debate the contentions made by HS4 et al.

Anyone else smelling serious fitting of facts to the theory (and doing a poor job at that) here?

Jedi Knight

10th February 2003, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Oh well, back to square one...

"All we need to do...is make sure....we keep...talking." Pink Floyd

JK

Aardvark_DK

10th February 2003, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
"All we need to do...is make sure....we keep...talking." Pink Floyd
Yeah, why bother replying to what is being said?

Nova Land

11th February 2003, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by c4ts

Hitler says Judaism is evil because it is Marxist, and Marxism is evil because it is atheistic.
This is a good point. Hitler's appeals to his followers in the 1920s and 1930s seem to have included appeals to Christians combined with denunciations of atheists.

It's possible Hitler was being deceptive and manipulative -- that he knew there were more Christians he could recruit to his cause than atheists, and he aimed his pitch accordingly. However, that does not square with the assertion that atheists always proselytize. Hitler appears to be proselytizing against atheism.
So it looks like Jedi Knight and Hitler are saying essentially the same thing, only JK is calling Hitler an atheist, and Hitler is calling the Jews atheists.
Which raises another interesting point.

It is generally politicians on the right who attack atheism. Are there any prominent examples of left-wing political figures denouncing atheism for political advantage? I'm not talking about a left-winger affirming their own personal faith in god, I'm talking about a left-winger going after atheism as a major threat to society, the way Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson and Randall Terry (and Adolph Hitler) do.

If Hitler was an atheist, he would appear to be a conservative, atheist-denouncing one.

This is not necessarily impossible, or even unlikely. Making an analogy with homosexuality, many conservatives equated homosexuality with communism during the McCarthy era and there were a number of conservative, homosexual-denouncing homosexuals.

Hitler as the atheist equivalent of Roy Cohn presents an intriguing psychological profile to ponder.

Hey, Jedi! More questions!

(1) During his early career Hitler appears to be proselytizing for Christianity. Is it your contention that he was a Christian early in his life who converted to atheism later, or is it your contention he was an atheist from fairly early on? At what age do you believe Hitler became an atheist?

(2) Are you saying it is possible for those who proselytize for Christianity actually to be atheists?

(3) Are you saying it is possible for those who proselytize against atheism actually to be atheists?

(4) Do you believe Hitler was proud of being an atheist, the way some gay people proclaim gay pride, or do you believe he was ashamed of it and trying to hide it, the way prominent conservative gays often do?

Nova Land

11th February 2003, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Hitler's God was the same as the God worshipped by the Nazi state--the humanist God. The atheist God. Man.
So any time Hitler refers to God or Christ in a speech he is referring metaphorically to Man? It's an interesting theory.

There are a number of problems with this theory, but one that comes to my mind is that Hitler was not a humanist. Humanism -- the idea that humans are basically good and the source of their own salvation -- is largely a liberal philosophy.

One of the classic distinctions between liberals and conservatives is that liberals take an optimistic view of human nature and conservatives take a pessimistic one. Liberal religion, for example, looks at the potential for good in humanity, while conservative religion focuses on humanity as sinners. In politics, liberals look to the good that people acting together might be able to do, while conservatives look at the danger.

How can one look to Man as God if one has a dim view of Man? And Hitler, by the evidence I've seen, seemed to take a very dim view of Man indeed.

Atheism and humanism are not synonymous. An atheist can be a humanist, and a humanist can be an atheist. But not all atheists are humanists, and not all humanists are atheists.

It's possible that Hitler did not believe in any gods. (That's sort of the point of this thread -- to try to discern what Hitler did and did not believe.) But Hitler as a humanist? We must be defining the term very differently!

Nova Land

11th February 2003, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Every religious faith has had people who have done bad things. Doing bad things is human nature. There are no innocent humans. That is where the theory of "sinning" comes in. Now, with that said, no Christian ever put 6,000,000 Jews inside ovens.True. No single individual, Christian or atheist, ever put 6 million people into ovens. It was done by the combined actions of millions of people.

Hitler, as far as we know, never personally put even one person into an oven. What he did was institute policies that led to this happening.

So, we again come to the question: how much heinousness can a person do and still believe in a god, by your definition? Is it possible for a Christian to be complicit in 1 death? 10? 100? 1,000?

Is it possible that the political leaders in the US who instituted the policies that put Indians on reservations were Christians? Is it possible the soldiers who carried out these policies were Christians?

The decision to drop atomic bombs on Japanese cities -- did that kill enough people to qualify as non-Christian? That would make Truman an atheist, as well as the people who flew those missions.

Or is it permissible for a Christian to carry out mass slaughter if it is for a cause that the person believes to be justified in the eyes of god? Many Americans (including, I believe, Truman and the men who dropped the atomic bombs on Japan) believed that, because we were at war, it was morally justified to drop bombs on Japanese cities. The US had been attacked, these people posed a threat, we were allowed to fight back...

The problem is that Hitler and many Germans, according to their speeches, felt they had been attacked by the Jews, that Jews posed a threat, that they were justified in fighting back and exterminating the Jews. If Christians believed this, and acted on their belief, would they still be Christians?

This brings us back to a question that has been raised in this thread before. People calling themselves Christians -- including, but not limited to, Hitler and other Germans -- have, throughout history, been involved in many heinous actions. Which of these people do you believe were genuine Christians and which were atheists? And how do you tell them apart?

CWL

11th February 2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Nova Land
But Hitler as a humanist? We must be defining the term very differently!

Indeed.

This is the statement (http://www.iheu.org/minimum_statement.html) of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (http://www.iheu.org):

"Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.''

The Amsterdam Declaration (http://www.iheu.org/adamdecl.htm) adopted in 2002 by the same organization:

Humanism is the outcome of a long tradition of free thought that has inspired many of the world's great thinkers and creative artists and gave rise to science itself.

The fundamentals of modern Humanism are as follows:

1. Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction.

2. Humanism is rational. It seeks to use science creatively, not destructively. Humanists believe that the solutions to the world's problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Humanism advocates the application of the methods of science and free inquiry to the problems of human welfare. But Humanists also believe that the application of science and technology must be tempered by human values. Science gives us the means but human values must propose the ends.

3. Humanism supports democracy and human rights. Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right. The principles of democracy and human rights can be applied to many human relationships and are not restricted to methods of government.

4. Humanism insists that personal liberty must be combined with social responsibility. Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society, and recognises our dependence on and responsibility for the natural world. Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.

5. Humanism is a response to the widespread demand for an alternative to dogmatic religion. The world's major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time, and many seek to impose their world-views on all of humanity. Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process. of observation, evaluation and revision.

6. Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment.

7. Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living and offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere.

Our primary task is to make human beings aware in the simplest terms of what Humanism can mean to them and what it commits them to. By utilising free inquiry, the power of science and creative imagination for the furtherance of peace and in the service of compassion, we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all. We call upon all who share this conviction to associate themselves with us in this endeavour.

IHEU Congress 2002.
I take the liberty of saying that the mere insinuation that Hitler would have subscribed to anything remotely like humanisim is utterly and profoundly preposterous. Anyone holding such a bizarre belief clearly has no grasp whatsoever of what humanism is.

headscratcher4

11th February 2003, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Indeed.

This is the statement (http://www.iheu.org/minimum_statement.html) of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (http://www.iheu.org):

The Amsterdam Declaration (http://www.iheu.org/adamdecl.htm) adopted in 2002 by the same organization:

I take the liberty of saying that the mere insinuation that Hitler would have subscribed to anything remotely like humanisim is utterly and profoundly preposterous. Anyone holding such a bizarre belief clearly has no grasp whatsoever of what humanism is.

All of which, of course, gets back to a central point that I've been making and which JK has completely ignored...if Hitler's "god" is metaphorically "man" and his system is, horror upon horror, tainted by Humanist philosophy, why kill Jews, all Jews, and just for being Jews?

Again, as has not been refuted here, if you were, even using terror, creating a completely humanist state, you would accept anyone of any race, religious background, nationality, etc. who renounced their past, their aligences, their families, their connections and embraced the state philosophy...in the case of the Nazi's, Fuher worshop (sp?). In short, if humanists, the Nazi's would have recognized that an apostate Jew was no longer a jew, and that an apostate Jew who embraced Hitler was just as good as a "aryan" german who embraced Hitler. THis is not the case.

Jews were a race apart, scorned of god, and the off-spring of Satan. Letting any Jew live was to hide the side of eventual distruction of the Aryan race...and that is why they all had to be killed, because GOD had made Aryans superior, and it was natural and God's will that Aryans destroy the diseases of Judism which, like a plauge or bacilis, threatened the God given right of Aryans to rule on this world.

P.S. The point above, the one about Hitler equating Marxism, Jews and atheists, is dead right.

Jedi Knight

11th February 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

All of which, of course, gets back to a central point that I've been making and which JK has completely ignored...if Hitler's "god" is metaphorically "man" and his system is, horror upon horror, tainted by Humanist philosophy, why kill Jews, all Jews, and just for being Jews?

Again, as has not been refuted here, if you were, even using terror, creating a completely humanist state, you would accept anyone of any race, religious background, nationality, etc. who renounced their past, their aligences, their families, their connections and embraced the state philosophy...in the case of the Nazi's, Fuher worshop (sp?). In short, if humanists, the Nazi's would have recognized that an apostate Jew was no longer a jew, and that an apostate Jew who embraced Hitler was just as good as a "aryan" german who embraced Hitler. THis is not the case.

Jews were a race apart, scorned of god, and the off-spring of Satan. Letting any Jew live was to hide the side of eventual distruction of the Aryan race...and that is why they all had to be killed, because GOD had made Aryans superior, and it was natural and God's will that Aryans destroy the diseases of Judism which, like a plauge or bacilis, threatened the God given right of Aryans to rule on this world.

P.S. The point above, the one about Hitler equating Marxism, Jews and atheists, is dead right.

Racial separation is yet another component of Niezche. Since "God is dead" and the Nazi state replaced the omnipotent being with "humans" (atheism worship of their God, humanism), naturally Hitler would select the native German population as the source of the new omnipotence. That is where the new master race came in and in order to teach the populations about the "superman" theory, Hitler selected the Jews as a "lesser" race in order to promote his atheist race--the blonde haired, blue-eyed German.

It is a good thing that Israel has nuclear weapons that can reach Europe now because European humanism is on the rise again (atheism) and Israel is in very grave danger from that as the Europeans prove through their allegiance and loyalty to terrorists and terrorist states that seek to destroy Israel.

I think Israel should keep some nuclear missiles trained on Europe just to feel a bit safer--keep them warmed up in the tubes, so to speak.

JK

thaiboxerken

11th February 2003, 07:51 AM

It's apparently obvious that JK is a person that should never have political power. I'm so happy that he doesn't.

Jedi Knight

11th February 2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's apparently obvious that JK is a person that should never have political power. I'm so happy that he doesn't.

I take it that you will not vote for me when I run for the senate or president?

JK

CWL

11th February 2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
It is a good thing that Israel has nuclear weapons that can reach Europe now because European humanism is on the rise again.

Before you insert your foot even further into your mouth, perhaps you should actually consider learning what "humanism" means.

I post once again (knowing that it will most likely be ignored :rolleyes: ) a link to the Amsterdam Declaration (http://www.iheu.org/adamdecl.htm) adopted in 2002 by the IHEU.

Why do you feel Israel should nuke people striving for science, freedom and democracy?

Jedi Knight

11th February 2003, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Before you insert your foot even further into your mouth, perhaps you should actually consider learning what "humanism" means.

I post once again (knowing that it will most likely be ignored :rolleyes: ) a link to the Amsterdam Declaration (http://www.iheu.org/adamdecl.htm) adopted in 2002 bu IHEU.

Why do you feel Israel should nuke people striving for science, freedom and democracy?

Europe is not a democracy. It is a collection of tiny socialist-communist states bent on the destruction of Israel because as atheists and radical Islamist supporters, that is their political nature.

JK

whitefork

11th February 2003, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

I take it that you will not vote for me when I run for the senate or president?

JK

Let's see. John Kerry's senate seat may be open soon, and you have the same initials....

Name recognition counts for something.

thaiboxerken

11th February 2003, 08:17 AM

He really is insane.

whitefork

11th February 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
He really is insane.
That, however, is not a disqualification for holding elective office.

headscratcher4

11th February 2003, 08:24 AM

May one assume that the reason that we're now going off into whether European countries are "democratic" and whether Israel should use the bomb, is because JK has consistently failed to address the counter arguments that have dramatically undercut his basic proposition: Hitler was an atheist?

Wanting to change the topic to avoid the discussion is understandable given the lack of facts, cites, authority that have been brought to the table, however, there really has been an effort to keep this discussion on topic and civil...very different from many discussions on these boards (not that I don't enjoy mixing it up myself from time to time.:)). However, JK, if you've run out of amunition, we don't need to keep it going, interesting though it has been....

Jedi Knight

11th February 2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
May one assume that the reason that we're now going off into whether European countries are "democratic" and whether Israel should use the bomb, is because JK has consistently failed to address the counter arguments that have dramatically undercut his basic proposition: Hitler was an atheist?

Wanting to change the topic to avoid the discussion is understandable given the lack of facts, cites, authority that have been brought to the table, however, there really has been an effort to keep this discussion on topic and civil...very different from many discussions on these boards (not that I don't enjoy mixing it up myself from time to time.:)). However, JK, if you've run out of amunition, we don't need to keep it going, interesting though it has been....

You know I never run out of ammunition, Headscratcher. Your point of view conflicts with the historical facts that I presented that Hitler was an atheist. That should not be construed as me not wanting to participate in the discussion. I am here and haven't gone anywhere.

I will always be here. This is my new home away from home. :D

JK

headscratcher4

11th February 2003, 08:36 AM

Alas, with respect to "facts" like the word "atheism" and "Humanism" and "Stalinism" , etc...to paraphrase the line from the Princess Bride: I do not think those words mean what you think they mean....

Tricky

11th February 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

I take it that you will not vote for me when I run for the senate or president?

JK
If you do, please send me some of your campaign material. I have some for both Lester Maddox and J. B. Stoner (http://www.edifyingspectacle.org/gullibility/lestermaddox.shtml)

CWL

11th February 2003, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Europe is not a democracy. It is a collection of tiny socialist-communist states bent on the destruction of Israel because as atheists and radical Islamist supporters, that is their political nature.

JK

I quote this as a beacon of what ignorance dwells deep within the trailer parks of the United States of America.

Seriously, tell me JK is joking.

Aardvark_DK

11th February 2003, 10:42 AM

I don't think JK is joking. Not for a second. I think he's simply very far removed from the world that the rest of us inhabits.

headscratcher4

11th February 2003, 11:54 AM

I note for the record the following quote attributed to Hitler and said to Mussillini in 1944, after Hitler survived the attempted assasination at the Wolf's Lair.

I have been saved, destiny has chosen me, providence has preserved me...

Now, this "providence" he speaks of, and "destiny", that would be the providence of man? The desitny of "humanism"?

Sounds just a little like logical diesm to me...;)

Renfield

11th February 2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Europe is not a democracy. It is a collection of tiny socialist-communist states bent on the destruction of Israel because as atheists and radical Islamist supporters, that is their political nature.

JK

JK, you quote Orwell in your sig line. I suggest you actually read some of his stuff and you might learn something. Though I wouldn't count on it.

Girl 6

12th February 2003, 08:45 AM

So, I've been monitoring this thread on and off since I came back from TAM. I'm not as active monitoring it as I was, but I can get back into the fold, if necessary.

How do you think we are doing? Do we still have some steam regarding this subject?

G6

CWL

12th February 2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6
So, I've been monitoring this thread on and off since I came back from TAM. I'm not as active monitoring it as I was, but I can get back into the fold, if necessary.

How do you think we are doing? Do we still have some steam regarding this subject?

G6

Not really. We are now instead advocating the nuclear bombing of Europe (and its evil Islamofascist Humanists).

MRC_Hans

12th February 2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Europe is not a democracy. It is a collection of tiny socialist-communist states bent on the destruction of Israel because as atheists and radical Islamist supporters, that is their political nature.

JK Sir, I am a citizen of one of the best democracies in the World. You have seriously offended my country, and therefore me. I demand an apology.

Hans

Jedi Knight

12th February 2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Sir, I am a citizen of one of the best democracies in the World. You have seriously offended my country, and therefore me. I demand an apology.

Hans

Your country offends the world. Maybe you should apologize.

JK

thaiboxerken

12th February 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Your country offends the world. Maybe you should apologize.

JK

His country doesn't offend me. You really are a hateful person, aren't you? But, I'm sure that doesn't surprise anyone in the forum.

Girl 6

12th February 2003, 04:26 PM

What do the last 3 posts have to do with the subject at hand?

I know you guys can do better than this. :)

G6

MRC_Hans

12th February 2003, 11:32 PM

You mean the last 10 or so, ehh? (With the one by HS as an exception).:rolleyes:

Well, I dont wish to make this personal, but it does hamper any discussion if a prominent participator consistently refuses to follow the rules. Rules like:

Accept the axioms of the discussion.
Use accepted terminology.
Present you arguments and documentation.
Assess the opponent's arguments and documentation.

Making unfounded (and completely off-topic) insults doesn't help any. I'm all for playing by the rules, but I feel that the same rules should apply to all.

Hans

CWL

13th February 2003, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Sir, I am a citizen of one of the best democracies in the World. You have seriously offended my country, and therefore me. I demand an apology.

Hans

I'll second that as I have been offended on the very same grounds. I won't be holding my breath however. Not fessing up and not apologizing are the trademarks of a coward.

MRC_Hans

13th February 2003, 02:10 AM

I certainly did not expect anything, and it isn't that important, since it did not come frome a person that carries any credibility. I was really just probing for some sense of honor. Subject closed.

Hans

CWL

13th February 2003, 02:16 AM

I am certain that you are not the least bit surprised. Nor am I.

Nova Land

13th February 2003, 03:01 AM

Throughout this discussion, it has seemed evident that Jedi somehow equates atheism with heinous behavior. In arguing that Hitler was an atheist, Jedi has seemed to be defining an atheist as someone who does heinous things, leading some people to assume Jedi had simply defined the term in a way that led to the conclusion he had already reached.

I do not think that is actually the case. I think I am beginning to understand how Jedi is defining "atheist". If I am understanding correctly, it is actually a meaningful and fairly reasonable definition, even though it is significantly different from the one many of us are used to.

Let's start with the obvious. An atheist is someone who does not believe in god. Surprisingly (considering the way the discussion in this thread has gone) we may actually be in agreement on that. The problem -- and the reason Jedi seems to be talking about something else entirely -- may be that the word "believe" has 2 meanings.

Many of us understand the phrase "does not believe in god" to mean "does not believe in the existence of god". However, the phrase could also be taken to mean, "does not believe in the teachings of god".

That seems to square with what Jedi has been saying. If I'm understanding correctly, Jedi is saying that Hitler, Dahmer, Manson, etc., were aware that god existed but felt that they could ignore god. Reasons for doing this could include: feeling god is over-rated; feeling one is superior to god, or even feeling god is non-existent.

It's a much broader definition of atheist than the conventional one, and a somewhat biased one because it largely assumes the existence of a particular god with particular rules. That, however, may be what makes it so attractive to some theists. My guess is that this is the definition some (many?) conservative Christians I hear on the radio are using.

There are some theists who are unable to grasp the concept of atheist as someone who does not believe in the existence of god, since, to them, everyone knows god is real. (For example: "There are no atheists in foxholes." And: "All humans will call out to a God as they get ready to check out of the big hotel.") But they can understand the concept of someone rejecting god.

I believe Jedi is not the only person to hold this new conception of atheist. He is simply the only one present in this discussion.

It's actually a fairly useful concept to have a label for. It's just a shame to take a label, atheist, that was already being put to good use.

I believe the definition of atheist as someone who does not believe in the existence of god is the historically-correct definition. (I also believe it is the one that people who call themselves atheists intend when they use the word.)

If that is correct, then people using the definition of someone who rejects god could be seen as hijacking the term atheist -- taking a good, useful term and giving it a new meaning.

So?

Words get hijacked all the time. I get annoyed, for example, when people refer to embezzlers, swindlers, or marijuana smokers as "non-violent criminals". That mis-usage has become so wide-spread that it will probably be necessary for pacifists once again to coin a new term for the concept of non-violence. If there are many theists now using the word atheist to mean "person who has rejected god", then atheists may be in a similar situation.

That's something that can be discussed elsewhere. What I'm interested in is why some people believe Hitler was an atheist and what, if any, merit there is to the claim. Understanding what Jedi is actually saying is important to that.

Jedi: have I got the hang of what you are saying yet?

Nova Land

13th February 2003, 04:27 AM

A key question in this discussion is whether a person who believes in god can commit heinous acts. Jedi seems to be asserting that the actions that the Germans committed against the Jews during WW II were not actions that god would have approved of so they must have been the actions of someone who had rejected god.

On the surface that sounds plausible. It depends, however, on a particular conception of god. I believe that there are many, many different conceptions of god, and that actions such as the Nazis are indeed compatible with some of these.

Let me try to list some of the different conceptions of god.

1. God = creator of the universe. This is common to many religions, including most Christian ones: the idea that god created everything.

2. God = master of the universe. This is also fairly common, and is a part of manyChristian religions: the idea that god is an all-powerful being that controls everything.

3. God = source of all that is good, or embodiment of all that is good. This is also fairly common: the idea of god as representing all that is right and good.

3-A. God = perfect love. (This may or may not be the same as the previous one.)

4. God = the ultimate judge. Liberal Christian religions tend to emphasize god as perfect love; conservative Christian ones tend emphasize god as the harsh judge who will send the righteous to heaven and everyone else to hell.

Those are some of the major modern (Western) conceptions of god. However, there are others in the Judeo-Christian tradition. One very important older one, less emphasized today, is:

5. God = tribal protector and military leader. In old testament times, different tribes worshipped different gods, and these gods were seen as helping tribes to conquer their enemies. In many old testament stories, god directs the military actions, and victory is seen as being a result of following god's instructions, in daily life and on the battlefield. These instructions were often baffling (take only the soldiers who drink out of cupped hands) and often appallingly violent (kill every woman, every man, every child, every animal).

Now, if a religion taught a conception of god that was primarily # 3 or # 3-A, it might be reasonable to conclude that a person who committed atrocities such as the Nazis' had rejected god's ways. But if a religion taught a conception of god as # 5, then there would be no inherent contradiction between following god and committing atrocities. Indeed (as HS4 as pointed out in several well-written posts) the religion could even be the foundation for such actions.

If Jedi is defining atheist as "someone who has rejected god", the question comes up, whose god? Are we talking about the god the Hitler recognized, or are we talking about the god Jedi recognizes? In order for Hitler to knowingly reject god, it would need to be the one Hitler recognized.

If Hitler was raised on a god of love and forgiveness, of turn the other cheek and swords into plowshares, then his actions as leader of the Nazis were a clear rejection of that god (and he would be an atheist by Jedi's standards, if I've understood Jedi's standards correctly).

But if he were raised as a conservative Catholic in the early 20th century, that was probably not the god he was raised on. And it certainly does not seem to be the god he recognized as an adult! He seemed to despise the conception of god as loving and forgiving. In that case, Hitler was not necessarily rejecting god -- the god Hitler recognized -- when he instituted the "final solution." Nor were other Germans, if they too recognized a god who called for harsh actions against the enemy.

Two questions arise then.

(1) What god did Hitler and his followers recognize?
(2) Were the acting in accordance with their perceptions of this god's ways, or in rejection of that?

Can we determine this? Possibly. In his appeals to his followers, Hitler sometimes used religious language. What conceptions of god does Hitler draw on in these? This may give us a clue what Hitler's own beliefs are; it should also give us a clue what the beliefs of his followers were, since if Hitler were lying in order to manipulate people, the language and images he used in these appeals must be the ones he thought they would respond to best.

Surely, either Hitler's references to god and religion in his speeches are lies designed to appeal to and sway his followers, or they are indications of his true beliefs. The other alternative, that they are lies which represent neither his own beliefs nor those of his followers, would present a baffling mystery as to what his purpose could possibly be.

Was Hitler acting in accordance with his perception of this god's ways, or in rejection? Here, the table talks and other records of his conversations with associates should give us a clue. Did he speak positively or belittlingly of god? Did he place himself above god? Indicate god was foolish? An ego large enough to feel superior to god would be unlikely to conceal such superiority, so if this claim is true there should be evidence of it.

headscratcher4

13th February 2003, 07:01 AM

Nova: two interesting posts...the problem I have with it -- with what you attribute to JK, not your effort to determine what JK means in lieu of any proffered explanation (i.e. my concern about secret wisdom and hidden understandings instead of discussion) -- is quite simple.

If, as you say, JK's definition of atheism is that it incorporates someone who recognizes god, but believes themselves to be either unaccountable or able to ignore god, does not seem to me to fit the bill with respect to Hitler in particular.

Keeping in mind, for a moment, that the only contrary arguments offered has been assertions rather than any sort of historical documentation, scholarly analysis or logical re-interpretation of known facts, it is important to focus on the fact that you, and others, have introduced much into the discussion that specifically shows the following:

Hitler didn't merely acknowledge that God exists and ignore it, or contend that rule/authority, etc. did not extend to him (or his regime -- I think it important to not let single Hitler out as a lone operator a'la Bundy, Manson, etc., he was an "actor" and perpetrator on a much larger scale...), Hitler argues that he is EXPLICITLY fulfilling God's plan.

In other words, Hitler doesn't ignore god, he continually presents himself as motivated, selected, protected and defended by God, by God's laws and as God's agent for the salvation of the Aryan/German people, and as God's agent of retribution against the Jewish people.

Now, while the thought that Hitler ignored god's law is convenient and not entirely illogical conclusion, it rests entirely on a premise, it seems to me, that a). God's law is a fixed thing; b). understood by most people (inherently (sp?) and culturally); and c). that most people (civilized at least) understand both God and God's law in the same way.

In short, it would appear that, for your explanation to work, it requires that there be a conclusion drawn that specifically it is a "Christian" god that exists (God of the old and new Testament), that that God is the only possible god, and that the rules laid out by that god are universal truths and that to ignore or defy those rules is to embrace "atheism".

Now, not only is that a definition that is not common, I suggest it is almost unique. Further, it is an interesting definition for it is essentially, as I have argued, the "atheism" argument in reverse.

By this I mean, it is the argument that I've made that suggests that religion, inherently, is completely antithetical to freedom of thought (contrary to JK's assertion). In other words, under this definition/understanding, no Hindu, Moslem --even Jew (rejecting Jesus as the Messiah) can be determined to be other than an atheist (i.e. rejecting, ignoring god and god's law). Everyone BUT those who hold to some definition of god's law is, in short, an atheist.

But, how do we know what God's law is? JK doesn't really tell us. We can assume from his writings, however, that it is pretty narrowly defined to some sort of pre-reformation interpretation of Catholic Christianity -- minus, of course, all of the abuses of Christianity by "Catholic" authority that can be shown to have existed pre-reformation.

Anyway, my point is that for JK to get anywhere and support his assertion that religion is the ultimate respecter of freedom of thought. He essentially must limit his definition of "religion" -- or at least free thought -- to his interpretation of Christian thought (this, for a moment, gets away from his argument that atheism is a religion and worshiped). In other words, the only way to interpret his views is that all forms of religious worship, understanding, revelation, prophesy, etc. that is not Christian (and Christian as he defines it) is, essentially atheistic (and here, it seems to me, it leads to atheism as a religion -- but a incorrect, imperfect and morally suspect religion/form of worship).

The bottom line, is that for JK Hitler can't be a theist/deist and especially not a Christian, nor his regime be under any of the above, because he is incapable of recognizing any God but the God he has determined to exist and his own interpretation of the true path to that god. Any "believer" that exists outside of that path, is of course, essentially an atheist.

Thus, for instance, it doesn't matter how "humanists" define themselves, they can't/don't/won't recognize JK's version of God and God's law, so they are atheists. Similarly, so are Marxists. Similarly so are Islamics. Similarly so are Hindus, and on and on. Not a one has the right to define for themselves what they believe because it is in conflict with what JK "knows" to be true religion, faith, understanding, etc.

The problem, if it isn't obvious, is that this is inherently a very unique interpretation and position to be in. No matter what "facts" are proffered, they can always be dismissed or ignored because they do not seem to fit into the basic operating principal of the universe, as JK has individually defined it.

No matter how anyone else defines God, God's existence, their relationship to God, etc. Jk, ultimately, knows better and can dismiss that individual experience. First, because he is incapable of knowledge of it (i.e. he can't know what you, I, or Hitler think); second, he can assert that the alternative definition, interpretation, explanation is a lie (i.e. if you say you are acting under God's authority, he (JK) knowing what that authority is, can dismiss your claim as he has more complete knowledge of the situation and can discern that you are either deluded but more likely a liar).

In the end, JK -- and JK alone -- is able to determine who is an atheist and what atheism is, who is lying about their beliefs (as he has more perfect knowledge not only about how the universe is really constituted, but, indeed, how god manifests himself in the world), and how belief truly manifests itself in the world.

I say all of this knowing full well that there will be no response, no argument, no acknowledgement that my arguments, conclusions have any merit or are full of sh**t -- which, will of course, lead me to conclude that I am right on the money.
:)

CWL

13th February 2003, 07:20 AM

Why is this thread suddenly about guessing what JK may or may not believe? If the man is so unwilling to explain and defend his strange convictions I say let it go.

As to the subject of this thread, I think that the arguments presented by HS4 are very compelling. All quotes presented by Nova Land, myself and others clearly indicate that Hitler not only believed in a supreme being, he was convinced that he was carrying out the will of such a supreme being.

I therefore think it is time to declare "Hitler was a Theist" winner over "Hitler was an Atheist" - even if it is due to walkover.

Jedi Knight

13th February 2003, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I certainly did not expect anything, and it isn't that important, since it did not come frome a person that carries any credibility. I was really just probing for some sense of honor. Subject closed.

Hans

I have honor. Your country ran from a global challenge. I am not going to apologize to you for saying that. If your feelings are hurt, elect some national leaders with some courage.

JK

Jedi Knight

13th February 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by CWL
I am certain that you are not the least bit surprised. Nor am I.

lol, appeal to sympathy logical fallacy. This is the best example of that I have seen in some time. Great job, CWL.

JK

CWL

13th February 2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

lol, appeal to sympathy logical fallacy. This is the best example of that I have seen in some time. Great job, CWL.

JK

A logical fallacy in relation to what? What are you talking about?

How about presenting some evidence for your your claim that Hitler was an atheist instead? How about answering some of the questions put to you?

Not holding my breath...

Jedi Knight

13th February 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Nova Land
Throughout this discussion, it has seemed evident that Jedi somehow equates atheism with heinous behavior. In arguing that Hitler was an atheist, Jedi has seemed to be defining an atheist as someone who does heinous things, leading some people to assume Jedi had simply defined the term in a way that led to the conclusion he had already reached.

Atheism in the individual isn't a problem. When the individual says: "I do not believe in the omnipotent God", that is fine with me. I do not have a problem whatsoever with that.

This discussion is not about that. This discussion is about Hitler's atheism, and how he used atheist institutions at the nation-state level to perform godless acts (acts removing omnipotent morality).

That is radical humanism, a "collective" atheist trait. It has nothing to do with the atheist who does not seek power and does not proselytize for the removal of other religions and other agendas that impact the structure and wellbeing of the nation-state.

In sum, I was merely pointing out that atheism empowered Hitler, empowered the Nazi state and created a climate that nurtured gross miscalculations of human moral judgement.

JK

headscratcher4

13th February 2003, 11:55 AM

This discussion is about Hitler's atheism, and how he used atheist institutions at the nation-state level to perform godless acts (acts removing omnipotent morality).

If that is indeed what the discussion is about, than your problems still remain, for if we are now going to argue that the Nazi institutions were atheist, you still have a long way to go. Nazi state laws recognizing various christian churches, allowing them to function inside and alongside the Nazi state, the supplying of pastors and priests to Army and SS units, the promotion of "traditional" German culture (including national mythology about christianity, Jews, etc), the endless stream of propoganda designed to enrage the people to align with the Nazis and their fithgt against atheistic, Jewish, communism...and on and on...

Further, as a leader/Feuher State, the state, its organization, its functioning was entirely dependant upon the lead of Hitler...my point is that because Hitler believed himself to be acting as an agent of God, so to, than, the State believed itself to be acting as an agent of God.

In short, while you might not like that interpretation of God, and while you might conclude that Hitler/Nazism was trying to create a new religion...it was explicitly a religion that saw the state as functioning under the mandate of higher authorities -- i.e. under Hitler, Hitler under god....

(Someone check me on this, but I'd bet dimes to dollars that the oath that members of the German Army swore to Adolf Hitler was an oath before god...at least that's how I remember it),

Once again, we are at a point of an assertion and interpretation that may be uniquely yours...it doesn't make it incorrect, but it means that the burden is on you to show how the state was "atheistic", how all of the symbols and references to a belief in god and Germany's role under god can be dismissed.

Finally, we are back to you determining what is "atheism" and doing so using a definition that is uniquely yours...

Jedi Knight

14th February 2003, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I certainly did not expect anything, and it isn't that important, since it did not come frome a person that carries any credibility. I was really just probing for some sense of honor. Subject closed.

Hans

Credibility? Take a look at the credibility of one of your own government ministers (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6150).

JK

Aardvark_DK

14th February 2003, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Credibility? Take a look at the credibility of one of your own government ministers (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6150).
Pssst! JK! Hans is Danish, not German. There's a difference, you know.

Anyway, does the questionable acts of various American politicians reflect badly on you? (The answer to that rhetorical question is no.)

MRC_Hans

14th February 2003, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Credibility? Take a look at the credibility of one of your own government ministers (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6150).

JK Nice going, Jedi.

I did consider asking you if knew at all what country I come from, but then you could have checked it. Now, however, you have, on your own volition, exposed yet another example on how you make statements based on ignorance.

I'm not German. I'm Danish. Because of certain things happening in the past, mistaking a Dane for a German might be considered an(other) insult. But since I'm sure you just did it out of ignorance, Mr. Genious, I'll let it pass. :rolleyes:

(Sorry G6, this was probably not appropriate for a moderated thread, but a man can only take so much without answering.)

Hans

CWL

14th February 2003, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

Pssst! JK! Hans is Danish, not German. There's a difference, you know.

Anyway, does the questionable acts of various American politicians reflect badly on you? (The answer to that rhetorical question is no.)

[barefaced sarcasm]

JK doesn't know the difference between Denmark and Germany? I thought he knew everything :eek:

[/barefaced sarcasm]

thaiboxerken

14th February 2003, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

lol, appeal to sympathy logical fallacy. This is the best example of that I have seen in some time. Great job, CWL.

JK

This is hardly an appeal to sympathy. If it is a fallacy, then it is ad-hominem fallacy, but it's not. This is simply a statement of opinion based on your character.

thaiboxerken

14th February 2003, 03:06 AM

Originally posted by CWL

[barefaced sarcasm]

JK doesn't know the difference between Denmark and Germany? I thought he knew everything :eek:

[/barefaced sarcasm]

It's all probably the same to him.. Just like atheists is equivocated with criminal/immoral and christian = can do no evil. JK probably thinks that all Europeans/Scandinavian and Canadians are one and the same people.

With all of JK's rantings about Europeans, atheists and his other opinions... I wonder if he is a member of the christian club called KKK.

Jedi Knight

14th February 2003, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

Pssst! JK! Hans is Danish, not German. There's a difference, you know.

Anyway, does the questionable acts of various American politicians reflect badly on you? (The answer to that rhetorical question is no.)

Well what is he angry about? I wasn't talking about the Danes. He said I was talking about "his country".

JK

Jedi Knight

14th February 2003, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Nice going, Jedi.

I did consider asking you if knew at all what country I come from, but then you could have checked it. Now, however, you have, on your own volition, exposed yet another example on how you make statements based on ignorance.

I'm not German. I'm Danish. Because of certain things happening in the past, mistaking a Dane for a German might be considered an(other) insult. But since I'm sure you just did it out of ignorance, Mr. Genious, I'll let it pass. :rolleyes:

(Sorry G6, this was probably not appropriate for a moderated thread, but a man can only take so much without answering.)

Hans

My accurate observation of the French and German cowardice displayed at the UN this week had nothing to do with your country, so why did you say it did?

...and with a name like Hans, it was perfectly plausible for me to think you were from Germany. I lived in Germany for several years and met many Germans with the first name, well you know, Hans.

JK

MRC_Hans

14th February 2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

My accurate observation of the French and German cowardice displayed at the UN this week had nothing to do with your country, so why did you say it did?

...and with a name like Hans, it was perfectly plausible for me to think you were from Germany. I lived in Germany for several years and met many Germans with the first name, well you know, Hans.

JK No, what you said was:
Europe is not a democracy. It is a collection of tiny socialist-communist states bent on the destruction of Israel because as atheists and radical Islamist supporters, that is their political nature.Being a citizen of an European country, I naturally was offended. Confronted with this, you answered:Your country offends the world. Maybe you should apologize. - - -And now you tell me it was all based on you assuming my nationality from my first name. So can you understand why I don't count your credibility very high?

Hans

headscratcher4

14th February 2003, 05:45 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This discussion is about Hitler's atheism, and how he used atheist institutions at the nation-state level to perform godless acts (acts removing omnipotent morality).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that is indeed what the discussion is about, than your problems still remain, for if we are now going to argue that the Nazi institutions were atheist, you still have a long way to go. Nazi state laws recognizing various christian churches, allowing them to function inside and alongside the Nazi state, the supplying of pastors and priests to Army and SS units, the promotion of "traditional" German culture (including national mythology about christianity, Jews, etc), the endless stream of propoganda designed to enrage the people to align with the Nazis and their fithgt against atheistic, Jewish, communism...and on and on...

Further, as a leader/Feuher State, the state, its organization, its functioning was entirely dependant upon the lead of Hitler...my point is that because Hitler believed himself to be acting as an agent of God, so to, than, the State believed itself to be acting as an agent of God.

In short, while you might not like that interpretation of God, and while you might conclude that Hitler/Nazism was trying to create a new religion...it was explicitly a religion that saw the state as functioning under the mandate of higher authorities -- i.e. under Hitler, Hitler under god....

(Someone check me on this, but I'd bet dimes to dollars that the oath that members of the German Army swore to Adolf Hitler was an oath before god...at least that's how I remember it),

Once again, we are at a point of an assertion and interpretation that may be uniquely yours...it doesn't make it incorrect, but it means that the burden is on you to show how the state was "atheistic", how all of the symbols and references to a belief in god and Germany's role under god can be dismissed.

Finally, we are back to you determining what is "atheism" and doing so using a definition that is uniquely yours...

Renfield

14th February 2003, 10:41 AM

Hitler was no atheist. He had a number of religious beliefs, and was heavily into the occult, as was most of the third reich.

So there.

CWL

18th February 2003, 05:04 AM

One point that struck me and which also points in the general direction suggested by Headscratcher4 (that the doctrines of Nazi Germany are logical outflow from the doctrines of European Christian tradition as to Jews and Judaism) is the fact that KKK members believe themselves to be Christian and still have a strong hatred towards Jews. Klan members generally seem to have the view of that Jesus was an Aryan and that there is a "True Christianity" according to which the Jews (amongst others) are to be persecuted. This view corresponds very well to the beliefs that Hitler appears to have subsribed to.

Nova Land

18th February 2003, 04:44 PM

Sorry to be away the last 5 days -- long weekend! I got home Monday evening, a little before midnight, but since I didn't have time to sleep Thursday or Sunday, and only had time for two hours sleep Saturday, I decided to wait until today to post.

I was able to spend a good amount of time at the library during this trip. Among items I was able to look at, two books of special interest are:

(a) The Nazi Voter, Thomas Childers, 1983 (U of NC Press), and
(b) Who Voted for Hitler?, Richard Hamilton, 1982 (Princeton U Press).

These seem to be good sources of information about the type of people who supported Hitler, including information on their religious beliefs. Both books are slow reading, and since there were many other things I needed to look up I skimmed key sections of both books but have not read either thoroughly yet. I took some notes, and will return to both books next trip.

Another Hitler-related book I looked at this trip was a recent edition of Bullock. The one I had previously looked at was the 1952 edition, which he wrote before the book of "table talks" was published (although Bullock was aware of them, and quoted briefly from some in that first edition). Since the 1952 edition included a line in which Bullock said Hitler "... believed neither in God nor in conscience...", I wanted to check whether his opinion changed or altered after the table talks were published.

In the "completely revised" 1962 edition, Bullock quotes extensively from the table talks. He also continues to maintain that Hitler did not believe in any god (p. 385). This would appear to present a slight contradiction, since Hitler referred to Providence, a "creative force", etc., various times in the table talks. Bullock briefly addresses this apparent contradiction a few pages later (p. 390), saying: "Hitler's belief in his own destiny held him back from a thorough-going atheism."

Another interesting source is this interactive "virtual interview" with Hitler (http://www.activehistory.co.uk/head2head/hitler/). I am not familiar with the teacher who put this site together, but this appears to be a serious effort which received good reviews as an educational tool.

This program is rather simple and was unable to answer many of the questions I put to it. It is not authoritative by any means. However, I was interested to see that on religion, it unhesitatingly has Hitler declare himself an atheist.

What this says to me is that it is possible for reasonable people to hold that opinion. The opinion may or may not be correct -- that's why I'm interested in looking at and analyzing the evidence, and in hearing other people's analyses of the evidence -- but it is not an absurb opinion.

Nova Land

18th February 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Renfield
Hitler ... was heavily into the occult, as was most of the third reich.
So I've heard it asserted.

It does indeed seem true that many Nazis were into the occult. That's not surprising, since many people generally, then and now, seem to be into the occult. I get the impression from various places that the Nazis were more heavily into the occult than the population at large, but I have not seen clear evidence of that yet.

This appears to be one of those things that "everyone knows". To me, that's a red flag warning that it needs to be checked and verified before passing it along too confidently.

Do you have some reliable sources for this information that you can share?
Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, 1962 edition, p. 389:

Nor is there any evidence to substantiate the once popular belief that [Hitler] resorted to astrology. His secretary says categorically that he had nothing but contempt for such practices, although faith in the stars was certainly common among some of his followers like Himmler.
That indicates that the belief Hitler was into astrology and the occult may be more legend than fact.

(NOTE: There is, of course, Dennis O'Neil's classic work on this subject, Hitler's Astrologer, first published in 1988 and re-issued in 1991. I have read that, as I assume others here have. It is compelling, but stronger evidence may be needed as it seems difficult to verify the historical authenticity of at least one key figure in O'Neil's account.)

Girl 6

21st February 2003, 02:16 PM

Just when I think we can't possibly keep going, you guys continually surprise me! :)

I'm bumping this up just in case there's any more discussion to be had.

Anyway, I'm still lurking around... So don't do anything that will make me regret taking this job. ;)

G6

Jedi Knight

21st February 2003, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
And please answer my questions too, JK. Here they are again:

Is your theory falsifiable or not? [Actually I'm not really sure it's a theory - what we're really discussing here is the definition of the word "atheist" and what it means to be one.]

It seems to me that you're saying that:

Only atheists/godless people do evil things
Hitler did evil things
Therefore Hitler was an atheist/godless

Now, obviously your definition of atheism has very little to do with other people's definition of that word, but apart from that using your logic we would have to label a number of popes and other religious authorities throughout history as atheist, do you agree?

You are missing my point which was very easy, extremely easy to understand. Let me use your logic problem but with a minor adjustment.

Atheist nation-states do evil things
Hitler did evil things
Therefore Hitler was an atheist

There you go--with a little encouragement you are on your way to understanding Hitler.

JK

Jedi Knight

21st February 2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by CWL
One point that struck me and which also points in the general direction suggested by Headscratcher4 (that the doctrines of Nazi Germany are logical outflow from the doctrines of European Christian tradition as to Jews and Judaism) is the fact that KKK members believe themselves to be Christian and still have a strong hatred towards Jews. Klan members generally seem to have the view of that Jesus was an Aryan and that there is a "True Christianity" according to which the Jews (amongst others) are to be persecuted. This view corresponds very well to the beliefs that Hitler appears to have subsribed to.

That is the Christian Identity Movement, a new religious movement that didn't form until the 1970's. Any other ideas?

JK

Latimer

21st February 2003, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Atheist nation-states do evil things
Hitler did evil things
Therefore Hitler was an atheist

VERY short time tonight; I am in the middle of remodeling.

Theist nation-states do evil things. (Rome comes to mind, as well as others)
Hitler did evil things.
Therfore Hitler was a theist.

That was easy. :)

Keep smiling,

the_ignored

21st February 2003, 11:55 PM

from Jedi Knight:
Atheist nation-states do evil things
Hitler did evil things
Therefore Hitler was an atheist

OK, did you know that in Mein Kampf Hitler had said that he got his ideas about the jews from some xian street-preacher named Karl Lueger, and not from any "atheist" doctrines?

Did you know that the theist Martin Luther wrote "On the Jews and Their Lies" which Julius Streicher (publisher of "Der Sturmer" paper) had said in the Nuremberg trials that if Martin Luther were there, he'd be in the dock with the rest of them, since all the Nazis were doing was stuff that the christian Martin Luther had suggested in his book?

Did you know that xians were killing jews for centuries before hitler ever came along?
Theologian Clark Williamson of Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis, said centuries of Christian hostility to Jews "prepared the way for the Holocaust" he said the Nazis "are inconcievable apart from this Christian tradition. Hitler's pogrom, for all its distinctiveness, is the zenith of a long Christian heritage of teaching and practice against Jews".

Theologian Richard Rubenstein wrote that the Nazis "did not invent a new vilain...They took over the 2,000-year-old Christian trdition of the Jew as villain...The roots of the death camps must be sought in the mythic structure of Christianity...Myths concerning the demonological role of the Jews have been operative in Christianity for centuries..."
p. 159-160 "Holy Horrors" by James A. Haught. The books from which the above guys were quoted from:

"After Auschwitz: Religion and the Origins of the Death Camps." Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, Ind., 1966

"Has God Rejected His People? Anti-Judaism in the Christian Church", Abingdon, Nashville, Tenn. 1982

And you blame Hitlers' antisemitism on atheism? Learn some history instead of making it up on your own.

Jedi Knight

22nd February 2003, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by the_ignored
from Jedi Knight:

OK, did you know that in Mein Kampf Hitler had said that he got his ideas about the jews from some xian street-preacher named Karl Lueger, and not from any "atheist" doctrines?

Did you know that the theist Martin Luther wrote "On the Jews and Their Lies" which Julius Streicher (publisher of "Der Sturmer" paper) had said in the Nuremberg trials that if Martin Luther were there, he'd be in the dock with the rest of them, since all the Nazis were doing was stuff that the christian Martin Luther had suggested in his book?

Did you know that xians were killing jews for centuries before hitler ever came along?

p. 159-160 "Holy Horrors" by James A. Haught. The books from which the above guys were quoted from:

"After Auschwitz: Religion and the Origins of the Death Camps." Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, Ind., 1966

"Has God Rejected His People? Anti-Judaism in the Christian Church", Abingdon, Nashville, Tenn. 1982

And you blame Hitlers' antisemitism on atheism? Learn some history instead of making it up on your own.

I will counter those opinions with three simple questions:

1) Why was there no Church authority in the Nazi state?

2) If Christianity was so cool and fashionable with the Nazis, why did they make Rome sign a surrender treaty?

3) If Christians did exist in Germany, why didn't the "church" stop the jews from being killed?

There has been much opinion, like those you posted, that try to connect Hitler to Christianity. That helped the wounded and survivors of the time try and identify with the cause of their suffering and an attempt to understand the reason why.

Hitler, as an atheist, selected atheism as the state religion because it empowered the Nazi state system. Fascism is fueled by a bureaucracy that is not distracted with other power flows. That is why Hitler didn't tolerate any authority in his country but the state's.

Hitler also needed someone to blame for Germany's World War I surrender, so he could motivate the populations of Germany into World War II. He chose the Jews because they owned most of the manufacturing and Hitler wanted to steal it.

There was no Hitler Christian plan. Hitler didn't believe in the omnipotent being. Hitler believed that he was God.

Then you threw in some ad hominem: Learn some history instead of making it up on your own.

Ah yes, the leftist credential nonsense.

JK

Nova Land

22nd February 2003, 12:39 AM

Aardvark_DK (to Jedi):

It seems to me that you're saying that:

Only atheists/godless people do evil things
Hitler did evil things
Therefore Hitler was an atheist/godless
Jedi Knight (in response):

You are missing my point...

Atheist nation-states do evil things
Hitler did evil things
Therefore Hitler was an atheist
I can see 2 differences between Aardvark's attempt to state your position and yours:

(1) Aardvark referred to atheists doing evil things; you refer to atheist nation-states.
(2) Aardvark used the modifier "only", which you have omitted.

In both cases, the change confuses rather than clarifies.

(1) "Atheist nation-states do evil things." It still needs to be established that Nazi Germany was an atheist nation-state, but that's a separate matter. The immediate problem is that Hitler is not a nation-state.

If you want to substitute the word "Germany" for "Hitler", some kind of syllogism might be possible. Is that what you intended?

(2) Without the word "only", this syllogism does not make sense. Is this simply carelessness, and you intended to retain the word "only", or is the omission deliberate?
Jedi Knight:

[My point] was very easy, extremely easy to understand...
The way Aardvark worded the point was clear and easy to understand, but you say that is not what you intended.

I'm sincerely trying to understand your point, but the way you have worded it your point remains unclear.

Nova Land

22nd February 2003, 12:48 AM

CWL:

...KKK members believe themselves to be Christian and still have a strong hatred towards Jews...
Jedi Knight

That is the Christian Identity Movement, a new religious movement that didn't form until the 1970's.
CWL is correct. The KKK's racism was explicitly rooted in Christian beliefs.

The Christian Identity Movement also bases its racism on religious beliefs. But the KKK's use of religion as an underpinning goes back much further.

the_ignored

22nd February 2003, 12:56 AM

from Jedi Knight:

I will counter those opinions with three simple questions:Ah, those were not opinions. Those were actual facts, some part of the record at the Nuremberg site, some (like Luther's book) published on paper and the internet, and some (like from Hitler's Mein Kampf) are also in print. They are not what people think happened. They are records showing what people did think, and do.

from Jedi Knight:
1) Why was there no Church authority in the Nazi state?
Wrong.
Pacelli became a crowned Pope on March 12, 1939 (Pius XII). The following month on April 20, 1939, at Pacelli's express wish, Archbishop Orsenigo, the nuncio in Berlin, opened a gala reception for Hitler's fiftieth birthday. The birthday greetings thus initiated by Pacelli immediately became a tradition; each April 20 during the few years left to Hitler and his Reich, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin would send "warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany," to which he added "fervent prayers which the Catholics in Germany are sending to heaven on their altars." [Cornwell, p. 209] By this time Pacelli could call on the loyalty and devotion of a half-billion people, of which half the populations of Hitler's new Reich had become Catholics, including a quarter of the SS. At this time bishops, clergy, religious, and faithful had bound themselves to the Pope, and by his own self estimation, served as the supreme arbiter of moral values on earth. [Cornwell, p. 215]

from Jedi Knight:
2) If Christianity was so cool and fashionable with the Nazis, why did they make Rome sign a surrender treaty? This was no surrender treaty. Rome never gave up anything to the Nazis. If anything, Catholicism was strengthened:

The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.
-Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party (quoted from John Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope"

See the below quote:
each April 20 during the few years left to Hitler and his Reich, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin would send "warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany," to which he added "fervent prayers which the Catholics in Germany are sending to heaven on their altars." [Cornwell, p. 209] By this time Pacelli could call on the loyalty and devotion of a half-billion people, of which half the populations of Hitler's new Reich had become Catholics, including a quarter of the SS.

from: http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm#anchor2a

http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm

(even more importantly, see his sources: )

In the 1930s, Pacelli and his associates negotiated with the Nazis to form a contract which got signed in 1933 as the Reich Concordat with the approval of the Pope. Note that the Catholic hierarchy believes in the infallibility of Popes in matters of faith and morals (ever since the First Vatican Council of 1870). This Concordat with its Papal infallible authority had arguably neutralized the potential of 23 million Catholics to protest and resist and which helped Hitler into legal dictatorship. [Cornwell, p. 4] After the agreement, Hitler, mimicking Pacelli fourteen years earlier stated, "I will devote my entire strength to cultivating and strengthening the relations between the Holy See and Germany." [Cornwell, p. 136] (Hitler, spent more time and effort on the concordat with Pacelli than on any other treaty in the entire era of the Third Reich [Cornwell, p. 150]). This Concordat gave Germany an opportunity to create an area of trust with the Church and gave significance to the developing struggle against international Jewry. According to John Cornwell, this papal endorsement of Nazism helped seal the fate of Europe which makes it plausible that these Catholic prejudices bolstered aspects of Nazi anti-Semitism. [Cornwell, p. 28]

The Concordat and the following Jewish persecutions resulted in the silence of the Pope and the bishops. Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich, referring to the Nazi attacks on the Jews, wrote to Pacelli, confirming that protest proved pointless since it could only extend the struggle to Catholics. He told Pacelli, "Jews can help themselves." [Cornwell, p. 140] Most bishops and Cardinals were Nazi sympathizers as were bishop Wilhelm Berning of Osnabruck and Archbishop Grober of Freiurg ( Pacelli's choice for emissaries).

On April 25, thousands of Catholic priests across Germany became part of an anti-Semitic attestation bureaucracy, supplying details of blood purity through marriage and baptism registries in accordance with the Nazi Nuremberg laws which distinguished Jews from non-Jews. Catholic clerical compliance in the process would continue throughout the period of the Nazi regime. [Cornwell, pp.154] Any claimed saving of all-too-few Jewish lives by a few brave Catholics must stand against the millions who died in the death camps as an indirect result of the official workings of the Catholic body.

After Kristallnacht (where Nazis broke Jewish store windows and had synagogues burned) there issued not a single word of condemnation from the Vatican, the German Church hierarchy, or from Pacelli. Yet in an encyclical on anti-Semitism, titled Humani generis unitas (The Unity of the Human Race) by Pope Pius XI, a section claims that the Jews were responsible for their own fate. God had chosen them to make way for Christ's redemption but they denied him and killed him. And now, "Blinded by their dream of worldly gain and material success," they had deserved the "worldly and spiritual ruin" that they had brought down upon themselves. [Cornwell, p. 191]

Cardinal Theodor Innitzer, archbishop of Vienna warmly received Hitler in Vienna after his triumphal march through the capital where he expressed public satisfaction with Hitler's regime. [Cornwell, p. 201] Meanwhile, Cardinal Bertram sent Hitler an effusive telegram, published on October 2 in the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, "The great deed of safeguarding peace among the nations moves the German episcopate acting in the name of the Catholics of all the German dioceses, respectfully to extend congratulations and thanks and to order a festive ringing of bells on Sunday." [Cornwell, p. 202]

from Jedi Knight:
3) If Christians did exist in Germany, why didn't the "church" stop the jews from being killed?
Duh! The christians were on the side of the Nazis! Hello! Did you not read anything I posted? Remember, it was the christian church that had demonized the jews for centuries in the first place!

see: http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
Here's some stuff from Hitler's speeches you'll find interesting. Ask yourself: If Hitler was an atheist, and only "atheist" govts do this stuff, as you claim, then what the hell is this:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice....
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people....
When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech on 12 April 1922

[Note, "brood of vipers" appears in Matt. 3:7 & 12:34. John 2:15 depicts Jesus driving out the money changers (adders) from the temple. The word "adders" also appears in Psalms 140:3]

The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life....
The National Government regard the two Christian Confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. They will respect the agreements concluded between them and the federal States. Their rights are not to be infringed....
It will be the Government's care to maintain honest co-operation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith.
The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933

We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out. -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Nova Land

22nd February 2003, 01:19 AM

Jedi Knight, responding to the_ignored:

I will counter those opinions with three simple questions:

1) Why was there no Church authority in the Nazi state?

2) If Christianity was so cool and fashionable with the Nazis, why did they make Rome sign a surrender treaty?

3) If Christians did exist in Germany, why didn't the "church" stop the jews from being killed?
Why was there no Church authority in the Nazi state?

It sounds as if you are saying that a nation that lacks a church authority is an atheist state. Please define what you mean by "Church authority" so that we can see what other nations have or lack one.

If Christianity was so cool and fashionable with the Nazis...

I think you may be mis-hearing what people are saying. It isn't whether Nazis thought Christianity was cool that is at issue. It is that Nazis used Christian rather than atheistic rhetoric to justify their racism.

Many Nazis, including Hitler, were privately hostile to Christianity. Some Nazis were even publicly hostile to Christianity, and talked of forming their own religion. However, the German people who supported Hitler were largely Christian, and Hitler appealed to them during his rise to power by using Christian rhetoric.

If Christians did exist in Germany, why didn't the "church" stop the jews from being killed?

Excellent question! Why, also, didn't the "church" end slavery in this country a century or two earlier than it did? Why didn't the "church" prevent the internment of US citizens during WW II? Why didn't the "church" end KKK terrorism? One can go on and on with a list of injustices and atrocities that exist in the world, despite the presence of organized religions whose ideals should lead the members to oppose and stop those things.

As a religious person, I don't have a good answer to that.
Hitler, as an atheist, selected atheism as the state religion...Interesting assertion. If he did indeed name atheism the state religion, was this done publicly? I have seen no public statement by Hitler praising atheism; all the public statements he made about atheism seem instead to be denouncing it.

If he did publicly declare atheism the state religion, when did he do this and in what words?

the_ignored

22nd February 2003, 01:38 AM

http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm

The table talk has Hitler saying such things such as: "Christianity is an invention of sick brains...," "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death."

But those that argue against Hitler's Christianity fail to see that Christianity comes in many forms, two of which consist as: a belief system held by Christians, and organized religion. It was the latter, organized Christianity, that Hitler spoke against (just as many Christians do today). Not once does Hitler denounce his own Christianity nor does he speak against Jesus. On the contrary, the Table-Talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The Table-Talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

3) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his Christianity.

4) The Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity.

Martin Bormann served as the instigator, fuel, and reason for the perception of many Christians that Nazism was against Christianity. Many times, quotes attributed to Hitler are actually Bormann's. It is well known that Bormann secretly worked against the Catholic religion behind Hitler's back and without his permission. It has been pointed out that "the fight against the church organizations" were Bormann's pet project. In spite of Bormann's repeated attempts to persuade Hitler to act against the Churches, Hitler insisted that "There has been no official Party announcement, nor will there be one." [VonLang, p.191]

How can any honest seeker of truth rely on Hitler's table talk when the entire transcript was edited and kept by the anti-Catholic Bormann?

Moreover, Dr. Picker regarded his own recording as authentic and insisted that "no confidence can be placed in Bormann's editing of it." Indeed, he writes, rather testily, of "Bormann's alterations, not authorised by me." [Trevor-Roper, p.viii]. Unfortunately, we do not have the unaltered version of Dr. Picker's or Heim's recordings.

In other words, there are no originals and the copies were filtered and edited by Bormann. The table talk cannot be considered a first-hand recording of Hitler's words. On this fact alone, I cannot with integrity or certainty use them as a source for Hitler's voice, especially in regards to religion which could very well reflect the anti-Catholic biased Bormann.

CWL

22nd February 2003, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

That is the Christian Identity Movement, a new religious movement that didn't form until the 1970's. Any other ideas?

JK

You are missing (or ignoring) the point. The fact that such a movement exists within the KKK shows that it is possible to be hostile towards Jews (and others) and still consider oneself a theist or - indeed - a Christian. So what was your evidence that Hitler was an atheist again?

Nova Land

22nd February 2003, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by the_ignored

Hitler's Table Talk: Jedi Knight's source, apparently.In a different thread, the subject of Hitler being an atheist came up and Jedi quoted as evidence a passage which derives from the table talks. (It actually consists of excerpts from two different table talks, run together.) These had been quoted (as separate excerpts) by Alan Bullock in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny. Others then quoted from Bullock, editing the excerpts (so it was no longer clear these came from separate table talks). I assume it was from one of these third-hand sources that Jedi got the passage, but Jedi has never clearly stated the source and has not used that passage in this thread.

Jedi has said he does not consider the table talks (or Bullock) to be reliable sources, so in dismissing them you are in agreement with him. In this thread Jedi has said his source is history, although which sources he is relying on for this history he has not yet specified.

I think the table talks are worth looking at and considering, so I've been going through them chronologically and reproducing the passages that relate to religion. This is so people here can read the passages for themselves rather than simply relying on the summary judgment of others (such as this web-site writer).

Some of the points made by the web-site you quote from are interesting and worth pursuing. For instance:
quoted from <http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm>

The Table-Talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.
I've cited a couple of sources (Speers, for one) which indicate that Hitler did indeed conduct after dinner conversations during those years and expressed thoughts consistent with those recorded in the Table Talks. (CWL recently referred me to a book about Hitler's last days, which also seems to tie in with this.) I don't know if the web site writer was unaware of those, or was aware but dismissed them. Have you read over the posts in which I explain why I think the table talks are worth looking over, and if so what is your feeling about these sources?
Martin Bormann served as the instigator, fuel, and reason for the perception of many Christians that Nazism was against Christianity. Many times, quotes attributed to Hitler are actually Bormann's.Interesting assertion. I'd be interested in seeing examples and documentation. Does the web site provide these, and if so have you looked them up? I'd be interested in whatever you can find on this.
It is well known that Bormann secretly worked against the Catholic religion behind Hitler's back and without his permission. This is interesting, but vague.

I'm quite willing to believe that the Nazis were plotting behind each other's backs. I'm not at all clear how much Bormann could (or would) do that went directly against what Hitler believed without risking being imprisoned or executed; my impression is that Hitler was a dangerous person who took offense easily.

If Bormann was able to get away with a lot behind Hitler's back, that would cast more doubt on the table talks. If Bormann was more circumscribed -- if he had to be wary of over-stepping his bounds -- that would indicate the table talks did not stray that much. So specific examples of what Bormann was able to get away with and what he was not could be helpful in figuring out much distortion there may be in the material as translated and how much credence can be given to them.

I am not an expert on Hitler or Nazi Germany, so I am interested in learning whatever you know about this. Any information you can provide on this subject would be helpful.

Aardvark_DK

22nd February 2003, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Atheist nation-states do evil things
Hitler did evil things
Therefore Hitler was an atheist

Unsurprisingly this is circular logic:

How do we know that "Atheist nation-states do evil things"? Because Nazi-Germany was evil.

And how do we know that Nazi-Germany was an atheist state? Because it was evil.

Well done, JK.

Jedi Knight

22nd February 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

Unsurprisingly this is circular logic:

How do we know that "Atheist nation-states do evil things"? Because Nazi-Germany was evil.

And how do we know that Nazi-Germany was an atheist state? Because it was evil.

Well done, JK.

Your not thinking. There are other atheist states last century to confirm my logic problem. Cambodia, Communist China, the former Soviet Union and its Republics, and naturally Nazi Germany all showed the same propensity for evil because they were atheist states.

JK

Jedi Knight

22nd February 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by the_ignored
from Jedi Knight:
Ah, those were not opinions. Those were actual facts, some part of the record at the Nuremberg site, some (like Luther's book) published on paper and the internet, and some (like from Hitler's Mein Kampf) are also in print. They are not what people think happened. They are records showing what people did think, and do.

from Jedi Knight:

Wrong.

from Jedi Knight:
This was no surrender treaty. Rome never gave up anything to the Nazis. If anything, Catholicism was strengthened:

See the below quote:

from: http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm#anchor2a

http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm

(even more importantly, see his sources: )

from Jedi Knight:

Duh! The christians were on the side of the Nazis! Hello! Did you not read anything I posted? Remember, it was the christian church that had demonized the jews for centuries in the first place!

see: http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
Here's some stuff from Hitler's speeches you'll find interesting. Ask yourself: If Hitler was an atheist, and only "atheist" govts do this stuff, as you claim, then what the hell is this:

We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out. -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

That was all propaganda to get the religious populations on Hitler's side when he was invading Europe and Northern Africa.

After Hitler was finished with the Jews he would have gone after Christians next. The problem is that the Nazi state which was walking away from God was stopped before this occurred, and biased historians threw Hitler into the Christian camp.

That was done to protect communism, atheism and lay blame on Europe. If "atheism" was blamed, then the European populations from the war could have walked forward out of it together relatively unskathed as far as their religious beliefs went. But the communists knew that if they were to tie Hitler and Christianity together, they could try to appear as the enlightened system, when in fact it was atheism as propagandized by Nietzche and Hegel that drove Hitler and the National Socialist State.

JK

Jedi Knight

22nd February 2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by CWL

You are missing (or ignoring) the point. The fact that such a movement exists within the KKK shows that it is possible to be hostile towards Jews (and others) and still consider oneself a theist or - indeed - a Christian. So what was your evidence that Hitler was an atheist again?

I have provided reams of evidence. Start at the first page of this thread and start reading.

JK

Nova Land

22nd February 2003, 11:26 AM

Jedi Knight, to CWL:

I have provided reams of evidence. Start at the first page of this thread and start reading.I've been reading the thread from the beginning with particular interest in learning your sources of information, and I too have missed seeing them.

In a previous thread, you quoted a passage derived from the Table Talks. In this thread, you have not cited any specific sources, instead saying your opinion is based on "history".

I am near-sighted. If I have missed seeing your sources in this thread, please list them again. What I am looking for are specific books or articles, with page references to the relevant parts.

-------------------
NOTE: You did refer at one point to the writings of Hegel and Nietzsche. Is this what you are referring to by "reams of evidence"? Their combined writings probably would run into "reams"!

If you feel there is something relevant material in the writings of Hegel or Nietzsche to support your view that Hitler was an atheist, please give specific page references. Feel free to quote or summarize the material you are referring to, as well as providing the citations. Thanks!

Nova Land

22nd February 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

That was all propaganda to get the religious populations on Hitler's side when he was invading Europe and Northern Africa.It sounds like you are agreeing that there was a significant religious population in Germany during the Nazi years.

Here's a question. What percentage of the German population, roughly, would you estimate to have been religious and what percentage would you estimate to have been atheist?

It would seem reasonable to assume that the religious population was considerably larger than the atheist population. If the religious population had been minuscule, there would be little reason for Hitler to pander to them.

Likewise, it would seem reasonable to assume the atheist population was small; if it had been large, wouldn't Hitler have tried to use propaganda to win them to his side, rather than railing against them and driving them to support the Socialists or Communists?

If Germany became an atheist state, then either the religious population shrank dramatically, the atheist population grew dramatically, or both. Could you sketch out how you believe this happened, giving rough figures for the numbers of atheists and non-atheists?
...the Nazi state which was walking away from God ...If the Nazis were "walking away from God", that implies they were with God to begin with. And if they were "walking away", that sounds like they had not completely gotten away.

So it sounds like you are saying a majority of Germans were religious people prior to Hitler taking power, that Hitler and the Nazis tried to convert them to atheism, and that Hitler was stopped before he succeeded.

It also sounds like you're saying that one way he was trying to convert Germany to atheism was by killing off the theists. ("After Hitler was finished with the Jews he would have gone after Christians next.") If so, that should be checkable. If your theory is correct, Hitler would try to imprison / kill theists but try to avoid imprisoning / killing atheists.

That sounds odd, since he was railing against atheists. I had thought atheists were one of the first groups he targetted, and that they had a greater rather than lesser chance of being imprisoned. If Hitler did refrain from persecuting atheists, that would lend credence to your theory. Anyone have any facts and figures on this?

...and biased historians threw Hitler into the Christian camp.Which biased historians did this, and when did this occur?

Everything I've read says that Hitler was brought up as a Catholic. Is this true, or do you believe this is part of a revised history?

It would seem to take a massive re-write to invent such a detail, so I'm going to assume that what you are saying is that Hitler was indeed raised as a Catholic, and did indeed claim to be a Christian during his rise to power. If that is not what you believe, please let me know what you do believe.

So you seem to be saying that somewhere along the line Hitler converted to atheism. When do you believe this occurred?

The next question that comes up is whether this was a secret or public conversion. It's one thing to say Hitler was secretly an atheist even though he was claiming publicly to be a Christian. It's quite another to claim, as you appear to be doing, that it was public knowledge he was an atheist.

If it was public knowledge, when and how did it become so? Did Hitler proclaim himself to be an atheist? To whom did he reveal this? How widely known was it?

Are there any newspaper stories, magazine articles, or other items from those times that make reference to Hitler's atheism?

Was the Catholic hierarchy aware that Hitler had become an atheist? At what point did they become aware? In what ways is this reflected in their writings and actions? There were, for instance, numerous Catholic newsletters, in the US as well as in Germany. Did any of these comment on Hitler being an atheist?

More details, please!

Jedi Knight

22nd February 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Nova Land
It sounds like you are agreeing that there was a significant religious population in Germany during the Nazi years.

Here's a question. What percentage of the German population, roughly, would you estimate to have been religious and what percentage would you estimate to have been atheist?

It would seem reasonable to assume that the religious population was considerably larger than the atheist population. If the religious population had been minuscule, there would be little reason for Hitler to pander to them.

Likewise, it would seem reasonable to assume the atheist population was small; if it had been large, wouldn't Hitler have tried to use propaganda to win them to his side, rather than railing against them and driving them to support the Socialists or Communists?

If Germany became an atheist state, then either the religious population shrank dramatically, the atheist population grew dramatically, or both. Could you sketch out how you believe this happened, giving rough figures for the numbers of atheists and non-atheists?
If the Nazis were "walking away from God", that implies they were with God to begin with. And if they were "walking away", that sounds like they had not completely gotten away.

So it sounds like you are saying a majority of Germans were religious people prior to Hitler taking power, that Hitler and the Nazis tried to convert them to atheism, and that Hitler was stopped before he succeeded.

It also sounds like you're saying that one way he was trying to convert Germany to atheism was by killing off the theists. ("After Hitler was finished with the Jews he would have gone after Christians next.") If so, that should be checkable. If your theory is correct, Hitler would try to imprison / kill theists but try to avoid imprisoning / killing atheists.

That sounds odd, since he was railing against atheists. I had thought atheists were one of the first groups he targetted, and that they had a greater rather than lesser chance of being imprisoned. If Hitler did refrain from persecuting atheists, that would lend credence to your theory. Anyone have any facts and figures on this?
Which biased historians did this, and when did this occur?

Everything I've read says that Hitler was brought up as a Catholic. Is this true, or do you believe this is part of a revised history?

It would seem to take a massive re-write to invent such a detail, so I'm going to assume that what you are saying is that Hitler was indeed raised as a Catholic, and did indeed claim to be a Christian during his rise to power. If that is not what you believe, please let me know what you do believe.

So you seem to be saying that somewhere along the line Hitler converted to atheism. When do you believe this occurred?

The next question that comes up is whether this was a secret or public conversion. It's one thing to say Hitler was secretly an atheist even though he was claiming publicly to be a Christian. It's quite another to claim, as you appear to be doing, that it was public knowledge he was an atheist.

If it was public knowledge, when and how did it become so? Did Hitler proclaim himself to be an atheist? To whom did he reveal this? How widely known was it?

Are there any newspaper stories, magazine articles, or other items from those times that make reference to Hitler's atheism?

Was the Catholic hierarchy aware that Hitler had become an atheist? At what point did they become aware? In what ways is this reflected in their writings and actions? There were, for instance, numerous Catholic newsletters, in the US as well as in Germany. Did any of these comment on Hitler being an atheist?

More details, please!

I know that at face value it is difficult to contemplate Hitler's true religious faith because historians have piled on thousands of different viewpoints about the dictator and his supposed belief-systems that he espoused while he was in power.

The book that you are referring to is supposed to be the actual words of Hitler that he wanted to archive in a way that you mentioned--so that the 1,000 year Reich could reflect on the thoughts of their greatest prince. The emporer's of Rome did the same thing and wrote their thoughts about the world for posterity.

The key to understanding Hitler is moving past the convenience of words and peering into the deeds. Deeds always speak louder than words. If I Hitler says that he supports Christianity in 1937 and then orders the gassing of the Jews in 1942, does he really support Christianity?

SS chief Heinrich Himmler was known to remark that he regretted that Germany had adopted Christianity, rather than "warlike" Islam, as its religion, and there is a disturbing amount of twisted but very real logic in his remark.--Serge Trifkovic.

Hitler hated communism, and yet he embraced some of the key ideological promises that communism used to ensure total state power. Christianity would not function inside a totalitarian nation-state system and allow for the atrocities implemented by the Third Reich to proceed.

Germany had a historical conflict with Christianity when Luther in centuries past had his falling out with Rome. The German people stepped away collectively from the organized religions that gripped Europe and which provided religion a moral influence over other European populations.

Hitler may "say" on one day that he agreed with organized religion and the potential for a God, but on those days he merely stepped from atheism into fractional agnosticism to tell the people what they wanted to hear.

No leader wants to leave for his posterity an imbalance in faith with the potential for the creator. Hitler knew that humans were hard-wired to ask questions about the omnipotent being and it was in his interests to appease the believers as he sought to isolate total control over the European continent and then the entire world.

Hitler saw victory on the horizon and the Table Talks were designed to humanize Hitler and cast myths about him for future generations that would be taught a revisionist history about Hitler once the German Reich consolidated power over the entire world.

Nazi Germany required an atheist approach to all its bureaucratic institutions because only an immoral population could put Jews (the creators of Christianity) into gas chambers and concentration camps as a specifically targeted race. The basic tenets of Christianity forbid such action and Hitler was not oblivious to the fact that the Church would be completely against it. After all, how could Hitler kill the very ancestoral founders of the Christian bible and claim to be a follower of their God?

The Table Talks have to be viewed as the posterity propaganda that they are. They are nothing but propaganda. That said, no one wants to be associated with Hitler at the institutional level and that is why scholars dump Hitler off into the Christianity column, since it is convenient but unprofessional to do so.

Hitler's nation-state system had no room for God. It had none. The German people who followed Hitler were a godless people and that is why their acts were godless. Hitler was a strict follower of Hegelism, and Hegel was himself a strict atheist.

As Germany marched and destroyed western civilization with its perversionist ideology, it is clear that Hitler was not following the tenants of Christianity and was following a godless implementation or reinventing or morality foreign to Christianity.

My opinion would have been proven if Hitler would have run out Jews to burn in incinerators. The next obvious group to go would be the Christians, the cousins of the Jews and another class of citizen and institution that was a direct viable threat to state power.

That is why the Table Talks do not matter because they do not match the deeds of the man. Hitler was a chronic, habitual political liar, first to Britain and France and then to Russia. He was an atheist megalomaniac who would never allow the intervention of an omnipotent belief to hinder his atheist objectives. Hitler despised any competiton of state power as defined by him. Christianity has a natural tendency to interact with government without seeking true power holds in modern nation-states. Christianity's effect is moral influence, the antithesis to everything that Hitler ordered against the races of the earth.

There is no room for non-state sponsored religion in the totalitarian nation-state system. Hitler may have believed in an omnipotent being, but one that had no influence over the affairs of men and one that had no historical grounding in Christianity.

Hitler told European masses that he had personal faith in their customs, but that was just to appease them and join his cause. When the Third Reich was finished with the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims would have been next. I think at times of what form of religion Hitler would have ordered for the global masses had Nazi Germany won the war. The new Nazi religion would certainly have been a form of secular humanism with racial overtones because the deeds would have forced it to evolve from the totalitarian state. Christianity and the other historical religions would have been banned under this new "enlightenment", because Hitler, in his victory, would have swept the memory of the old world away forever. That is the nature of fascism and is fascisms' endgame.

You can see from the quote in red above that the senior Nazi leadership were already contemplating what religious system would be most effective for implementation under the new Nazi state. The only thing that was important to the senior Nazi leadership cells was making the fascist state bureaucracy as efficient as possible. Christianity is not an efficient religion because its efficiency is only powerful in states were freedom of the individual is the instrument of the bureaucracy.

This is why Christianity is under attack in America and the west because as we move closer to totalitarianism ourselves, the destruction of Christianity must be achieved because freedom has no cornerstone in any fascist or totalitarian state. The recent nuturing of Islam is also another sign of the west's propelling into totalitarianism, because Islam (Islam means "surrender" in arabic) is a very effective tool for the fascist bureaucracy. In the fascist bureaucracy, efficiency is the most important objective. In order to exact the greatest efficiency, the populations must be subordinated. Islam (surrender) is perfect state-sponsored subordination in the expansion of the totalitarian state. That is why SS Chief Himmler was attracted to Islam and why the Nazis planned to elimate the Christians as soon as the Jews were finished off.

That is my brief opinion about the Table Talks. Notice that they are approved by Hitler himself. No national leader, no matter how wicked, wants to be remembered in history as the tyrant.

Jedi Knight

Jedi Knight

22nd February 2003, 01:54 PM

1) Hitler lied in Table Talks to form a positive propagandized posterity account for future global populations that the Reich would reign over. The Table Talks were "authored" by Hitler. It is a well-known historical fact that Hitler was a chronic, habitual, political liar.

2) Hitler's "mission from God" was an atheist action to remake the world in the Nazi image, liquidating Christianity and the guardians and architects of Christianity (the church, Jews, etc).

All points are historically accurate and proven by Hitler's deeds.

JK

Jedi Knight

22nd February 2003, 01:56 PM

The German populations had religion stripped from them and morality stripped from them over a period of several centuries. When Hitler seized power he had a loyal mob standing by and that mob was the whole of Germany.

How can people actively and freely pursue religious belief and customs when the very nation-state that they exist in forbids it?

Are Christian bibles allowed in Iran?

If you live inside a totalitarian state void of morality, are you going to say no when you are ordered to be a camp guard? Would a Christian church order you to gas Jews?

JK

Jedi Knight

22nd February 2003, 01:58 PM

the_ignored

22nd February 2003, 03:55 PM

from Jedi Knight:
Hitler's connection with his people was in "identity". I could write volumes about it but I do not have the time nor the interest to do so. Hitler followed Hegel religiously. He also followed Nietzche religiously.If by religiously, you meant "twisting something to an unrecognizable form, then you'd be right. See the Nietzche stuff I've put later.
If you understand Hegel and Nietzche, what those two philosophs are telling us is that "God is dead" and the "state" needs God to a point--once that point is crossed then the state must move on. The only way that it can move on is with fascism and complete state control over all religious belief and institutions.

About Nietzche:
http://www.infidels.org/infidels/feedback/1998/june.html
One point I made in the review was that Nietzsche did not advocate nationalism and anti-Semitism. In fact, Nietzsche was opposed to those views. And Nietzsche was ashamed of his German heritage. So in what sense could Nietzsche be said to be a teacher for Hitler at all?[/quote]

See also http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/doug_krueger/colossal.html
First, atheism is not the result of Nietzsche's views. There were atheists long before, centuries before, the "god is dead" movement (whose proponents are those whom he calls the "morticians of the absolute" (god)). Thus, refuting some of Nietzsche's views, insofar as the view refuted is not the claim that there is no god, is pointless. True, Zacharias scores a lot of emotive points with those who don't know any better than to recognize an ad hominem attack on a straw man, but readers with their wits about them will just roll their eyes

And something even more damning:
He states that Hitler used Nietzsche's philosophy as a "blueprint" for his war, and that he "took Nietzsche's logic and drove the atheistic world view to its legitimate conclusion" (59). This assertion is easily disproven. Zacharias is obviously unaware that Nietzsche had contempt for Germans. Nietzsche preferred to consider himself a European. In The Antichrist, Nietzsche accused the Germans of playing a major role in inhibiting the spread of the beneficial effects of the Renaissance. Nietzsche wrote:

They are my enemies, I confess it, these Germans: I despise in them every kind of conceptual and valuational uncleanliness, of cowardice before every honest Yes and No. For almost a thousand years they have messed up and confused everything they touched with their fingers...[2]

Nietzsche was also quite clear about the fact that he detested anti-Semites. In a letter to a friend he stated jokingly that he was "having all anti-Semites shot" [3]. In The Antichrist Nietzsche states that "an anti-Semite certainly is not any more decent because he lies as a matter of principle" [4]. These and many other vitriolic attacks on Germans, anti-Semitism, nationalism, and other concepts central to the Nazi worldview, as well as occasional praise for Jewish culture and courage, show quite clearly that Nietzsche's true philosophy could not have been responsible for the worldview of Hitler, as Zacharias asserts. These are aspects of Nietzsche's writing that Zacharias would just as soon not mention, or else he is unaware of them.
See his sources:
[2] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Portable Nietzsche, Walter A. Kaufmann, ed. (New York: Penguin Books, 1981), pg. 654. Called "TPN" hereafter.

[3] TPN, pg. 687.

[4] TPN, pg. 641.

[5] Walter A. Kaufmann, Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950).

[6] Ronald Hayman, Nietzsche: A Critical Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980).

from Jedi Knight;
1) Hitler lied in Table Talks to form a positive propagandized posterity account for future global populations that the Reich would reign over. The Table Talks were "authored" by Hitler. It is a well-known historical fact that Hitler was a chronic, habitual, political liar.

2) Hitler's "mission from God" was an atheist action to remake the world in the Nazi image, liquidating Christianity and the guardians and architects of Christianity (the church, Jews, etc).

Then why did you ignore the Hitler quotes where he had said that he was doing all this as "the Lords' work"? You say Hitler said that because he was lying? How do you know? If he was lying, don't you think the Catholic Church would have excommunicated him at some point after he died? They never did. Also, if Hitler was lying when he made all those appeals to christianity, then don't you realize that he needed christian support to go on with what he was doing, not atheist support? You do remember, he once insulted atheists, something that'd be stupid for him to lie about if germany was as "atheistic" as you claim.

from Jedi Knight:
Hitler took the "God is dead" philosophy and the "Superman" theory and dismissed God completely. Bull. He embraced god belief. That let him get away with all what he did. Please remember that christians were killing jews for centuries in europe before atheism ever came in vogue.

from Jedi Knight:
Hitler took the "God is dead" philosophy and the "Superman" theory and dismissed God completely. Why would the fascist state give any authority to God? To give authority to God means that you have to give authority to the clerics of that God. Germany wasn't a monotheistic terror state like Iran. There was not one single religious cleric in power in the German fascist state under Hitler. Not one. If there was one, show me documentation with signatures proving it. Show me one, just one, in all the years of Hitler's reign, where a religious cleric inside the German state issued orders to assist Hitler and was personally assigned by Hitler or the German fascist bureaucracy to fulfill the desires of German fascist efficiency.
How about some entire books on the subject:

Editorial Reviews
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670886939/ref=ase_freethinkers/104-6115268-3931917
Amazon.com
This devastating account of the ecclesiastical career of Eugenio Pacelli (1876-1958), who became Pope Pius XII in 1939, is all the more powerful because British historian John Cornwell maintains throughout a measured though strongly critical tone. After World War II, murmurs of Pacelli's callous indifference to the plight of Europe's Jews began to be heard. A noted commentator on Catholic issues, Cornwell began research for this book believing that "if his full story were told, Pius XII's pontificate would be exonerated." Instead, he emerged from the Vatican archives in a state of "moral shock," concluding that Pacelli displayed anti-Semitic tendencies early on and that his drive to promote papal absolutism inexorably led him to collaboration with fascist leaders. Cornwell convincingly depicts Cardinal Secretary of State Pacelli pursuing Vatican diplomatic goals that crippled Germany's large Catholic political party, which might otherwise have stymied Hitler's worst excesses. The author's condemnation has special force because he portrays the admittedly eccentric Pacelli not as a monster but as a symptom of a historic wrong turn in the Catholic Church. He meticulously builds his case for the painful conclusion that "Pacelli's failure to respond to the enormity of the Holocaust was more than a personal failure, it was a failure of the papal office itself and the prevailing culture of Catholicism."

from: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375406239/ref=pd_sim_books_1/104-6115268-3931917?v=glance&s=books
Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
The Vatican's 1998 report "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah" purportedly exonerated the Church of complicity in the Holocaust. In The Popes Against the Jews, David I. Kertzer argues that the report is "not the product of a Church that wants to confront its history." Kertzer's book refutes the Church's thesis that the Holocaust grew out of "an anti-Judaism that was essentially more sociological and political than religious." In fact, Kertzer asserts, those dimensions of European anti-Semitism developed "in no small part due to the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church itself." The racial laws of fascist Italy and the Nuremberg Laws of 1930s Germany, for example, were directly modeled on the Church's own rules governing treatment of Jews: until the collapse of the Papal States in the late 19th century, Jews living in these territories were forced to wear yellow badges and live in ghettos. Kertzer's arguments make for compelling reading because they're presented in story form, based on the actions of the popes themselves. Access to long-sealed Church archives allowed Kertzer to reconstruct some of the most shocking, secret conversations that occurred in the Vatican in the decades leading up to World War II

for some pictures:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's hoping that the laws of physics will allow you to read and research this stuff!

the_ignored

22nd February 2003, 03:59 PM

Here's something. Why don't you go to the "jews for judaism" site and see what they blame for antisemitism?

Here's a link to help you get started:
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/j4j-2000/html/reflib/knowbase.html
Look under the section entititled "New Testament Anti-Semitism"

Jedi Knight

22nd February 2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by the_ignored
Here's something. Why don't you go to the "jews for judaism" site and see what they blame for antisemitism?

Here's a link to help you get started:
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/j4j-2000/html/reflib/knowbase.html
Look under the section entititled "New Testament Anti-Semitism"

Look, it is clear that you are going to keep posting pseudo-history links that are really pointless.

The moral to this story is that a nation-state must have religious authority competing with traditional government institutions, especially at the local population level. People have a tendency to not disappear in mass when religious authority at the local level is present and empowered. The populations will begin to wonder why large segments of their neighbors are hauled away on trains to concentration camps, never to be seen again. Religion is a buffer, a political buffer that can deflect call to action perversions by madmen.

What that means is when the President of the United States says it is cool to believe in God, that means we are not a fascist atheist nation-state. Since we are not a fascist atheist nation-state, that also means we will not be constructing ovens and keying in on certain populations to gas in them.

Religion has an important purpose in civilization. Nietzche and Hegel spawned ideas that hinted to the removal of God at the state level, but history has proven that is a perversion not to be tolerated.

JK

CWL

23rd February 2003, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

I have provided reams of evidence. Start at the first page of this thread and start reading.

JK

No you have not. Your contention solely seems to rest upon this assumption:

Atheist nation-states do evil things
Hitler did evil things
Therefore Hitler was an atheist

If there are "reams of evidence" for anything it is that the above syllogism is not sufficient evidence that Hitler was an atheist.

Again, the fact that the KKK is firmly rooted in Christian beliefs (inter alia) blows a big hole in your contention. Further, what do you mean by "atheist state"? Isn't the US an "atheist state" in the sense that it has no official religion - no official State Church?

The only "theist nation-states" (which to me implies theocracy) I know of are states like Russia under the Czars, Afghanistan under the Taliban, or present day Iran. Are you seriously contending that such states do not do evil things?

Or are you about to claim that these states in reality are "atheist nation-states"... :rolleyes: Honestly JK, you cannot go around calling anything that you are opposed to "atheism". If you want to have a meaningful communication with other human beings you really should consider using commonly accepted definitions.

Just my 0,2 SEK.

But maybe you do have other (tangible) evidence? In such case it is time to provide references and sources. You can start by backing up your contentions regarding Nietzsche and Hegel. Titles, years of publications and page references to passages which support your contentions would be greatly appreciated.

the_ignored

23rd February 2003, 12:16 PM

Look, it is clear that you are going to keep posting pseudo-history links that are really pointless.
Look who's talking. You do nothing but make assertions, using at most something (Table Talk) that has been shown to be corrupted. I on the other hand give references to books, sites, even listing Nuremberg, and in order to dismiss them all, you call them "pseudo-history" sites.

Guess what? I'm tempted to send that little comment of yours to the jews for judaism bb. I'm sure they'd love the irony of someone calling their site a "pseudo-history" site, and then see that you blame atheism for anti-semitism, when you yourself are insulting a site set up by a group of judaic scholars!

Have you not given any thought at all that just maybe the jewish people would have a better idea of who persecuted them in the past than you would?

So, if what I send are "pseudo-history" sites, then what is your definition of a "historical" site, please?

The moral to this story is that a nation-state must have religious authority competing with traditional government institutions, especially at the local population level. People have a tendency to not disappear in mass when religious authority at the local level is present and empowered.

Wrong. There were a lot of people who disappeared in christian-ruled Europe. You just choose to ignore most of history.

The populations will begin to wonder why large segments of their neighbors are hauled away on trains to concentration camps, never to be seen again. Religion is a buffer, a political buffer that can deflect call to action perversions by madmen.
Once again, you disregard history. Did you notice that Williamson, etc. (mentioned in my previous posts) were themselves christians who admitted that the church established the basis of anti-semitism in Europe?

What that means is when the President of the United States says it is cool to believe in God, that means we are not a fascist atheist nation-state. Since we are not a fascist atheist nation-state, that also means we will not be constructing ovens and keying in on certain populations to gas in them.
As opposed to being a christian-ruled state where people were burned alive, instead of gassing them first. Gee, what a good thing. <--see Dagobert Runes' books: "The Jew and the Cross" and "The War Against the Jew" by Philosophical Library, New York.

Everything Hitler did to the Jews, all the horrible, unspeakable misdeeds, had already been done to the smitten people before by the Christian churches....The isolation of Jews into ghetto camps, the wearing of the yellow spot, the burning of Jewish books, and finally the burning of the people-Htiler learned it all from the church. However, the church burned Jewish women and children alive, while Hitler granted them a quicker death, choking them first with gas.
If anyone should know who to blame for this, it'd be him; his mother was killed by the nazis. I think he'd do his research carefully to make sure he had pinned the right people.

How about a confession from a Pope, Pope John XXIII:
The mark of Cain is stamped upon our foreheads. Across the centuries, our brother Abel has lain in blood which we drew, and shed tears we caused by forgetting Thy love. Forgive us, Lord, for the curse we falsely attributed to their name as Jews.

Again, why don't you list some "true" historical sources, then? If books and websites by Jewish and Christian people don't count, (these people aren't atheist, you know!) then who does count? Just those who happen to agree with what you've already made up your mind to be true?

I've given you historical precedents, admissions by nazis themselves, (including Hitler and Striecher), given resources by the people who were the victims of this supposed "atheist plot", and even confessions from christians who have acknowledged the complicity of their philosophy in this. What do you have to offer to support your views?

Nova Land

23rd February 2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

What that means is when the President of the United States says it is cool to believe in God, that means we are not a fascist atheist nation-state.
You still have not clearly explained what you mean by an atheist nation-state, but at least here you seem to be providing one criterion by which we can determine if a nation-state is atheist or not: if the leader professes belief in God, the nation-state is not atheist.

By this standard, Nazi Germany was not an atheist nation-state.

Nova Land

23rd February 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
There was not one single religious cleric in power in the German fascist state under Hitler. Not one. If there was one, show me documentation with signatures proving it. Show me one, just one, in all the years of Hitler's reign, where a religious cleric inside the German state issued orders to assist Hitler and was personally assigned by Hitler or the German fascist bureaucracy to fulfill the desires of German fascist efficiency.
It sounds like you see some significance in the absence of religious clerics in a government.

Hitler's Germany did not have religious clerics in power. The same can also be said of Bush's USA.

Bush. like Hitler, likes to publicly proclaim a belief in God and to claim that the actions of the nations are in line with God's purposes.

It would therefore seem the USA could also be considered an atheist nation-state by your definition. And yet you seem to consider the USA to be not-an-atheist-nation. Why?

Could you provide a list of nation-states that you consider to be atheist and ones you consider to be non-atheist, and explain the criteria you use in making those determinations? That would help others to understand what you are talking about and might make your divisions seem less arbitrary.

Aardvark_DK

23rd February 2003, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Nova Land
and explain the criteria you used in making those determinations?
It is really very simple, Nova:

Nazi-Germany did evil things, therefore it was an atheist state.

USA doesn't do evil things, therefore it is a Christian state.

The Papacy used to do evil things, therefore the Papacy has at some point been atheist. You'd have to ask JK what it is now.

France disagrees with the USA about a number of things, therefore France is an atheist-communist- feminazi dictatorship.

Anything else you need to have explained?

edit: Only the actions of a state can tell you whether it is atheist or Christian (there are no other kinds), unless JK says otherwise. Nova, you really have to stop questioning JK and his assertions and simply realise that he is always right. Everything becomes much simpler then. A bit like Invasion of the Body Snatchers...

Nova Land

23rd February 2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

USA doesn't do evil things, therefore it is a Christian state.But that would mean the USA was an atheist state from it's founding until the end of slavery, and that the southern states remained atheistic until the mid-20th century.

Did the USA return to atheism during WW II, when US citizens were rounded up and "interned"? And then, after the USA dropped atomic bombs on Japanese cities, something happened to turn the USA away from atheism?

If the USA is atheistic, why did it insert the words "under God" in the pledge and put the slogan "In God We Trust" on money? But if the USA is not atheistic, why are there not religious clerics in the government?

Your explanation sounds simple, but I still don't follow.

Aardvark_DK

23rd February 2003, 01:40 PM

Hey, man, I only work here. Ask JK.

Nova Land

23rd February 2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Why push a total agenda of the "Superman" (master race) if there was a God watching you? The "Superman" theory came from Nietzche and when that theory gripped Germany, the German people believed that they were Gods. That is an atheist religious-science trait.
This sounds similar to the philosophy of "Manifest Destiny" that many in the USA subscribed to in the 19th century to justify the expansion of the United States across the North American continent.

The idea of that was that the European colonists were a chosen race, superior to other races, and that it was the will of Providence for this race to expand westward. This justified relocating various tribes onto "reservations", often accompanied by great loss of life.

This would seem to support the idea that the US, like Nazi Germany, was and is an atheist nation by the definition Jedi is using. What I am unclear about is which, if any, nation-states would not qualify as atheist.

Nova Land

23rd February 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

People have a tendency to not disappear in mass when religious authority at the local level is present and empowered... Religion is a buffer, a political buffer that can deflect call to action perversions by madmen.
So we can add Greece under the junta, Chile under Pinochet, various other Latin American countries where people "disappeared", Uganda and Rwanda to the list of atheist nation-states.

The USA gave support to Greece, helped bring Pinochet to power, and helped train many of those involved in Latin American atrocities. This would lend support to the idea of the USA as an atheist nation (and Kissinger, Nixon, Reagan and Bush as atheists).

It's an interesting definition of atheist. One large drawback is that it dramatically increases the number of atheists in the world, and many of those who would qualify as atheists under this definition claim to be something else. There is a certain amount of appeal to classifying Kissinger and Reagan as atheists, but I'm not sure it's worth the confusion this would entail.

Jedi Knight

23rd February 2003, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by the_ignored

Look who's talking. You do nothing but make assertions, using at most something (Table Talk) that has been shown to be corrupted. I on the other hand give references to books, sites, even listing Nuremberg, and in order to dismiss them all, you call them "pseudo-history" sites.

Guess what? I'm tempted to send that little comment of yours to the jews for judaism bb. I'm sure they'd love the irony of someone calling their site a "pseudo-history" site, and then see that you blame atheism for anti-semitism, when you yourself are insulting a site set up by a group of judaic scholars!

Have you not given any thought at all that just maybe the jewish people would have a better idea of who persecuted them in the past than you would?

So, if what I send are "pseudo-history" sites, then what is your definition of a "historical" site, please?

Wrong. There were a lot of people who disappeared in christian-ruled Europe. You just choose to ignore most of history.

Once again, you disregard history. Did you notice that Williamson, etc. (mentioned in my previous posts) were themselves christians who admitted that the church established the basis of anti-semitism in Europe?

As opposed to being a christian-ruled state where people were burned alive, instead of gassing them first. Gee, what a good thing. <--see Dagobert Runes' books: "The Jew and the Cross" and "The War Against the Jew" by Philosophical Library, New York.

If anyone should know who to blame for this, it'd be him; his mother was killed by the nazis. I think he'd do his research carefully to make sure he had pinned the right people.

How about a confession from a Pope, Pope John XXIII:

Again, why don't you list some "true" historical sources, then? If books and websites by Jewish and Christian people don't count, (these people aren't atheist, you know!) then who does count? Just those who happen to agree with what you've already made up your mind to be true?

I've given you historical precedents, admissions by nazis themselves, (including Hitler and Striecher), given resources by the people who were the victims of this supposed "atheist plot", and even confessions from christians who have acknowledged the complicity of their philosophy in this. What do you have to offer to support your views?

I provided the facts in my previous posts. All that you have done is form a self-opinion and link a few other opinions to it to make you feel better about it.

If Hitler was acting for the Christian God, he would have talked about that regularly. He would have made an alliance with Rome and an alliance with England so he could pull the Roman Catholics and the Protestants into the fold. A self-appointed Christian "leader" bent on global conquest would have done that.

But no, instead he dropped U2's and incendiary ammunition on English cities, burning them to the ground. He made Rome sign a surrender treaty. He was not gravitating to the inclusion of religious authority because the German state walked away from religion when it became an atheist totalitarian state.

What you are basically saying, as other here have done so in this thread, is that we are supposed to take Hitler's word for it as a politician when he says he is on "God's mission". Is that the first time in history we are supposed to believe what a politician says, or does that standard just apply to Hitler because it is important for everyone to toss him into a Christian pile? (a historical unreality).

Germany abandoned Roman Christianity with Luther, centuries before Hitler was born. What developed from Luther's return from Rome was the removal of religion and religious morality from German populations. When religious morality is removed from internal populations of the nation-state, it becomes much easier to gain the compliance of the populations when the screaming starts. The gas chambers run much more efficiently when atheists are at the controls, because there are no "souls" to be concerned about, is there?

If Germans believed in Christ, why did they scream for Hitler to be their new prince?

These are the flaws in your argument and the argument of those who wanted to lay blame on Christianity instead of Hitler. If Hitler was a Christian, why didn't he get England, the United States and other countries to join him in his crusade? Why? I will tell you why. It is because Hitler wasn't a Christian--he was an atheist, and that is why no other country sided with his perversion, especially the Christian countries of England and America.

Lastly, if Hitler was a Christian, who was his Christian minister or priest, and what Christian church did Hitler attend regularly from 1936 - 1945? Go ahead and search through your millions of links for the answer to that question.

JK

fidiot

23rd February 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Lastly, if Hitler was a Christian, who was his Christian minister or priest, and what Christian church did Hitler attend regularly from 1936 - 1945? Go ahead and search through your millions of links for the answer to that question.

I know many people who don't go to church regularly and still consider themselves christian, so this doesn't prove/disprove anything.

the_ignored

23rd February 2003, 06:59 PM

I provided the facts in my previous posts. All that you have done is form a self-opinion and link a few other opinions to it to make you feel better about it.Bull. I've given quotes, I've given historical precedents, as well as admissions from both christians and nazis as to what laid the groundwork for antisemitism in Europe. Those "opinions" are not mine, but rather those who have either lived or researched this stuff. It also is public information really, all you have to do is open your eyes.

The only one who's made assertions with nothing to back them up has been you. Where in hell is the evidence that Nazi germany was an atheist state, please?

from JK:
Again, whose God? Not the Christian God. Muslims in Iran chant that "God is Great" (Allah Ahkabar), but is that the Christian God? You could put "God is great" on your belt-buckles and your God could be Satan. Everyone speaks of God and thinks of God, but what God? Using the author's logic, Hitler could have ordered the "God is with us" on beltbuckles while secretly worshipping himself. That is what atheists do. It isn't a problem I guess until that atheist seizes power at the nation-state level and then begins to genocide other people, because genocide is a godless act.Even if Hitler did think that, what did the ordinary soldier think "God with us" meant? Also, you ignore both OT history (Isrealites slaughter of other tribes on "god's orders") and european history with the christian inquisitions, jew killings, crusades, witch-killings, etc.

from JK's response to person below:
None of them knew that he made Christian school prayer mandatory for the 1930's German schoolchildren who grew up to be his dreaded SS, or that he publicly espoused "family values", which in his mind meant the condemnation of sexual "perversions" rather than the promotion of healthy marriages and parenting methods (rather reminiscent of the right-wing fundamentalist position today).

The author forgets that Germany was being starved in the 1920's and 1930's by the international community and I can imagine that through all that starvation that the German people called out to God to help them. People do those things when they are starving. Starving people become religious people because they pray for food and relief.

The unfortunate part that the author failed to mention (yet again and in too many numerous ways to cover here) is the fact that while the German people were calling for God because they were being starved to death, God did not come to them. So they began to search for another God, another prince. They found that prince (God) in Hitler and the German people embraced their new prince because he declared himself, through the Nazi establishment, as the "new God". This falls directly in line with the fascist state evolvement from allowing religion to dismissing religion as an unnecessary distraction and unworthy of any form of political power. In the atheist state there is no room for competing religions.You've ignored the fact that Hitler ordered the christian prayer taught in schools, and never once did hitler say (in public or private conversations that christ let him down!)

from JK:
But no, instead he dropped U2's and incendiary ammunition on English cities, burning them to the ground. He made Rome sign a surrender treaty. He was not gravitating to the inclusion of religious authority because the German state walked away from religion when it became an atheist totalitarian state.
Well, if the two quotes of yours above are true, then explain this:
Protestantism constituted the major religion in Germany during the early1930s. Until Hitler attempted to establish a German Reich Church, there existed no such thing as an official German Protestant Church. The Nazi party made a call for all German Protestants to unite in the hour of national need [Holt, p.168-9][/b]. The Christian Evangelical Church would receive the dignity due it within a National Socialist State (Nazism) based on positive Christianity ("Positive Christianity" was stated in point twenty-four of the Nazi Programme, their version of a constitution), and whom Martin Luther served as their spiritual patron.
Well, where's the "atheist totalinarianism" here?

from JK:
What is the right-wing? What is it? Who are its members? What are their names? What positions of power do they hold? What country are they in? I keep hearing about vast, vast, super vast, endless, without end, completely infinite "right-wing conspiracies" but I have yet to identify one member. Maybe someone on this forum can explain to me what the "mystical" right-wing is. Maybe JREF should toss in a $1,000,000 prize onto it because I really don't think such a thing exists. Try the United States, with the Christian Coalition or Council for National Policy!

from JK's response to person below:
[b]None of them knew that Hitler closely followed the anti-Semitic teachings of none other than Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism, but this isn't surprising since they didn't know about Martin Luther's extreme anti-Semitism either, even though he wrote a book titled "On Jews and their Lies".

[quote]Do you love your father? Do you love your mother?

Prove it.

This is why atheism is a religion. The atheist says that there is no God but can't provide proof. Neither can other religions. That means I have to take faith in your declaration. Just as I would have to take your answer in faith that you love your mother and father. You won't be able to prove it to me. You will have to provide me information and I have two choices and those choices are based solely on faith.Actions can prove whether one loves their parents. Easy. All the atheist has to do is to point out biblical contradictions and mistakes in the bible; the christian has already ruled out every other religion; once the atheist disproves that last religion, atheism is what's left.

Would Christians put the founders of their religion in ovens and try to genocide them? Why would they do that knowing it would destroy their church? It makes no sense.So, they did it for centuries anyway. The witch hunts that they had made no sense either, but that didn't stop them.
Admittedly it was a twisted form of christianity, but it was not atheism, as Martin Luther was himself a christian.

from JK:
Hitler was the godless man. He was godless because of the godless acts he embraced. Hitler and his leadership cells dismissed religious institutions because they propelled civilization backwards in the view of the efficient fascist nation-state. There is no room for God in the totalitarian state.
Wrong. Explain these:
1). It's well known that Hitler allowed the destruction of Jewish synagogues and Temples. But if for one moment you still harbor the thought that Hitler was against Christianity, then ask yourself why he never ordered the destruction of Catholic or Protestant churches? Why did he not prevent his Nazis from worshiping in Christian churches, but instead encouraged it? And why did he spend so much time in trying to strengthen and unite the religion into one Christian Reich Church?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitlerchristian.htm
(and again, check this guy's sources)

2).Protestantism constituted the major religion in Germany during the early1930s. Until Hitler attempted to establish a German Reich Church, there existed no such thing as an official German Protestant Church. The Nazi party made a call for all German Protestants to unite in the hour of national need [Holt, p.168-9]. The Christian Evangelical Church would receive the dignity due it within a National Socialist State (Nazism) based on positive Christianity ("Positive Christianity" was stated in point twenty-four of the Nazi Programme, their version of a constitution), and whom Martin Luther served as their spiritual patron.

Most German Protestants followed Luther (who they knew hated Jews) and believed in the sanctity of the secular authority and the supremacy of the authority over all religious organizations. To Luther, the head of the temporal state should also be head of "the church visible." [McGovern, p.650] On May 14, 1933, Ludwig Muller, a prominent member in the ranks of the German Christian Movement became the principle Bishop of the Evangelical German Reich Church.

Of course the thought of a state controlled national church could mean loss of control by the pastors of the Church. Naturally many pastors became concerned; some protested quietly to themselves and others, openly, by forming the Confessing Church. Nevertheless, most pastors allied themselves with the Nazi party and their anti-Semitic views got published in the Protestant press even before Hitler's election into power. The Protestant press influenced millions of its readers with the most prominent being the Sonntagsblatter, and the weekly Sunday newspapers. These weekly papers dwelled on religious piety and preached how they thought of Jews as "the natural enemies of the Christian-national tradition." [Goldhagen, 1996] As far as anyone knows, there had never occurred any visible or vocal church protest against the anti-Semitism of the Nazi party before it came into power. Considering that the majority of Germans at that time held anti-Semitic feelings (no doubt due mainly to religious preachings and propaganda), this should not surprise anyone. As many have pointed out, the religious rhetoric influenced Hitler during his youth.
--

--McGovern, William Montgomery, From Luther to Hitler: The History of Fascist-Nazi Political Philosophy, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1941

from JK:
This is why American Christians are under attack. As America becomes more of a matriarchal totalitarian state, religion will most certainly be under attack. A dangerous time, indeed.Uh huh. Then all those popes in the past, and Martin Luther who wrote "On the Jews and Their Lies" were all godless? And where in hell did you get the idea that america is becoming "matriarchal"?!? Once shred of evidence, please!

from JK:

Really? That is some claim. Show me one documented moment in history where Hitler even claimed to be a follower of Lutherism. If Hitler followed anything he would have talked about it. Show me one documented page where Hitler praises Luther.

"To them belong, not only the truly great statesmen, but all other great reformers as well. Beside Frederick the Great stands Martin Luther as well as Richard Wagner."

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)http://www.stormfront.org/books/mein_kampf/mkv1ch08.html

Odd, when I give you other Hitler quotes, that go against your views, you just dismiss them, saying that he was lying. Why do all of a sudden, his words become good now?

Hitler himself wasn't a "follower" but others like Julius Streicher were, and admitted in in Nuremberg. (see a previous post).

What you are basically saying, as other here have done so in this thread, is that we are supposed to take Hitler's word for it as a politician when he says he is on "God's mission". Is that the first time in history we are supposed to believe what a politician says, or does that standard just apply to Hitler because it is important for everyone to toss him into a Christian pile? (a historical unreality).Hitler was a catholic christian, not a protestant. Those two haven't gotten along very well, you know.

And again, you don't seem to catch something. Even if Hitler was lying about being a christian, why would he suck up to christians so much while he was ranting about the jews in his "Mein Kampf" book? If christians were so "againt nazism" as you put it, you'd have thought that hitler would avoid being anti-semitic when he was courting christians. Also, if you'd bother to check any of the sources I gave, you'd find that they admit that christianity was partly responsible. NOTE: those were christian and jewish sources, not atheist books I listed!

BTW, here's some evidence that Hitler was not lying, as someone saw his private notes:

Just as revealingly, not only did Hitler present his religious beliefs in his speeches, but his own private notes reveal how he was influenced by the Bible before he came into power. In one of his notes, he describes the Bible as the monumental history of mankind and used the old testament race laws as the foundation for his views against the Jews, which later turned into the Nazi Nuremberg race laws [Maser, p.282]

One point made by Christians aims to destroy Hitler's acclaimed Christianity by pointing out that his actions where not Christian-like. Therefore, so the hypothesis goes, he could not have been a "true" Christian because he caused "evil" deeds. But again, the Bible does not define Christianity in terms of deeds. Yet it was through his very deeds that he confessed his work for the Lord:

"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."

-Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Hitler's work of the Lord only agrees with Biblical scripture:

And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

-Colossians 3:17

Hitler not only believed in Jesus (which alone would make him a Chrisitan) but his work against the Jews came straight from Christian reasoning just as had many Christian saints of the past.

In another point, Christians show that Hitler imprisoned priests and nuns, some of them dying in concentration camps; therefore he must be anti-Christian, so the reasoning goes. But the Nazis imprisoned people of many faiths, including a few Nazis who stood in his way. But, these people were condemned for their political views against the government, not for their religious beliefs.

Although Hitler may have been deluded and blinded by belief, he was brutally honest in his fanaticism and beliefs. Nowhere do we find him denouncing Jesus; nothing in the record shows him expressing hatred toward Christians for their beliefs; not at anytime does he destroy Christian churches or attempt to eliminate the Christian religion. Although he had political problems with the hierarchy of the churches, he spent inordinate amount of time attempting to unite the Churches into one German Reich Church and spoke for establishing what he called real Christianity. His reach for uniting Christianity brought conflict within the denominations and created political divisions. It came from this that Hitler sometimes spoke against Christianity as a power structure, but never against Christianity as a belief system.

Maser, Werner, (translated by Arnold Pomerans) "Hitler's Letters and Notes," Harper & Row, 1974

the_ignored

23rd February 2003, 07:02 PM

from JK:
If Germans believed in Christ, why did they scream for Hitler to be their new prince?They thought that hitler was "doing god's work" and was sent by god.

To reprhrase your question: Why to Americans, if they believe in Christ, want George Bush to be their leader?

BTW, one doesn't have to go to church to be a christian. All it takes is to believe in christ.

Jedi Knight

23rd February 2003, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by the_ignored
from JK:
They thought that hitler was "doing god's work" and was sent by god.

To reprhrase your question: Why to Americans, if they believe in Christ, want George Bush to be their leader?

BTW, one doesn't have to go to church to be a christian. All it takes is to believe in christ.

That is nonsense. If Hitler believed in "Christ", there would have been thousands of priests trampling behind him. The "priests" were "outside" Germany assisting the resistance or acting as Chaplins in the US military as they were gunning down the Nazis.

Claims of Hitler being a Christian is laughable. Oh yes, Hitler believed he was doing "God's" work. Hitler thought he was the God. (atheism)

JK

the_ignored

23rd February 2003, 08:31 PM

from JK:
That is nonsense. If Hitler believed in "Christ", there would have been thousands of priests trampling behind him. The "priests" were "outside" Germany assisting the resistance or acting as Chaplins in the US military as they were gunning down the Nazis.

Claims of Hitler being a Christian is laughable. Oh yes, Hitler believed he was doing "God's" work. Hitler thought he was the God. (atheism)

Wrong. See the stuff I posted, and their sources. Hitler was a distorted, but bible-beliving christian. He quoted it, he used it.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
Tough. If you say Hitler was an atheist, then give me just one quote from Hitler that he "worshipped himself". As for the priests, there were thousands of priests following him:
The Confessing Church

Inevitably, whenever one questions the role of Christianity during WWII, Christians will quickly respond by providing examples of heroic Catholics or Protestants who saved lives, protested against Nazism, or had given their lives by dying in concentration camps. What appears most puzzling by these defenses comes from their complete lack of perspective of the history of their own faith-system. Of course there lived a few brave Christian men and women who opposed Nazism and performed courageous deeds. But the key word here, "few," can hardly absolve the whole. One can say the same of the few heroic Nazis who protested against the atrocities committed by their own government. But can we prop up these few as a banner, while ignoring the majority of those who committed crimes to justify a belief-system regardless if it comes from a political ideology or a religion? If this served the case, then we could mine any intolerant system for its "few" noble members as justification for the system by calling it the True system, as do Christians who love to use the term True Christianity as if this had any definable meaning. Any honest reader should recognize that if this ploy cannot work for support of Nazism, Communism, Islam, (or any religion not your own) or any ideological belief-system, then neither can it work for Christianity.

As for the Church's supposed role against Nazism, when the focus gets narrowed as to just what Church opposed Hitler, sadly, one can only point to a single minor opposing Church body: the Confessing Church. Although one should always fairly honor any heroic struggle against oppression of human freedom, the ethical dilemma faced by the Confessing Church did not exactly meet the demands for opposing anti-Semitism.

Hitler wanted to combine all the regional Protestant churches into a single and united Reich Church. Of course this meant government control of the Church and a minority of Lutheran Pastors foresaw the dangers. In 1933, a few Protestant Pastors, namely Martin Niemöller, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth and others formed the "Pastors Emergency League" which later became known as "The Confessing Church" to oppose the state controlled Nazi Church.

So it wasn't over anti-semitism that the schism happened, it was a question of control (see below) Hell, even Bonhoeffer once said that the jews were being punished by god through the actions of germany!

It bears some importance to understand that Germany did not recognize the Confessing Church as an official Church. Not only the Nazis, but all other Protestant Churches condemned the Confessing Church. They thought of it as a minority opposition that held little power. The vast majority of German churches supported Hitler and his policies against the Jews. Moreover, they advocated composing an "Aryan Paragraph" in church synods that would prevent non-aryans from joining the Church, which of course included Jews.

In spite of the myth that has developed that the Confessing Church opposed Hitler for anti-Semitic reasons, the main reason for the opposition actually aimed to protect the power of Pastors to determine who should preach and who they can preach to. The Barmen Declaration of Faith (by Karl Barth, et al) became the principle statement of The Confessing Church. Not a single sentence in it opposes anti-Semitism. According to Professor John S. Conway: "The Confessing Church did not seek to espouse the cause of the Jews as a whole, nor to criticize the secular legislation directed against the German Jews and the Nazi racial philosophy."[/quote]

Or this: Karl Barth, considered a great theologian, and an opponent of the Nazis, and to his credit, did oppose the persecution of Jews, had nevertheless, made us quite clear of his own anti-Semitism. In his Advent sermon of 1933, he denounced the Jews, Luther style, as "an obstinate and evil people." In a July 1944 Lecture in Zurich, Barth said, "We do not like the Jews as a rule, it is therefore not easy for us to apply to them as well the general love for humankind..."

Even after the war, members of the Confessing Church admitted their guilt. For example, Gerhard Kittle, a world-renowned scholar of the New Testament confessed his political guilt as he insisted that a "Christian anti-Judaism" which he found in the New Testament and in the tradition of the Christian church determined his attitude toward the Jewish question during the Third Reich.[Wollenberg, p. 76] On March 1946, in a lecture in Zurich, Martin Niemöller declared: "Christianity in Germany bears a greater responsibility before God than the National Socialists, the SS and the Gestapo." [Goldhagen, p.114]
http://www.nobeliefs.com/ChurchesWWII.htm#anchor3

Again, other than just making it up, I'm still waiting for any evidence from you that Hitler was an atheist. I've provided a lot of evidence to back me up, now it's your turn.

The Fool

23rd February 2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

The "priests" were "outside" Germany assisting the resistance or acting as Chaplins in the US military as they were gunning down the Nazis.

JK
oops. Here's a couple that don't appear to be "working with the resistance".

Jedi Knight

23rd February 2003, 09:54 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

oops. Here's a couple that don't appear to be "working with the resistance".

Those were impotent German slaves forced to interact with the German atheist state.

JK

Jedi Knight

23rd February 2003, 09:56 PM

Hitler was as much a Christian as Stalin was a Capitalist.

JK

CWL

24th February 2003, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Hitler was as much a Christian as Stalin was a Capitalist.

JK

Not true. Stalin obviously did not consider himself a capitalist, wheras there is evidence that Hitler may very well have considered himself a Christian. Whether or not it is correct to categorize him as a Christian from an objective point of view is a completely different debate. This is about whether or not he was an atheist - whether or not he believed in a "god" in the sense of a supreme omnipotent being.

Anyway you slice it you have provided no evidence whatsoever (besides one poorly constructed syllogism) for Hitler being an atheist whereas "reams of evidence" have been provided for Hitler being - if not a Christian - an outspoken theist (who expressly opposed atheism).

I conclude that you are fitting facts to the theory.

CWL

24th February 2003, 02:31 AM

For anyone participating in this thread I suggest visiting the German Propaganda Archive (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/) by Calvin College (http://www.calvin.edu/), where you will find an interesting collection of Nazi Propaganda from 1933 - 1945 (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm#Speech). This is a must read in the context.

It is IMO striking how much of the propaganda that is religiously tainted and how often it is insinuated that the German people have been chosen by "God" or by "Fate". I would urge you to read on and decide for yourself, but here are just a few quotes from a speech Hitler held in 1937 (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/hitler1.htm) (highlights are mine):

This is probably the first time and this is the first country in which people are being taught to realize that, of all the tasks which we have to face, the noblest and most sacred for mankind is that each racial species must preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it.

And thus it happens that for the first time it is now possible for men to use their God-given faculties of perception and insight in the understanding of those problems which are of more momentous importance for the preservation of human existence than all the victories that may be won on the battlefield or the successes that may be obtained through economic efforts. The greatest revolution which National Socialism has brought about is that it has rent asunder the veil which hid from us the knowledge that all human failures and mistakes are due to the conditions of the time and therefore can be remedied, but that there is one error which cannot be remedied once men have made it, namely the failure to recognize the importance of conserving the blood and the race free from intermixture and thereby the racial aspect and character which are God's gift and God's handiwork. It is not for men to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognise the fact that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation.

I think the above spells out how Hitler himself managed to maintain a belief in God and a hatred of the Jews at the same time.

Further, when Hitler speaks of his domestic policy plans he says the following:

May the Almighty God grant us a time of peace in which to bring this gigantic work to completion. Parallel therewith, the Capital of the Movement (Munich), the Party Metropolis (Nuremberg), and the Free City of Hamburg will be remodelled and extended on large lines.

Here, Hitler expresses gratitute to "our Almighty God":

As I look back on the great work that has been done during the past four years you will understand quite well that my first feeling is simply one of thankfulness to our Almighty God for having allowed me to bring this work to success. He has blessed our labours and has enabled our people to come through all the obstacles which encompassed them on their way.

The following quote may provide some insight in how Hitler looked upon his mission:
I have had three extraordinary friends in my life. In my youth it was Poverty, which was my companion for many years. When the Great War came to a close it was the profound anguish that I felt over the downfall of our people. This anguish seized me and determined the path I had to follow. Since January 30th. four years ago I have made the acquaintance of the third friend—anxiety for the people and the Reich, which have been entrusted to my guidance. From that time this anxiety has never left my side and will probably remain a faithful companion until the end of my days. But how could a man bear the burden of this anxiety were it not for the faith he has in his mission and which enables him to trust that He who is above us all sanctions my work. Destiny has often decreed that men who have a special mission to fulfil must be lonely and deserted. But here I wish to return thanks to Providence for having given me a group of faithful comrades who linked their lives with mine and have ever since fought at my side for the resurrection of our people. It is a great happiness for me that I did not have to walk among the German people as a man alone, but that at my side there was always a group of men whose names will endure in the history of Germany.

The expression "He who is above us all" is interesting, as it clearly indicates that Hitler did believe himself to be subordinated to God.

Nova Land

24th February 2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by CWL
For anyone participating in this thread I suggest visiting the German Propaganda Archive (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/) by Calvin College (http://www.calvin.edu/), where you will find an interesting collection of Nazi Propaganda from 1933 - 1945 (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm#Speech). This is a must read in the context.
Many thanks! This looks like an excellent resource. I glanced at the "Nazis vs Superman" item just now, and plan to read through more of this site late tonight if I can stay up late enough.

CWL

25th February 2003, 02:22 AM

In the light of Headscrather4's hypothesis (that the Nazi doctrines on the Jews were a logical outflow from European Christian tradition, rather than being attributable to "atheism") this (which was originally posted by Yahzi in this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14630) is also interesting reading: Martin Luther on the Jews and Their Lies (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/1543-Luther-JewsandLies-full.html).

CWL

25th February 2003, 06:31 AM

Also consider this editorial from 1943 in the anti-semitic Nazi weekly Der Stürmer entitled The Holy Hate (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ds3.htm).

In the editorial it is claimed that the Jews have a strong traditional hatred against Gentiles (i.e. Christians) and that it is time for them for the Gentiles to strike back.

I quote (my highlights):

One is overcome with horror upon reading the history of the Jews, as for example in an unabbreviated and unfalsified version of the Old Testament. One feels horror at the unique depravity of the Jews, at the crimes they have committed, at the devilish hate they have from the beginning directed against all those who did not want to bow to the yoke of Pan-Jewry! This horror becomes terror when one reads the rabbinical writings and reads such outbursts of Jewish rage as one finds in the Talmud Schulchan-Aruch. There it is written:

From Mt. Sinai:

What does Sinai mean? Sinai is the mountain on which Moses received the Jewish laws from the God Jahwe. From this mountain, the hatred of the Jews against all other peoples of the world has spread. (Schabbath, 89a)

Every Jew has the obligation to see that Christian churches are burned down and wiped out. The faithful must be insulted and the clergy killed. (Schulchan Aruch, Jore dea, 146, 14)

The Gentile is human sh*t. He is just as unclean. (Orach Chajim, 55, 20).

That is what the "holy" books of the Jews say. Every Jew, regardless of whether he lives in Germany or America, whether he speaks Russian or Spanish, whether he lives in the ghetto or on Wall Street, thinks and feels as the Talmud commands him. The term "Old Testament hatred" expresses the deep antipathy Jews feel toward Gentiles. Despite its inferiority, Jewry was able to survive over the millennia because of its satanic hatred against Gentiles.

Jewish hatred today is as strong as it ever was. He who does not submit is their enemy. The Jew hates the enemy with all his heart and with all the strength of his satanic soul. One needs only to recall the bitter rage Jews have always shown against those who have attempted to rouse the Gentile nations to battle against their deadly enemy by revealing the Jew as the Devil in human form.

[...]

Deep and boundless hatred is an essential characteristic of Jewry. It is rooted in the Devil's blood of the Jews and can only be distantly understood by the other peoples of the earth.

Still, it is our duty to learn from history. Gentiles, above all the Germans, were always too "decent" and "objective" to respond to Jewish hatred in the same or at least similar way. As a people of "poets and thinkers," we thought it beneath our dignity to respond with the same methods. We were not able even to make clear to the public the filth and depravity of our enemy. We were so "sensitive" that we avoided fighting the Jewish creature.

It would appear that the Nazi hatred towards the Jews was to a great extent based on a belief that there was an ongoing conflict between on the one hand Jews/Judaism and on the other Germans/Christianity. The editorial clearly shows that the combination of National Socialism (firmly based on hatred against Jews and Judaism) and Christianity was not as unlikely as JK would have us believe. Such a combination is - as Headscratcher4 has pointed out - on the contrary sadly all too logical, given the anti-semitic traditions of European Christianity.

headscratcher4

25th February 2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Those were impotent German slaves forced to interact with the German atheist state.

JK

I have, for the most part, stopped responding to this thread because JK never answers any objection, citation, fact, or argument with anything but his mysticism. As I have stated before, because he asserts something and throws in the words "Hegel" and "Nietzsche" as back-ups, doesn't make it "fact".

However, I thought I would respond to above bit of nonsense.

The underlying assertion here is that Christian churches essentially became "slaves" of the Nazi state and ceased to function as religious/spiritual institutions. While, on one level, there is a certain appeal to that "logic" -- for how could churches -- especially "Christian" churches -- countenance, support, suborn Nazism? And, not simply because the Nazi's were "atheists" (no proof of that assertion has ever been offered in this thread), but because in action their evil was so obvious.

However, with respect to JK's assertion of the submission of the Church to slavery and Hitler (and thus ceasing to be either moral or Christian), JK provides no proof of this enslavement other than citing the Concordance between the Vatican and the German State. Further, JK seems to believe (on what basis one wonders?) that this Concordance was a one-way street...i.e. Hitler and the Nazi's won every point and enslaved the church. Bull.

The future Pius XII negotiated that Concordance specifically to ensure and enshrine the role of the Catholic Church in Germany. He negotiated a deal to carve out specific prerogatives from the Nazi state, and he did so willingly because he believed (foolishly) that the Nazis were a bettor bet in the church's battle against atheistic communism/Marxism. Why? Because the Nazis espoused values, commitments and imagery that the Vatican understood to be not only Western, but explicitly Christian in orientation and presentation. In short, the future Pius saw a "state" he could work with, that preserved "Catholic" values as he understood them, was fighting against Marxist/Jewish Bolshevism, etc.

In the end, Hitler may have indeed, enslaved the church in his evil, but not because he was an atheist or headed an atheistic state, but because there were shared cultural values that allowed Nazism to integrate Catholicism into the state machinery.

Importantly, while there were notable and outstanding Catholic martyrs, there are not many, and, indeed, most were at odds with their church leadership by protesting against the State, its brutality, its anti-Semitism, its corruption. Yes, they were murdered, but unquestionably, most Catholic functionaries found little conflict between their adherence to the Church and their allegiance to the State. I note for the record that at no time, even when he obliquely condemned Nazi atrocities, did Pius ever excommunicate or threaten to excommunicate Hitler or any follower of Nazism. Indeed, he continually worried more about the Soviet army advancing into Europe than he ever did about the Nazis or their atrocities.

I also note that the Catholic Church has had little trouble standing up to Communists in China, Russia, Vietnam, Poland, etc. Church leaders were imprisoned, murdered, tortured etc. Yet, the Vatican made every effort to retain spiritual and temporal moral authority by condemning and fighting the state at every turn. Interesting that they could be "slaves" of the German Nazis but in active rebellion and sometimes vigorous defiance against Communist, avowed atheistic states. Hmmm...makes you wonder what magic Hitler had to make the church so blind to his deception?

headscratcher4

25th February 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Hitler was as much a Christian as Stalin was a Capitalist.

JK

Once again, that Hitler wasn't a "christian" either by your definition or most definition of the term is irrelevent. THe assertion is that Hitler was an atheists. If Hitler beleived in any way that he operated under the auspicies or was responsible to any sort of higher, Supernatural authority, he wasn't an atheist.

I have long argued here that he wasn't a christian either, merely that his world view was culturally and systematically influenced by European Christian experience and culture.

To make an analogy that would make sense, given JK's position, he would have to write that: Hitler was as much a Christian as Stalin was a Christian. Stalin, being a self-proclaimed, rabid atheist. Hitler never proclaimed that about himself. Indeed, while raised a Catholic (and never formally disavowing Catholicism), Hitler by his own admissions held much of Christianity in low esteem. However, he in every instance seems to believe that he operates under, and was intended by a higher authority to rule Germany and save the Aryans. I.E. that he was doing God's work...now it might not be the Christian god, as you understand it, but it certainly doesn't follow that because he may not have been a christian, he didn't believe in a God. You have done absolutely nothing to counter that observation.

headscratcher4

1st March 2003, 11:17 AM

I know I should let this die, but I am too stupid to leave it alone ;)

Anyway, a couple of posts up, I mentioned the Loyalty Oath that Hitler forced the Army to sware to Hitler.

Here is the oath...or at least the critical part of it for our purposes here:

I swear by God this holy oath, that I will render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of the German Reich and People, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and will be ready as a brave soldier to risk my life at any time for this oath.

http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/curr_content/history20/unit2/sec2_08.html

I want to point out the words: "by God" and "holy oath..."

Not "I swear by my god, Adolph Hitler...."
NOt "I swear by the Nazi State...."
Not " I sware by Adolf Hitler..."
Not "I swear that I will....
Not "I affirm..." (as in American courts when you don't want to sware an oath on the Bible or Koran),

But by "God".

It leaves me wondering what the state/Hitler (who surely approved the oath) as "atheists" could have intended by the oath. Certainly, the state and Hitler could have been duping people who believed in God into swaring to God to by loyal to Hitler -- but than we know, according to JK, that Germans -- the populace, their ministers and chaplains, their spirtual advisors and priests, their culture and society were "atheists."

In addition, to the point that people were duped to "swear" "by God" they would likely not feel obligated -- morally or ethically -- once they determined that they had been duped...indeed, upon determining that they had been duped they would, likely, have felt great outrage and anger at the regime for so doing.

Also, a state laying the groundwork for "atheism" would have eliminated all ceremony, mention, reference, etc. to god -- note that the Soviet Union "secularized" the state almost immediately upon being established.

Now, while this proves nothing about Hitler individually -- though he has been show repeatedly above to have factually and philosophically some sort of diest -- it does suggest to me that the Nazi state, its leaders, the creators of it ceremony and rites, believed in a "God" and believed that God would bind people to their righteous cause. It also shows that Hitler specifically required that people pledge loyalty to him based upon the strongest oath he could concieve of -- an oath that not only binds the taker to a "god" but also, by necessity, calls upon "god" as the righteous authority for any punishment required for violation of the oath...i.e. to a deserter, the state would say "you violated your sacred oath before God to be loyal to Hitler, you are a traitor to both God and the State. We are endowed as God's agents on earth to punish you accordingly..." Or something along those lines.

Oh well, can't let sleeping Nazis lie....

CWL

3rd March 2003, 04:04 AM

This weekend a very interesting documentary was aired on Swedish national television, which featured lenghty interviews with Ms. Traudl Junge who was Hitler's secretary from 1943 to 1945 and took down his last will and testament.

I thought it would be interesting to introduce this testament (http://www.yad-vashem.org.il/about_holocaust/documents/part1/doc72.html) in the debate according to this thread. Hitler dictated the following to Ms. Junge before shooting himself:

My Political Testament

More than thirty years have passed since I contributed my modest strength in 1914 as a volunteer in the First World War, which was forced upon the Reich.

In these three decades only love and loyalty to my people have guided me in my thinking, my actions and my life. They gave me the strength to make the difficult decisions, such as have never before confronted mortal man. I have used up my time, my working strength and my health in these three decades.

It is untrue that I or anybody else in Germany wanted war in 1939....

But nor have I left any doubt that if the nations of Europe are once more to be treated only as collections of stocks and shares of these international conspirators in money and finance, then those who carry the real guilt for the murderous struggle, this people will also be held responsible: the Jews! I have further left no one in doubt that this time it will not be only millions of children of Europeans of the Aryan peoples who will starve to death, not only millions of grown men who will suffer death, and not only hundreds of thousands of women and children who will be burned and bombed to death in the cities, without those who are really responsible also having to atone for their crime, even if by more humane means....

But before everything else I call upon the leadership of the nation and those who follow it to observe the racial laws most carefully, to fight mercilessly against the poisoners of all the peoples of the world, international Jewry.

Set down in Berlin, April 29, 1945, 4.00 oclock.

Adolf Hitler

Witnesses:

Dr. Joseph Goebbels_______Wilhelm Burgdorf

Martin Bormann___________Hans Krebs

Bear in mind that the above was written by Hitler, knowing full well that he was about to die. He had no reason to lie, to obfuscate or to pay lip service to anything. In his testament, Hitler confesses the core of his mission and I ask you all to observe that there is nothing - nothing about quenching religion in general or Christianity in particular. If that was indeed Hitler's agenda, as JK would have us believe, that would have been the grand opportunity for Hitler to express it. But no. Instead, we get the same old rethoric regarding "racial laws" and "international Jewry" - nothing about the Jews being the enemy because of their belief in God.

As is shown by the various evidence submitted in this thread, it is not only possible to combine a racial hatred towards the Jews with the belief in a supreme being, but it is also possible to combine with a profession in Christianity.

In the light of this, it can be safely concluded that Hitler's racial (not "religious") hatred towards the Jews does not constitute any evidence of his alleged atheism.

In this thread ample evidence in the form of quotes and other material has been put forward to suggest that Hitler believed in a supreme being. I think this is the time to ask: Is there in fact any evidence whatsoever to support the contention that Hitler was an atheist?

Nova Land

3rd March 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by CWL

This weekend a very interesting documentary was aired on Swedish national television, which featured lenghty interviews with Ms. Traudl Junge who was Hitler's secretary from 1943 to 1945 and took down his last will and testament.

I thought it would be interesting to introduce this testament (http://www.yad-vashem.org.il/about_holocaust/documents/part1/doc72.html) in the debate according to this thread. Hitler dictated the following to Ms. Junge before shooting himself:
Thank you! You have brought a lot of good resources into this discussion, and this looks like another one. (Girl6 also recommended this film, or one that sounds like it, in a thread in Banter.)

Hitler's last testament, which he dictated before committing suicide, is indeed an good piece of evidence, well worth examining. Besides being available at the web site you link to, it's also covered in a good book you listed here back in January, The Death of Hitler by Ada Petrova.

I skim-read the Petrova book during my visit to UTK in January and have been wanting to return to it (both at the library and in this thread) for some time. The description of what Hitler said and did during his last months, including writing this testament, seems well worth considering in our quest for evidence.
As is shown by the various evidence submitted in this thread, it is not only possible to combine a racial hatred towards the Jews with the belief in a supreme being, but it is also possible to combine with a profession in Christianity.Yes, that seems well-supported by the evidence, and I am still not clear why Jedi (and others in the world outside this forum) seem to disagree with that.

Is it disagreement over what it means to be believe in god, disagreement over the evidence of christians having held such beliefs, or disagreement over something else entirely? I wish I understood that better.
In the light of this, it can be safely concluded that Hitler's racial (not "religious") hatred towards the Jews does not constitute any evidence of his alleged atheism.I agree that his hatred of Jews seems primarily rooted in his hatred of Jews as a "race." But that doesn't exclude him from hating them as a religion too. People often find many reasons to justify their hatreds. Figuring out which they really believe, and which they're just saying because they like to say as many bad things as possible about their enemies, can be difficult.

(How much of the anti-Clinton rhetoric that Limbaugh spouted was sincerely felt and how much was opportunistic? Ditto, how much of the anti-Bush rhetoric that some Democrats spout is sincerely felt and how much of that is opportunistic? Often politicians -- of which Hitler was one -- will put forward a public criticism of their enemies that they don't feel that strongly about, because they know it will go down well with the public, while keeping quiet about their real reasons for disliking their opponents, because they know those will not play as well.)

If Hitler hated the Jews because of their religion, that would lend support for the idea that Hitler was himself religious. I think HS4 has made that case well. However, if he hated them primarily out of misguided racial theories, that weakens one of the reasons for thinking of Hitler as a theist.

In his public pronouncements, Hitler had claimed his actions against the Jews were religious -- carrying out god's orders. If that was mainly propaganda, rather than his real reason, it supports the idea this was cynical manipulation rather than indicative of true belief.

Hitler would have much less reason to lie or to conceal his true feelings in what his suicide notes, so the reasons he gives there for hating the Jews might be seen as more reliable than those in political speeches and writings.

(On the other hand, committing suicide is a rather extreme act that indicates an abnormal state of mind, so what a person thinks right before committing suicide may differ from their thoughts prior to getting themself into a suicidal state.)
In this thread ample evidence in the form of quotes and other material has been put forward to suggest that Hitler believed in a supreme being. I think this is the time to ask: Is there in fact any evidence whatsoever to support the contention that Hitler was an atheist?
While evidence has been put forward to show that at some points in his life Hitler publicly professed belief in a god, I'm not sure it has been adequately shown either (a) that this was what he actually believed, or (b) that this was a lifelong belief. It is quite possible for a person to be a theist at one time in their life and an atheist at another.

Jedi has asserted Hitler was an atheist, but that's different from asserting HItler was a lifelong atheist. (He may well believe Hitler was; I don't know. I'm still largely in the dark as to what Jedi believes about Hitler and atheism.)

Yes, there is some evidence to support the idea that Hitler may have been atheist (by some definition of the term) at some point in his life. Bullock is one example of someone who has read the evidence carefully and concluded Hitler did not believe in any gods. Whether Bullock is correct or not in his reading of the evidence is open to argument -- which is why I'm interested in this discussion.

The testament Hitler wrote before committing suicide is itself mild evidence in support of the idea that Hitler was an atheist, (although this is mainly evidence by omission). Hitler was raised a Catholic, and suicide is something Catholics have some strong teachings on. Many Catholics do commit suicide, so there is no problem there, but it seems likely that a person with Catholic or Catholic-derived religious beliefs would be thinking rather heavily about religion (and what god is going to think about this) immediately prior to the act. If belief in god was important to Hitler, one might expect to see this covered in his last notes -- some explanation justifying his suicide and explaining why this is really part of god's plan for him, perhaps. But it isn't.

Hitler certainly rambled on about enough other stuff before making his exit, so lack of time or energy does not seem to be an adequate excuse for not mentioning his religious beliefs. The fact he didnot express faith in god before pulling the trigger does not prove he didn't believe in one, but it is a mild indication in support of such a theory.

CWL

4th March 2003, 01:57 AM

Nova Land,

As always, excellent points. You are right, the fact that there is no mention of God in Hitler's testaments can be interpreted as an indication that he did not believe (although it is certainly not, as you underline yourself, sufficient evidence that that was the case).

I am a bit short on time so for now I will just submit better (more complete) links to:

Hitler's Political Testament (http://www.thirdreichpages.org/politicalwill.htm); and

Hitler's Personal Testament (http://www.thirdreichpages.org/personalwill.htm)

Nova Land

10th February 2004, 03:38 PM

Apologies for bumping this thread before I'm ready to come back to it, but I want to save it from pruning.

I've been meaning to return to this for some months now, but keep on not finding time (or misplacing my notes). I do have something new to add which bears on the credibility of a key source, and will try to post it within a week.

Those of you who are tired of this topic (or weren't interested to begin with), my apologies for putting it back on the front page. Just ignore it and it will sink from view soon.

CWL

11th February 2004, 12:19 AM

Nova Land!

Great to see you - and in this thread. What a blast from the past!

I shall definately be checking in.

headscratcher4

11th February 2004, 08:01 AM

I fear that the thread will not be as interesting without the stubborness of the late, lamented (lamentable) JK, but always enjoyed this discussion. Great to hear from you Nova.

CWL

21st May 2005, 04:46 PM

*Bump*

So sue me. This is a good thread.

Upchurch

24th May 2005, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by CWL
So sue me. This is a good thread. Could not agree more. G6 did an excellent job on this one. It is a very good read.

thaiboxerken

24th May 2005, 08:31 AM

Nova Land

22nd July 2005, 04:19 AM

originally posted by me, back on 02-10-2004:

I've been meaning to return to this for some months now, but keep on not finding time (or misplacing my notes). I do have something new to add which bears on the credibility of a key source, and will try to post it within a week.I trust people understand that when I use terms such as "a day" or "a week" to describe when I will post something I am using the terms in a biblical sense (i.e. as indefinite periods of time that could be anywhere from a couple dozen hours to a couple billion years).

I'll be taking off for blueberry and apple season soon, which will mean an extended absence from the forum, but before doing so I wanted to finally get around to explaining what I was referring to last year. Explanation follows in a moment, after I make a couple of other comments.

I still want to return to this thread at some point, even though Jedi's presence will be missed. (Perhaps other people who believe Hitler was an atheist can be found who would be interested in joining in the discussion, and explaining what it is they believe and why they believe it.) Since it has been such a long time since this thread was active, I am hoping when I do return to this thread (probably January 2006 at the earliest) to first go back through the thread and do a summary of the thread so far (with brief excerpts from past pages and links back to those spots) so that people can join the thread more easily on its current page rather than needing to read through the 11 preceding pages first.

What I am interested in doing in this thread is going through sources such as Hitler's Table Talk in order to examine and analyze these for ourselves rather than simply referring to and relying on web sites which have compiled a selection of the most commonly used passages.

Several people in this thread have referred to Mein Kampf, and when we are done with the Table Talk I would enjoy seeing that given a similar going-over (since I have never managed to wade through it on my own). Again, my interest is in our locating, examining, and analyzing the key passages in the book for ourselves rather than simply relying on what someone else has compiled and posted. This is especially true because, from glancing at some sites, I see no way of knowing that the person compiling the selections had actually read Mein Kampf; some of the sites looked like they might be compilations gleaned from other people's compilations gleaned from other people's compilations gleaned from... In order for a quoted passage to carry weight, I need to know that the person quoting it has actually read the passage in its original context and can vouch for it being fairly excerpted.

It is unfortunately common -- both in discussions of the paranormal and discussions of more mundane matters -- for incorrect beliefs to flourish and spread because people are willing to "quote" things they have not actually read. Many people who believe in the paranormal, or in alternative medicine, or various new agey things such as the 100th monkey, base their belief in large part on things they have read which sound authoritative -- references to scholarly material which supposedly supports their belief but which if read in context may say something quite different from what they have been told it says. Sometimes a very small change in wording, or a very small change in emphasis, can make a big difference in meaning.

I think as skeptics we need to maintain a high standard of honesty in regards to quoting. If one hasn't actually read material one is passing along, then one is not quoting that material. One is quoting someone else who passed along that material, and who in turn may have been passing along rather than quoting.

Oops. Didn't mean to ramble quite so long on that in this thread. This is an example of a topic I intend to bring up for discussion at some point this fall in an omphaloskepticism (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59073) thread.

Since this post is already long enough, I'll end it here. Immediately following is a post explaining why my remark about "something new to add which bears on the credibility of a key source".

edited to add in the link explaining what omphaloskepticism refers to

Nova Land

22nd July 2005, 04:29 AM

In this thread I had been going through Hitler's Table Talk and selecting out the passages that relate to religion for discussion and analysis.

Some people have questioned whether the Table Talks can be relied on as a source. There are several posts relating to this question back on page 7 of this thread, such as one by me (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=321921#post321921), one by c4ts (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=325003#post325003), and another by me (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=327878#post327878). The strongest challenge to the Table Talks can be found in a post on page 11 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=348309#post348309), , in which the_ignored quotes some passages from the No Beliefs web site (http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm). For example:... How can any honest seeker of truth rely on Hitler's table talk when the entire transcript was edited and kept by the anti-Catholic Bormann?and:... Moreover, Dr. Picker regarded his own recording as authentic and insisted that "no confidence can be placed in Bormann's editing of it." Indeed, he writes, rather testily, of "Bormann's alterations, not authorised by me." [Trevor-Roper, p.viii]. Unfortunately, we do not have the unaltered version of Dr. Picker's or Heim's recordings.

In other words, there are no originals and the copies were filtered and edited by Bormann. The table talk cannot be considered a first-hand recording of Hitler's words. On this fact alone, I cannot with integrity or certainty use them as a source for Hitler's voice, especially in regards to religion which could very well reflect the anti-Catholic biased Bormann.The fact that Bormann was involved in the project, and had access to the transcriptions, does seem to make tampering a possibility. No evidence has been presented that Bormann did tamper with the text in this way, but that doesn't mean he didn't.

However, two years ago I learned new details about the publishing history of the Table Talks which lead me to believe that such tampering is extremely unlikely to have happened. That is what I was referring to in my February 2004 post.

What happened is that I had been at the UTK library and went to the shelves to check some point in the table talks for which I did not have notes or a photocopy. Previously I had been using an old edition of the book, but this time there was a newer edition available which had come out in 2000. It mentioned being updated, so I checked to see what had been changed and discovered a new preface which recounts "the curious history of [the Table Talks'] publication (or non-publication) in the last half-century").

The book "was compiled on the initiative, and by the orders, of Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery, who in May 1941 had succeeded Rudolf Hess ... as Secretary to the Fuhrer." Just as Hess had transcribed Mein Kampf (describing Hitler's philosophy and plans) for Hitler while they were imprisoned together in the early 1920, so his successor Bormann was to transcribe the table talks (giving Hitler's thoughts now that he was in power and had put those plans into action. "The record was to be made as exactly as possible, by an experienced Party official on Bormann's personal staff, a lawyer with the rank of Ministerialrat Heinrich Heim.

"Heim began his record on 5 July 1941 and kept it regularly for over eight months; but in mid-March 1942 he was seconded for other duties, and for the next four months his duties as recorder of the Table Talk were assigned to a deputy, Dr Henry Picker. Hein returned to his duties as recorder on 1 August 1942. However, he did not continue them for long, for in September... the record itself was discontinued.

"Both Heim and Picker were sound Party members, personally known to Hitler and trusted by him, and there can be no doubt that the record was conscientiously made. The final texts, as approved by Bormann, were sent consecutively to Frau Bormann in Obersalzberg, where Bormann had an official residence... There were two copies of them: one was passed to the Party archives in Munich; the other was to be kept by her as Bormann's personal copy."

All this was known before, and allows for the possibility of Bormann's tampering. Here is what I didn't know before:

"Of these two copies the former perished when the Fuhrerbau in Munich was destroyed by fire towards the end of the war. Later, on 25 April 1945, the remaining copy narrowly escaped the same fate when much of the OBersalzberg complex was destroyed in an Allied air-attack. Frau Bauman thereupon moved, and took it with her, to a safe house...; but becoming terminally ill with cancer of the bowels, she passed it to the former Gauleiter of Tyrol, from whom it came ultimately, by purchase, into the hands of an enterprising Swiss citizen, Francois Genoud.

"Francis Genoud... had once, at the age of 16, heard Hitler speak... and from that moment till his death by suicide in 1998 he remained an unwavering devotee. After the fall of the Third Reich he made it his business... to salvage the texts and buy up the presumed copyrights of important personal documents of the Nazi elite...The unique official record of the Bormann-Vermerke was such an asset, the prize of his collection, and having bought up the presumed copyrights of Hitler and lBormann he waited for the opportunity to realize it.

"Unfortunately for him, and for the convenience of historians, he had reckoned without Dr Picker. For Dr Picker, during the four months when he had deptuized for Heim as recorder of the Fuhrer's table talk, had made a surreptitious private copy of his record: he had also copied several of Heim's records to which he had had access; and in 1951 he forestalled Genoud by publishing, in Germany, a volume entitled [i]Hitlers Tischgesprache."

Genoud sued Picker for copyright infringement in Germany, but lost. That led Genoud to rush out a French translation, Adolf Hitler: Libres Propos sur la Guerre et la Paix, published in 1952 in order to establish foreign copyrights. Picker went to court to block this, but likewise lost. While this legal wrangling was going on, Trevor-Roper approached Genoud "and suggested that he allow publication of an English version, and thus secure the English copyright. He readily agreed... This was the origin of the first edition of the book.

"... In 1964 two distinguished German historians, Percy Schramm and Andreas Hillgr;uber... produced a scholarly edition of [Picker's] material, swollen with 36 entries quietly appropriated from Ministerialrat Heim's record... Meanwhile, other scholars kept up the pressure on Genoud. Finally Genoud surrendered, rather cautiously, to the Hamburg publisher Albrecht Knaus and in 1980 there appeared at last the German text of the Bormann-Vermerke under the title Adolf Hitler: Monologe im Fuhrerhauptquartier..."

The 1980 German edition was a complete record of all the Table Talks that Heim had transcribed, but (due to the legal dispute) had to omit a hundred entries between March 12. 1942, and September 1, 1942, when Picker had done the transcribing. However, the English-language edition (the one I had been quoting passages from in this thread) is a complete collection of all the transcribed Table Talks.

If there were only one copy of the transcripts to go on, then it would have been possible for Bormann to have altered, deleted, or inserted material without leaving a clear trail. No evidence has been presented that Bormann did any such tampering, but that alone is not sufficient to my mind to dismiss the possibility that he could have done so.

As a skeptic, I would not be willing to conclude that such tampering had taken place based solely on that, but I also would not be willing to conclude it had not occurred. This is roughly analogous to the situation with the vote count in the last US presidential election. There is no clear evidence that the vote was fraudulently manipulated, but because of the machinery used to record and tabulate the vote there is no way of knowing with any reasonable certainty that it wasn't. In both cases, my feeling is that the matter should be left as an open question until sufficient evidence comes out to tip the scales one way or the other. For me, that tipping point is close to being reached as far as the Table Talk transcripts go..

From this new preface it turns out there were two independent copies for a large number of the transcripts. Not only that, but the possessors of the different copies were engaged in a bitter struggle, and would gladly have seized upon any discrepancies between their transcripts to discredit the other's version.

While I have not read any version other than the English language translation, I think it is reasonable to assume there is no significant discrepancy between the transcripts Genoud possessed (which had been in Bormann's possession) and the ones Picker possessed (which had not been in Bormann's possession). If there were such discrepancies, surely someone would have pointed them out by now. So unless someone can point out significant discrepancies between Genoud's and Picker's transcripts, or comes up with other actual evidence of tampering, I am inclined to accept the published transcripts as being reasonably faithful representations of the rambling monologues that Hitler delivered (repeatedly) to his close associates. As such, the transcripts are evidence worth considering and weighing in attempting to determine Hitler's actual beliefs regarding religion.

Aardvark_DK

22nd July 2005, 07:40 AM

Originally posted by Nova Land
I still want to return to this thread at some point, even though Jedi's presence will be missed.
How so? I've never seen him make any attempt at refuting any of your points. Or anyone else's for that matter.

Dustin Kesselberg

1st August 2005, 03:06 PM

Im not about to shift through 12 pages of this argument because it's put together in such a way it's impossible for me to read who said what when one persons posts everything.

But I wanted to say that so far i've not see anything that refuted any of the assertions on nobeliefs.com's article.

1.The only place Hitler ever condems religion is this "table talk" that was of course probably edited later on by someone else.

2.Even in the table talks Hitler condems atheism out right.

So I don't think any argument can be made for his atheism from that.

Euromutt

1st December 2005, 10:53 PM

I'm a bit late to this party, but nevertheless...

There's no question the Nazis, from Hitler on down, tried to sideline mainstream religion. As I recently argued in another thread, ideologies do not tolerate rival ideologies, and totalitarian ideologies even more so. Loyalty to the Church (in the widest sense) precludes loyalty to the Party (any party), and worship of Jesus, ancestors, etc. gets in the way of worship of the Führer, Duce, Great Helmsman, Beloved Leader, or whatever. But that does not demonstrate in any way that atheism was formed part of Nazi ideology. Au contraire.

The Nazi expedient was to cook up their own religion, which was essentially monotheistic, loosely based on Christianity with the Jewish bits removed and with a dollop of Blut und Boden neo-paganism mixed in. The mythos was never very well developed, but loyal Nazis were encouraged to renounce whatever church they were born into and adopt this vague proto-religion. Quite a few of them (though by no means all) did, and you'll find the proof in armed forces paybooks. Adherents of this religion were more strongly represented in the Waffen-SS and the Luftwaffe, less so in the Heer and Kriegsmarine, and they list their religion not as "Catholic," "Lutheran," "Evangelical," "Agnostic" or "Atheist," but as "Gottglaubichkeit"; literally, "the condition of believing in God." Which is, by definition, not atheism.

c4ts

3rd December 2005, 01:10 PM

Jedi Knight is long gone, and his thread rots like a corpse in the windowsill.

Nova Land

27th January 2006, 05:10 AM

I'm not about to shift through 12 pages of this argument because it's put together in such a way it's impossible for me to read who said what when one person posts everything.I don't know if this makes much difference to you, but it is only the first page-and-a-half in which this occurs.

The reason why the posts in the first page-and-a-half are Girl 6 quoting other people's posts is that this was the first moderated thread and those posts were culled out of a previous unmoderated version. Today thread-splitting can be done more easily, but back then Upchurch had not been fully assembled and programmed so Girl 6 had to do the entire thing by hand -- a massive amount of work, for which Girl 6 deserves many years of thanks.

But I wanted to say that so far i've not seen anything that refuted any of the assertions on nobeliefs.com's article.Which assertions in particular, and what evidence does nobeliefs.com present for these assertions? You offer 2 statements, without evidence for either.

If the arguments presented at nobeliefs.com are correct, then it should be possible for those impressed by the arguments to paraphrase the key points and present the evidence supporting those points. No matter how well-written and convincing-sounding an article is, it is good if people check the key facts out for themselves before trying to convince others of their validity.

1. The only place Hitler ever condemns religion is this "table talk that was of course probably edited later on by someone else.There are those who have argued the table talks can't be relied on as evidence because the strongly anti-Catholic Martin Bormann was in charge of the project, had custody of the transcripts, and might have tampered with the text. Is this what you are referring to with your comment about editing?

If there were only one set of transcripts, then it might be possible for Bormann to have altered Hitler's words and we would have no way of knowing. But, as I posted earlier, there were two sets of transcripts, only one of which was in Bormann's custody. Both sets have been used, independently, for publication of competing editions of the table talks.

If Bormann or anyone else made significant alterations to Hitler's words, it should be possible to demonstrate this by showing places where one of these published versions is significantly different than the other. I am therefore no longer willing to give much weight to mere speculation that such altering could have occurred.

Does nobeliefs.com offer specific examples of such alterations? If so, I would be interested in seeing them. But until I see evidence of these alterations, I think it is worth examining and giving consideration to the material in the table talks.

2. Even in the table talks Hitler condemns atheism out right.Which passages do you feel do that?

One reason I think it is worth going through the table talks for ourselves, rather than relying on hand-me-down analyses, is that I have seen a number of articles all using the same familiar passages to argue their points. This suggests to me they are copying these passages rather than having looked them up and read them. This would mean they have not actually read the table talks, simply someone else's chosen excerpts from it. That is a way in which errors and misinterpretations can occur much too easily, so I think it is wise as a general practice not to give too much weight to sources which do this.

In several cases I have seen passages cited which seem to me to take on a different meaning when read in context rather than as snippets. For example, there is a passage (which I cited earlier in this thread) in which Hitler says "We don't want to educate anyone in atheism.". This is sometimes offered as an example of Hitler condemning atheism; but read in context, it actually seems more to be expressing admiration for atheism.

That's why I prefer either to read a thing for myself, or to rely on a source which (a) has actually read the thing it purports to be quoting, (b) is willing to give a fair presentation of the material, not a presentation designed to persuade the reader of one view, and (c) is capable of giving such a fair presentation. It is possible that nobeliefs.com meets that standard. I am not familiar enough with that site (or the person who writes for it) to know that. But lacking that assurance, I prefer to read the material for myself.

What I'm interested in doing is going through the transcripts of the table talks and examining all the passages relevant to the question of Hitler's religious beliefs. Several years ago, when this thread began, I went through a copy of the book, noted all the pages which had relevant material, and photocopied them. My intention was to go through, reading those passages carefully for myself, and to share those passages here (or reasonable excerpts from them) so that others could also have the opportunity to read and analyse these for themselves (or look up the passages more easily for themselves, in the cases where my excerpting seemed inadequate or questionable). I have fallen far behind (in this thread, as in many things) but this is still something I am interested in doing and think is worth doing.

Nova Land

27th January 2006, 05:28 AM

In response to my comment that "Jedi's presence will be missed", Aardvark_DK asked:How so? I've never seen him make any attempt at refuting any of your points. Or anyone else's for that matter.I generally enjoyed discussing things with Jedi. We disagreed on most topics that were posted here, and that made him an interesting person to talk to since he was able to provide me a perspective so different from my own.

Jedi was not very helpful in this thread as far as providing evidence for his claim that Hitler was an atheist. To the extent that I am interested in the question, What were Hitler's religious beliefs?, I was disappointed by the non-responsiveness of some of Jedi's posts.

However, that is just one of the two questions that I was hoping Jedi could give me insight into. While I was (and am) curious about what Hitler actually believed, I was also interested in the question, Why do some people believe that Hitler was an atheist?. It's a belief I had heard expressed in passing by conservative religious folks, often not in a context in which I could engage them in conversation to understand why they believed that.

I did not find Jedi's posts persuasive in making the case that Hitler was an atheist, but I did find them helpful in understanding a little better what (some) people who make that claim are talking about.

I miss Jedi's presence here! One of my regrets is that I was away from the forum at the time when he left, and so never got a chance to say goodbye to him. I hope he is doing well, wherever he is and whatever turns his life has taken.

Nova Land

27th January 2006, 05:37 AM

Jedi Knight is long gone, and his thread rots like a corpse in the windowsill.This seems like an unnecessary dig at a person who is, as you note, long gone.

Not only is the dig unnecessary, it is inaccurate. This is not a thread he started, nor even one he was that eager to be involved in. He was invited to take part, and he did, to the extent that his time and interest permitted, despite efforts by some to discourage his participation by subjecting him to a barrage of insults and by attempting to bury his posts under a pile of recipes and other irrelevancies.

That happened in the initial, unmoderated version of this thread. Girl 6 graciously agreed to step in, and re-started the thread with those distractions removed. She also did a fine job of keeping new attacks out of the thread. Even though she is gone, and the thread is no longer officially a moderated thread, the tone she set has generally been respected. Isn't that more rational -- and more productive -- than pointless sniping at a person who isn't even here?

Darat

27th January 2006, 05:41 AM

...snip... I have fallen far behind (in this thread, as in many things) but this is still something I am interested in doing and think is worth doing.

It is and I will follow the thread if you do even if only as a lurker.

27th January 2006, 05:51 AM

Today thread-splitting can be done more easily, but back then Upchurch had not been fully assembled and programmed so Girl 6 had to do the entire thing by hand -- a massive amount of work, for which Girl 6 deserves many years of thanks.

The best way of thanking someone is to slavishly adhere to rules and regulations and then boot their ass out. How apt that she contributed so mightily to a nazi thread.

Darat

27th January 2006, 05:57 AM

The best way of thanking someone is to slavishly adhere to rules and regulations and then boot their ass out. How apt that she contributed so mightily to a nazi thread.

I really am sorry to derail this thread but if untruths are repeated it can lead to then being taken as the truth. Girl 6 has not been booted out, she is merely suspended and she is more then welcome to be an active member here whenever she choses to be.

Nova Land

27th January 2006, 06:13 AM

Whether Hitler believed in a god or not isn't a real important question to me. The question, I think, that is most important is this:

Did Hitler motivate the majority of christians in his nation to think that he and they were working for jesus and god?There are many questions people can be interested in, and not everyone needs to be interested in the same ones. Which one is "most important" seems pretty subjective. Perhaps a better way of phrasing your second sentence would be "the question which is of most interest to me is this ..."

For myself, I remain interested in the question of what Hitler's religious beliefs were. But I also agree that the question you raise is an interesting and useful one -- especially given the political context in which a discussion of Hitler's religious beliefs unfortunately must take place. Some people may be interested in asserting Hitler was an atheist in order to use that as a club with which to bash atheists (or in asserting Hitler was a Catholic in order to use that as a club against Catholics; etc.) Therefore it is worth considering not only what Hitler may have felt privately but also what he expressed publicly. If bashing is to be done, that at least might be a more justified basis for doing so.

From the little I have read of Hitler's speeches, it seemed to me that it was not atheists, but conservative christians, whom he pandered to in his public speeches. It also seems to me that conservative christians were a key constituency of the Nazis. But while that relates to your question, it doesn't answer it. While the essence of your question seems to me to be Did Hitler's followers think they and he were carrying out god's work?, your question as written adds some other elements into the mix.

(1) Did Hitler motivate a majority of christians to support him...? Since Hitler was unable to win an election on his own until after being appointed chancellor, it would appear that he did not have majority support of the German population in his rise to power. And since christians of various denominations probably made up a very large part of the German population, it would appear likely the literal answer to that portion of your question is no, a majority of christians did not support him.

Once Hitler attained power, he was able to maintain it, so at that point he could be said to have had majority support of the population (and of christians). But that's a common phenomenon, where people who formerly were not supportive solidify behind someone once that person becomes their leader. In that case, the answer to another element of your question, Were the christians who supported Hitler motivated to do so because they believed he was doing god's work, or for other reasons?, might well be For the most part, for other reasons. (I don't know the answer, so would be interested in any light you or others can shed on this. Have you seen figures giving a breakdown of who supported Hitler and for what reasons? I recall seeing at least one book which delved into the subject of who supported Hitler, but any notes I took or copies I made aren't near-to-hand at the moment and my memory of the contents are too dim to be reliable.)

Hitler did attempt to motivate christians to support him by appealing to their religious beliefs, and he did succeed in motivating some segments of the christian community to support him. On that, I hope, we can agree. But that raises several additional questions:

1. Which types of christians were most likely to support Hitler? Which were most likely to oppose him?

2. What percentage of christians were Hitler-supporters?

3. What percentage of Hitler-supporters were christians? (What percentage were non-Christians?)

Regarding the first of these, I think it is important to keep in mind that christians are not monolithic. Rhetoric which appeals to one segment is likely to repulse other segments. I would be curious to see a breakdown of Hitler's support among various segments of the religious population. My overall impression is that many conservative christians looked favorably on Hitler while most liberal christians opposed him. But that's too simplistic; Hitler had support from conservative Catholics who liked his political stands, but there were also many conservative Catholics who opposed Hitler because he was not pro-Catholic enough. I don't believe the sources I've seen did a religion-by-religion breakdown of Hitler's support, but that is something I'd be very interested in seeing.

Regarding the second question, I think it is important to keep in mind that most Germans probably considered themselves christians. If the percentage of christians who supported Hitler is comparable to the percentage of Germans who supported Hitler, that would indicate it is not christian belief per se which corrolates with support for Hitler. Was the percentage of religious folks who supported Hitler higher than the percentage of non-religious folks? I have no idea, but would be curious to see figures if anyone can find them.

The third question is one I find especially intriguing. If we look at those who were Nazi Party activists -- both during Hitler's rise to power, and after Hitler had attained power -- what percentage of them were religious, what percentage were non-religious, and which religious beliefs were these people most prone to? As Euromutt points out, many Nazis switched from christian beliefs to a neo-pagan religion of Nazi devising.

In regard to this, I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown distinguishing between those who supported Hitler after he came to power and those who supported him during his rise to power. And among those who supported him during his rise to power, I'd be very interested in seeing a breakdown distinguishing between those who were casual supporters (listened to his speeches, liked him better than the other candidates, voted for him) and those who were active supporters (Nazi Party activists).

In the population at large, I suspect that conservative christians were more supportive of Hitler than other segments of the population. But among Hitler's most ardent supporters, it's possible that conservative christians were under-represented and that non-christians made up a more significant share. That would by no means excuse the christians who did support Hitler, but might indicate a more complex picture than simply christians-bad.

Anyone have any figures to contribute?

27th January 2006, 06:16 AM

I really am sorry to derail this thread but if untruths are repeated it can lead to then being taken as the truth. Girl 6 has not been booted out, she is merely suspended and she is more then welcome to be an active member here whenever she choses to be.

ok. gotta have those rules.

Nova Land

30th January 2006, 01:57 AM

In a post I made Friday, I wrote: If Bormann or anyone else made significant alterations to Hitler's words, it should be possible to demonstrate this by showing places where one of these published versions is significantly different than the other...

Does nobeliefs.com offer specific examples of such alterations? If so, I would be interested in seeing them.In the editing of that post, I did a quick Google to fact-check whether Martin Bormann was an atheist or simply an anti-Catholic. By coincidence, Googling Bormann atheist turned up this article from the November 2002 issue of Freethought Today, "On the Trail of Bogus Quotes" (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php) by Richard Carrier, which makes a start toward answering my question about discrepancies between the two versions.

Carrier has done what I wish other critics of the table talks would do: looked at the different published editions and compared the version made from Dr. Picker's copies of the transcripts (published in German in 1951 as Hitlers Tischgesprach) with the versions made from Bormann's copy (published in French translation, in 1952 as Adolf Hitler: Libres Propos sur la Guerre et la Paix; published in English translation in 1953 (and expanded slightly in 1973) as Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944 and Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-1944; and published in German in 1980 as Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944: die Aufzeichnungen Heinrich Heims herausgegeben von Werner Jochmann). Carrier has not made a thorough comparison -- at least not as of this 2002 article -- but he has spot-checked some key passages, which is a beginning.

Since I do not read German, it is the 1973 English version I have been using (as have most people arguing about this topic, it appears). And one of the most interesting points Carrier makes is that, despite the claim that the English version is a translation of the German transcripts, it appears instead to be a translation of the 1952 French version. This would make it a translation of a translation. If true (and I see no reason to doubt Carrier on this) this makes it even more important not to rely too heavily on the exact wording in the English edition and to try to focus on the gist of what is being said.

Also of concern is that the additional layer of translation means another set of hands touching the text, which creates an additional chance that error -- or tampering -- could have occurred. While there is no particular reason to suspect the French-to-English translators of deliberately altering the text, the same cannot be said for the German-to-French translator, Francois Genoud. Hence Carrier's research is valuable as it provides a check on whether such tampering has occurred.

Some posters in this thread have been arguing that we should dismiss the table talks entirely as an unreliable source. Carrier's research, however, does not support that. He compared Picker's collection of the transcripts (as published in Picker's book) with Bormann's collection (as published in Jochmann's book) and found that the two versions are in agreement "to such a detailed extent that we can be assured the two texts have a common ancestor, which must be the actual bunker notes themselves. The Jochmann text contains some entries lacking from Picker, but otherwise there are only trivial variations in wording here and there."

Carrier has harsher words, however, for the English-language translation."The immediate and most important conclusion is that the Trevor-Roper edition, the only English version in print, is worthless."

While I admire Carrier for the approach he has taken (making an actual comparison of the two versions to see if there are discrepancies), and while I respect the work he has done in compiling this data, I regretfully have a much dimmer view of Carrier when it comes to his ability to analyze data and draw valid conclusions. It appears to me, from his argumentation in the Freethought Today article, that Carrier's feelings about religion and atheism are too strong to permit him to look at facts objectively or to draw reasonable conclusions.

In arguing that Hitler could not possibly have been an atheist, for example, he offers Hitler's public professions of religous piety as proof positive that Hitler was religious, and completely dismisses the possibility Hitler could have been lying. Here's the passage I'm referring to: It is claimed that the quotations and evidence of Hitler's belief were a ruse, propaganda for the benefit of his Nazi followers. This is hardly plausible. After all, if Hitler had to pretend to be a god-fearing Christian to sway his Nazi supporters, that means Nazis had to have been god-fearing Christians.No, it does not have to mean that. There is a simple, mundane explanation for why Hitler might have "had to pretend to be a god-fearing Christian": because the majority of the German population were Christians whom Hitler could not afford to alienate.

I do not find it difficult at all to believe that politicians sometimes put up public facades which differ considerably from what they actually believe, especially on touchy subjects such religion. Just as it is poor skepticism to accept a possibility as definitely true without adequate reason to do so, so it is poor skepticism to dismiss a possibility as definitely false without adequate reason. Carrier's confident dismissal of the possibility that Hitler lied in his public statements seems to me a prime example of the latter.

Another example of dubious reasoning is Carrier's analysis of the 1933 Concordat with the Catholic Church . Carrier quotes article 21 of the Concordat, which provides for Catholic religious instruction to be taught in the public schools, and concludes from this: So there can be no doubt that the Nazis were thoroughly and devotedly Christian, eager to inculcate Christian theism for future generations.What?! There can be no doubt that, because Hitler signed an agreement promising that he would support Catholic education in schools, therefore the Nazis were devout Christians? That seems like a considerable overstatement.

Hitler made many agreements, with many parties, which were political contrivances that he abandoned as soon as he had gotten what he wanted. His 1933 deal with the Catholics appears to me an obvious example of such a thing. Yet Carrier concludes it is proof positive that Hitler and the Nazis were sincere Christians.

A better test of what Hitler believed than what he promised is what he delivered. Concluding Hitler was pro-Catholic or pro-Christian from his signing of the Concordat is akin to concluding Hitler was pro-peace and would respect other nations' boundaries because of the agreement he signed with Chamberlain. Here is a link to "The Vatican Concordat With Hitler's Reich" by Robert Krieg (http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=3131&issueID=448), from the September 1, 2003 issue of America, which gives a good explanation of the politics behind the Concordat.

Those are two examples of why I distrust Carrier's ability to draw fair conclusions from the data. I am willing to trust his translation skills, and I am willing to trust that he is attempting to give an honest description of the discrepancies he perceives. I am not willing to trust his judgment as to the significance of these discrepancies. I want to see and evaluate the discrepancies, in context, for myself. And, unfortunately, Carrier does not provide enough information for me to do so.

Carrier presents only three examples of discrepancies between the English translation of the table talks and the original German. It might seem like it would be a simple matter to take the text from one version and compare it to text from another, but such was not the case here. Comparing Picker's notes (as published in his 1951 book) to Bormann's notes (as published in Jochmann's 1980 book) was probably not too difficult, since both are in German. But comparing the German notes to the published English translation obviously presented greater difficulties, since he needed to translate the German into English in order to do an English-to-English comparison. Translating the entire book, in order to do a passage-by-passage comparison, apparently would have been too time-consuming, so Carrier simply spot-checked key items and drew conclusions from those. He gives a mere 3 examples, but says in the article that "There are many other suspect quotations. I checked over a dozen, in four separate entries."

The incompleteness is regrettable. I hope Carrier (or someone) is continuing the research.

But regrettable as the incompleteness is, there is a larger problem, at least for me, which is that I find Carrier's writing hard to follow. I do not know why, but even after several readings I found his explanations of the three discrepancies he points out unsatisfying and un-illuminating. Either his writing or my reading is not as clear as it should be.

For example, the first discrepancy Carrier points out is a line in the English translation from February 27, 1942 in which Hitler is alleged to have said: "Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity." The sentence (as Carrier translates it) reads: "The time in which we live has the appearance of the collapse of this idea."

I believe Carrier when he says the line is mistranslated, and I am willing to accept Carrier's translation as the correct one. That means the phrase "disease of Christianity" does not actually appear in the notes of what Hitler said that night. But I already knew this was a translation, and that translations are never fully faithful. So the question which concerns me is not whether the translation is completely literal but whether the translation is true to, or in contradiction to, the gist of the passage. And the answer to that remains cloudy to me, despite repeated readings of what Carrier has written about it, because Carrier fails to provide enough information for me to be able to understand what the passage is talking about.

Both translations seem to be saying something similar, which is that some day humanity will see the collapse of "this idea". In order to judge whether the questioned translation if fair or foul, I need to know what "this idea" refers to.

Carrier quotes the three sentences preceding the one in question, as well as two that follow it. Here is the text which Carrier quotes: I have never found pleasure in maltreating others, even if I know it isn't possible to maintain oneself in the world without force. Life is granted only to those who fight the hardest. It is the law of life: Defend yourself!

The time in which we live has the appearance of the collapse of this idea. It can still take 100 or 200 years. I am sorry that, like Moses, I can only see the Promised Land from a distance. Carrier says the idea Hitler is denouncing is "survival of the fittest", the idea we must use force to triumph over others. If that is indeed what the full text says, then referring to it as "the disease of Christianity" is certainly amiss.

But when Hitler says "Life is granted only to those who fight the hardest. It is the law of life: Defend yourself!", is he quoting this disapprovingly (as Carrier says) or approvingly (as I would have guessed if I'd been given this passage without any other context or comments)? If Hitler is indeed denouncing the idea of survival of the fittest, it is a surprising reversal of opinion from a man who favored sterilizing the retarded and weeding out "useless eaters". It seems possible to me that it is pacifism -- the idea that we don't need to forcefully impose our will on others -- which Hitler is condemning. If that is the case -- and if Hitler connects that to Christian teachings -- then the questioned translation would not be unreasonable.

Carrier may very well be right in his explanation, but he hasn't quoted a sufficient amount of the passage to make that clear. I need to be able to read a bit more of the passage if I am to see that for myself rather than having to take Carrier's word for it.

The second example Carrier gives of a discrepancy is also from the February 27, 1942, transcript."I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie." Here is how Carrier says the line should be translated:"To do something false against one's own knowledge, that is out of the question! One should never personally fall in line with such a lie" And here is Carrier's explanation of why the commonly-used translation is wrongThough the context still happens to be a criticism of the Church -- Hitler implying he followed the "true" Christianity that the Church somehow betrayed -- he does not call Christianity a lie. And here it is even more clearly a distortion, since the sentence "I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie" does not seem to fit here, and is thus more evidently an interpolation, whereas its counterpart, "One should never personally fall in line with such a lie," fits perfectly, carrying over and completing the thought of the previous sentence, which is about hypocrisy in general.In other words, if I'm reading Carrier correctly, he is criticizing the translation because that particular sentence translates literally to such a lie rather than Christian lie. (He's also upset because the passage is translated as I shall never personally... rather than as One should never personally....)

In order to know if "Christian lie" is actually different in meaning from "such a lie", we need to know what the lie in question is. On the one hand, Carrier claims the lie Hitler is criticizing is "hypocrisy in general". On the other hand, Carrier tells us that the passage is "a criticism of the Church".

Carrier fails to specify what, specifically, Hitler is criticizing about the Church in this passage, nor does he include enough of the text for us to glean that for ourselves. Just what is meaning of the "something false against one's own knowledge" which Hitler rails against? If the passage refers to some particular aspect of Christianity which Hitler disagrees with and thinks is a lie (as Carrier seems to be admitting it does), then characterizing that as a "Christian lie" would not seem an unreasonable translation.

Although Carrier quotes several sentences in addition to the line in question, what he quotes still leaves me in the dark as to what Hitler was talking about in the passage. Some key antecedents seem to be missing, and I need to see a few more sentences before I can make sense of the passage. As with the first example, Carrier has not provided enough information for readers to be able to judge for themselves the seriousness of the discrepancy he points out.

Carrier's third example come from the December 13, 1941, transcript. First, the questioned translation:But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. And here is Carrier's translation:Christianity teaches 'transubstantiation,' which is the maddest thing ever concocted by a human mind in its delusions, a mockery of all that is godly. And here is Carrier's commentary on the discrepancy between the two versions: The difference in meaning here is radical, and again shows how ... [the English translation of the Table Talks] ... has distorted Hitler's criticism of one form of Christianity (which implies he believed there was a true Christianity) into a thoroughly anti-Christian sentiment.Carrier's analysis of Hitler's remark seems way off the mark here. The gist of Hitler's remark in the questioned translation is that Christianity is an invention of sick brains. The gist of Hitlers remark in Carrier's translation is that the doctrine of transubstantiation an insane idea concocted by deluded minds. What should be our concern here is whether calling Christianity "an invention of sick brains" is substantially similar to or substantially different from saying that a Christian doctrine is "the maddest thing ever concocted by a human mind in its delusions."

It is interesting that Hitler uses the word "Christianity" (both in the questioned translation and Carrier's translation). It is my understanding that transubstantiation -- the idea that the communion wafer and wine are transformed into Jesus' actual flesh and blood when ingested by the faithful during communion -- is not so much a Christian doctrine as it is a key Catholic doctrine. So Hitler is not simply criticizing "one form of Christianity" as Carrier puts it -- he appears to be harshly denouncing Catholicism!

Carrier seems far too eager to seize upon evidence that Hitler must have been a Christian. I do not see how Hitler's harsh criticism of Catholic doctrine shows he believed in "true Christianity". The phrase "a mockery of all that is godly" might seem to imply a belief in god (though not necessarily a Christian one), but the word godly has far too many different meanings and connotations for me to put any confidence in such a reading without seeing much stronger supporting evidence.

Carrier also calls attention to the transcript for October 19, 1941, but this is for a different reason than the other examples. The English-language version has an entry for this date, in which Hitler says that Christianity is "a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society." According to Carrier, this is an accurate translation of the notes for that date. The reason Carrier lists this entry as a discrepancy is that it is one of the few cases where Bormann's collection of notes has an entry which Picker's set lacks. This does not seem to be cause for alarm, however, since Hitler is recorded as having said very similar things in his table talk of December 13, 1941. (Carrier speculates the entry for October 19 may have been a case or Bormann attempting to reconstruct a table talk from memory, and somehow recording the date incorrectly.)

While I am reserving judgment on whether the discrepancies Carriage has pointed out between the English translation and original German are significant enough to make the English translation worthless, I think the project he has undertaken is a good one and that the Freethought article, while severely flawed, is still worth reading and considering.

If Carrier is correct that Genoud significantly distorted Hitler's ideas when he translated Bormann's set of notes into French, and that these errors were perpetuated when the English translation was done from Genoud's French rather than the original German, then Carrier might be right that the English translation is worthless. In that case, the table talks would still be worth looking at (more than ever, now that it is largely confirmed the German notes were not been tampered with) but it would be necessary to find a German edition (and, for some of us at least, find someone to translate the passages into English).

On the other hand, Carrier has provided only 3 examples (out of more than 700 pages of text) and none of those 3 examples seemed very clear or convincing to me. And that was more than 3 years ago; if those 3 examples were simply the tip of the iceberg, 3 years seems to be more than enough time to expose more of what's hidden in the water.

Does anyone know what has happened with Carriage's research project in the 3 years since the article was published in Freethought Today? An introductory note to Carrier's article says: "This essay excerpts research currently under review for publication by the journal German Studies Review., but I couldn't find any mention of the research being published there, nor could I find any mention of any continuation or follow-up. Has the research every been published in full? If so, what did other scholars have to say about it? (If not, why not?)

Nova Land

22nd March 2006, 03:59 AM

Okay, I'm back. I finally found (most of) my collection of photocopies for this topic, so that removes my last good excuse for not posting. I blame the cats for misplacing the papers. The only plausible suspects are them and me, and I distinctly do not remember putting the stack where it finally turned up.
One of my main intentions in this thread is to go through the Table Talks, posting all the relevant bits (and probably a few irrelevant ones) for discussion and analysis. There are shop-worn excerpts from the Table Talks posted at various places on the internet, but I believe going through the book systematically is better than relying on hand-me-downs of a few dramatic bits and pieces. I'll go into that more in some future post.

The Table Talks which contain material relevant to this thread are 3, 4, 5, 27, 33, 39, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 75, 76, 100, 105, 127, 143, 145, 148, 152, 153, 160, 163, 184, 187, 190, 233, 235, 236, 248, 275, 287, 304, 308, 326, and 328. Some of these contain very brief mentions of religion; others contain quite lengthy rambles. In glancing back through the stack of copies (to make sure I the list of relevant entries was correct) I was intrigued by a number of highlighted passages which I had previously noticed but haven't thought about since.

I should perhaps explain that I have not read this material carefully myself yet. What I did a couple years ago, when this thread was young, was go through the complete book one night at the library, skimming quickly simply to note which of the talks contained references to religion and which ones didn't. (There are headline summaries at the start of each one giving the gist of what's contained, which were a help in locating obvious references, but I also skimmed through the text of each of the 300+ entries since mentions of religion sometimes came up tangentially in the course of Hitler monologing on something else.) I noted down the numbers of all the entries which had relevant bits, trying to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. Then I made copies of all the pages with those entries. After getting home I began reading through some of the pages more carefully and highlighting the relevant passages, but largely I am learning what's in there when I type up the excerpts to post.

The entries from which I have already posted excerpts in this thread are 3 (post # 10, on page 1), 4 (post # 11, on page 1), 5 (post # 51, on page 2), 33 (post # 106, on page 3), 39 (post #52 , on page 2), 43 (post # 159, on page 4), 47 (post # 256, on page 7), 48 (post # 244, on page 7) 49 (post # 257, on page 7), and 51 (post # 160, on page 4). Something I intend to do soon is post links back to those posts and/or to re-post those excerpts. That will make it easier to locate and refer back to that material as we examine the following entries.

Before I do that, though, I am trying to decide whether to continue in this thread or to re-start in a new thread. There are a number of good reasons to continue here, and a number of good reasons for starting fresh. Does anyone have a strong preference?

One thing I do want to do in this thread is follow up on my previous post about Richard Carrier's criticism of the English translation version of the Table Talks. That's going to be involve hefty excerpts from Table Talks 75 and 100, so I'll end this post here and make that my next post.

Nova Land

22nd March 2006, 02:50 PM

Let's see if I can sum this up more concisely than in my previous post about Richard Carrier's article.

Richard Carrier made two comparisons. One was between the two surviving sets of Table Talk transcript notes: the one Dr. Picker secretly retained, and the one that was in Bormann's custody. Carrier concluded the text in both is essentially the same. Assuming Carrier is correct about this, it would seem to strongly indicate that Bormann did not tamper with the transcripts (as some people suggested earlier in this thread, using that as a reason to dismiss the Table Talks). Until and unless someone comes up with actual evidence that any significant tampering occurred, I am inclined to set the speculation that the transcripts were tampered with aside.

The other comparison Carrier did was between the English-language translation of the transcripts and the original German text. Here he came up with two interesting findings. One is that the English-translation, which was supposed to be done directly from the German, appears to actually have been done from the 1952 French translation of the German text. The other is that key sentences in the English version are not accurate translations of the German. From this, Carrier concludes that the English version is worthless.

There is a problem with that argument, however. A literal translation is not the same as a good translation. The question is not whether each sentence in a translated passage, when compared with the same sentence in the original, is strictly accurate. The question should be whether the sentences in a translated passage as a whole, when compared to the original passage as a whole, conveys a reasonable sense of what the original said. It is as important to catch the spirit of a passage as to catch the letter, which is what makes translating such a difficult art.

Carrier gave 3 examples of sentences he felt were mistranslated. One comes from TT # 75 (December 13, 1941), the other two from TT # 163 (February 27, 1942). In all 3 cases, although Carrier reproduced a few of the sentences surrounding the sentence he questioned, I was not able to follow what the passage was saying from the text he provided and thus was not able to judge whether Carrier had a valid point or not. Now that I have located my photocopies and have read those entries in their entirety, I feel that my doubts about Carrier's essay were justified.

Because I do not have the original German text at hand to check (and wouldn't be able to read it if I did) what I have been able to do is insufficient to settle the matter completely in my mind. (Ideally someone who speaks German and English well would reproduce the original German, the published English translation, and their own independently-done English translation for the questioned entries.) But from the comparison I was able to make between what Carrier claimed about the translated version and the translated version itself, I feel comfortable in tentatively concluding that Carrier is making a mountain out of a molehill.

(There is a molehill there, yes. With that I agree. But I was already aware that the English version was a translation, and that translations are imperfect, so the discovery of a molehill of minor differences in wording between the translation and the original does not shock me or present a stumbling-block. The mountain Carrier claims to see would shock me; but if that really exists, it is invisible to me.)

I'm going to reproduce a goodly chunk of the two questioned TT entries, so that others reading this thread can judge for themselves whether Carrier has a reasonable point. Even excerpted, these are going to run fairly long, so I'm going to devote a separate post to each.

Nova Land

22nd March 2006, 03:11 PM

Excerpting Table Talks # 75 and # 163 is a difficult task, because both are extremely long and almost all their content is relevant to this thread. When we get to those two entries later in the course of this thread, I think it will make sense to break them into digestible pieces rather than trying to gulp them down whole. And I think that makes sense now as well.

Those who want to read the complete entries now can find them at http://kevin.davnet.org/articles/table.html. But for those willing to wait on reading the whole thing, I think that the middle third of TT # 75 is enough to look at in trying to understand Carrier's complaint with the translation. I have underlined and bolded the sentence Carrier objects to:
What is this God who takes pleasure only in seeing men grovel before Him? Try to picture to yourselves the meaning of the following, quite simple story. God creates the conditions for sin. Later on He succeeds, with the help of the Devil, in causing man to sin. Then He employs a virgin to bring into the world a son who, by His death, will redeem humanity!

I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the pardise of Mahomet, but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians! In your lifetime, you used to hear the music of Richard Wagner. After your death, it will be nothing but hallelujahs, the waving of palms, children of an age for the feeding-bottle, and hoary old men. The man of the isles pays homage to the forces of nature. But Christianity is an invention of sick brains; one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A Negro with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation.

I begin to lose all respect for humanity when I think that some people on our side, Ministers or generals, are capable of believing that we cannot triumph without the blessing of the Church. Such a notion is excusable in little children who have learnt nothing else.

For thirty years the Germans tore each other to pieces simply in order to know whether or not they should take Communion in both kinds. There's nothing lower than religious notions like that. From that point of view, one can envy the Japanese. They have a religion which is very simple and brings them into contact with nature. They've succeeded even in taking Christianity and turning it into a religion that's less shocking to the intellect.

By what would you have me replace the Christians' picture of the Beyond? What comes naturally to mankind is the sense of eternity and that sense is at the bottom of every man. The soul and the mind migrate, just as the body returns to nature. Thus life is eternally reborn from life. As for the "why?" of all that, I feel no need to rack my brains on the subject. The soul is unplumbable.According to Carrier, a better translation of the underlined sentence is: Christianity teaches 'transubstantiation,' which is the maddest thing ever concocted by a human mind in its delusions, a mockery of all that is godly. According to Carrier, "The difference in meaning here is radical..." Not to me! Reading the passage in full, I see very little significance to the difference in wordings.

Carrier's complaint, that the phrase "Christianity is an invention of sick brains" does not actually appear in the German text and was inserted by the translater, would be a legitimate concern if Hitler had been talking about, say, baseball, and the translater had thrown it in out of left field. But we have here a passage where Hitler does indeed appear to be saying that one needs to be deluded to believe as Christians do. The fact that the particular sentence in which the translater chose to put this sentiment does not translate literally as saying that is of little consequence, since the sentiment permeates the passage.

Assuming the rest of the passage reads substantially as given in the English translation -- and I think this is a reasonable assumption, since it would be as easy for Carrier to carp the neighboring sentences if he had any significant objections to them as it is about the one he singles out -- then the English translation may not be word-for-word literal but it seems a reasonable representation of what was transcribed. If Carrier had quoted more of the passage that would have been obvious (to me), and I would not have needed to dig out my own photocopies. The fact Carrier did not quote more of the passage, even though the additional paragraphs were essential to my understanding of what he was talking about, lowers my opinion of him as far as his fairness and reliability in presenting material.

I had the same problem with Carrier's other 2 examples, which I'll examine in the next post.

Nova Land

22nd March 2006, 03:26 PM

Carrier's other two examples both come from Table Talk # 163. Here is a lengthy excerpt from that Table Talk, with the two parts that Carrier complains about bolded and underlined.

Excerpting this entry was hard. I cut several interesting (and relevant) lines in order to reduce the mass a little, and I'm looking forward to including those bits for examination and discussion when this particular Table Talk comes up later in the thread. (If I can manage to post a couple of excerpts each week, we should get to # 163 this summer before I take off for blueberries.) But in the meanwhile, I believe that the excerpt which follows is sufficient for people to get the gist of the passage, and that is all I'm concerned with for the moment.

(For those who would like to see the entire entry now, it can be found at http://kevin.davnet.org/articles/table.html.)

... While we're on the subject, let's add that, even amongst those who claim to be good Catholics, very few really believe in this humbug...

Why should men fight to make their point of view triumph, if prayer should be enough? In the Spanish struggle, the clergy should have said: "We defend ourselves by the power of prayer." But they deemed it sager to finance a lot of heathens, so that Holy Church could save her skin...

That little country girls and simple working men should be set dancing to that tune, that's a thing that can be explained. But that intelligent men should make themselves accomplices to such superstitions, and that it's because of these superstitions, and in the name of love, that hundreds of thousands of human beings have been exterminated in the course of history -- that is something I cannot admit.

I shall never believe that what is founded on lies can endure for ever. I believe in truth. I'm sure that, in the long run, truth must be victorious.

It's probable that, as regards religion, we are about to enter an era of tolerance. Everybody will be allowed to seek his own salvation in the way that suits him best. The ancient world knew this climate of tolerance. Nobody took to proselytising.

If I enter a church, it's not with the idea of overturning idols. It's to look for, and perhaps to find, beauties in which I'm interested. It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realise that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors -- but to devote myself deliberately to error, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. In acting as I do, I'm very far from the wish to scandalize. But I rebel when I see the very idea of Providence flouted in this fashion.

It's a great satisfaction for me to feel myself totally foreign to that world. But I shall feel I'm in my proper place if, after my death, I find myself, together with people like me, on some sort of Olympus. I shall be in the company of the most enlightened spirits of all times.

I adopted a definite attitude on the 21st March 1933 when I refused to take part in the religious services, organized at Potsdam by the two Churches, for the inauguaration of the new Reichstag.

I've never concerned myself, in the Party, with learning to which Church the men around me belonged, or did not belong. But if I were to die today, it would shock me to know that there's a single "sky-pilot" within a radius of ten kilometers around me. The idea that one of these fellows could bring me the slightest help would by itself make me despair of Providence.

As far as I'm concerned, I act according to my convictions. I don't prevent anyone from praying silently, but I rebel against all blasphemy. So let nobody waste prayers on me that I shall not have asked for.

If my presence on earth is providential, I owe it to a superior will. But I owe nothing to the Church that traffics in the salvation of souls, and I find it really too cruel. I admit that one cannot impose one's will by force, but I have a horror of people who enjoy inflicting suffereings on others' bodies and tyranny upon others' souls.

Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity. It will last another hundred years, two hundred years perhaps. My regret will have been that I couldn't, like whoever the prophet was, behold the promised land from afar. We are entering into a conception of the world that will be a sunny era, an era of tolerance. Man must be in a position to develop freely the talents that God has given him... Carrier believes the first underlined part should actually be translated as "To do something false against one's own knowledge, that is out of the question! One should never personally fall in line with such a lie." He argues this is a general condemnation of hypocrisy rather than a specific condemnation of Christianity, and he argues that Hitler is talking about what people in general should do rather than how he personally feels -- thus, to Carrier, the change from one should never to I will never is a major mistranslation and distortion. To me, that says more about Carrier's sense of proportion than it does about the quality of the translation.

Carrier believes the second underlined part should be translated as "The time in which we live has the appearance of the collapse of this idea", and he argues that the idea being referred to is people imposing their ideas on others by force. I find that unconvincing.

But even if Carrier is correct that Hitler was condemning the use of force rather than Christian doctrines, I would see that as a minor instance where the translator missed a subtlety in the passage being translated rather than a serious indictment of the translation. Since the passage as a whole is devoted to criticism of Christianity, translating this sentence as an additional criticism of Christianity does not significantly alter the passage as a whole. In a 600-page book I would expect a fair number of minor errors to occur. That Carrier is able to identify only 3, and that none seems especially disturbing or noteworthy, indicates that the translation is adequate.

I am conservative by nature, and hesitate to reach firm conclusions too hastily. But the fact that the only item I can find concerning Carrier's work is that three-and-a-half-year-old essay from Freethought Today, and that I can find no mention of his research ever being published in German Studies Review (where it was under review at the time he wrote the FT essay) suggests to me that when people who are able to read German reviewed his work they came to a similar conclusion to mine. If anyone is aware of additional articles concerning Carrier's research, I would be interested in reading them and am open to revising my opinion on this.

In the meantime, I am going to resume posting excerpts from the Table Talks for examination and discussion. I'll be away Thursday through Monday, so next Tuesday I'll begin in earnest. My hope is to post excerpts about twice a week, which should leave enough time to examine and discuss the various bits in between postings and allow for steady progress through the 37 relevant entries.

Nova Land

2nd April 2006, 04:23 AM

I still seem to be swimming through molasses, so this post is almost a week later than intended. Still, better a week late than a year late.

I'm going to attempt to make this thread a bit more user-friendly. The next 11 posts will be a re-posting, in chronological order of the 10 Table Talk excerpts posted in this thread so far, along with one new excerpt which was accidentlyally skipped over. That will catch us up to where we were when I left off excerpting back on page 7.

I have also included links back to where each previously-posted excerpt originally appeared in the thread (so people can check out previous comments and discussion.)

In order to make it easier for people to quote and dissect the Table Talk excerpts, I'm going to avoid putting them in quote boxes in my own posts. For that reason, each excerpt will be a separate post, and the text of the transcribed remarks will be in blue; any other text in those posts will be italicized black.

Nova Land

2nd April 2006, 04:27 AM

This previously appeared in post # 11 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=11925&postcount=10), back on page 1 of this thread
Table Talk # 3
11th/12th July, 1941, night

The natural piety of man -- Russian atheists know how to die -- No atheistical education

I think the man who contemplates the universe with his eyes wide open is the man with the greatest amount of natural piety, not in the religious sense, but in the sense of an intimate harmony with things.

At the end of the last century the progress of science and technique led liberalism astray into proclaiming man's mastery of nature, and announcing that he would soon have dominion over space. But a simple storm is enough -- and everything collapses like a pack of cards.

In any case, we shall learn to become familiar with the laws by which life is governed, and acquaintance with the laws of nature will guide us on the path of progress. As for the why of thse laws, we shall never know anything about it. A thing is so, and our understanding cannot conceive of other schemes.

Man has discovered in nature the wonderful notion of that all-mighty being whose law he worships.

Fundamentally in everyone there is the feeling for this all-mighty, which we call God (that is to say, the dominion of natural laws throughout the universe). The priests, who have always succeeded in exploiting this feeling, threaten punishments for the man who refuses to accept the creed they impose.

When one provokes in a child a fear of the dark, one awakens in him a feeling of atavistic dread. Thus the child will be ruled all his life by this dread, whereas another child, who has been intelligently brought up, will be free of it.

It's said that every man needs a refuge where he can find consolation and help in unhappiness. I don't believe it! If humanity follows that path, it's solely a matter of tradition and habit. That's a lesson, by the way, that can be drawn from the Bolshevik front. The Russians have no God, and that doesn't prevent them from being able to face death.

We don't want to educate anyone in atheism.

Nova Land

2nd April 2006, 04:31 AM

This previously appeared in Post # 11 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=11926&postcount=11), from page 1 of this thread:

Table Talk # 4
11th/12th July, 1941, night

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together -- No persecution of religions, let them wither of themselves -- Bolshevism, the illegitimate child of Christianity...

When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours.

In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.

On a question from C.S., whether this antagonism might mean a war, the Fuehrer continued:

No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. But in that case we must not replace the Church by something equivalent. That would be terrifying! It goes without saying that the whole thing needs a lot of thought...

In England, the status of the individual in relation to the Church is governed by considerations of State. In America, it's all purely a matter of conformism.

The German people's especial quality is patience; and it's the only one of the peoples capable of undertaking a revolution in this sphere. It could do it, if only for the reason that only the German people has made moral law the governing principle of action.

The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.

Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke.

Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.

The result of the collapse of the Roman Empire was a night that lasted for centuries...

Nova Land

2nd April 2006, 04:34 AM

This previously appeared in Post # 51 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=11970&postcount=51), from page 2 of this thread:
Table Talk # 5
21st-22nd July 1941, night

Gratitude to the Jesuits -- Protestant fanaticism -- Similarities between Germany and Italy -- Dante and Luther...

When all's said, we should be grateful to the Jesuits. Who knows if, but for them, we might have abandoned Gothic architecture for the light, airy, bright architecture of the Counter-Reformation? In the face of Luther's efforts to lead an upper clergy that had acquired profane habits back to mysticism, the Jesuits restored to the world the joy of the senses.

It's certain that Luther had no desire to mould humanity to the letter of the Scriptures. He has a whole series of reflections in which he clearly sets himself against the Bible. He recognizes that it contains a lot of bad things.

Fanaticism is a matter of climate -- for Protestantism, too, has burnt its witches. Nothing of that sort in Italy. The Southerner has a lighter attitude towards matters of faith. The Frenchman has personally an easy way of behaving in his churches. With us, it's enough not to kneel and attract attention.

But Luther had the merit of rising against the Pope and the organization of the Church. It was the first of the great revolutions. And thanks to his translation of the Bible, Luther replaced our dialects by the great German language!

It's remarkable to observe the resemblances between the evolution of Germany and that of Italy. The creators of the language, Dante and Luther, rose against the ecomenical desires of the papacy.

Each of the two nations was led to unity, against the dynastic interests, by one man. They achieved their unity against the will of the Pope.

(Hitler then rambles on for another page and a half in praise of Mussolini, Italians, and Italian architecture; there's nothing relevant to religious beliefs, so it's deleted.)

Nova Land

2nd April 2006, 04:39 AM

Not Previously Posted

Table Talk # 27
27-28 September 1941, night

Christianity and the Spaniards

... In this matter we see things like the Americans -- and not like the Spaniard;, who would content himself with a few olives a day rather than work to have more. The Church has been able to profit by this conception f life. It proclaims that the poor in spirit -- and the other poor, too -- will go to heaven, whilst the rich will pay with eternal sufferings for the blessings of earthly existence. The Church is moved to say this by the tacit contract between the priests and the posssessors, who joyfully leave the Church a little money so that it may go on encouraging the poor to grovel.

But what a queer sort of Christianity they practice down there. We must recognize, of course, that, amongst us, Christianity is colored by Germanism. All the same, its doctrine signifies: "Pray and Work!"

Nova Land

2nd April 2006, 04:43 AM

This previously appeared in post # 106 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=12975&postcount=106), from page 3 of this thread:
Table Talk # 33
10th October 1941, midday:

Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.

NOTE: This is the amount I previously quoted. However, in light of Richard Carrier's article on the Table Talks and his interpretation of TT # 163, I think it is worth quoting # 33 at greater length.

Carrier claimed that in TT # 163, Carrier was criticizing the idea of survival of the fittest. The translated text of TT # 33, however, contradicts that idea and supports my interpretation that Hitler was supporting the idea of survival of the fittest, and denouncing Christianity for being contrary to that "natural law".

It's possible, of course, that the English versions of both TT # 33 and TT # 163 have been mistranslated to make Hitler appear to suppport what he actually denounced and denounce what he actually supported. I think that is unlikely since, if true, it would be sensational news. Carrier (or whoever demonstrated it) would be a celebrity rather than a virtual unknown. All that would be needed to demonstrate the claim would be to quote the German text of those Table Talks in full and provide one's own English translation side-by-side with the current translation. That would make the truth (or falsity) of the claim of mistranslation clear to any fair-minded person who could read both German and English. I suspect the reason no one has done so is that there is no point -- that the current translation is basically correct.

Here, then, is TT # 33 in its entirety:

War has returned to its primitive form. The war of people against people is giving place to another war -- a war for the possession of great spaces.

Originally war was nothing but a struggle for pasture-grounds. Today war is nothing but a struggle for the riches of nature. By virtue of an inherent law, these riches belong to him who conquers them.

The great migrations set out from the East. With us begins the ebb, from West to East.

That's in accordance witht eh laws of nature. By means of struggle, the elites are continually renewed.

The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.

Nova Land

2nd April 2006, 04:46 AM

This previously appeared in post # 52 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=11971&postcount=52), from page 2 of this thread:
Table Talk # 39
14th October 1941, midday
special guest: Himmler

Disadvantages of a Concordat with the Churches -- Difficulty of compromising with a lie -- No truck with religion for the party -- Antagonism of dogma and science -- Let Christianity die slowly -- The metaphysical needs of the soul -- No State Religion -- Freedom of belief.

It may be asked whether concluding a concordat with the churches wouldn't facilitate our exercise of power.

On this subject one may make the following remarks:

Firstly, in this way the authority of the State would be vitiated by the fact of the intervention of a third power concerning which it is impossible to say how long it would remain reliable. In the case of the Anglican Church, this objection does not arise, for England knows she can depend on her Church. But what about the Catholic Church. Wouldn't we be running the risk of her one day going into reverse after having put herself at the service of the State solely in order to safeguard her power? If one day the State's policy ceased to suit Rome or the clergy, the priests would turn against the State, as they are doing now. History provides examples that should make us careful.

Secondly, there is also a question of principle. Trying to take a long view of things, is it conceivable that one could found anything durable on falsehood? When I think of our people's future, I must look further than immediate advantages, even if these advantages were to last three hundred, five hundred years or more. I'm convinced that any pact with the Church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful character of such a compromise. Thus the State will have based its existence on a foundation that one day will collapse.

An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure science.

That's why I've always kept the Party aloof from religious questions. I've thus prevented my Catholic and Protestant supporters from forming groups against one another, and inadvertently knocking each other out with the Bible and the sprinkler. So we never became involved with these Churches' forms of worship. And if that has momentarily made my task a little more difficult, at least I've never run the risk of carrying grist to my opponent's mill. The help we would have provisionally obtained from a concordat would have quickly become a burden on us. In any case, the main thing is to be clever in this matter and not to look for a struggle where it can be avoided.

Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid of things that can't, or can't yet, be explained -- that is to say, of the unknown. If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature, I can't satisfy them with the Party's program. Time will go by until the moment when science can answer all the questions.

So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.

Originally, religion was merely a prop for human communities. It was a means, not an end in itself. It's only gradually that it became transformed in this direction, with the object of maintaining the rule of the priests, who can love only to the detriment of society collectively.

The instructions of a hygienic nature that most religions gave, contributed to the foundation of organised communities. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret -- all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Mussulman was promised a paradise peopled with houris, where wine flowed in streams -- a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing Hallelujahs! All these elements contributed to form human communities. It is to these private customs that peoples owe their present characters.

Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.

But one must continue to pay attention to another aspect of the problem. It's possible to satisfy the needs of the inner life by an intimate communion with nature, or by knowledge of' the past. Only a minority, however, at the present stage of the mind's development, can feel the respect inspired by the unknown, and thus satisfy the metaphysical needs of the soul. The average human being has the same needs, but can satisfy them only by elementary means. That's particularly true of women, as also of peasants who impotently watch the destruction of their crops. The person whose life tends to simplification is thirsty for belief, and he dimly clings to it with all his strength.

Nobody has the right to deprive simple people of their childish certainties until they've acquired others that are more reasonable. Indeed, it's most important that the higher belief should be well established in them before the lower belief has been removed. We must finally achieve this. But it would serve no purpose to replace an old belief by a new one that would merely fill the place left vacant by its predecessor.

It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. At that period the ancient world was divided between the Systems of philosophy and the worship of idols It's not desirable that the whole of humanity should be stultified-and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.

A movement like ours mustn't let itself be drawn into metaphysical digressions. It must stick to the spirit of exact science. It's not the Party's function to be a counterfeit for religion.

If in the course of a thousand or two thousand years, science arrives at the necessity of renewing its points of view, that will not mean that science is a liar. Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself.

One may ask whether the disappearance of Christianity would entail the disappearance of belief in God. That's not to be desired. The notion of divinity gives most men the opportunity to concretise the feeling they have of supernatural realities Why should we destroy this wonderful power they have of incarnating the feeling for the divine that is within them?

The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily puts himself in opposition to the Churches. And that's why they're heading for ruin -- for science is bound to win.

I especially wouldn't want our movement to acquire a religious character and institute a form of worship. It would be appalling for me, and I would wish I'd never lived, if I were to end up in the skin of a Buddha!

If at this moment we were to eliminate the religions by force, the people would unanimously beseech us for a new form of worship. You can imagine our Gauleiters giving up their pranks to play at being saints! As for our Minister for Religion, according to his own co-religionists, God himself would turn away from his family!

I envisage the future, therefore, as follows: First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing with the religions. These latter must simply be forbidden from interfering in future with temporal matters. From the tenderest age, education will be imparted in such a way that each child will know all that is important to the maintenance of the State. As for the men close to me, who, like me, have escaped from the clutches of dogma, I've no reason to fear that the Church will get its hooks on them.

We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.

Nova Land

2nd April 2006, 04:49 AM

This previously appeared in post # 159 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=13783&postcount=159), from page 4 of this thread:
Table Talk # 43
17th October 1941, evening

... The precept that it's men's duty to love one another is theory -- and the Christians are the last to practice it! A negro baby who has the misfortune to die before a missionary gets his clutches on him, goes to Hell. If that were true, one might well lament that sorrowful destiny: to have lived only three years, and to burn for all eternity with Lucifer!...

Nova Land

2nd April 2006, 04:50 AM

This previously appeared in Post # 244 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=15968&postcount=244), from page 7 of this thread:
Table Talk # 47
19 October 1941 evening

...I find it a real absurdity that even today a typewriter costs several hundred marks. One can't imagine the time wasted daily in deciphering everybody's scribbles. Why not give lessons in typewriting at primary school? Instead of religious instruction, for example. I shouldn't mind that.

Nova Land

2nd April 2006, 04:52 AM

This previously appeared in post # 244 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=15968&postcount=244)
Table Talk # 48
19th October 1941, night

The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. Thus one understnads that the healthy elements of the Roman society were proof against this doctrine.

Yet Rome today allows itself to reproach Bolshevism with having destroyed the Christian churches! As if Christianity hadn't behaved the same way towards the pagan temples.

Nova Land

2nd April 2006, 04:53 AM

This previously appeared in post # 257 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=23208&postcount=257) back on page 7
Table Talk # 49
21st October 1941, mid-day

When one thinks of the opinions held concerning Christianity by our best minds a hundred, two hundred years ago, one is ashamed to realise how little we have since evolved. I didn't know that Julian the Apostate had passed judgment with such clearsightedness on Christianity and Christians. You should read what he says on the subject.

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded His as the sone of a whore -- of a whore and a Roman soldier.

The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galilean's object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated Him.

Paul of Tarsus (his name was Saul, before the road to Damascus) was one of those who persecuted Jesus most savagely. When he learnt that Jesus's supporters let their throats be cut for His ideas, he realized that, by making intelligent use of the Gallilean's teaching, it would be possible to overthrow this Roman State which the Jews hated.d It's in this context that we must understand the famous "illumination". Think of it, Romans were daring to confiscate the most sacred thing the Jews possessed, the gold piled up in their temples! At that time, as now, money was their god.

On the road to Damascus, St. Paul discovered that he could succeed in ruining the Roman State by causing the principle to triumph of the equality of all men before a single God -- and by putting beyond the reach of the laws his private notions, which he alleged to be divinely inspired. If, into the bargain, one succeeded in imposing one man as the representative on earth of the only God, that man would possess boundless power.

The ancient world had its gods and served them. But the priests interposed between the gods and men were servants of the State, for the Gods protected the City. In short, they were the emanation of a power that the people had created. For thst society, the idea of an only god was unthinkable. In this sphere, the Romans were tolerance itself. The idea of a universal god could seem to them only a mild form of madness -- for, if three peoples fight one another, each invoking the same god, this means that, at any rate, two of them are praying in vain.

Nobody was more tolerant than the Romans. Every man could pray to the god of his choice, and a place was even reserved in the temples for the unknown god. Moreover, every man prayed as he chose, and had the right to proclaim his preferences.

St. Paul knew how to exploit this state of affairs in order to conduct his struggle against the Roman State. Nothing has changed; the method has remained sound. Under cover of a pretended religious instruction, the priests continue to incite the faithful against the State.

The religious ideas of the Romans are common to all the Aryan peoples. The Jew, on the other hand, worshipped and continues to worship, then and now, nothing but the golden calf. The Jewish religion is devoid of all metaphysics, and has no foundation but the most repulsive materialism. That's proved even in the concrete representation they have of the BEyond -- which for them is identified with ABraham's bosom.

It's since St Paul's time that the Jews have manifested themselves as a religious community, for until then they were only a racial community. St. Paul was the first man to take account of the possible advantages of using a religion as a means of propaganda. If the Jew has succeeded in destroying the Roman Empire, that's because St Paul transformed a local movement of Aryan opposition to Jewry into a supra-temporal religon, which postulates the equality of all men amonst themselves, and their obedience to an only god. This si what caused the death of the Roman Empire.

It's striking to observe that Christian ideas, despite all St Paul's efforts, had no success in Athens. The philosophy of the Greeks was so much superior to this poverty-stricken rubbish that the Athenians burst out laughing when they listened to the apostle's teaching. But in Rome St Paul found the ground prepared for him. His egalitarian theories had what was needed to win over a mass composed of innumerable uprooted people....

Whilst Roman society proved hostile to the new doctrine, Christianity in its pure state stirred the population to revold. Rome was bolshevized, and Bolshevism produced exactly the same results in Rome as later in Russia.

It was only later, under the influence of the Germanic spirit, that Christianity gradually lost its openly Bolshevistic character. It became, to a certain degree, tolderable. Today, when Christianity is tottering, the Jew restores to pride of place Christianity in its Bolshevistic form.

The Jew believed he could renew the experiment. Today as once before, the ojbect is to destroy nations by vitiating their racial integrity. It's not by chance that the Jews, in Russia, have systematically deported hundreds of thousands of men, delivering the women, whome the men were compelled to leave behind, to males imported from other regions. They practiced on a vast scale the mixture of the races.

In the old days, as now, the destruction of art and civilization. The Bolsheviks of their day, what didn't they destroy in Rome, in Greece, and elsewhere? They've behaved in the same way amongst us and in Russia...

In the old days, the destruction of the libraries. Isn't that what happened in Russia? The result: a frightening levelling-down.

Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots. Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism.

Yesterday the instigator was Saul; the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul has changed into St Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx...

Nova Land

2nd April 2006, 04:58 AM

Post # 160 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=13785&postcount=160), from page 4 of this thread.
Table Talk # 51
24th October 1941, evening

On the whole earth there's no being, no substance, and probably no human institution that doesn't end by growing old. But it's in the logic of things that every human institution should be convinced of its everlastingness... Just as it is certain that one day the earth will disappear, so it is certain that the works of men will be overthrown.

... Religion is in perpetual conflict with the spirit of free research. The Church's opposition to science was sometimes so violent that it struck off sparks. The Church, with a clear awareness of her interests, has made a strategic retreat, with the result that science has lost some of its aggressiveness.

The present system of teaching in schools permits the following absurdity: at 10 a.m. the pupils attend a lesson in the catechism, at which the creation fo the world is presented to them in accordance with the teachings of the Bible; and at 11 a.m. they attend a lesson in natural science, at which they are taught the theory of evolution. Yet the two doctrines are in complete contradiction. As a child, I suffered from this contradiction, and ran my head against a wall. Often I complained to one or another of my teachers against what I had been taught in despair an hour before -- and I remember that I drove them to despair.

The Christian religion tries to get out of it by explaining that one must attach a symbolic value to the images of Holy Writ. Any man who made the same claim 400 years ago would have ended his career at the stake, with an accompaniment of Hosannas. By joining in the game of tolerance, religion has won back ground by comparison with bygone centuries.

Religion draws all the profits that can be drawn from the fact that science postulates the search for, and not the certain knowledge of, truth. Let's compare science to a ladder. On every run, one beholds a wider landscape. But science does not claim to know the essence of things. When science finds that it has to revise one or another notion that it had believed to be definitive, at once religion gloats and declares: "We told you so!" To say that is to forget that it's in the nature of science to behave itself thus. For if it decided to assume a dogmatic air, it would itself become a church.

When one says that God provokes the lightning, that's true in a sense; but what is certain is that God does not direct the thunderbolt, as the Church claims. The Church's explanation of natural phenomena is an abuse, for the Church has ulterior interests. True piety is the characteristic of the being who is aware of his weakness and ignorance. Whoever sees God only in an oak or in a tabernacle, instead of seeing Him everywhere, is not truly pious. He remains attached to appearances -- and when the sky thunders and the lightning strikes, he trembles simply from fear of being struck as a punishment for the sin he's just committed.

... Recent experiments make it possible for one to wonder what distinguishes live bodies from inanimate matter. In the face of this discovery, the Church will begin by risingin revolt, then it will continue to teach its "truths". One day finally, u;nder the battering-ram of science, dogma will collapse. It is logical that it should be so, for the human spirit cannot remorselessly apply itself to raising the veil of mystery without peoples' one day drawing the conclusion.

The 10 Commandments are a code of living to which there's no refutation. These precepts correspond to irrefragable needs of the human soul; they're inspired by the best religious spirit, and the Churches here support themselves on a solid foundation.

The Churches are born of the need to give a structure to the religious spirit. Only the forms in which the religious instinct expresses itself can vary. So-and-so doesn't become aware of human littleness unless he is seized by the scruff of the neck, but so-and-so does not need even an unchaining of the elements to teach him the same thing. In the depths of his heart, each man is aware of his puniness...

NOTE: Because of the length of this Table Talk, and the great deal of it which is relevant to this thread, I broke the excerpt into two parts. This is the first part. The second part has not been posted previously in this thread.

Nova Land

2nd April 2006, 05:08 AM

That's a lot of material for those who are new to this thread (or those, like me, whose memory of what's in these excerpts has dimmed since the previous posting) so I'll wait several days before starting to post new excerpts.

For those who previously read the excerpts and are inclined to skip over the previous 11 posts, I'd like to call your attention to post # 476 and post # 477, both of which contain excerpts not previously posted in this thread.

Nova Land

6th April 2006, 02:51 AM

I was re-reading TT # 27 today to post some analysis of it, and I realized that for a third time I have gotten the excerpting of this Table Talk wrong.

Back on page two, I accidentally skipped over TT # 27 (and # 33 as well), jumping directly from TT # 11 to TT # 39. That was error number one.

Then a little later (on page three), when I realized I had skipped a couple of Table Talks, I went back and excerpted # 33 but decided against bothering with # 27, commenting at the time that (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=12975&postcount=106): "The material in # 27 is minor enough that I won't bother bringing it in now. That was error number two.

And last week I made error number three. In trying to make this thread more accessible by reprinting in choronological order the Table Talk excerpts to date, I included an excerpt from TT # 27 but missed an important part.

It's too late to edit that post, so I'm going to re-excerpt TT # 27 now. I hope this is the last error I make with this particular Table Talk!

Nova Land

6th April 2006, 02:55 AM

AAAARGH! In preparing the previous post, I just discovered another mistake I made in the last batch of posts. I was trying to make this thread more easily accessible by posting links back to the previous places where excerpts had appeared in the thread, so that people could click back there to see the excerpts and any comments and analysis that had been made in the succeeding posts. However, I now see that my links go only to the post in which the excerpt appears. Again, aaaargh!

Oh, well. At least I know better now, so that if I attempt this again I know that linking to the post number is not what I want to do.

Nova Land

6th April 2006, 02:58 AM

Here is a revised excerpt of TT # 27. I have added a paragraph from the beginning of the Table Talk which contains an important comment about the nature of Providence, and also added 4 sentences to the part I previously excerpted to make the point of it a little clearer.

By considering what Bolshevism has made of man, one realizes that the foundation of all education should be respect – respect towards Providence (or the unknown, or Nature, or whatever name one chooses). Secondly, the respect that youth owes maturity. If this respect is lacking, a man falls below the level of the animal…

[Hitler then goes on about growing up in poverty, how this gave him special insights into the problems facing Germany, and how he intends to eradicate poverty.]

… In future every worker will have his holidays – a few days in each year, which he can arrange as he likes. And everybody will be able to go on a sea-cruise once or twice in his life.

It’s nonsense to fear that people will lose their modest ways of living. They should lose them – for that kind of modesty is the enemy of all progress.

In this matter we see things like the Americans -- and not like the Spaniard;, who would content himself with a few olives a day rather than work to have more. The Church has been able to profit by this conception f life. It proclaims that the poor in spirit -- and the other poor, too -- will go to heaven, whilst the rich will pay with eternal sufferings for the blessings of earthly existence. The Church is moved to say this by the tacit contract between the priests and the posssessors, who joyfully leave the Church a little money so that it may go on encouraging the poor to grovel.

But what a queer sort of Christianity they practice down there. We must recognize, of course, that, amongst us, Christianity is colored by Germanism. All the same, its doctrine signifies: "Pray and Work!"

Nova Land

6th April 2006, 03:20 AM

Here are a couple of quick comments on Table Talk # 27
... the foundation of all education should be respect – respect towards Providence (or the unknown, or Nature, or whatever name one chooses)...
While brief, this comment may be a good clue to just what it is Hitler means by Providence.
It’s nonsense to fear that people will lose their modest ways of living. They should lose them – for that kind of modesty is the enemy of all progress.

... The Church has been able to profit by this conception of life. It proclaims that the poor in spirit -- and the other poor, too -- will go to heaven, whilst the rich will pay with eternal sufferings for the blessings of earthly existence. The Church is moved to say this by the tacit contract between the priests and the posssessors, who joyfully leave the Church a little money so that it may go on encouraging the poor to grovel...
In these dinner-time rambles Hitler frequently speaks mockingly of the Church and its doctrines. Here he is once again at odds with what he perceives to be the Church's teachings. He derides the idea of living modestly and feels that everyone should enjoy a high standard of living in this life.

It's not clear from this passage whether he believes there is an afterlife (although upcoming Table Talks contain passages which I think will clarify this a bit), but Hitler seems to disagree with the version of the afterlife as taught by the Church, and seems to see it as mainly a scam for separating people from their money. This point comes up several times in the Table Talks, and seems to be a favorite theme of Hitler's.

Nova Land

6th April 2006, 03:32 AM

And now to resume excerpting TT # 51. I misspoke (or miswrote) in post 483, where I said I would break the excerpt into two parts. In typing up the relevant bits of the remainder today, I decided it would be more readable if broken into three parts instead.

Here, then, is the second of three parts.

Table Talk # 51
24th October 1941, evening

The microscope has taught us that we are hemmed in not only by the infinitely great, but also by the infinitely small – macrocosm and microcosm. To such large considerations are added particular things that are brought to our attention by natural observation that certain hygienic practices are good for a man: fasting, for example. It’s by no means a result of chance that amongst the ancient Egyptians no distinction was drawn between medicine and religion.

If modern science were to ignore such data, it would be doing harm. On the other hand, superstitions must not be allowed to hamper human progress. That would be so intolerable as to justify the disappearance of religions.

… But old people cling madly to life. So it’s amongst them that the Church recruits her best customers. She entices them with the prospect that death interrupts nothing, that beyond our human term everything continues, in much more agreeable conditions. And you’d refuse to leave your little pile of savings to the Church? …

Is there a single religion that can exist without dogma? No, for in that case it would belong to the order of science. Science cannot explain why natural objects are what they are. And that’s where religion comes in, with its comforting certainties. When incarnated in the Churches, religion always finds itself in opposition to life. So the Churches would be heading for disaster, and they know it, if they didn’t cling to a rigid truth.

What is contrary to the visible truth must change or disappear – that’s the law of life.

Nova Land

8th April 2006, 02:20 PM

Here is the third and final excerpt from TT # 51. The final paragraph is especially interesting...

Table Talk # 51
24th October 1941, evening

For a world population of 2,250,000,000 one can count on the 170 religions of a certain importance – each of them claiming, of course, to be the repository of the truth. At least 169 of them, therefore, are mistaken! Amongst the religions practiced today, there is none that goes back further than 2500 years. But there have been human beings, in the baboon category, for at least three hundred thousand years. There is less distance between the man-ape and the ordinary modern man than there is between the ordinary modern man and a man like Schopenhauer. In comparison with this millenary past, what does a period of 2000 signify?

The universe, in its material elements, has the same composition whether we’re speaking of the earth, the sun or any other planet. It is impossible to suppose nowadays that organic life exists only on our planet.

Does the knowledge brought by science make men happy? That I don’t know. But I observe that man can be happy by deluding himself with false knowledge. I grant one must cultivate tolerance.

It’s senseless to encourage man in the idea that he’s a king of creation, as the scientist of the past century tried to make him believe. That same man who, in order to get about quicker, has to straddle a horse – that mammiferous, brainless being! I don’t know a more ridiculous claim.

The Russians were entitled to attack their priests, but had no right to assail the idea of a supreme force. It’s a fact that we’re feeble creatures, and that a creative force exists. To seek to deny it is folly. In that case, it’s better to believe something false than not to believe anything at all. Who’s that little Bolshevik professor who claims to triumph over creation? People like that, we’ll break them. Whether we rely on the catechism or on philosophy, we have possibilities in reserve, whilst they, with their purely materialistic conceptions, can only devour one another.

Nova Land

13th April 2006, 12:38 AM

In preparing to make some comments on the recently-posted final excerpts of Table Talk # 51, I looked back to see what comments and analysis had been made about the first excerpt. That excerpt appeared as post 160 on page 4. Reading through pages 5 and 6, I see that discussion on those pages went in other directions and the first installment of this Table Talk does not appear to have been commented upon yet. So here -- nine pages later! -- are some thoughts about what appears in the first part of TT 51.

... Religion is in perpetual conflict with the spirit of free research. The Church's opposition to science was sometimes so violent that it struck off sparks. The Church, with a clear awareness of her interests, has made a strategic retreat, with the result that science has lost some of its aggressiveness.
Here, as in many places in these transcripts, Hitler speaks admiringly of science and scornfully of religion. This seems to me a key part of his religious beliefs (as well as his racial ones). He believes that most people are superstitious fools, but that he has risen above this nonsense and is a man of Science and Realism.

Just as there are many people who are more concerned with (capital-T) Truth than with truth, so there are many people who are more devoted to (capital-S) Science than to science.

Some religious fundamentalists are examples of the former. In opposing abortion, for example, the Truth (that Abortion Is Murder!) is more important to some people than the factual accuracy of statements they use to further their cause. (Joe Scheidler in his book Closed: 99 Ways to Stop Abortion includes a tactic he calls Truth Squads, which are people who lie about being a couple considering an abortion, make an appointment at a clinic, and while sitting in the waiting room go through a charade of reading anti-abortion leaflets and pretending to be converted by the arguments presented there, eventually "deciding" to go to a Crisis Pregnancy Center for help instead and trying to persuade other people in the waiting room to leave with them.)

Similarly there are people -- many of them paranormalists -- who are very enamored of Science but not very fond of science or scientific methods. These are people who are sure that they have seen (or intuited) the True Nature of Reality. Science, to them, is primarily a dogmatic assertion of Reality As They See It.

And that's the impression I get about Hitler from the Table Talks. He sees himself as a Clear Thinker -- a Rationalist -- a person who has shaken off the superstitious beliefs that others cling to and who sees the world as it really is -- even though much of the "reality" he sees has no factual basis.

The present system of teaching in schools permits the following absurdity: at 10 a.m. the pupils attend a lesson in the catechism, at which the creation fo the world is presented to them in accordance with the teachings of the Bible; and at 11 a.m. they attend a lesson in natural science, at which they are taught the theory of evolution. Yet the two doctrines are in complete contradiction. As a child, I suffered from this contradiction, and ran my head against a wall. Often I complained to one or another of my teachers against what I had been taught in despair an hour before -- and I remember that I drove them to despair.
In this passage Hitler talks about religion and science being in conflict. If we simply took this passage on its own, it might be possible to think Hitler was equally frustrated with both, but the implication here is that it is the religious teaching he believes is absurd. (If that is not clear to others in reading this passage, I think it will become clearer in a future Table Talk where he talks more about his school experiences. My own impression of this passage may be colored by having read that one.)

Richard Carrier (whom I quoted on the previous page of this thread) argued that because early on the Nazis made a deal to allow Catholic instruction in the public schools that Hitler must have been a strong supporter of such religious instruction. But a number of passages in the Table Talks indicate Hitler was actually hostile to such instruction and saw it as foolishness.

The next couple paragraphs are interesting as well, but let's cut to the chase -- the paragraph where Hitler starts talking about God:

When one says that God provokes the lightning, that's true in a sense...
Not very helpful yet. What does he mean, "true in a sense"? (He could, for instance, mean it's metaphorically true.)

... but what is certain is that God does not direct the thunderbolt, as the Church claims. The Church's explanation of natural phenomena is an abuse, for the Church has ulterior interests.
Interesting, but still not clear.

Whoever sees God only in an oak or in a tabernacle, instead of seeing Him everywhere, is not truly pious. He remains attached to appearances -- and when the sky thunders and the lightning strikes, he trembles simply from fear of being struck as a punishment for the sin he's just committed.
Is Hitler beginning to move beyond attacking other people's conceptions of god and starting to give his own? It sounds like Hitler is saying he believes that God is everywhere. If so, that would certainly support the idea that he believed in a god.

Unfortunately, it is not clear to me whether that is what he's saying. Hitler spends a lot of time pointing out shortcomings in other people's thinking, and this may simply be one more example. In other words, he may be pointing out the contradiction of claiming to be deeply religious but not actually thinking much about god at all except in church on Sunday or in moments of crisis. Saying that these people are wrong is not necessarily saying that people who see god everywhere are right.

... Recent experiments make it possible for one to wonder what distinguishes live bodies from inanimate matter. In the face of this discovery, the Church will begin by rising in revolt, then it will continue to teach its "truths". One day finally, under the battering-ram of science, dogma will collapse. It is logical that it should be so, for the human spirit cannot remorselessly apply itself to raising the veil of mystery without peoples' one day drawing the conclusion.
Hitler raises the question of what distinguishes live bodies from dead ones without giving an answer as to what he believes about this. But the implication I get from this passage is that he doesn't particularly believe in a soul which survives death. It seems to me that this passage is probably referring to notions such as souls and an afterlife as the "truths" which are being battered out of existence by the march of science.

The 10 Commandments are a code of living to which there's no refutation. These precepts correspond to irrefragable needs of the human soul; they're inspired by the best religious spirit, and the Churches here support themselves on a solid foundation.
So Hitler liked the 10 Commandments as a code of living. This is what religion is good for, he seems to be saying, providing people with rules for how to behave and providing a rationale for why to obey them. It is a positive comment about an aspect of religion without actually endorsing religious belief.

The Churches are born of the need to give a structure to the religious spirit. Only the forms in which the religious instinct expresses itself can vary.
In recent years there has been talk about a religious gene -- some physical quirk which makes people prone to believe in a god (whether one actually exists or not). What Hitler is saying in those two sentences sounds similar.

That would be consistent with much of the rest of what Hitler seems to be saying -- that the mass of people are superstitious fools who believe all this nonsense because they emotionally need to, but that he has risen above this and is able to see reality for what it is ...

Except -- and this is important to point out -- Hitler's "reality" includes something mysterious called Providence which he periodically touches upon, as he did back in TT # 27 and as he does in the concluding sentences of this excerpt:

So-and-so doesn't become aware of human littleness unless he is seized by the scruff of the neck.... In the depths of his heart, each man is aware of his puniness...
That is not the most explicit reference to the Something-Greater-Than-Man that Hitler seems to believe in, but it does serve as a reminder that in the midst of his constant attacks on other people's religious beliefs (which he sees as being superstitious nonsense) he does sometimes allude to his own religious beliefs (which he sees as simply a recognition of the natural world as it is).

And there is a much stronger reference coming up later in this Table Talk. "The Russians were entitled to attack their priests, but had no right to assail the idea of a supreme force. It’s a fact that we’re feeble creatures, and that a creative force exists. To seek to deny it is folly..." That's at the very end of the third excerpt, so it will be a little while yet before we get to it. But for those who are getting impatient, that looks to me like the clearest indication so far of what Hitler believed about the existence and nature of god.

Nova Land

23rd April 2006, 06:18 PM

Despite good intentions to post regularly, I still seem to be letting long periods go by between posts. I'm away from home at the moment, and won't get back home until May 1, so that will limit my posting for the next week a bit.

I'd hoped to post comments on the rest of Table Talk # 51 before starting out on this trip but ran out of time. I did manage to e-mail myself my unfinished notes, and the text of Table Talk # 52, in order to be able to post occasionally during this trip, and tonight is a good opportunity. So here are some thoughts on the second excerpt from Table Talk # 51. (See post 489, above, for the uncommented text.)

This excerpt starts out with a reference to "the infinitely great", which sounds like Hitler's god idea. "The microscope has taught us that we are hemmed in not only by the infinitely great, but also by the infinitely small...". Unfortunately, instead of staying on that topic and explaining more clearly what he means by infinitely great Hitler chooses to veer off into hygiene as an example of the infinitely small.

I am not clear on the meaning of this paragraph. I suspect, though, that this was a meandering ramble which made even less sense in Hitler's original, and that the transcriber did his best to write down sentences which incorporated key phrases from Hitler's ramblings and which made (grammatical) sense. For instance, the sentence "It’s by no means a result of chance that amongst the ancient Egyptians no distinction was drawn between medicine and religion." strikes me as a good example of saying something without actually saying anything.

I don't know enough about ancient Egypt to know if it is true that they drew no distinction between medicine and religion (and am not willing to accept Hitler as an authority). But assuming it is true, what does the key clause of this sentence, "It is by no means a result of chance ...", mean?

I'd be inclined to agree that such a lack of distinction would not be due simply to chance -- but that's because I'd expect such a lack of distinction to be due to a common desire to cover up ignorance by filling in gaps in knowledge with something even if they have to make that something up. That does not sound like what Hitler is hinting at, so I suspect Hitler had something different in mind. But what that something was is not at all clear to me.

Digression: that's the problem with a construction such as It is not chance that.... Such a wording is too open, too ambiguous. It tells us what the speaker does not mean, but fails to tell us what the speaker does mean. As such, it is a useful tool for non-skeptics because it makes one's claims harder to pin down and therefore harder to analyze.

The point of skepticism is to examine and analyze things fairly, with the idea that what is true should be able to withstand such scrutiny and what is false should not. The plainer a thing is stated, the more easily it can be examined and evaluated. Thus it is in the interests of skeptics to express themselves clearly and to encourage others to do so as well. Paranormalists, in contrast, are often fond of appearing to say a thing without actually saying it.

I believe that it is useful to watch out for this in other people's writing -- and to try to avoid doing this in our own. End of digression.

Hitler continues: "If modern science were to ignore such data, it would be doing harm. On the other hand, superstitions must not be allowed to hamper human progress. That would be so intolerable as to justify the disappearance of religions." I'm still not clear what Hitler was trying to say about the wisdom of the ancient Egyptians. But here Hitler moves back onto more familiar territory: a tirade against religion as a promoter of false beliefs and an obstacle to progress.

"… But old people cling madly to life. So it’s amongst them that the Church recruits her best customers. She entices them with the prospect that death interrupts nothing, that beyond our human term everything continues, in much more agreeable conditions. And you’d refuse to leave your little pile of savings to the Church? This also seems clear enough. Hitler sees religion as a money-making scam.

Is there a single religion that can exist without dogma? No, for in that case it would belong to the order of science. Hitler believes religion is inherently dogmatic -- and that it needs to be in order to survive.

Science cannot explain why natural objects are what they are. And that’s where religion comes in, with its comforting certainties. Hitler seems to be saying that Science is real (and thus doesn't always have all the answers we'd like when we'd like them) but Religion is simply made-up stuff.

When incarnated in the Churches, religion always finds itself in opposition to life. Whoo! I don't know what that means, but it certainly sounds intriguing. This is the kind of line which I'd like to see the original German notes for, and to have those notes interpreted by someone who knows German well.

So the Churches would be heading for disaster, and they know it, if they didn’t cling to a rigid truth. Hitler comes back to this theme several times, that the strength of the Church is that it is rigid and dogmatic. This seems to say that he doesn't believe the Church has much (if any) truth to its teachings.

What is contrary to the visible truth must change or disappear -- that’s the law of life. Hitler believes organized religion is based on lies and will either change (to be less in conflict with the truth) or will die out.

This Table Talk presents an interesting problem. On the one hand, Hitler talks about a higher power. On the other hand, Hitler keeps saying that organized religion is based on lies and is just a money-making scam. On the surface there would appear to be a contradiction, but I don't believe there actually is...

More on that, and some comments on the third part of Table Talk # 51, to follow when time and computer access permits.

Nova Land

27th April 2006, 09:14 AM

Not enough time to edit and post comments on the third excerpt from Table Talk # 51, so I'm going to start posting some excerpts from Table Talk # 52 (since I can do that as simple cut and paste of notes I e-mailed myself) and will return to analyzing the posted excerpts when I get back home next week.

Table Talk # 52
25 October 1941 evening

... The book that contains the reflections of the Emperor Julian should be circulated in millions. What wonderful intelligence, what discernment, all the wisdom of antiquity! It's extraordinary.

With what clairvoyance the authors of the 18th, and expecially those of the past, century criticized Christianity and passed judgment on the evolution of the Churches!

...

What a certificate of mental poverty it was for Christianity that it destroyed the libraries of the ancient world! Greco-Roman thought was made to seem like the teachings of the Devil. "If thou desirest to live, thou shalt not expose thyself to temptation."

Bolshevism sets about its task in the same way as Christianity, so that the faithful may not not know what is happening in the rest of the world. The object is to persuade them that the system they enjoy is unique in the world in point of technical and social organization. Somebody told me of a liftman in Moscow who sincerely believed that there were no lifts anywhere else...

Christianity set itself systematically to destroy ancient culture. What came to us was passed down by chance, or else it was a product of Roman liberal writers. Perhaps we are entirely ignorant of humanity's most precious spiritual treasures. Who can know what was there?

The Papacy was faithful to these tactics even during recorded history. How did people behave, during the age of the great explorations, toward the spiritual riches of Central America?

In our parts of the world, the Jews wouild have immediately eliminated Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Kant. If the Bolsheviks had dominion over us for two hundred years, what works of our past would be handed on to posterity? Our great men would fall into oblivion, or else they'd be presented to future generations as criminals and bandits.

I don't believe at all in the truth of certain mental pictures that many people have of the Roman emperors. I'm sure that Nero didn't set fire to Rome. It was the Christian-Bolsheviks who did that, just as the Commune set fire to Paris in 1871 and the Communists set fire to the Reichstag in 1932.

Nova Land

28th April 2006, 12:07 PM

Table Talk # 52
25 October 1941 evening

... There is a form of hypocrisy, typically Protestant, that is impudence itself. Catholicism has this much good about it, that it ignores the moral strictness of the Evangelicals. In Catholic regions life is more endurable, for the priest himself succumbs more easily to human weaknesses. So he permits his flock not to dramatize sin. How would the Church earn her living, if not bythe sins of the faithful? She declares herself satisified if one goes to confession. Indulgence, at a tariff, supplies the Church with her daily bread. As for the fruits of sin, the sould that fears limbo is a candidate for baptism, that is to say, another customer, and so business goes on! It is a fact that in Catholic parts of the world there are many more illegitimate births than in Protestant parts.

In Austria, Protestantism was free of all bigotry. It was truly a movement of protest against Catholicism. Moreover, these Protestants were entirely devoted to the German cause.

Nova Land

30th April 2006, 04:41 PM

Here is the third excerpts from the 52nd Table Talk. I'll be back home by this time tomorrow, so after posting the fourth (and final) excerpt from this Table Talk I'll resume posting thoughts on Table Talk # 51 (and then start commenting on this one).

Table Talk # 52
25 October, 1941, evening

A scandal is that, when a believer leaves a particular faith, he is compelled to pay the ecclesiastical tax for another year. A simple statement should be enough to free him at once from owing anything further. We'll put that right as soon as we have peace again.

Take Goebbels, for example. He married a Protestant. At once he was put under the Church's ban. Very naturally, he declared taht he would stop paying the ecclesiastical tax. But the Church doesn't see things that way. Exclusion is a punishment, which does not remove the obligation to pay the tax!

For my part, the Church held it against me that I was a witness to this marriage. They would certainly have put me under the ban, too, if they had not caluclated that it might have won me new sympathies.

Every marriage concluded as the result of a divorce is regarded by the Church as living in sin. The result is taht, in Austria, for example, nobody cares about the commandments of the Church. From this point, Austria was in advance of Germany.

The most extraordinary divorce story I know is that of Starhemberg. The Church allowed him to obtain a divorce for a payment of two hundred and fifty thousand schillings. The reason advanced, by agreement between the parties, was that the marriage was null and void since the contracting parties had come together with the firm intention of not performing their marital duties. Since Starhemberg had no money, the sum was paid by the Heimwehr. What hasn't the Church discovered as a source of revenue, in the course of these fifteen hundred years? It's an unending circle.

Nova Land

1st May 2006, 09:52 AM

Here's one last excerpt from this Table Talk. Quite a few intriguing bits here, which I'll comment on soon.

Table Talk # 52
25 October, 1941, evening

I have numerous accounts to settle, about which I cannot think today. But that doesn't mean I forget them! I write them down. The time will come to bring out the big book!

Even with regards to the Jews, I've found myself remaining inactive. There's no sense in adding uselessly to the difficulties of the moment. One acts more shrewdly when one bides one's own times...

Methods of persuasion of a moral order are not an effective weapon against those who despise the truth -- when we have to do with priests, for example, of a Church who know that everything about it is based on lies, and who live by it. They think me a spoil-sport when I rise up in their midst; indeed, I am going to spoil their little games.

In 1905 to 1906, when the modernist movement broke out, there were such excesses that some priests, in reaction, over-ran the reformers/ objectives and became real revolutionaries. They were at once expelled, of course. The power of the Church was so great that they were ruined. Men like the Abbot Schachleiter suffered a lot. Nowadays, a priest who's unfrocked can build a new career for himslef. What gave the power of the Church such a handle was the fact that the civil power didn't want to interfere in these matters at any price. things have changed a great deal since then. Nowadays, great number of priests are forsaking the Church. Obvioulsly, there's a hard core, and I shall never get them all. You don't imagine I can convert the Holy Father. One does not persuade a man who's at the head of such a gigantic concern to give it up. It's his livelihood! I grant, moreover, that, having grown up in it, he can't conceive of the possibility of anything else.

As for the nuns, I'm opposed to the use of force. They'd be incapable of leading any other life. They'd be without support, literally ruined... When a human being has spent ten years in a monastery or convent, he or she loses the exact idea of reality...

Nova Land

13th May 2006, 03:47 AM

A couple weeks back, in post # 493, I wrote that Table Talk # 51:

... presents an interesting problem. On the one hand, Hitler talks about a higher power. On the other hand, Hitler keeps saying that organized religion is based on lies and is just a money-making scam. On the surface there would appear to be a contradiction, but I don't believe there actually is...
The easy way out would be to say that Hitler is sneering at organized religion. One does not need to be an atheist to do that; I've met and talked with a number of religious people who had nothing good to say about organized religions, especially the larger denominations. So that's a way Hitler could be religious and still sneer at religion.

The problem is that doesn't work. Yes, many of Hitler's specific criticisms of religion can be taken as digs at the church establishment (and especially at the Catholic Church). But there are several places where it seems clear it is religion itself -- all religion -- which Hitler is putting down.

Before I explain my theory of how to resolve this seeming contradiction, here are some additional examples of problematic passages (from the third and final excerpt of this Table Talk, as seen in post # 490 -- 7 posts up the page):

... 170 religions ... each of them claiming, of course, to be the repository of the truth. At least 169 of them, therefore, are mistaken!
Here Hitler is making an argument one often hears made by atheists. One doesn't have to be an atheist to make it, of course -- but it's an odd argument for a religious person to make.

There are some denominations which do claim to be the sole repository of Truth, and which argue that all other religions are therefore Lies. But that is a different argument than the one Hitler makes here. 'We're right, therefore you're wrong' is not quite the same as 'We can't both be right, therefore one or both of us is wrong'. So if Hitler were religious and of that exclusionary mindset, it is odd he would frame the argument as "... at least 169 of them" rather than "... the other 169 of them." And if Hitler were religious but not of the exclusionary mindset, then it is even odder that he would make the mistake -- common in atheist arguments -- of thinking all religions claim to be the sole repository of truth.
Amongst the religions practiced today, there is none that goes back further than 2500 years. But there have been human beings, in the baboon category, for at least three hundred thousand years.
That, too, sounds suspiciously like an atheist argument. 'If religion is god's revealed truth, why did god wait several hundred thousand years before revealing it?' is what Hitler seems to be asking. This is not an argument against all religions except one -- it is an argument against all religions.

... It is impossible to suppose nowadays that organic life exists only on our planet.
This possibility of life on other planets is another point I've heard raised by atheists, since it poses a potential problem for some Christian denominations. If god created alien races, where is this mentioned in Genesis? And if Jesus died for humanity's sins, who died to redeem the sins of the aliens? The transcript doesn't flesh the argument out enough to be clear that is what Hitler is saying, but in context that seems to be what he is getting at by raising this subject.

The existence of intelligent alien life raises a number of questions for conservative christians, which is why some fundamentalists strongly reject the idea there could be life on other planets. Science fiction stories of aliens were already fairly popular by Hitler's time, so obviously the belief in alien life was not restricted to atheists. But using the possibility of alien life in the context of pointing out problems with religious beliefs seems more appropriate for an atheist than a theist. It is not, for example, an argument a Protestant would use to show that Catholics are wrong, or that Catholics would use to show that Protestants are wrong, or that one Protestant denomination would use to show its superiority over another. But it is an argument atheists could (and have) used in trying to argue the foolishness of christianity.

Does the knowledge brought by science make men happy? That I don’t know. But I observe that man can be happy by deluding himself with false knowledge.
That sounds like Hitler is calling religious beliefs delusions and false knowledge.

Ah, but look what comes next!

It’s senseless to encourage man in the idea that he’s a king of creation, as the scientist of the past century tried to make him believe...

The Russians were entitled to attack their priests, but had no right to assail the idea of a supreme force. It’s a fact that we’re feeble creatures, and that a creative force exists. To seek to deny it is folly. In that case, it’s better to believe something false than not to believe anything at all.
That seems a reasonably clear statement of a religious belief that there is a supreme force, a creative force -- i.e. what many people call god. So how can Hitler hold a religious belief in god on the one hand, and consider religious belief superstitious nonsense on the other?

My theory (and feel free to tear it apart!) is that Hitler did not consider his own beliefs to be religious. He considered them to be Scientific.

It seems to me that Hitler worshipped Science. I doubt he had much respect for actual science, but he adored Science as he imagined it to be. Science was Reality, Science was Truth. All the things he believed in -- his racist views that Aryans were the master race and other races were inferior, his sexist views that woman's purpose was to bear children -- these were not simply his opinions, these were what Science told him. He believed he was seeing Reality As It Really Is.

(Of course, since he knew that his perception of reality was perfect, he didn't need to do double-blind testing or anything like that to verify his beliefs. What he had experienced of the world around him, combined with his insights into the essential nature of things, was all he needed. Anyone who came to conclusions the same as his was practicing Good Science. Anything which contradicted what Hitler knew to be true was obviously flawed, the result of non-Aryan thinking by pointy-headed intellectuals with too much education for their own good. Thus, he hailed the pseudo-scientific writings of Francis Galton and Madison Grant as the work of visionaries, and had books by Einstein burned.)

Hitler believed there was a Creative Force responsible for the universe -- and since he believed it was real, therefore he believed it was Scientific to believe in this Force. The Creative Force was a part of Nature, and therefore (to him) there was nothing religious or superstitious about his belief in it. He was simply seeing Reality. Anyone who didn't see things the way he did was either a superstitious fool (if they had religious beliefs other than he did), or blind and in denial (if they were atheists who failed to recognize the Creative Force which had made Aryans superior to all other races, males superior to females, and Hitler superior to all other men, the Man of Destiny chosen by Providence to save the world).

Because Hitler considered his beliefs Scientific rather than Religious, he had no compunctions about sneering at religion as superstitious nonsense. Religion is what other people believed in. Since his beliefs were (in his eyes) simply a recognition of the truth about how the universe got here, how it worked, and what it was for, it was Scientific Fact rather than Religious Dogma.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest! That's my theory at the moment, anyway...

Nova Land

13th May 2006, 03:49 AM

I thought the final passage from this Table Talk especially interesting, so I'm going to quote it again.

... It’s a fact ... that a creative force exists. To seek to deny it is folly... It’s better to believe something false than not to believe anything at all.

With those 3 sentences, Hitler closes the 51st Table Talk with a bang. He declares that he believes in some sort of (Scientific) creative force / supreme being and says that, even though people who believe in a (Religious) creative force / supreme being are fools, people who deny the existence of this force / being entirely are even bigger fools. He has contempt for religious people, but he has even greater contempt for atheists.

That seems compatible with what little I've read about Hitler (in the Table Talks and elsewhere) so far. But I'm curious to see how well that interpretation will hold up.

Nova Land

17th May 2006, 01:01 AM

Here are some comments on the first excerpt from Table Talk # 52 [which can be found a little way up the page, in post # 493]:

The book that contains the reflections of the Emperor Julian should be circulated in millions. What wonderful intelligence, what discernment, all the wisdom of antiquity! It's extraordinary.
Has anyone here read the book Hitler is referring to? I'm curious what it says. Hitler seems to have liked it a lot, and Hitler only seems to admire things that repeat what he himself believes, so the contents of the book probably gives a good indication of Hitler's own beliefs.

One thing seems highly probable: that Emperor Julien was not a fan of Christianity. Hitler uses Emperor Julian's book as the opening for launching into another round of attacks on religion, especially Christianity.

Edited To Add: Here is a link to the Wikipedia page on Julian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_the_Apostate) This looks interesting! I probably should have researched Julian before writing this post, in which case I think would have done an entire post simply on Hitler's reaction to Julian. But I already wrote this post off-line before going on-line and doing a quick search on Julian, and I'm too lazy (and too far behind on posting) to re-do this post now. I've bookmarked several promising-looking pages from the Google search list, and will return to them to read up on Julian when time permits in order to come back to this in a future post.

With what clairvoyance the authors of the 18th, and expecially those of the past, century criticized Christianity and passed judgment on the evolution of the Churches!
Not only does Hitler enjoy tearing into Christianity himself (as seen in the previous Table Talk), but he also seems to delight in reading other people's criticism of Christianity.

What a certificate of mental poverty it was for Christianity...
Here we have a familiar Hitler theme: that religious people are lacking in intelligence.

Bolshevism sets about its task in the same way as Christianity, so that the faithful may not not know what is happening in the rest of the world. The object is to persuade them that the system they enjoy is unique in the world in point of technical and social organization.
And here we have two more of Hitler's familiar themes: (a) the comparison of Christianity to Communism, and (b) the charge that the main point of Christianity is to dupe the faithful (and to separate them from their worldly goods, although he doesn't go into that this time).

Christianity set itself systematically to destroy ancient culture. What came to us was passed down by chance, or else it was a product of Roman liberal writers. Perhaps we are entirely ignorant of humanity's most precious spiritual treasures. Who can know what was there?

The Papacy was faithful to these tactics even during recorded history. How did people behave, during the age of the great explorations, toward the spiritual riches of Central America?
Several interesting points here.

(1) This passage illustrates again that Hitler has almost nothing good to say about Christianity.

(2) Also interesting is Hitler's casual swipe at liberals. " What came to us was passed down by chance, or else it was a product of Roman liberal writers... Who can know what was there?" I may be reading too much into this, but it seems to me Hitler is saying that liberal writers are not to be relied on. (Somewhat similar to the complaints one often hears today from conservatives about liberal professors and liberal media bias.)

Hitler had little tolerance for any ideas that differed from his own. His idea of unbiased teaching and unbiased reporting was for people to regard him as the source of all wisdom and to treat his words as holy writ.

William Shirer, in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, has a good passage (which I recently saw quoted so copied to post here) which makes this point well. "No one who has not lived for years in a totalitarian land can possibly conceive how difficult it is to escape the dread consequences of a regime's calculated and incessant propaganda. Often [in conversation] I would meet with the most outlandish assertions from seemingly educated and intelligent persons. It was obvious that they were parroting some piece of nonsense they had heard on the radio or read in the newspapers. Sometimes one was tempted to say as much, but on such occasions one was met with such a stare of incredulity, such a shock of silence, as if one had blasphemed the Almighty, that one realized how useless it was even to try to make contact with a mind which had become warped and for whom the facts of life had become what Hitler and Goebbels, with their cynical disregard for the truth, said they were."

"... as if one had blasphemed the Almighty... "! I'll come back to that in a future post. Meanwhile, back to Table Talk # 52:

(3) I thought these two off-hand remarks were interesting. "Perhaps we are entirely ignorant of humanity's most precious spiritual treasures..." and "... the spiritual riches of Central America ..." Although HItler has virtually nothing good to say about Christianity, or about any other religion with which he is familiar, he seems quite willing to refer to traditions with which he has no real familiarity as spiritual treasures and spiritual riches.

There are people who love to run down everything around them while putting some far-off culture they know little to nothing about on a pedestal. Perhaps that's because, the less we know about something, the more we can project our own beliefs onto it. Hitler's willingness to imagine good things about ancient, far-off spiritual traditions does seem to indicate it is not religion per se that Hitler is down on, simply every religion he is familiar with. (Or, it might simply be that he was so eager to take another potshot at Christianity that he was even willing to say good things about other cultures if it helped paint a darker picture of Christianity's evils.)

In our parts of the world, the Jews would have immediately eliminated Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Kant. If the Bolsheviks had dominion over us for two hundred years, what works of our past would be handed on to posterity? Our great men would fall into oblivion, or else they'd be presented to future generations as criminals and bandits.
Jews, Communists, Christians. All, in Hitler's view, working to suppress truth and spread lies. (And all, in Hitler's view, closely related -- which I think he goes into more detail about in an upcoming Table Talk.)

There's one more passage in this excerpt from Table Talk # 52 which I want to comment on, but this post is already more than long enough so I'll save that last bit for tomorrow. [Memo to self: must take more care to keep the number of items in each excerpt which I want to comment on down, so that I can write shorter easier-to-digest posts in the future.]