(Ed) Hitler's Atheism [Archive]

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:04 PM

On 12-04-2002 03:58 PM, Nova Land writes:

Open Letter to Jedi on Hitler's religious beliefs

Dear Jedi,

Hi! I hope you had a good Thanksgiving! Mine was pretty exhausting, but on the good side I got to spend some time relaxing at a university library.

As I'd hoped, I was able to locate the book containing the passages you had quoted concerning Hitler's religious beliefs. It's interesting reading.

The book is Hitler's Table Talk, also published as Hitler's Secret Conversations. It was originally published in 1953, and has been reprinted in several editions since then. It consists of transcriptions of private discourses Hitler made between 1941 and 1944, and his religious beliefs come up in a number of these. The passages you quoted come from conversation # 4 (night of 11th-12th July 1941):

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity ... The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and conversation # 287 (11th August 1942, evening):
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you have access to an edition of this book? I went through the book, noted which conversations had material relating to Hitler's religious beliefs, and copied those pages, so I can quote the relevant passages for you, but it will make things easier (and save me a lot of typing) if you have a copy you can refer to yourself. The relevant conversations are: 3, 4, 5, 27, 33, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 75, 76, 100, 105, 143, 148, 152, 153, 160, 163, 184, 187, 190, 233, 236, 248, 275, 287, 304, 308, 326, and 328. (The page numbering is different for Table Talks and Secret Conversations, but the content of these conversations appears the same, apart from a slight difference in numbering toward the end regarding # 326 in Table Talks, which is # 327 in Secret Conversations. If you have a copy of Table Talks handy I'll be glad to cite the page numbers; otherwise I'll just refer to these by conversation numbers.)

You indicated a reluctance to identify the source where you found these passages, and that's fine. Your source would only be relevant if they had read the primary source material or had other special knowledge on the subject (in which case their views might deserve some extra consideration as we weigh the material and evaluate its significance). Since your source mixes portions from 2 separate passages, and uses the same portions (with the same omissions) that Bullock apparently used, your source looks to be simply someone who is quoting from Bullock (or quoting from someone else who is quoting from Bullock) rather than anyone with any special knowledge or expertise. So I'm happy to ignore them and get on to looking at the actual source material if that's agreeable with you.

Obviously, there is a danger in relying too heavily on only one source. Table Talks is interesting, and appears to give some of Hitler's inner thoughts that he did not care to share in his more public utterances, but these were not recorded on tape so we are dependent on the notes (and memory, and judgment, and interpretation) of the person doing the transcribing. I saw and skimmed through some other books which also purported to reveal Hitler's private thoughts, some of which looked interesting. But Table Talks is the source that has the passages you cited as the basis for your belief that Hitler was an atheist, so it seemed worthwhile to focus on what this book actually does say before getting distracted onto what other sources have to offer.

In a nutshell: This book supports your belief that Hitler was not a Christian (at least not as most people understand Christianity today). It does not support your belief that Hitler was an atheist. Repeatedly Hitler attacks atheism in these conversations, and expresses belief in God. We can get into that in more detail when you're ready.

I don't think anyone besides you and me is still interested in this topic (and I'm not sure you're still interested) so we should have this thread largely to ourselves. (Anyone else who's interested is welcome to lurk or to take part, too. My one request is that people not come in simply to toss insults.)

Where would you like to start? If you have access to the book, we can pick specific conversations and look at them. Or we can start from the beginning and take the relevant conversations in order. Or I can pick a few passages and type excerpts out for you, and we can proceed from there. Let me know your preferences.

good wishes /

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:05 PM

On 12-04-2002 05:21 PM, ceo_esq writes:

I think I was the one who directed JK to this book in several of the Hitler/atheism threads. I used to have access to a hard copy, not any more.

JK may have been reluctant to point you to an online source because excerpts from this book most frequently appear on Christian apologetics websites, and perhaps he thought that might incline you to dismiss them (or perhaps he simply found that the excerpts appeared in conjunction with other materials he did not endorse).

I agree, and have told JK as much, that this book does not establish that Hitler was an atheist.

I do believe that the conversations were stenographically (and thus presumably accurately) transcribed for the most part, although you've got the book and maybe it gives more information about the manner in which the conversations were preserved.

Bravo for actually hitting the library and doing the homework.

Best regards.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:06 PM

On 12-04-2002 07:23 PM, Jedi Knight writes:

I didn't withhold the quote source from you. A quick line in any search engine brings it up.

Hitler and atheism as Hitler's primary religious belief is something that I have been checking out for some time. I have read parts of the book that you have and it only strengthens my position that Hitler was an atheist.

JK

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:07 PM

On 12-05-2002 01:24 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Hitler and atheism as Hitler's primary religious belief is something that I have been checking out for some time. I have read parts of the book that you have and it only strengthens my position that Hitler was an atheist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm curious what leads you to conclude Hitler was an atheist, which is one reason I'm interested in looking over and discussing this material together.

(I can see how, if someone were to take passages out of context, it might be possible to give someone the impression Hitler was an atheist; but it would also be possible to give someone the impression he was a Christian if one were to do that.)

From what you have written, it sounds like you may be reading excerpts that someone else has selected rather than having a copy of the book itself at hand. Is that the case, or am I mis-reading you? I think if you read the book itself it is difficult to conclude Hitler was an atheist.

What I'm interested in doing is going through the passages from the book that deal with Hitler's religious beliefs and discussing them together. It will be easier to do that if you have access to the book yourself, but if you don't I'll be glad to reproduce the relevant portions of the conversations that deal with religion (If so, I give you my word I will not distort the material or select only passages that support a particular view.)

I don't have scanning capability, so I will need to type in the text by hand. My thought was to take one or two of the conversations at a time, and go through all the relevant passages at a leisurely pace, rather than try to rush through. The conversations generally cover a jumble of topics, and not everything in the relevant conversations relates to religion, so in some cases there are just a few relevant lines, in others there are several paragraphs, but in some there is a page or two to read over and weigh.

Are there particular passages that you've seen quoted which you think are especially relevant to a view that Hitler was an atheist? If you mention either the conversation number or its date or a line or two from the conversation I can match it to what I've got copied and can reproduce the rest of it for you. (We could start with the 2 that are mixed together in the passage from Bullock you quoted, if you'd like, although there are others that are more detailed that I hope we can get to soon.)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How has Nova been good to me? How? By holding civil conversation with me? Does that deserve something special...?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the point you raise with these questions. No special credit is due for being civil; it should be something we take for granted in a forum such as this. You are entitled to be treated with due respect, the same as anyone else here.

I think the material in the book is intriguing, and I'm interested in looking at some of the passages, discussing what they do and don't say, evaluating what they mean and how they fit together. You've indicated an interest in this subject, and the fact that we have different perspectives makes me interested in looking at this with you, since you will be able to questions assumptions I may not even be aware I'm making, and vice versa.

Some of the material looks pretty straightforward, such as when Hitler talks about the soul, about God, about Providence, about how Christianity went astray (or, in Hitler's view, was deliberately led astray by the Jews), etc. Hitler's contempt for other people's superstitions, and his attempts to incorporate science into his religious views, while at the same time condemning atheism and materialism, provides lots of grist for grinding up and examining. I'm hoping we can do that, rather than get side-tracked by insults.

Please let me know if you have a preference for where to start in looking at this material. Otherwise, I'll select one of the conversations that most interests me and start from there.

looking forward to discussing this material with you (and anyone else interested in looking at it) /

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:09 PM

On 12-05-2002 01:48 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ceo_esq
...I do believe that the conversations were stenographically (and thus presumably accurately) transcribed for the most part, although you've got the book and maybe it gives more information about the manner in which the conversations were preserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The conversations look to be pretty carefully transcribed. I glanced at the introduction, but didn't copy those pages, so next time I get to Knoxville I should look over that more carefully to see what the limitations on the transcription are.

A person as egotistical as Hitler -- wanting to have his "table talks" recorded -- likely reviewed them to some extent to make sure these reflected the impression he wanted to give. There, of course, is one of the rubs. Even though he had less reason to be putting on a false front here than in his speeches and public writings, even among "friends" he may have been putting forward views he wanted people to think he held rather than what he really believed.

The views put forward in these "table talks", taken together, seem fairly consistent, so I'm inclined to take them largely at face value. But I wish there were more people who had been close to Hitler who had formed an impression of what he really believed, that we could refer to; even talking "informally", Hitler is not someone I'd trust. (I did notice one such book, Memoirs of a Personal Confidant I think was the title, that I glanced at quickly and would like to go back to another time.)

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:10 PM

On 12-05-2002 02:04 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I forget, why is it so important to know Hitler's religious beliefs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not. I'm curious about many things which, in the grand scheme of things, are really not very important.

Very often, I will see or hear or read some statement and wonder if it is true. To the extent that I am able to look those things up, I enjoy doing so. This is one of those things.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not need to refute Hitler's atheism to show the fallacy of:

Hitler was an atheist.
Hitler was evil.
Atheists are evil.

This syllogism is false no matter if the premises are true or false.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. In my experience atheists are often among the more moral people in society, so the existence of some atheists who have done evil things would not justify broad conclusions about all atheists.

Likewise, Hitler being a vegetarian, if true, would not mean that vegetarianism leads to racial prejudice or mass murder. (But as a vegetarian, I'm curious about Hitler's diet -- and, if he was a vegetarian, I'm curious as to what type and what his reasons for being one were. So far I've read conflicting stories. None of the stories makes me particularly worry about my own choices. Again, it's simply a matter of curiosity, and of possibly being able to correct a mis-statement of fact on future occasions.)

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:11 PM

On 12-05-2002 09:52 AM, headscratcher4 writes:

Nova:

Interesting posts. One of the discussions that I've had with Jedi is mirrored in your post. Specifically, Jedi has argued that Hitler repeatedly lies about his religous/diestic beliefs as part of his effort to hood-wink and dupe the German public into following him. Indeed, clearly, Hitler is a complete cynic when it comes to politics and would say and do just about anything.

However, Hitler also was an idealist. In short, I contend that with respect to the big things...Hitler was as good as his word. Try though they might to deny it, no German, no one in the world, could say that they didn't know that Hitler had it in for the Jews and other "sub-human" races. He stated it in Mein Kamph. The Nurenberg Laws promulgated it in the mid-thirties. He may not have said outright "we will gas and shoot the Jews..." but he always talked about Jews in terms of distruction and death and destroy. There can be any real surprise that he acted on his words.

The same is true for his hate of weak European powers that victemized Germany after WWI , and Russian Bolshivism. In short, the world may not have wanted to take Hitler at his word, he was as good as it.

This is why when he says he believes in a higher god, and that he is that power's instrument, I find it perfectly reasonable to believe him. Sure he edited it, but if his end goal was to establish himself as the ultimate European power and to build a 1000 year Empire -- and empire that would revere him as its founder and ideological savior -- if the empire was to function as an atheistic state its leader would be looking to promulgate atheistic messages. The Table Talk, Mein Kamph and his other speeches and writings, as pointed out, do not claim atheism as the motovating Ethic of the State. It claims, rather a mission from God, and Hitlers words, designed to be read by adoring future Germans speak of his mission from God...not his mission in the absence of god.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:12 PM

On 12-05-2002 12:40 PM, Nova Land writes:

Hmm. I had sort of thought that most people would have no more interest in the whole Hitler/atheist question, since there were a number of threads that had already dealt with it, and that Jedi and I could have a leisurely discussion of the book that the passage he quoted came from.

I'm glad there are still people interested. I especially enjoyed the post from headscratcher4, a few messages back.

However, I'm puzzled by many of the other posts here, which seem to be merely gratuitous insults and pre-emptive attacks. I don't understand why people feel a need to do this.

Please note that, apart from responding to an insult by calling the person a pinhead, Jedi has not been the person mis-behaving in this thread.

Jedi: my apologies. I did not start this thread as a place for you to be insulted, although that is unfortunately how it is turning out. I'm still interested in discussing this material with you, and hope you're still willing to come back to this thread despite the background noise.

I typed a couple of the "table talks" up earlier today while off-line, and I'm going to post those once I finish and post this note. What I'm hoping to do is post portions of the relevant "table talks", one or two at a time, over a period of weeks (which should give people a chance to digest the material and me time to do things besides re-typing the things).

I hope people interested in discussing this material will enjoy the chance to read and comment on it. It starts out a little slow, but I'd like to take the time to chew it carefully rather than jumping directly to the spiciest bits.

If people who aren't interested in taking part in a discussion of Hitler's religious beliefs as given in his "table talks" could ease up on the number of insults and other distractions they insert into this thread, it would be appreciated. Thanks!

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:13 PM

On 12-05-2002 12:48 PM, Nova Land writes:

Conversation # 3 (Night of 11th/12th July, 1941)
I might as well start with conversation # 3, since it's the first to have material of interest. Then in the post immediately following I'll reproduce the relevant parts of # 4, since that's one of the conversations quoted in the passage from Bullock.

I'll give the conversation number and date in the heading of each of these posts, to make them easier to locate later (and will only do one conversation per post, to help keep them separate and easier to refer back to).

The italicized line is the summary of what's in the conversation, as given in the book.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversation # 3 (Night of 11th/12th July, 1941)

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 refusge 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This conversation is of mild interest. There are lines which, taken out of context, sound more significant than they are. I would suggest reserving judgment on what is said in conversation # 3 for the moment, as the themes touched on here will be expanded on by Hitler in later conversations

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:17 PM

On 12-05-2002 01:01 PM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversation # 4 (Night of 11th/12th July, 1941)

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...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I'd recommend reserving judgment until reading more, as Hitler becomes much more explicit in what it is he feels about Christianity in some later passages. (I can jump ahead to these if you're impatient.)

One thing that comes through clearly in this conversation is Hitler's contempt for contemporary religions. There is also, however, an early inkling that Hitler is not contemptuous of religion as such, and harbors a certain liking for pre-Christian religions and religious values. As later conversations will make clearer, Hitler believed that the Jews invented Christianity as part of a clever plot to destroy the Roman empire and its value system.

The line, "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things", is especially intriguing. Unfortunately, Hitler immediately wanders away from this subject and onto an irrelevant racial rant (which I've omitted). But he comes back to this subject in future conversations.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:18 PM

On 12-05-2002 03:37 PM, Marquis de Carabas writes:

Just a couple of articles about Hitler, Christianity, and atheism, that may be of interest...

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mi.../ca_hitler.html

http://www.kwdavids.net/hitler.html

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:21 PM

On 12-05-2002 04:07 PM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nova Land
Again, I'd recommend reserving judgment until reading more, as Hitler becomes much more explicit in what it is he feels about Christianity in some later passages. (I can jump ahead to these if you're impatient.)

One thing that comes through clearly in this conversation is Hitler's contempt for contemporary religions. There is also, however, an early inkling that Hitler is not contemptuous of religion as such, and harbors a certain liking for pre-Christian religions and religious values. As later conversations will make clearer, Hitler believed that the Jews invented Christianity as part of a clever plot to destroy the Roman empire and its value system.

The line, "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things", is especially intriguing. Unfortunately, Hitler immediately wanders away from this subject and onto an irrelevant racial rant (which I've omitted). But he comes back to this subject in future conversations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:23 PM

On 12-06-2002 02:07 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Just a couple of articles about Hitler, Christianity, and atheism, that may be of interest...

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mi.../ca_hitler.html

http://www.kwdavids.net/hitler.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the links! These look good. (I was pleased to see so much of Table Talks already typed out; this should save me some re-typing time.)

The web-site author comes to the conclusion that Hitler was neither Christian nor atheist. That seems to be the conclusion that any reasonable person who actually reads through the material comes to.

I'd be curious to know if there are any exceptions: people who have actually read through the material and concluded that Hitler was a Christian or an atheist. As far as I can tell so far, those who come to such conclusions are largely relying on what others have selected and interpreted for them.

Technically, of course, Hitler was a Christian, in the sense that he declared himself publicly to be a member of a Christian religion and was a member of that religion until his death. For some purposes, what a person publicly declares themself to be is adequate; for other purposes, it is not.

For instance, Jerry Falwell has publicly declared himself to be a Christian and claims to be taking various social and political stands because of his Christian beliefs. It is quite possible that in his heart he is actually an atheist (and I would not be surprised if 50 years from now some people did try to argue he was an atheist; with each passing decade Christians are likely to become more embarrassed by his beliefs and actions). But regardless of what is really in his heart, he is publicly perceived as being a Christian and the people listening to and heeding his words also declare themselves Christians. For many purposes, there is no problem identifying Falwell's movement as Christian, even though some of us may feel the social and political stands taken are actually in opposition to the Christian message as we perceive it.

In other words, it depends on what one means by Christian (or atheist). Using the words loosely leads to all kinds of misunderstandings and fruitless arguments.

I think some people are jumping too quickly into trying to argue about the significance of Hitler's religious beliefs (having already concluded for themselves what those beliefs must have been). First let's be clear on what those beliefs were. There'll be plenty of time to try to score debating points later; first lets be clear what it is we're debating about.

Which brings me to Jedi's post, so I'll close this and move on to that...

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:25 PM

On 12-06-2002 02:48 AM, Nova Land writes:

Jedi, Hi! There is already a page of stuff between the post I'm about to quote from and where this response will be (and by the time I finish writing this note and posting it, the distance may be even greater) so I'll try to write this quickly. I'll catch up to the more recent posts at some point, I hope...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
...it is difficult to contemplate Hitler's true religious faith...

The book that you are referring to is supposed to be the actual words of Hitler...

The key to understanding Hitler is moving past the convenience of words and peering into the deeds. Deeds always speak louder than words...

That is why the Table Talks do not matter because they do not match the deeds of the man...

The Table Talks have to be viewed as the posterity propaganda that they are. They are nothing but propaganda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason I'm referring to the book Hitler's Table Talk is because it is the source for the passage you quoted as evidence that Hitler was really an atheist. That's the only actual evidence I've seen from you to support the claim he was an atheist.

(But I haven't read through all the other threads on this -- had to drop them due to lack of time, so I may have missed something.)

You make a number of interesting assertions. I'd enjoy exploring some of these later, but don't want to get side-tracked onto too many things at once. (For example: "Hitler hated communism, and yet he embraced some of the key ideological promises that communism used to ensure total state power." That sounds interesting, but I have no idea what it actually means.)

For the moment, what I'd like to focus on is your assertion that Hitler was an atheist. The evidence you offered previously for this was a passage made of portions from 2 of Hitler's "table talks". If the "table talks" don't matter, why did you quote them?

Regarding deeds speaking louder than words, there is some truth in that, but it is easy to get lost once you go down that road too far. Words, deeds, and beliefs are all separate, and often will contradict each other. It is, for instance, quite possible for a person to sincerely believe in Christianity, to say so publicly, and yet to contradict Christianity regularly in their deeds.

As a common example, Jesus tells his followers to return good for evil, and yet there are many Christians who believe that if someone strikes at them (in word or deed) they are justified in hitting back. Should we declare that George Bush is not a true Christian because he is contemplating military action against Iraq? Or what about people in this forum who respond to insults with insults -- do we know from such deeds that they could not possibly be Christians?

Deeds are important, but no one yet has managed to be perfectly consistent in thought, word and deed. Therefore, in evaluating a person, we need to take into account all three. George Bush, for instance, is a publicly self-professed Christian who appears to be sincere in that profession but whose actions do not always live up to the standards of that faith. Hitler, in contrast, was a publicly self-professed Christian who appears to have been insincere in that profession and whose actions definitely contradicted the standards of that faith.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you make interesting assertions that I'd enjoy discussing at some point. The idea that only atheists are capable of actions such as the Nazis is intriguing because it runs so counter to the world as I've experienced it.

As for how Hitler could "kill the very ancestoral founders of the Christian bible and claim to be a follower of their God", Hitler covers that in Table Talks. I can skip ahead to that part if you'd like.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:26 PM

On 12-06-2002 03:39 AM, CWL writes:

Nova Land,

I for one commend you on your efforts on a serious discussion regarding the topic in question. I shall henceforth do my utmost to keep my satire gland in check (however in this thread only ).

Hoping to contribute to such a serious discussion I will submit the following:

1) Hitler repeatedly attacks atheism in Table Talks;

2) Nazi Socialism was based on an idealistic belief system and ultimately on a "mission from God" to create a 1,000 year reign, in conformity with which Hitler repeatedly made references to God in his speeches and writings.

It is my sincere and honest hope that Mr. Knight (or anyone else who asserts that Hitler was an atheist) will seriously address why it is reasonable to conclude that Hitler was an atheist despite the two facts stated above.

I will add that I am have no personal interest in the matter, merely that I believe that history should be accounted for correctly.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:27 PM

On 12-06-2002 05:52 AM, Sou writes:

The premise that a leader can lie to his people is hardly an unusual one - after all we get it all the time when it comes to re-election here

I suppose my question would be - why would Hitler bother to lie - after all there was no official religion in communistic Russia and yet the people did not rise up against that - or fail to support it. So why would he bother to lie about something like that when he's already made clear (as Headscratcher4 pointed out) his dislike of the Jews (out of interest did he make clear what he intended to do them also) in Mein Kampf?

In short the view that he did it to maintain the support of the people seems flimsy when communism managed without a religion.

Another interesting thought. If someone should be judged by what they do and not what they say - then is anyone truly a Christian. or a Jew or a member of any religious order? Most people strive to follow the tenets laid down by their religion but are likely to fail at one point or another - does this make them all atheists in reality? Or is it the magnitude of the transgression that counts?

Sou

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:29 PM

On 12-06-2002 06:23 AM, Darat writes:

In Mein Kampf he certainly identifies the Jews (amongst others) as part of the "infection" that needs to be removed if Germany (and Europe) is to "prosper again".

As for why he “appealed” to the Church and “Christian” beliefs. Well the Church was a very powerful (and political active) organization in Germany - Hitler in effect needed their support (at the beginning of his rise to power) and it seems that he was quite capable of saying anything to anyone about anything to get what he wanted.

Hitler was insane - to label him anything else (whether that is a Christian or atheist) seems to be missing the point.

I mentioned it in an earlier post - Ian Kershaw's two volume biography of Hitler. It's an incredible work that not only chronicles Hitler's life but also the times he lived in. And to try and understand Hitler you have to try and understand the times he lived in. However in the final analysis Hitler was insane so I doubt any sane person can ever truly “understand” him.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:30 PM

On 12-06-2002 06:36 AM, headscratcher4 writes:

Nova:

Some thoughts.

First, you expressed some interest in JK's assertion regarding Hitler and adaptation of communist ideology/methodology in spite of his hate for communism. My guess is that JK derives this interpretation...and I think there is some merit to it in practice ... from the writings of the conservative historian Paul Johnson. I don't remember which book (there are so many, but I'll try to locate it), but Johnson made an interesting argument that beginning with Mussolini (sic), fascists actively imitated the tactics and much of the organizational strategies inaugurated by Lenin. In other words, the fascist movements of the 20s (evolving toward the Nazism of Hitler) study Bolshevik success very carefully and learned a great many lessons...especially about how you organize and utilize terror from Lenin, and later (of course) from Stalin.

One of Johnson's points is that these mass totalitarian movements are, in many respects, virtually indistinguishable (the subtleties of race politics being, for instance, more nuance than substantive). And, given the history of these mass movements, their mechanization of death, etc. it is an argument with some merit.

Second observation, you will note -- and JK and I have had several interesting exchanges on this topic -- JK's reference to Luther. All evils of the modern world (too strong? Many evils?) arise from Luther and the Reformation. This lead directly to the Enlightenment, Hegel, socialism, Marxism, Lenin and Hitler, etc. I believe JK thinks Luther made atheism possible. Prior to Luther, the benign institutions of the church helped to focus individuals on their shared community and their shared ethic/values, etc. After Luther, it becomes possible for the individual to have a direct relation knowledge of God...an individual able to have a direct knowledge of God, can come to doubt God if prayers are unanswered, signs not given, etc. From doubt arises atheism, from atheism dissolves all of the checks on human action. In other words, morality becomes fungible if there is no God at the core of morality. That Hitler did not believe in God is made manifest by his ability to create and order conditions necessary for mass murder -- as anyone who believes in a higher authority would not engage in such activities for fear of a higher retribution and final judgment. I.e. no God, no fear of hell.

Also, I note that JK seems to indicate through his writings a belief that any religious belief other than a "Judeo/Christian" based belief is Atheistic (am I missing something here JK?). Islam is atheistic. Buddhism is atheistic. etc. From what I can discern, this atheism is manifest in a lack of tolerance/space for alternative religious views. JK has suggested that Christian people and churches and states are tolerant of alternative viewpoints and religions. Atheists are, of course, fundamentally intolerant. The mass-state that an Atheist like Hitler or Stalin or Bin Laudin would create has to eliminate any alternative religious view to survive...i.e. it must inherently be intolerant because the whisper of the name of God would undercut the ability of the state to claim legitimacy. In short, a Christian/religiously based state understands that there is a higher authority that must be answered to, a Atheistic totalitarian state must deny that possibility or fail.

The problem I have is that this view, if correct, seems to willfully ignore much of Western History as well as church history. The monolithic church (which never really existed) prior to Luther was not particularly tolerant and certainly not unified -- the now 1500 year + schism between Eastern and Western orthodoxy alone is prime examples. The cultural foundation of anti-Semitism that infected Hitler and his generation was laid in Germany and Europe well before Luther, etc.

Also, I have noted to JK that the ideology that best combats the mass culture sought by either fascism or Marxist Communism...the popular, capitalist democracy that seeks religious tolerance and guarantees free speech...of the kind that exist in one form or another today in the US and Western Europe...also emerges directly out of the Enlightenment. So, whatever demons Luther let loose (and there are many), he also let loose the potential of our better angels (to steal from Lincoln).

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:30 PM

On 12-06-2002 06:59 AM, Sou writes:

Darat

In what way would you say Hitler was insane? I remember watching a documentary which hypothesised that he was in fact a fairly garbled and inconsistent rambler about his beliefs and most atrocities carried out were done by his inner circle in the belief they were doing what he wanted.

My sister had the pleasure of reading Mein Kampf for her A level history. She said it was a very difficult read and confusing in places - would you say this was a clue to his insanity or do you mean that by his deeds we should infer he was insane?

And I agree with you Whether Hitler was an atheist or Christian is irrelevent with regard to his subsequent deeds - it's just interesting to see how a mind such as his works - or as much as we can see by peering back through the mists of time

It's also interesting to see how the minds of the people debating this issue work too - be careful I can see inside your psyche

Sou

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:32 PM

On 12-06-2002 07:59 AM, Darat writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Soubrette
Darat

In what way would you say Hitler was insane? I remember watching a documentary which hypothesised that he was in fact a fairly garbled and inconsistent rambler about his beliefs and most atrocities carried out were done by his inner circle in the belief they were doing what he wanted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Undoubtedly there was a lot of second guessing by Hitler's subordinates and acting in his name. However Hitler was kept well informed about what was happening almost until the end of the war. He certainly did know about the tactics used in his rise to power, he endorsed and encouraged terror as a “tool” to deliver on his political goals.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Soubrette

My sister had the pleasure of reading Mein Kampf for her A level history. She said it was a very difficult read and confusing in places - would you say this was a clue to his insanity or do you mean that by his deeds we should infer he was insane?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with your sister’s comment about it being confusing - I've never managed to read it from cover to cover merely dipped into it. It is sickening and totally irrational - riddled with every kind of logical and factual fallacy you can imagine and if it truly represents Hitler's thoughts then yes I would say it is evidence of his insanity.

However the primary reason I say he was insane is indeed his actions.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Soubrette

And I agree with you Whether Hitler was an atheist or Christian is irrelevent with regard to his subsequent deeds - it's just interesting to see how a mind such as his works - or as much as we can see by peering back through the mists of time

It's also interesting to see how the minds of the people debating this issue work too - be careful I can see inside your psyche

Sou
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As always dear Sou you know me too well...

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:32 PM

On 12-06-2002 08:03 AM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CWL
Nova Land,

I for one commend you on your efforts on a serious discussion regarding the topic in question. I shall henceforth do my utmost to keep my satire gland in check (however in this thread only ).

Hoping to contribute to such a serious discussion I will submit the following:

1) Hitler repeatedly attacks atheism in Table Talks;

2) Nazi Socialism was based on an idealistic belief system and ultimately on a "mission from God" to create a 1,000 year reign, in conformity with which Hitler repeatedly made references to God in his speeches and writings.

It is my sincere and honest hope that Mr. Knight (or anyone else who asserts that Hitler was an atheist) will seriously address why it is reasonable to conclude that Hitler was an atheist despite the two facts stated above.

I will add that I am have no personal interest in the matter, merely that I believe that history should be accounted for correctly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Easy questions and even easier answers.

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

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:33 PM

On 12-06-2002 08:10 AM, CWL writes:

Could you please provide the evidence on the basis of which you drew your conclusions according to Items 1) and 2) above.

Thanks.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:34 PM

On 12-06-2002 08:11 AM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Darat
I mentioned it in an earlier post - Ian Kershaw's two volume biography of Hitler. It's an incredible work that not only chronicles Hitler's life but also the times he lived in. And to try and understand Hitler you have to try and understand the times he lived in. However in the final analysis Hitler was insane so I doubt any sane person can ever truly “understand” him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hitler wasn't insane. His actions make him appear insane. He had no moral religious grounding (was an atheist), followed Hegelism religiously (Hegel was a strict atheist), and Hitler's deeds were against institutions of Christianity (freedom, Jews, etc).

He was an atheist.

JK

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:35 PM

On 12-06-2002 08:12 AM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CWL

Could you please provide the evidence on the basis of which you drew your conclusions according to Items 1) and 2) above.

Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure. History.

JK

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:36 PM

On 12-06-2002 08:38 AM, CWL writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Sure. History.

JK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wouldn't care to elaborate a bit on that perchance?

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:37 PM

On 12-06-2002 08:49 AM, whitefork writes:

Hegel was an atheist? GWF Hegel, the "one big Spirit" guy?

"Religion is our topic. Its contents is this and this alone: God. Religion is the consciousness of the relationship with God, as the unconditioned Absolute, the absolutely self-sufficient, the being that is because of itself, the absolute beginning and goal in itself and on its own." (G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Religion, 1824)

from http://www.hegel.net/spirit/abs/religion/

You sure about that?

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:38 PM

On 12-06-2002 08:55 AM, slimshady2357 writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Hitler wasn't insane. His actions make him appear insane. He had no moral religious grounding (was an atheist), followed Hegelism religiously (Hegel was a strict atheist), and Hitler's deeds were against institutions of Christianity (freedom, Jews, etc).

He was an atheist.

JK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hegel was not atheist.

Why do you think he was?

READ some Hegel.

Is everyone who doesn't believe in the christian god an atheist for you?

Jedi, why do you say these things?

Adam

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:39 PM

On 12-06-2002 09:15 AM, headscratcher4 writes:

Serious question JK:

We've discussed your contention regarding Hitler's religous beliefs. You've insisted that his actions/deeds speak louder than words and that the deed of overseeing the death of millions could not eminate from one who believes in an ultimate higher authority, ergo Hitler is an atheist. Also, as noted, his table talk and writings are propoganda, so any expression of belief in any sort of a deity can be dismissed.

I recently finished Richard Rhodes interesting book on the SS and the action groups opperating in Poland and Russia at the beginning of the war. He talks about massacres over-seen by the SS by organized by Poles, Ukranians etc. THere have also been recent stories regarding Polish villages who turned on their jewish residents/neighbors, etc.

In short, for every christian Pole who saved a Jew, there were tens, if not Hundreds, who actively used the Nazi invasion, and were used by the Nazis to exact revenge, terror, murder, theft on their Jewish neighbors. Indeed, even today, though it is a heavilly Catholic country, anti-semitism in Poland is much noted and lively (strange for a country of only 4000 jews).

My question has to do with the Poles. I assume that the Poles who proclaimed themselves Catholic, went to church, took communion, etc. AND who actively participated in the persecution of Jews during the war were Atheists? I mean, weren't they paying lip service to the church but infact, through their deeds, exhibiting a complete lack of fear of devine retribution?

In short, it seems to me that, by your definition, these murderers were either atheists, or one man's atheism (Hitlers) trumps all of the belief and fear of divine judgment that people are otherwise "hard-wired" to have. I mean Hitler was an Atheist, according to you, but Nazism didn't officially "embrace" atheism, it tried behind a veneer of religiosity. It got hundreds of thousands of German protestants and catholics to do its bidding. It got thousands of Poles to do its bidding and seemingly willingly.

In other words, the fear of god that you believe is an anctidote for terror and mass murder didn't seem to be operating under the conditions imposed by Nazism. That hard wire doesn't seem too secure to me.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:40 PM

On 12-06-2002 09:36 AM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by whitefork
Hegel was an atheist? GWF Hegel, the "one big Spirit" guy?

"Religion is our topic. Its contents is this and this alone: God. Religion is the consciousness of the relationship with God, as the unconditioned Absolute, the absolutely self-sufficient, the being that is because of itself, the absolute beginning and goal in itself and on its own." (G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Religion, 1824)

from http://www.hegel.net/spirit/abs/religion/

You sure about that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely. What does Hegel say about self-annihilation and where did he get that?

I don't have the time to teach you guys about Hegel and Nietzsche. In sum, Hegel opened the door for Nietzche to declare that "God is dead". Hitler latched onto Nietzche's "superman" philosophy and mirrored it into the "master race" Nazi agenda.

In order to understand why Hitler was an atheist you have to understand Hegel and Nietzche as they are, not as leftists teach them in many universities.

God, to German philosophes that Hitler admired, was a tool to propel civilization to a point--once that point was crossed then man would not need God. God was dead. Civilization killed God because man was now the God (atheism).

There was no room for God in the Nazi state. Ask yourself why and think about how the german populations could be so complacent to the atrocities and godless actions that endured there. If you were a citizen of Germany and you saw your neighbors being led away by Nazi SS battalions to concentration camps, how could you not question it?

One of the most troubling questions of Nazi Germany is that truth, and it haunts the german people to this day. How can populations, entire populations be removed and sent to efficient, bureaucratized facilities for liquidation (extermination) without the internal populations knowing about it? The bureaucracy was massive in Nazi Germany and 1 out of 4 citizens was employed in that system at the time.

German populations were godless populations and the removal of morality from Germany in the mid-1800's through World War Two is a classic example of atheism and its interaction with state power in the objective of totalitarianism and the ultimate goal of efficiency.

JK

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:41 PM

On 12-06-2002 09:43 AM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by headscratcher4
Serious question JK:

We've discussed your contention regarding Hitler's religous beliefs. You've insisted that his actions/deeds speak louder than words and that the deed of overseeing the death of millions could not eminate from one who believes in an ultimate higher authority, ergo Hitler is an atheist. Also, as noted, his table talk and writings are propoganda, so any expression of belief in any sort of a deity can be dismissed.

I recently finished Richard Rhodes interesting book on the SS and the action groups opperating in Poland and Russia at the beginning of the war. He talks about massacres over-seen by the SS by organized by Poles, Ukranians etc. THere have also been recent stories regarding Polish villages who turned on their jewish residents/neighbors, etc.

In short, for every christian Pole who saved a Jew, there were tens, if not Hundreds, who actively used the Nazi invasion, and were used by the Nazis to exact revenge, terror, murder, theft on their Jewish neighbors. Indeed, even today, though it is a heavilly Catholic country, anti-semitism in Poland is much noted and lively (strange for a country of only 4000 jews).

My question has to do with the Poles. I assume that the Poles who proclaimed themselves Catholic, went to church, took communion, etc. AND who actively participated in the persecution of Jews during the war were Atheists? I mean, weren't they paying lip service to the church but infact, through their deeds, exhibiting a complete lack of fear of devine retribution?

In short, it seems to me that, by your definition, these murderers were either atheists, or one man's atheism (Hitlers) trumps all of the belief and fear of divine judgment that people are otherwise "hard-wired" to have. I mean Hitler was an Atheist, according to you, but Nazism didn't officially "embrace" atheism, it tried behind a veneer of religiosity. It got hundreds of thousands of German protestants and catholics to do its bidding. It got thousands of Poles to do its bidding and seemingly willingly.

In other words, the fear of god that you believe is an anctidote for terror and mass murder didn't seem to be operating under the conditions imposed by Nazism. That hard wire doesn't seem too secure to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Poles were responding as a population to a surprise military attack and then the subsequent subordination to the Nazi state bureaucracy. The church didn't have any authority in Poland after the Nazis invaded and every country has deep reserves of citizens who will respond favorably to the temporary promises of the fascist system that overwhelms it.

You and I discussed how religion was removed from german populations when Luther detached himself from Rome. Now imagine dozens of generations following that and inject Hegel and Nietzche philosphies about God into all the leadership cells of the German state.

With God removed from the German populations for so long the German people began to shout for a prince, a savior. They chose their savior in Hitler and he was their prince and they gave themselves to him willingly.

JK

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:42 PM

On 12-06-2002 09:50 AM, headscratcher4 writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

The Poles were responding as a population to a surprise military attack and then the subsequent subordination to the Nazi state bureaucracy. The church didn't have any authority in Poland after the Nazis invaded and every country has deep reserves of citizens who will respond favorably to the temporary promises of the fascist system that overwhelms it.

You and I discussed how religion was removed from german populations when Luther detached himself from Rome. Now imagine dozens of generations following that and inject Hegel and Nietzche philosphies about God into all the leadership cells of the German state.

With God removed from the German populations for so long the German people began to shout for a prince, a savior. They chose their savior in Hitler and he was their prince and they gave themselves to him willingly.

JK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So basically, 1000 years+ of Christianity, Catholic doctrine, religious grounding, Christian culture, dogma, schools, fear of hell, etc. went out the door in a matter of hours/days? In short, all of the hard-wiring frayed and disapated almost immediately...again, it sort of suggests that the "hard-wiring" you speak of isn't very tight.

Again, my point is to your: you have contended that if you believe in god, you can't commit these kinds of crimes because, in the end, there will be divine...are you now telling me that if you believe in god but are under duress you can commit these kinds of crimes?

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:43 PM

On 12-06-2002 09:58 AM, RandFan writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Soubrette
Another interesting thought. If someone should be judged by what they do and not what they say - then is anyone truly a Christian. or a Jew or a member of any religious order? Most people strive to follow the tenets laid down by their religion but are likely to fail at one point or another - does this make them all atheists in reality? Or is it the magnitude of the transgression that counts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This caught my eye also. Acording to prevailing christian dogma (AIUI) "we are all short of the glory of god". No one is perfect. Now it is possible that someone pretends to be christian and in reality does not believe it at all. I for example came to believe less and less in Mormonism. Yet I continued to go to church and act like I was a believer. The process was gradual so I'm not certain that I can say exactly at what moment I wasn't a believer yet continued to go. There did come a time that I was no longer able to continue to put on a charade but there were times that I acted like I believed but did in fact I did not.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:44 PM

On 12-06-2002 10:00 AM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by headscratcher4

So basically, 1000 years+ of Christianity, Catholic doctrine, religious grounding, Christian culture, dogma, schools, fear of hell, etc. went out the door in a matter of hours/days? In short, all of the hard-wiring frayed and disapated almost immediately...again, it sort of suggests that the "hard-wiring" you speak of isn't very tight.

Again, my point is to your: you have contended that if you believe in god, you can't commit these kinds of crimes because, in the end, there will be divine...are you now telling me that if you believe in god but are under duress you can commit these kinds of crimes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should know better than to say that. 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

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:45 PM

On 12-06-2002 10:36 AM, RandFan writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Soubrette
In what way would you say Hitler was insane? I remember watching a documentary which hypothesised that he was in fact a fairly garbled and inconsistent rambler about his beliefs and most atrocities carried out were done by his inner circle in the belief they were doing what he wanted.

My sister had the pleasure of reading Mein Kampf for her A level history. She said it was a very difficult read and confusing in places - would you say this was a clue to his insanity or do you mean that by his deeds we should infer he was insane?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hate to be pedantic but I think it important to note that the term "insane" is used more by the judicial system and is not even a medical term. It is not really helpful in understanding the mental abilities of an individual. I know that we have all come to a vague understanding of it but it does not really tell us very much. Clearly Hitler was functional; he did not foam at the mouth or bark at the moon. He did however seem incapable of empathy for certain groups of people and perhaps he lacked any real empathy at all. He was clearly a megalomaniac and capable of inflicting suffering on a grand scale. I would suspect that Hitler was a sociopath.

I think the question that you are trying to ask is, to what extent if any was Hitler delusional? Was his megalomania an obsession or was it much more? Did Hitler see himself as a god or somehow separate from and or superior to other human beings? If Hitler was delusional I think this is most likely.

Did Hitler hear voices or see visions (hallucinations)? As far as I know he didn't. It is a very interesting question though. I hope not too far off topic.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:46 PM

On 12-06-2002 10:52 AM, Darat writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RandFan
I hate to be pedantic but I think it important to note that the term "insane" is used more by the judicial system and is not even a medical term. It is not really helpful in understanding the mental abilities of an individual. I know that we have all come to a vague understanding of it but it does not really tell us very much. Clearly Hitler was functional; he did not foam at the mouth or bark at the moon. He did however seem incapable of empathy for certain groups of people and perhaps he lacked any real empathy at all. He was clearly a megalomaniac and capable of inflicting suffering on a grand scale. I would suspect that Hitler was a sociopath.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand that "insane" is a rather vague term but it does seem to fit Hitler, from my limited knowledge.

He did, quite literally, foam at the mouth sometimes and when you read what he wrote, the sheer irrationality, the complete disregard for facts, the absolute hatred of anything that he didn't "approve" of I can't think of any other term to use then "insane".

(And it appears there is evidence that he did have times in his life when he quite literally couldn't "function". There is also evidence that he formed at least one "emotional bond" and that was with his dog.)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RandFan

I think your the question that you are trying to ask is, to what extent if any was Hitler delusional? Was his megalomania an obsession or was it much more? Did Hitler see himself as a god or somehow separate from and or superior to other human beings? If Hitler was delusional I think this is most likely.

Did Hitler hear voices or see visions (hallucinations)? As far as I know he didn't. It is a very interesting question though. I hope not too far off topic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't read about him claiming visions in the sense of hearing voices however he did talk a lot about his dreams and certainly believed they had prophetic qualities.

(I do admit my use of the word “insane” to describe Hitler is as much based on the fact that I can't think of any word but "insane" to describe someone capable of doing and condoning what he did rather then a “medical” definition of insanity. Not the most objective viewpoint I know.)

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:47 PM

12-06-2002 11:13 AM, headscratcher4 writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

You should know better than to say that. 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not trying to bait you here, or insult your earlier argument regarding German's that I'll get back to at a later point...actually, I was talking about the Poles. Poles started killing Jews within hours of coming under German control...whether they did so because of Euro-anti-Semitism or to please the Germans, they did it. They still had their Bibles, their churches and their Priests -- in fact, many Jews were accused by Poles and Germans as being "communists" as a reason for murder.

Anyway, and I repeat, within Hours/days of German occupation, somePole grounded in 1000+ of catholicism, engaged in actions to assist and promote the German anti-Semetic agenda. Indeed, to this day, Poles deny it..."it was all a result of the Germans..."

My point is that the check you suggest should be there, and which wasn't deluted by hundreds of years of German atheistic philosophy (as you would have it) wasn't there. The Christian fear of god disolved. Most of the population stood by or actively helped. Indeed, in the east, as they viewed the German's as liberators from the Russians, they were more than happy to engage in Progroms -- both sponsored by the Germans and indipendently...it is, as you say, a fact.

So? When they proclaimed themselves Catholic, went to church, took part in communion and went home to houses stolen from their Jewish neighbors, were they not as "atheistic" as Hitler?

Further, what happened to the hard wiring you speak of? All of the Catholic grounding, one would have thought, would have creeated millions of martyrs, rather than a paltry couple of thousands...communities that would rather die with the Jews than live under the atheists, as it were.

No, seriously, help me out in understanding what happened to Poland's fear of god? I understand your point about Germans (though I would/will dispute your historical interpretation with you at a later time), but what about the Poles who marched their Jewish neighbors to the killing pits (see Rhode's book) in a festive mood and then went to church on Sunday. Are they not the same as Hitler? Saying onething for the community, atheist at heart?

In the end, I think it is irrelevent whether or not Hitler was an Atheist. He might well have been, but your assertions are not very convincing on the evidence, logic or facts you claim. To paraphrase John Fowles writing on Hitler in the novel the Magus...the crime wasn't that one man had the will to be and do evil, it was that millions did not have the will to say "no". Indeed, regarless of how you describe Hitler, or whether you conclude that atheism is a religion, it is in the context you set possible to argue that Hitler was the only one who had a complete faith in his God/Vision and willing to see it through to the end...the rest were just posuers.

I particulary note the church, the instrument that you have stated checked the atheistic streak in philosophy (you know, the one started by MLuther...) did little or nothing to stop it, voice moral objection, or call for the protection of the Jews (well, some, but late and after it was clear that Hitler was going to lose). In short, that institution, grounded in 2000+ years of fear of god, gave up its very basic precepts overnight.

You know, Stalin used to say "how many legions does the Pope have?" Today, they say "How many legions, just look at what John Paul brought about in Eastern Europe..." Fine, but when it counted, when 2 million jews were being trained to their death across Catholic Poland they church was silent. The partisans weren't bombing deathcamp train lines. Poles weren't en-mass civilly disobaying the Germans...they were turning in their neighbors and going to mass on Sunday.

BTW, I don't hold the Poles responsible. They are victems. It was an occupied country. The Nazis, like the Soviets, about as inhuman as can be imagined. But, they were not hard wired to fear god.

You argue for hardwiring...I argue that regardless of whether or not Hitler was an atheist, WWII and the holocaust therein is the best arguement for the absence of such....

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:48 PM

On 12-06-2002 11:16 AM, Franko writes:

Was Hitler trying to be Religious or Scientific when he tried to make nuclear weapons?

How about the V2 rocket?

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:49 PM

On 12-06-2002 11:35 AM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by headscratcher4

Not trying to bait you here, or insult your earlier argument regarding German's that I'll get back to at a later point...actually, I was talking about the Poles. Poles started killing Jews within hours of coming under German control...whether they did so because of Euro-anti-Semitism or to please the Germans, they did it. They still had their Bibles, their churches and their Priests -- in fact, many Jews were accused by Poles and Germans as being "communists" as a reason for murder.

Anyway, and I repeat, within Hours/days of German occupation, somePole grounded in 1000+ of catholicism, engaged in actions to assist and promote the German anti-Semetic agenda. Indeed, to this day, Poles deny it..."it was all a result of the Germans..."

My point is that the check you suggest should be there, and which wasn't deluted by hundreds of years of German atheistic philosophy (as you would have it) wasn't there. The Christian fear of god disolved. Most of the population stood by or actively helped. Indeed, in the east, as they viewed the German's as liberators from the Russians, they were more than happy to engage in Progroms -- both sponsored by the Germans and indipendently...it is, as you say, a fact.

So? When they proclaimed themselves Catholic, went to church, took part in communion and went home to houses stolen from their Jewish neighbors, were they not as "atheistic" as Hitler?

Further, what happened to the hard wiring you speak of? All of the Catholic grounding, one would have thought, would have creeated millions of martyrs, rather than a paltry couple of thousands...communities that would rather die with the Jews than live under the atheists, as it were.

No, seriously, help me out in understanding what happened to Poland's fear of god? I understand your point about Germans (though I would/will dispute your historical interpretation with you at a later time), but what about the Poles who marched their Jewish neighbors to the killing pits (see Rhode's book) in a festive mood and then went to church on Sunday. Are they not the same as Hitler? Saying onething for the community, atheist at heart?

In the end, I think it is irrelevent whether or not Hitler was an Atheist. He might well have been, but your assertions are not very convincing on the evidence or logic. To paraphrase John Fowles in the novel the Magus...the crime wasn't that one man had the will to be and do evil, it was that millions did not have the will to say "no".

You argue for hardwiring...I argue that regardless of whether or not Hitler was an atheist, WWII and the holocaust therein is the best arguement for the absence of such....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are population grudges in every country that is on the fringe of revolution and the Nazi ideology seeped across the border of Poland long before the war started. Poland wasn't an isolated sphere of containment. It was a country that was under relentless pressure from the communists to the east and the fascists to the west.

Poland knew that they would be attacked. They knew it. It was the only way that Hitler could access the main avenues of approach to get into Russia. Poland was the gateway.

In any country that falls under military attack and revolution, internal populations will conflict amongst themselves over past slights, postions in the new system, etc. It is common.

Some of Hitler's favorite henchmen were native ancestoral Poles. Also, you failed to mention the majority of military Poles were killed during the initial attack and again after the communists invaded in the later stages of the war. There was no resistence.

What was the cause of all the antisemitism in that region? Germany and the German ideology of that period. What you are saying is trying to say the USA doesn't have any influence on Canada. It doesn't make any sense in reality.

The catholic church can't be blamed for the onslaught in Poland after the Nazis invaded. The only way that you can credibly blame the church is if the church had government power in the Nazi system and it had none.

That is the point that I am making. People are hard-wired to believe in God, but Nazi atheist belief made that belief unfashionable. The people in Germany and Poland weren't raising their arms saying "Sieg Heil Jesus".

The atheist state killed God in Germany and the surrounding Europeran countries long before World War II broke out. World War II was just a continuance of World War I.

Hitler was one of the most successful atheist prodigies in the history of humankind, second only to Stalin.

JK

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:50 PM

On 12-06-2002 11:49 AM, headscratcher4 writes:

Have to go away for a day or two, will try to reply, if this is still a going concern. when I get back.

For the record, and again, I am not blaming Poles, or even the Catholic church. My point is different. I think it is in what I've written above (it is possible that I've lost myself in my own rheteric and bad spelling...) but I will review on my return and try to clarify further if it remains unclear....HS

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:51 PM

On 12-06-2002 12:11 PM, RandFan writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Darat
I understand that "insane" is a rather vague term but it does seem to fit Hitler, from my limited knowledge.

He did, quite literally, foam at the mouth sometimes and when you read what he wrote, the sheer irrationality, the complete disregard for facts, the absolute hatred of anything that he didn't "approve" of I can't think of any other term to use then "insane".

(And it appears there is evidence that he did have times in his life when he quite literally couldn't "function". There is also evidence that he formed at least one "emotional bond" and that was with his dog.)

I haven't read about him claiming visions in the sense of hearing voices however he did talk a lot about his dreams and certainly believed they had prophetic qualities.

(I do admit my use of the word “insane” to describe Hitler is as much based on the fact that I can't think of any word but "insane" to describe someone capable of doing and condoning what he did rather then a “medical” definition of insanity. Not the most objective viewpoint I know.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Darat,

Some good points. I'm not arguing and I should point out that I am a long way from a psychiatrist or psychologist. Just a year or more of psychology, and related subjects in college and whatever I have read over the years (enough to get me laughed at I suppose).

I know that at the end of his life Hitler suffered from a disease like Parkinsons and perhaps others. There is footage of Hitler reviewing a youth brigade and he is unable to stop one of his hands from shaking. I think any lack of control probably was from the Parkinsons as opposed to anything else. However, towards the very end of the war while in his bunker during military meetings he talked of non-existent troops that would arrive to save Germany. I do think that Hitler was at times psychotic during this period.

It should be noted that there was a substantial amount of propaganda aimed at Hitler during and after the war that painted him as a lunatic. While I am not aware of Hitler foaming at the mouth any references to such a claim might be the result of such propaganda. There is one popular piece of doctored footage in which Hitler dances a jig after hearing of some good news from the front. Close inspection shows that the footage was cut and edited so that the same footsteps were repeated a number of times. A popular trick for cat commercials.

Hitler may have been psychotic. I am no expert on him and it wouldn’t surprise me that someone had in fact documented that he was quite “mad”. I have read some stuff pro and con but remain as yet unconvinced.

Edited to change length of study.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:52 PM

On 12-06-2002 01:10 PM, Thr0n writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Franko
Was Hitler trying to be Religious or Scientific when he tried to make nuclear weapons?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither. He was attempting to create a weapon that would be capable of eliminating an entire enemy base with a single explosion. The United States was doing the same. We succeeded. Hitler failed. Then, instead of dropping the bomb on a military target, we hit two large civillian targets in order to frighten Stalin and prevent a Soviet ground invasion of Japan (by forcing unconditional surrender of the Japanese a few days prior).

So what's the relevance of your question? Hitler was making a tactical move by instituting a nuclear weapons program. His decision had little, if anything, to do with religion or science.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:53 PM

On 12-06-2002 05:44 PM, Mike B. writes:

I think a good book to read on the subject is "Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Speer.

Speer was as close to Hitler as he allowed people to be.

Goering called him Hitler's "unrequited love." Hitler had his fantasy that he was a great artist and was a lover of building design. I suppose he saw Speer as a kindred spirit.

I have the book on my shelf. If I remember correctly, Speer says Hitler once said the greatest misfortune to Europe was that Charles Martel had stopped the Muslim invasions at Tours in the 8th Century. He said Islam was a warrior's religion and Xianity was not. Germany would have been much better Muslim.

I can try to find the page. However, if another source has it, I would be surprised if it wasn't true. It might have been one of those things Hitler said and thought was really clever so repeated it.

I also recall Martin Borman was telling Hitler to go against the churches, but Speer said Hitler did not want to rock the boat during the war and was always a bit paranoid and wanted to give the people what they wanted.

Whether Hitler was an atheist or not: I don't think he was. It would seem he was a Mystic...I mean afterall he was interested in Astrology. If he was an Atheist anyway it wouldn't cast any aspertions on atheists...

As a non-theist myself it doesn't matter...

However,
In semi-defense of JK, I have been on Paltalk where Atheist rooms were named things like "Hitler was a Xian" and so forth. Both sides would love to have Hitler be on the other side. And both of course therefore use selective quoting...

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:54 PM

On 12-06-2002 10:43 PM, Nova Land writes:

I hadn't realized there'd be so many posts so quickly! I had to go off-line early in the morning, so I'm about18 hours behind where this thread is now, and trying to catch up.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Soubrette

I suppose my question would be - why would Hitler bother to lie - after all there was no official religion in communistic Russia and yet the people did not rise up against that - or fail to support it. So why would he bother to lie about something like that when he's already made clear (as Headscratcher4 pointed out) his dislike of the Jews (out of interest did he make clear what he intended to do them also) in Mein Kampf?

In short the view that he did it to maintain the support of the people seems flimsy when communism managed without a religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good question! I think Darat has already addressed this but I'd like to put a couple cents in too.

My understanding is that Christians made up a very active part of the German electorate in the 1920s and 1930s, with several of the splinter parties (such as Catholic Action) being religion-based. I don't think atheists made up any significant portion of the electorate -- at least not avowed atheists.

Hitler rose to power by attacking liberalism and feminism, and by supporting old-fashioned patriotism and "family values". The people supporting Hitler in his rise to power included conservative Christians, because many of them agreed with key the planks in his platform. It would thus make sense for Hitler to put on a show of religious belief, whether he was truly religious or not. It would not make sense to claim to be an atheist, since that would lose him a great deal of support and gain him little or none. It's the same reason why you often see US politicians pander to the Christian Coalition and other sizable religious voting blocs, but rarely see major presidential candidates addressing atheist conventions.

The situation in Russia was different because the communists came to power through a revolution rather than through elections. I can imagine atheism being much more exciting and appealing to small revolutionary cells than to the general Russian population. My guess is that atheism wasn't emphasized as a major reason for over-throwing the czar, and that it didn't really become an important issue until after the communists had taken power.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another interesting thought. If someone should be judged by what they do and not what they say - then is anyone truly a Christian. or a Jew or a member of any religious order? Most people strive to follow the tenets laid down by their religion but are likely to fail at one point or another - does this make them all atheists in reality? Or is it the magnitude of the transgression that counts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good point, and a problem that comes up often: do we accept people's self-descriptions of their beliefs, or do we try to put our own labels of "what they really believe" on them?

For example, there are many people who self-describe themselves as conservatives whom Jedi does not consider to be conservatives, and there are many people who do not consider themselves liberals whom Jedi does consider as liberal or ultra-liberal. It would be good to have some definition we held in common and some yardstick to measure by.

Allowing people to self-describe (and accepting their self-description) certainly makes life simpler. In this case, Hitler self-described (at least publicly) as being Catholic. The obvious problem is that sometimes people claim to be something they clearly are not.

But trying to divine people's political or religious beliefs through their actions seems as prone to problems as taking people strictly at their word. If rules for how to do this can be set down and agreed on that would be one thing, but from what I've seen of this it's equivalent to astrology, a way to justify whatever conclusion a person wishes to prove.

I think a good direction would be to take people at their word, but to do that for their professed beliefs rather than for their professed label. Thus, we would not accept Hitler's public self-label of Catholic because the beliefs he espoused (in the table talks) are at odds with core Catholic beliefs. (For example, he does not accept the Pope and the Church as his spiritual authorities, he does not agree with key beliefs about Jesus that are vital to Catholicism, he does not believe in communion, etc.) But we also would not label him as an atheist, because the beliefs he espoused are likewise at odds with atheism. What we would do is compile a list of his stated beliefs, and see what label if any suitably described such beliefs.

It does happen sometimes that a person's stated beliefs are clearly contradicted by their actions. The greater the length at which they propound their beliefs, however, the less often this contradiction is a problem. For instance, there are many racists who will say, "I'm not a racist," and their actions clearly seem to contradict this. However, if they keep on talking, they usually continues, "I'm not a racist, but..." and the explanation of their beliefs which follows usually makes it clear they are racists.

In the case of Hitler, his stated beliefs in Table Talks are in synch with his deeds, so there is no need to toss the words out.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:55 PM

On 12-06-2002 11:29 PM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by headscratcher4

I believe JK thinks Luther made atheism possible. Prior to Luther, the benign institutions of the church helped to focus individuals on their shared community and their shared ethic/values, etc. After Luther, it becomes possible for the individual to have a direct relation knowledge of God...an individual able to have a direct knowledge of God, can come to doubt God if prayers are unanswered, signs not given, etc. From doubt arises atheism, from atheism dissolves all of the checks on human action. In other words, morality becomes fungible if there is no God at the core of morality. That Hitler did not believe in God is made manifest by his ability to create and order conditions necessary for mass murder -- as anyone who believes in a higher authority would not engage in such activities for fear of a higher retribution and final judgment. I.e. no God, no fear of hell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is interesting and helpful; thanks!

JK: is that indeed a fair re-statement of your views?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, I note that JK seems to indicate through his writings a belief that any religious belief other than a "Judeo/Christian" based belief is Atheistic (am I missing something here JK?). Islam is atheistic. Buddhism is atheistic. etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aha! You may have brought out a problem I hadn't anticipated.

I was aware there is a language problem in trying to talk about liberal, conservative, left-wing, right-wing, etc., as different people in the forum define those terms differently and apply them to different people and positions. But I was thinking that atheism was reasonably clear, despite the arguments I've seen in some of the other threads. Those arguments seemed to be over whether atheists don't believe in god or believe there is no god, which are different but which didn't seem to pose a problem as far as discussing Hitler (since neither of those seems to match his views).

But I was assuming we could divide the world semantically into theists and atheists: those who believe in gods (Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindi, Wiccans, etc.) and those who don't. I hadn't considered a semantic division into those who believe in the True God and those who don't.

By that latter system, everyone who doesn't believe in the True God is an atheist, since they are denying the existence of the only god that matters -- an interesting way of looking at things, since it makes a majority, possibly an overwhelming majority, of the world's population into atheists.

JK: is this indeed how you are defining atheism?

I'm quite willing to use your definitions for the purpose of this discussion; I just want to be clear on what those definitions are.

If we're using the same words, but with very different ideas of what they mean, I can coin different terms for the concepts I'm trying to talk about. That way we can talk productively about what it was Hitler did or didn't believe without arguing fruitlessly about whose definitions are correct.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:55 PM

On 12-07-2002 12:39 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed, Hitler was a chronic, habitual liar. We know that in several ways: (a) he often said one thing and did another; (b) the people who knew him say that what he said and what he really felt were different; and (c) Hitler tells us himself, in places such as the "table talks", that much of what he has said publicly is not what he really felt.

However, it is impossible for anyone (even Hitler) to lie about everything.

In comic books, there are the Bizarros, who try to do everything opposite to how someone "normal" would do it. If they are sad, for instance, they say they are happy. Seeing a friend makes them sad, leaving a friend makes them happy.

You see the problem? The negatives start cancelling out, and pretty soon Bizarros aren't really acting opposite.

Same problem with Hitler. Even if he were a comic book character who had set out to lie about everything, he wouldn't be able to do it.

But Hitler isn't a comic book character. He was an actual person, and like actual people he lied for reasons. Sometimes he flat out lied; sometimes he told half-truths; sometimes he told what he thought was true, but he was mistaken. But much of the time, even despite himself, what he said reflects what he felt.

We can be reasonably sure that many of his public utterances were lies, told for political advantage. It was to his advantage for the public to believe he was a Catholic during his rise to power, so he pandered to that belief. Lying in public speeches is relatively easy, because one can take the time to write the words out in advance and make sure they present the image one is trying to present. Politicians do it all the time.

Lying in conversation is harder. People do that all the time, too, but it is often much easier to spot the lies. Lying is an act, a performance, and it is hard for anyone to be "on" all the time.

Look, for instance, at Richard Nixon (and before him, Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy). They were taping their White House conversations. They knew these conversations were being taped. On one level they may have been interested in preserving history; but on another, they must have wanted to present themselves in a good light -- very similar to how Hitler must have felt in having his "table talks" transcribed. And yet they said many things which revealed a part of themselves they would almost certainly have preferred to conceal. Why? Because lying in conversation, day after day, isn't as easy as you may be assuming.

Should we take everything in Table Talks at face value? No. Anyone can lie fairly consistently on a few key points. But should we discard it as all a carefully crafted mask? Again, no. That strains credulity.

Hitler was talking to his close associates. He likely wanted to impress them with his insights, his cleverness. He likely wanted to expound things to them which he felt were profound thoughts and which he wasn't able to say more publicly. He may be exaggerating some of his views, or shading his views a little in order to be able to make some clever-sounding point, but on the whole it's reasonable to assume much of what he's saying in these "conversations" comes close to his real beliefs.

You yourself quoted from it (in a previous thread, as the source of your belief that Hitler was an atheist). That would indicate you do find it to have some value as a source of insight into Hitler's beliefs.

Which parts truly reflect his beliefs, and which are distortions? That's certainly a question worth pondering. First let's see what he actually said in the table talks, and see which things he uttered consistently over the course of these 4 years, and see which of these are consistent with what he confided to others.

To simply declare that anything he said which is in line with one's own preconceptions is Hitler telling the truth, and anything he said which is out of line is part of his lies, would be un-skeptical. Let's go over the material together, skeptically, and see what if anything we can make out of it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've lost me. If Hitler believed it was a "mission from God", then it was by definition not an atheist action. And he did say, both publicly and privately, that he believed he was acting in accordance with God's wishes. He was mistaken in that; but it appears to be a misguided belief in god, rather than a lack of belief, which led him astray.

We'll never know what would have happened if Hitler had not been raised to believe in god. Quite possibly he would have turned out the same. We do know that he was raised to be religious, and that while he distorted many of the things he was taught he never proclaimed himself an atheist or said he was acting out of atheistic beliefs.

That, at least, is my reading of the facts at hand. Earlier you had indicated, by your quoting from it, that you thought Hitler's Table Talks was a valid source of information on Hitler's religious beliefs. If so, let's go through it to see what it actually says. I may be mis-reading it, or over-looking something; the same goes for you.

Or, if you feel there is a better source of information as to Hitler's religious beliefs, name that and we can go through that together. I think it's worth going through this one first, as long as we've begun, but if you think there is a better source of factual information we can stipulate as we go through Table Talks that any conclusions it leads us to are superceded by any contradictory material from the better source..

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:56 PM

On 12-07-2002 01:10 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jedi Knight (in response to a request from CWL for his source of evidence for assertions made in response to 2 previus questions):

Sure. History.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this history as you experienced it growing up in the 1920s and 1930s, or history as you have read about it?

If this is history as you have read about it, it would be helpful to provide the sources where you read these things, so that others of us can look it up for ourselves and weigh what the material says.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:57 PM

On 12-07-2002 01:36 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by De_Bunk

Jedi
Its a real shame that Hitler was a Catholic...
Goto..

www.angelfire.com/wy/wyrd/antinazi.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Angelfire is an interesting site, and appears to have some useful information. However: many of the quotes given are from Mein Kampf. Jedi has already explained why Mein Kampf cannot be taken at face value. It was written for propaganda purposes, for public consumption. Just as many of us would not accept uncritically anything Bill Clinton, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, etc. might put into a book supposedly telling what their inmost thoughts really were, so many of us would not blindly accept Hitler's word in a manifesto like this -- even if it happens to contain passages that could be used to bolster points we'd like to prove.

I disagree with Jedi's reading of Hitler's true religious beliefs, but I do think he has a valid point in not accepting any old Hitler quote that happens to support one's view. The test for how much weight a quote should carry is not "Does this agree with the point I want to make?" More important questions include: "Where does this come from? How reliable is the source? What does this actually mean when read in context?"

In a previous thread Jedi indicated (by quoting from it) a willingness to accept material in Hitler's Table Talks. This book was not written for public consumption in the way Mein Kampf or his various speeches were, so it may give better evidence of what his real beliefs were. That is why I'm interested in going through this particular book with Jedi.

And while I like the Angelfire link you provided, are you sure you want to rely too heavily on a site which accepts contributions from well known comic-book supervillains?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from the Angelfire site:

the next contribution on this subject was made by
Mr. PerDegaton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mean, granted, Mr. Degaton was a contemporary of Hitler and all, but jeeze, he tried to take over the world, too, you know!

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:58 PM

On 12-07-2002 02:51 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RandFan (responding to Soubrette's point that if deeds rather than words are to be judged then few if any may be Christian):

... Now it is possible that someone pretends to be christian and in reality does not believe it at all. I for example came to believe less and less in Mormonism. Yet I continued to go to church and act like I was a believer. The process was gradual so I'm not certain that I can say exactly at what moment I wasn't a believer yet continued to go. There did come a time that I was no longer able to continue to put on a charade but there were times that I acted like I believed but did in fact I did not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of people attend church because they were raised to, or because their neighbors do and it's socially expected; we have a high percentage of church membership and attendance in the US, but we may not have that high a percentage of actual believers.

Gallup polls and similar surveys generally measure how many people are self-professed members of various religions. If that standard is not acceptable -- if Hitler, although a publicly-professed Catholic and a privately-professed believer-in-god-although-not-a-christian, is to be categorized as something other than a theist -- then we may need to distinguish between membership in a religion and belief in that religion.

The standard for counting membership would be a statement professing to be a member and/or periodic attendance. (We could sub-divide this into: people who profess membership and attend regularly; people who profess membership and attend occasionally; and people who profess membership but attend rarely or never.)

The standard for counting belief... Now there's a hard one!

Jedi: you're the one who sort of opened this can by saying Hitler's religious beliefs should be judged by his deeds rather than by his self-professions. Any thoughts on how this would apply in general? Is it your belief that many people attending churches in this country should actually be counted as atheists?

Should, for instance, the KKK and White Citizen's Council members be considered atheists even though they were generally considered themselves to be true Christians (and claimed they were motivated to oppose integration because of their Christian beliefs)? What about Paul Hill, John Salvi, James Kopp? Michael Bray? In Ireland, is the IRA Catholic or atheist? Is the Ulster Defense Association Protestant or atheist?

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:59 PM

On 12-07-2002 03:22 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

How can people actively and freely pursue religious belief and customs when the very nation-state that they exist in forbids it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to me that is when religious belief is often strongest. The early Christians, facing persecution, seemed much stronger in their faith than 20th century Christians.

In the 1600s, people were arrested in England for daring to worship other than in the approved way and at the approved church (Church of England). In colonial America, some colonies had similar restrictions, and people were exiled (and hanged) for defying those restrictions. Those who defied
the restrictions triumphed, which is one reason we have religious freedom today.

How did they do it? In England, by holding services despite what the law said, and going to prison for it. In colonial America, by returning to the places they had been exiled from and continuing to worship as they felt called to do.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope so, yes.

And that, to me, is the amazing thing. People throughout history
have found the strength to say no, even to the most brutal regimes. And it seems to me that people from a wide variety of cultural and religious (and non-religious) backgrounds have found that strength.

Sadly, people have also found the ability to say yes to evil throughout history, and this too has come from people from a wide variety of culturan and religious backgrounds. Why some say yes and some say no is a question worth pondering.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would a Christian church order you to gas Jews?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, sadly, yes.

Or at least, churches of people who call themselves Christian certainly seem to have been able to do that, and other atrocities.

Girl 6

9th January 2003, 12:03 AM

On 12-09-2002 04:10 AM, Nova Land writes:

Previously I posted portions of table tqlks # 3 and # 4, both from the same night. Here is the next table talk, from a couple weeks later.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversation # 5: Night of 21st-22nd July 1941

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS: It may be possible to draw some minor inferences (about Hitler's attitude towards Luther, towards the Bible, towards the Catholic Church and the Pope) but on the whole there isn't a whole lot here.

It does illustrate the nature of these "table talks", however. They are rambling, and often not of great consequence. This, I think, lends credence to them as being just what they purport to be: transcriptions of Hitler spouting off after-dinner thoughts to his associates.

Earlier in this thread a theory was put forward that these were part a plan by Hitler to spread disinformation. I think that's the kind of view that's easy to put forward when you haven't actually read the things, only heard about them or seen snippets. That's one reason I encourage people to look at the book themselves if they have access to it, and why I'm putting up more than just the "hot" quotes from it, so that people can get a feel for what this material is actually like.

Girl 6

9th January 2003, 12:04 AM

On 12-09-2002 04:32 AM, Nova Land writes:

The next table talk to deal with religion comes 3 month later. This one is long and covers a lot!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
conversation # 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 fter 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENTS: There are a lot of juicy passages in this one. I've refrained from highlighting them, and will mostly hold off on commenting, so that people can read this for themselves, in context, and form their own impressions first.

I do want to put in one brief note. In this conversation Hitler refers to the worship of Wotan (aka Odin). Some Nazis had wanted to replace Christianity (a weak, feminine religion, in their view) with a new version of the pre-Christian Germanic religion (a religion more in line with their values). In a previous thread I had suggested that the quote Jedi offered, in which Hitler criticized Christianity, might indicate Hitler's belief in this older religion. As this section shows, I was mistaken.

Girl 6

9th January 2003, 12:06 AM

On 12-09-2002 09:02 AM, headscratcher4 writes:

Back from a few days away, this will probably only did the pit deeper, but, here goes. JK's statemens in quotes.

“There are population grudges in every country that is on the fringe of revolution and the Nazi ideology seeped across the border of Poland long before the war started. Poland wasn't an isolated sphere of containment. It was a country that was under relentless pressure from the communists to the east and the fascists to the west.”

True – yet in this specific case, the “population grudges” you speak of were long standing and predated both Nazism and Bolshevism. Indeed, they were historic and pre-date the Reformation and Luther. My point in raising this issue was not to suggest that Poland was unique or that there was no lack of stress on Poland. Rather, it was to point out that a profoundly “Christian” country with a profoundly Christian culture and all that you claim for such culture in terms of toleration and personal responsibility and fear of ultimate judgment and retribution cracked very quickly. I think this is understandable…my ultimate goal was to suggest that many who marched their Jewish neighbors to the killing pits (as in Germany, and elsewhere) considered themselves good practicing Christians before and after the war. So, while for the sake of argument, accepting for a moment your contentions about the “atheist-ization” of the state, the state was ultimately dependent on “believers” to do its dirty work. And, taking Hitler at his most cynical (note Nova’s citation of the Table Talk) he could not have pursued his murderous “atheism” were he not able to rely on the willing conformance of a population – both in Germany and in occupied countries – to
his anti-Semitic message.

Further, I would contend that, in Poland at least, the structures, tenants and dogma of the religious institutions may have created a willingness to bow to authority (such as the structured authority) of the Church and thus made the Nazi’s job of cowing the population that much easier. Remember, the Pope was more interested in fighting Bolshevism than the Nazis and did much to ease the way of the Nazis.

-------

”Poland knew that they would be attacked. They knew it. It was the only way that Hitler could access the main avenues of approach to get into Russia. Poland was the gateway.

In any country that falls under military attack and revolution, internal populations will conflict amongst themselves over past slights, positions in the new system, etc. It is common.”

Again, I would agree with most of these statements. However, your contention is that there was something inherently atheistic in the Nazi actions, and that arose in particular from Hitler’s own atheism. Maybe. However, it is also, as suggested, an opportunity for Poles to act-out on historic anti-Semitism bread and proclaimed by the Church form a millennium. The Nazis, atheistic though they may be for the sake of argument, found Poles not only willing to suck up to the conquerors, but also willing and able to act on a millennium of Church teaching to justify their actions and accommodation of Nazi power over their Jewish neighbor. As history showed, it was the rare Pole, the rare Catholic that actively joined the underground and risked life and limb to fight the Nazis or to save Jews. Again, my point is not to suggest that Poles were not under unique stress, merely that the core values that you claim operate within religious beliefs – values such as toleration – if not absent, certainly dissipated quickly under this stress.

__________
"Some of Hitler's favorite henchmen were native ancestral Poles. Also, you failed to mention the majority of military Poles were killed during the initial attack and again after the communists invaded in the later stages of the war. There was no resistance."

Agreed. There was little or no resistance. I also agree that the Russians murdered the core of the Polish military. However, my argument isn’t about military resistance. It is about a profoundly religious population that quickly embraced what you’ve termed the atheistic machinery of its invaders to settle old scores with their neighbors and fellow citizens of Jewish descent. My point all along is that the checks that you claim to exist in a believing person/population – that you specifically argue Hitler as an alleged atheist did not have – disappeared when the Nazi’s offered the local population the opportunity to settle scores.

BTW – I have no confidence that I would have acted much better. Who can know, ultimately, how we will respond to terror of this kind – either Nazi or Communist. I fear that history shows us that we can generally expect the worst. History also shows that we can expect the worst when believers of any kind are out on a mission of purification whether Nazi, Communist, Christian, Islamic, Israelite (remember the clearing of Canaan), etc.

Also, you’ve argued that Hitler was an atheist and this made mass murder possible. You’ve also argued that Atheism is a religion. You’ve also argued that the religious are inherently more tolerant as opposed to the atheistic state, which has no check and cannot afford toleration or room for alternative beliefs. But, if for your definition atheism is a religion, than surely the religious – and I would have to assume that this would mean those who believe in a deity as well as those who believe none to exist – are each capable of committing mass murder. In short, it seems to me that one of the only way that your argument and effort to tag Hitler with the title of atheist and thus to expose the evil of atheism in contrast to the values of the otherwise traditionally religious (and Judeo/Christian specifically) works only if atheism isn’t a religion. I.e. the evil springs from the lack of religion/belief/higher moral authority, etc.

_____________
”The catholic church can't be blamed for the onslaught in Poland after the Nazis invaded. The only way that you can credibly blame the church is if the church had government power in the Nazi system and it had none.”

This may be a fair point. But, than I would hope you would agree that “religious” institutions in power represent a potential totalitarian danger, as do societies where religion and the state are essentially distinguishable. This is certainly true today in many an “Islamic” state. But, historically, it is true in Europe as well…where the Pope, for example, was a secular as well as spiritual power, or Spain at the height of the Inquisition, etc. On the other hand, the philosophical effort to get religion out of the secular state – most notably in the US – has been an attempt, and only partially successful one at that – to limit such totalitarian power and intolerance. How successful? Well, clearly that is arguable.
__________

”That is the point that I am making. People are hard-wired to believe in God, but Nazi atheist belief made that belief unfashionable. The people in Germany and Poland weren't raising their arms saying "Siege Hail Jesus".

Yes, maybe (though you’ve not proved to me that there is “hard-wiring” and we’ll just have to disagree on that point), and my point was that in spite of that hard wiring, and profound religious indoctrination of a kind that you would argue is more tolerant, these hard wired people for a myriad of understandable reasons abandoned their fear of god, god’s retribution and their dogma to help murder their neighbors. Further, that they did so relatively quickly. In short, I guess it is always Lord of the Flies when the Sh*t hits the fan, but that doesn’t speak well for religion or the over-reaching power of a belief in God.

_________

"The atheist state killed God in Germany and the surrounding European countries long before World War II broke out. World War II was just a continuance of World War I."

Clearly, this is your core point, and one that I think many – including some profoundly religious and Christian – would have to disagree with you on. It seems that your basic point is that as a result of German/European Atheism run amok, Hitler/Stalin were inevitable. I think where the argument lies is that you describe and lump all humanist movements emanating from the Reformation forward as essentially atheistic…i.e. lacking a belief in God(s). However, many of the philosophical foundations of these various humanist movements were laid by individuals who had a profound belief in God. While you describe them as atheistic, they would have shuddered at such a description and your definition.

Bottom line is that as interesting as some of your opinions are, and, indeed, informed by history and fact, I do not concede that you get to be the one who defines not only belief and ideology but also how the words are used. In other words, the individuals who founded these movements have described themselves to varying degree. For example, Hitler did not describe himself as an atheist, just wary and antagonistic to Christianity. You read that/describe it at Atheism. I, on the other hand, take Hitler at his word here, for he had no reason to lie.

By the same token, Stalin, Marx, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim il Sung, all would have described themselves as “atheists” and their state as “atheistic”. No reason to doubt them either. On the one hand, you want to argue with “atheist” by tarring one (Hitler) who many see as the epidemy of evil – sort “see, you are just like him…at core” Thus causing revolsion and horror among Atheist who would never see themselves as Hitler. On the other hand, you do not need Hitler for your case, as Lenin, Stalin, Moa, et al – atheist all, have all murdered far more than Hitler ever did, and far more indiscriminately as well.

However, and further, though not an atheist, I would take issue with the core contention that being “an atheist” is somehow endemic to this kind of violence or mass terror. History has shown that not to be the case (rather, I think, science and technology has made it more efficient…imagine the councils of the Inquisition with the killing potential of the Nazis or Soviets as they tried to root out the Jews and Moors in Spain, etc.).

And, again, I keep coming back to your central point…you want to disparage Atheism and show it to be a danger and set it in contrast to the toleration that you claim on behalf of those who espouse a religious belief in a deity(s). Yet, you’ve also decreed that atheism is a religion…which makes me think, agreeing with you for the moment…that religions and the religious – as shown throughout history – are completely capable of the kind of cruel intolerance you seek to decry.

This also leads me to seek clarification, are you at core arguing that all religions are more tolerant, or is it, as I suspect, that you are arguing that Judeo/Christian (and Catholic in particular) are more tolerant? Further, if Islam is atheistic, what “religions” do you believe are not “atheistic”?

Girl 6

9th January 2003, 12:06 AM

On 12-09-2002 09:13 AM, headscratcher4 writes:

Quick question, JK:

Did Hitler know he was an atheist?

Girl 6

9th January 2003, 12:09 AM

On 12-18-2002 03:41 AM, CWL writes:

To get back to the topic of the thread I would encourage anyone interested in the subject to visit the following webpages:

Was Hitler an Atheist?

Adolf Hitler's Religion

Interesting reading indeed. A quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atheists have been, and continue to be the targets of a vicious, tireless smear campaign. For example, after informally questioning my co-workers, I realized to my chagrin that most of them think Adolf Hitler was an atheist! Not one of them realized that Adolf Hitler had a strict Catholic upbringing (of the type that supposedly produces moral, virtuous people), or that he was an altar boy in his youth, or that he once told General Gerhart Engel that "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so". None of them knew that his infamous "Mein Kampf" contains phrases such as this: "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." (among many, many other things; see my page on Hitler's Religion for more). None of them knew that Nazi soldiers wore belt buckles inscribed with "Gott mit uns" (God is with us).

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). None of them knew how much the German Christian Social movement resembled the modern right-wing Christian Fundamentalist movement. 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". Anti-atheists have noted that Hitler had minor disagreements with the Catholic church in Germany (but not with the church in Rome, with which he signed a Concordat in 1933, and which ordered the German church to fall in line), and they have attempted to twist these minor disagreements into a widespread misconception that he was an atheist, when nothing could be further from the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Girl 6

9th January 2003, 12:10 AM

On 12-18-2002 03:25 PM, Nova Land writes:

Hi! It's nice to see people visiting this thread again. I haven't posted here in a while, since we are planning to start an experimental moderated thread on this topic early in the new year, but I'm happy to continue the discussion here as well.

(Girl 6 is working out the rules for the moderated thread, and will post them over in banter for people to look over before we go ahead with the experiment. I'm interested in testing that out, even if this thread goes well, as that will offer another option for the future if it does work out.)

I glanced at the material in the links CWL posted and it looks interesting and well-written; I've saved it to read more carefully when I go off-line (which I'll need to do soon). One thing: both links took me to the identical site. Was this supposed to happen, or am I missing out on something?

The question about whether there can be moral behavior without a belief in god is an interesting one.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Acrimonious:

Err... wait. Hmmm... Seems to me there ARE punishments for all those things. Come to think of it, I doubt an A-Theist would want to risk having the miniscule number of years they have on Earth wasted in a prison, or, even worse: taken completely away by a policeman's bullet, a lethal injection, or electric chair.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWL

THANK you!

A perfect summation of my own stance. We are in complete agreement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm especially pleased by this question since it gives me a chance to disagree with everyone who has addressed this so far!

Here's a pair of questions I'd like people to think about.

(1) How many of you are refraining from committing acts of theft, murder, and rape primarily because you know that if you did these things and were caught you might be imprisoned or executed? If that is the main reason you have for refraining from such acts then I'd feel uneasy about having you around my loved ones.

(2) How many of you are refraining from committing acts of theft, murder, and rape primarily because you believe there is a god? Again, if that is your main reason for not committing such acts I'd be worried about you. If this is truly your reason for behaving decently, then what you are saying seems to be that if for some reason you were ever to undergo a crisis of faith, you would no longer find it difficult to commit heinous acts.

I believe in god, but that is not why I try to refrain from things that hurt others. My reason is because, in my heart, I know these things to be wrong. When I lie, when I take things that aren't mine, when I say cruel things to people or otherwise hurt them, it does not make me feel good -- it makes me feel bad inside.

That seems to be the experience of most people I know. It seems to be true regardless of whether one believes in god or which god one believes in.

Indeed, belief in a god often seems to hinder rather than help some people in acting on this inner awareness -- there are people I've known who I believe knew in their hearts that certain behavior was wrong, but went ahead with it because their understanding of their religion told them that what they were doing was not only okay, it was what their god demanded of them.

The people I know personally would not mean anything to you, so let me give a couple of examples of people I don't know personally but who are national news figures. One is Fred Phelps, the person who organizes people to picket at the funerals of gay people and other such events with signs saying "God hates fags." Another is James Kopp, the sniper who killed Bernard Slepian (an abortion doctor in Buffalo, New York).

I think if they had listened to that quiet voice within each of us that lets us sense when we are doing something good and when we are doing something bad, they would have acted differently. But they allowed the things they had been taught by others, the abstract theological doctrines that had been drummed into them, to drown out the actual voice of god.

People with no belief in god are often, paradoxically, more able to hear and respond to that voice (even if they don't call it god) because they don't have all those human-created doctrines getting in the way.

Okay, that should get me in lots of trouble...

Girl 6

9th January 2003, 12:13 AM

Okay... that's all of the relevant material. I apologize for not being able to keep up with the special vB coding. Hopefully, it doesn't detract too much from the material.

Carry on,
G6

Jedi Knight

9th January 2003, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6
On 12-18-2002 03:41 AM, CWL writes:

To get back to the topic of the thread I would encourage anyone interested in the subject to visit the following webpages:

Was Hitler an Atheist?

Adolf Hitler's Religion

Interesting reading indeed. A quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atheists have been, and continue to be the targets of a vicious, tireless smear campaign. For example, after informally questioning my co-workers, I realized to my chagrin that most of them think Adolf Hitler was an atheist! Not one of them realized that Adolf Hitler had a strict Catholic upbringing (of the type that supposedly produces moral, virtuous people), or that he was an altar boy in his youth, or that he once told General Gerhart Engel that "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so". None of them knew that his infamous "Mein Kampf" contains phrases such as this: "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." (among many, many other things; see my page on Hitler's Religion for more). None of them knew that Nazi soldiers wore belt buckles inscribed with "Gott mit uns" (God is with us).

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). None of them knew how much the German Christian Social movement resembled the modern right-wing Christian Fundamentalist movement. 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". Anti-atheists have noted that Hitler had minor disagreements with the Catholic church in Germany (but not with the church in Rome, with which he signed a Concordat in 1933, and which ordered the German church to fall in line), and they have attempted to twist these minor disagreements into a widespread misconception that he was an atheist, when nothing could be further from the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will start with this post. I am not going to revisit any information provided in previous posts so if I ignore questions that I believe were already covered by me in the former posts, don't take it personally. Read the entire thread.

Now, I have read this article posted on the web that you cut and pasted and it was clearly written by an atheist using bad logic.

The author claims:

Atheists have been, and continue to be the targets of a vicious, tireless smear campaign.

In his eyes, perhaps. Christianity and all other religions except for Islam have gotten a bad rap lately. An atheist claiming his religious beliefs are being "smeared" can join the other religions treated in exactly the same way currently in history. This is nothing new and is a very modern viewpoint and the author's opinion in defense of his atheist religion.

Then the author claims:

For example, after informally questioning my co-workers, I realized to my chagrin that most of them think Adolf Hitler was an atheist!

The author's co-workers have every reason to believe that Hitler was an atheist, supported by Hitler's historical actions as the prince of the German fascist state.

Then the author claims:

Not one of them realized that Adolf Hitler had a strict Catholic upbringing (of the type that supposedly produces moral, virtuous people), or that he was an altar boy in his youth, or that he once told General Gerhart Engel that "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so".

I haven't shared this historical fact yet but Hitler's break with Christianity occured strongly when his mother died of a terminal illness. Hitler's mother was attended by a Jewish physician, and after she died it became a personal offense to Hitler. Adolf Hitler's pathology was sociopathological, and the slightest personal grudge that Hitler held for anyone who he deemed to slight him in any way became a personal, prolonged grudge that demanded action against the trespasser. Most normal people (99% of any population) take small slights against them and move on while dismissing them. Men like Hitler who are sociopathological do not rest until they receive their version of defined justice.

When Hitler's mother died that was a major contributing factor to his desired liquidation of the entire Jewish race from the face of the earth and his abandonment of Christianity. This occured many years before he seized power and moved his plans into action.

Keep in mind that his personal hatred for Jews had everything to do with the fascist German bureaucracy labeling the Jews as the transgressors for every problem encountred by the German state. I will add to this in a moment below. However, the author uses bad logic by believing that just because as a child Hitler was introduced to Catholicism that as an adult he would formulate an unwavering allegience to it. Quite the contrary. Hitler's pathology would not allow any form of inner belief in an exterior God. That is one of his key atheist traits. Very clear.

Then the author continues:

None of them knew that his infamous "Mein Kampf" contains phrases such as this: "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 isn't talking about the Jewish Christianity or the offshoots of Christianity that use Jewish Institutions in faith (any Christian religion that uses the Holy Bible). That paragraph by the author simply demonstrates a complete disregard for history. Why on Earth would Hitler read the Holy Bible and participate with loyalty in the Christian religion when the Old Testament of the Holy Bible was written by Jews?

Think about that clearly. 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 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.

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.

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.

Finally, show me in the bible where it says to genocide the Jews, as the author claims. Show me. The author is confusing a "Christian Identity" form of religion (completed rejected by Christian churches and leaders) and then claiming that Hitler was a "Christian". Christians are not followers of "identity". Christian "identity" ideology dismisses the historical Holy Bible completely and claims that "whites" are the chosen people of God and not the Jews. That is not Christianity and it is disgraceful that the author didn't understand that. Hitler claims in Mein Kampf that he is "fighting" for his "Almighty God", but it is not the Christian God. It is himself as God. It is atheism. If not, produce an accurate example where Hitler describes his God.

Then the author claims:

None of them knew that Nazi soldiers wore belt buckles inscribed with "Gott mit uns" (God is with us).

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.

Then the author continues:

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.

What productive value do competing religions have in the atheist state? Atheism is all about killing God. Why would any atheist state allow God to enter? They wouldn't.

Insofar as the author's protest of how Hitler dealt with homosexuality and established positive family institutional belief, that was common in every nation-state of those times. The United States in the 1930's was putting homsexuals in mental hospitals. You can't judge another nation-state for perversion when that same perversion is being used in your state. It is a false analogy. The author also forgot to mention that until the 1990's, homosexual behavior wasn't fashionable. It wasn't fashionable until 45 years after the end of World War II. It is pretty laughable to even bring homosexuality up, but it must have been convenient for him to try and lump together the "right-wing" as he describes.

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.

And then the author goes on.....

None of them knew how much the German Christian Social movement resembled the modern right-wing Christian Fundamentalist movement.

Really? Enlighten me. Explain the connections. What is the mystical right-wing? Sounds like wooo wooo nonsense to me but I am all ears. Show me one Nazi symbol in the United States that the mystical "right-wing" uses in their institutions.

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".

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.

Now it gets really hilarious. The guy who wrote that drivel claims that Hitler was a staunch catholic since childhood. If Hitler was really a Catholic, why would he follow Protestantism? :eek: It makes no sense! That would be like me saying that a person is a Christian and two sentences later claiming that the same Christian was praising Islam! It makes no sense.

Anti-atheists have noted that Hitler had minor disagreements with the Catholic church in Germany (but not with the church in Rome, with which he signed a Concordat in 1933, and which ordered the German church to fall in line), and they have attempted to twist these minor disagreements into a widespread misconception that he was an atheist, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Hitler had "minor" disagreements with Catholic Church?!? :eek: Why would Hitler throw 6,000,000 ancestors of the founders of Catholicism into ovens?!? That is ridiculous to even say that!

Do priests fight in wars? Do Cathoilic priests pick up rifles and grenades and fight in wars? Was it unreasonable for the Catholics to sign the Concordat? That is open to debate, but the Catholics had no arms, no ammunition--they were as defenseless against Hitler as their bretheren the Jews were defenseless against Hitler. The same Jews that wrote the Catholic bible.

Hitler was an atheist and an atheist he shall be remembered in all of human history.

Jedi Knight

CWL

9th January 2003, 05:17 AM

Jedi,

Your latest post begs the following question.

Are any and all non-Christians "atheists" by your definition?

Point being that while your arguments may support the belief that Hitler was not Christian, they in no way refute that he did believe in an "Almighty God", which God he believed supported his actions. That cannot be described as atheism by any reasonable definition IMHO.

I will take the liberty of reposting the following links (as they were lost through the moderation). I think the pages should be visited as they contain interesting quotes with good source references.

Adolf Hitler's Religion (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Essays/Hitler.shtml)

Was Hitler an Atheist? (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Morality/Hitler.shtml)

---

BTW Jedi, slightly off topic: I note that you still have an Orwell quote in your signature. Does that mean that you do not belive that all atheists are evil? Confused? You will not be if you visit this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=11385).

Edited to fix incorrect link

Nova Land

9th January 2003, 05:28 AM

Looks like we're off to a good re-start! Thank you, Jedi, for getting this going again with a very intriguing post!

And many thanks to Girl 6 for all the work in copying the posts from the old thread into this new one! I hadn't realized how many posts there had been until I re-read them a little while ago.
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

I haven't shared this historical fact yet but Hitler's break with Christianity occured strongly when his mother died of a terminal illness. Hitler's mother was attended by a Jewish physician, and after she died it became a personal offense to Hitler. Adolf Hitler's pathology was sociopathological, and the slightest personal grudge that Hitler held for anyone who he deemed to slight him in any way became a personal, prolonged grudge that demanded action against the trespasser. Most normal people (99% of any population) take small slights against them and move on while dismissing them. Men like Hitler who are sociopathological do not rest until they receive their version of defined justice.

When Hitler's mother died that was a major contributing factor to his desired liquidation of the entire Jewish race from the face of the earth and his abandonment of Christianity.
(1) This part about Hitler's mother's death affecting Hitler's religious beliefs is intriguing, and something I'm not familiar with.

The obvious question is, how do we know this? Is it something Hitler wrote in one of his private works, or something he confided to someone close to him who later revealed this? If you could provide some sources where I could look this up, I'd like to read more about this.

(2) You make many good criticisms of the rhetoric used in one of the web sites about Hitler's beliefs.

I think the person who wrote what was on that site took some good information and phrased it in a way to try to make it sound persuasive. That's a common practice, but it's also one reason I prefer not to rely to heavily on other people's interpretations and to go back to the source material. Rather than jump into arguing about that writer's wordings and that writer's conclusions, I'd like to look at the source material used to reach those conclusions.

There's plenty of time for that, so I'm not going to overload this post with too many things now.

(3) There are a few historical side-notes that arise in the course of discussing Hitler's religious beliefs which I'd be interested in exploring here. For instance, you quote and respond to a passage from the site: "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.
Both the web site's mention of mandatory prayer in schools, and your mention of starvation in Germany, are matters of history worth going into a little as we continue.

The web site brings this in rhetorically -- the emphasis, at least as I read this, is on "None of them knew...", i.e. it's being used to attack those disagreeing as ignorant. That's a shame, because it distracts from an interesting and relevant bit of background information worth looking up. Rather than introducing it as a throwaway bit, I'd like to see this expanded on a bit more -- what is the history of the introduction of mandatory prayer into German schools, what were some of the speeches made in favor (and by whom), what were some of the speeches made against (and by whom), etc.

Often history is more complicated than the over-simplified versions we are taught.

Another historical side-note I'd like to explore more:Insofar as the author's protest of how Hitler dealt with homosexuality and established positive family institutional belief, that was common in every nation-state of those times... until the 1990's, homosexual behavior wasn't fashionable. It wasn't fashionable until 45 years after the end of World War II.This assertion may or may not be true. I've read elsewhere, for instance, that homosexuality was much more openly practiced and openly accepted in the late 19th century US than during much of the 20th century. I think it is quite possible that homosexuality was fairly openly practiced and accepted, in ways comparable to 1990s USA, in 1920s/1930s If this is relevant to understanding Germany of the time and how it influenced Hitler, it's worth looking up, especially in materials written during that time or in histories that draw directly on those sources, to be clearer about this.

(4) You make a number of other good points, such as asking what "mystical right-wing" means and asking what being a "staunch Catholic" means. Before these terms get bandied about, it would be good to be clear on what whoever is using them is talking about.

Again, I think the web site author had some good points, but worded them poorly in trying to be persuasive. "Staunch Catholic" is a good example. The factual material supports the assertion that Hitler was raised as a Catholic and continued to be technically a Catholic (i.e. he never officially renounced it and was never officially ex-communicated). To raise "never officially renounced and was never officially ex-communicated" into "staunch" is annoying because by over-stating a fact he makes it into a point of contention.

That raises something I hope we can do early on in this re-start: be clear on what each of us means when we use the term atheist. HS4 raised a good point earlier, that you may be using a different meaning than some others of us.

I'm not trying to argue about whose definition is better -- I'm quite happy to let the "official" definition of atheist in this thread be yours. What I want is to be clear what you mean by atheist, so we can respect that definition (rather than be talking at cross-purposes) and so we can coin and agree on other terms for other concepts of atheism so we can talk about those concepts meaningfully as well.

(5) That seems like enough for one post! I'll shut up for a bit, read over the thread again more carefully to refresh my memory more, and be back again later.

BillyTK

9th January 2003, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6

In Ireland, is the IRA Catholic or atheist? Is the Ulster Defense Association Protestant or atheist?

A small point--so apologies in advance for the implicit pedantry in making it-- Ireland (or the Republic of Ireland/Eire) is the main (and relatively Trouble-free) part of the island which was granted independence following Partition in the 1920s; the IRA and UDA are in Northern Ireland, the bit left over after Partition which is still ruled by Britain.

Ironically enough, the IRA follows Marxist revolutionary doctrines, although it's the condition of oppression against catholics which informs their struggle, although I'd suggest that a product of this struggle is the transformation of being catholic from simple religious orientation to a distinct cultural identity. Similar with being protestant, probably as a result of the way being protestant is inextricably linked with being the dominant/ruling class and being loyal to the English monarchy.

Cliff notes version: it's hard to judge by actions alone whether groups/individuals are genuinely religious because of the way their stated religion is bound up in their cultural identity.

For instance, I, like Randfan, was raised with a religious background; in my case Roman Catholicism. I don't practise anymore because I reject so many of the catholic doctrines, but I can only decribe myself as lapsed catholic, and my culture as Irish Roman Catholic. With the former it's because because I was exposed to catholic values from such an early age, there's certain "core" beliefs I can't shake; with the latter it's because it's the best explanation of the differences between my family and other families in England--particularly our thing for extended, matriarchal structures. I'm not saying that this is common or unique to all catholics, but does seem common to Irish Catholic (descendent) families in England.

Not sure how this helps the current topic, though--sorree!

CWL

9th January 2003, 05:56 AM

Jedi,

One more point as to Hitler's Christianity.

I do agree that from an objective point of view it can be argued that Hitler should not be categorized as a Christian. Strong evidence however indicates that he did look upon himself as one. As to the fact that Christianity is rooted in Judaism, Hitler had adopted a clear revisionist view (he thus held the distorted anti-Semitic view that Jesus was an Aryan rather than a Jew) as illustrated by the following quote from Mein Kampf, Volume 1, Chapter 11:

The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.

Those may be the words of a fantatic revisionist with a distorted view of Christianity, but they are not the words of a non-believer IMHO.

Jedi Knight

9th January 2003, 06:02 AM

I am making one more post this morning and then later I will be back to begin debating the responses you all are posting or try to ;).

Anyway, this article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/bpihw/20030109/en_bpihw/hitler_s_sexuality_is_hbo_topic) was just too good to pass up.

Imagine, Hitler was a homosexual, according to a European historian. That sort of fits too if you think about it. There is an undercurrent in the homosexual institution that believes that God dislikes them because there are passages in the bible that say homosexuality is unacceptable. I am not going to post those passages but if you have ever read any content in the bible you know they are there.

Now to the larger point. Could Hitler have been a homosexual atheist? There are homosexual groups that regularly attack the bible as being a "book of hate" because the passages written over 2,000 years ago that devalue the behavior. So you can say that some homosexuals (more than heterosexuals) are pushed away from the church and God because if the bible is true, then God is displeased with homsexual behavior.

That is the opposite for heterosexuals because God's commandment to "be fruitful and multiply" was an instruction for heterosexual couples.

Now, if Hitler was a homosexual, he would know that the bible talked badly about his homosexual behavior and that God probably wouldn't like him. That would cause Hitler to hate God. When the hating of God takes place, then the killing of God is desired. Since atheism seeks to kill God, he would naturally find atheism an attractive religion.

Hitler was an atheist!

I am going to buy that new book and read it in detail to see what it says about it.

JK

BillyTK

9th January 2003, 06:52 AM

I've heard of the "Hitler was gay" theory before. It runs something along the lines of Hitler was in denial of his homosexuality, and his self-disgust/hatred became externalised and generalised to all those he blamed for society's ills, but his actual desires manifested (and can be recognised) in the military/aryan imagery of the Third Reich. As the article JK links to suggests, Hitler's persecution of gays and lesbians was a cover for his own homosexuality, but it's also a way of "depersonalising" his inner turmoil--he persecutes people who practice the same behaviour in order to distance himself and justify his belief that he is not like them.

But enough with the freud already. I'm not too sure about the homosexuality theory myself, not least because repressed homosexuality in and of itself doesn't explain the psychoticsm, fanaticism and megalomania that Hitler displayed; but if this was the case there'd be a hell of a lot more would-be dicators attempting to take over the world.

As to the bible connection, I can see how the condemnations of homosexuality in the bible (albeit with the caveat that these condemnations are the product of the King James translation, not of the original text) would lead people to atheism but I don't see how it would lead people to want to take over the world and send millions of people to the gas chamber.

MRC_Hans

9th January 2003, 07:49 AM

I agree it is crucial for this debate that we use the same definition of "atheist". It has been suggested we use JK's definition, but I instead suggest we use a dictionary definition. This is both in order to accomodate any newcomers, who might be confused at a discussion using a non-conventional axiom. Also it would make any results more universally useful. Of course, JK's definition may not be non-conventional, in which case I apologize for assuming so.

American Heritage:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Webster:

1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

2. A godless person.

Syn: Infidel; unbeliever.

WordNet PU:

someone who denies the existence of god

I suggest Webster #1 as the most covering:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

Hans

Nova Land

9th January 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
...I can see how the condemnations of homosexuality in the bible (albeit with the caveat that these condemnations are the product of the King James translation, not of the original text) would lead people to atheism...
I'm not so sure that I can.

It depends a lot on what we mean by "atheism", which is why I think your previous post (about the difficulties of saying simply one is or is not Catholic) is spot on.

Let me quote Jedi here for a moment:

Jedi Knight:

...he would know ... that God probably wouldn't like him. That would cause Hitler to hate God. When the hating of God takes place, then the killing of God is desired. Since atheism seeks to kill God...
"he would know that God probably wouldn't like him"

The problem that leaps to my mind is that, in order for someone to think that God feels one way or another, they have to believe that God exists.

Likewise, if Hitler "hates God" and wants to "kill God", that also implies a belief that God is real.

The way I use the word atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. That's quite different from hating God.

That phrase, "believe in", is ambiguous. Do fundamentalist Christians believe in Satan? If you mean "believe in" as "worship", the answer is a vehement no; if you mean "believe in as "believe there is an actual being known as Satan", the answer is an equally vehement yes.

It is quite possible that by atheist some people mean a godless person, i.e. a person who may believe in the existence of a god but who (a) refuses to worship that god, (b) rejects the values that god stands for, and/or (c) behaves in a way opposite to what that god requires of followers.

Jedi in particular seems to be saying an atheist is (c). I would call that an "ungodly person" rather than an atheist, but I'd be quite willing to use the term atheist here for "person who behaves in an ungodly fashion" and use a different term for "person who does not believe in any god" to avoid confusion.

In that case, I'd say that by Jedi's definition he is correct: Hitler clearly was an "atheist = ungodly person". But I'd then be curious to know whether Jedi believes Hitler was also an "atheist = person who does not believe in any god", and if so whether he believes this is related to Hitler's behavior.

Getting back to homosexuality: For some gay people I know, the fact that the bible (as interpreted by many mainstream religious people) is seen as condemning homosexual behavior makes them more, not less, interested in believing in god. People often want what they're told they can't have; it makes it seem that much tastier and more desirable.

There are a number of new-agey religions which accept homosexuality easily, but I know a number of gay people who crave to be part of a genuine bible-based christian church. I picked apples a couple of season with a woman who was pastor of the local MCC. There were alternatives she and her congregants could have chosen, including a rejection of religion, but that is not what they wanted. Not all gays are led to embrace religion, but not all gays are led to reject it either.

So even if Hitler were gay -- an intriguing speculation -- it would not necessarily lead him to atheism.

headscratcher4

9th January 2003, 08:23 AM

Just some thoughts...most Hitler scholars reject the Hitler was a Homosexual theory...it doesn't mean that is wasn't true, or that it doesn't have validity (sometimes revisionism is very important), it is just that the author of the book in question is rather singular in his assertions.

A further thought...the argument goes (as stated above) that Hitler, the repressed homosexual, oppressed other homosexuals specifically to silence those who know about his [Hitler's] sexuality, and as a manifestation of his own self loathing. Though it must be added that Hitler, historically, worked closely with at least one overt Homosexual (Ernst Roehm --sp?) until that politically became dangerous. Roehm was head of the Brown Shirts and more explicitly a social(ist) revolutionary who both scared the traditional conservative and money interest Hitler was wooing and who also stood as a potential alternative to Hitler within Nazi circles. He was eliminated in Hitler’s successful effort to centralize all party power within his own hands and to appease the Army that was concerned by competition from Roehm's SA.

On another point, Hitler’s mother’s doctor was indeed Jewish. Whether the death of his mother was the starting point for his active, violent anti-Semitism is disputable. It should be noted that according to intimates (see the Biography of the young Hitler by his boyhood friend whose name now escapes me), Hitler did not hold the doctor responsible for his mother’s death, nor did he ever speak ill of that particular physician. It would be curious (though not impossible) to manifest a profound hatred for an entire religious group based on the belief that a physician belonging to that group has committed “mal-practice”, but not also hold the individual doctor in contempt. However, I suppose anything is possible.

On the broader theme of the thread, I've been thinking a bit about this whole argument -- Hitler was an Atheist -- since it's recent revision. It seems to me that as a way of proving, as JK seems intent on (regardless of all kinds of facts and historical documentation), that Hitler is evil ergo atheism is inherently evil fails for a variety of reasons.

Critically, it seems to me, that it is essentially irrelevant. Given for a moment that JK is right -- Hitler was an atheist -- than you would next have to show that all (or most) atheist subscribe to the views and approve(d) of Hitler's actions, methods, modus operendi. There is no basis for such an assertion. Indeed, some atheists may indeed embrace Hitlerism, but it certainly doesn't seem to be an inherent part of coming to a conclusion that god doesn't exist.

That an atheist might be able to perpetrate evil is clearly possible -- though more likely than the religious? However, as has been repeatedly demonstrated, the "religious" (or at least "religious" by common definition, as opposed to JK special definition), are also entirely capable of committing mass murder (though, possibly, more limited due to more limited technologies of earlier ages).

Further, I note that important to JK's argument regarding the success of Hitler is that Hitler had to essentially hide his atheism so as to lead the people, as it were, into not only accepting his atheism but his murderous policies. He did this by adopting symbols, words, and images with religious connotations while subversively destroying the religious institutions in the state. It is essential, so the argument goes, that the German people were pre-disposed to the messages of Hitler, as from Luther on the messages and philosophy of German Protestantism (specifically) had laid a cultural framework for not only absorbing atheistic ideas, but for supporting a state that would a'la the JK definition of atheism, seek to crush any opposition to its ideology -- for example, Jews, Catholics, communists, liberal democrats, etc. (recalling that the atheistic state, according to JK can stand no other "god" but itself).

There are a number of points that strike me – and not even emerging from JK’s more convoluted theory regarding how Luthernaism and Protestantism made Marxism and ultimately Stalinism possible.

Significantly, Hitler could not be a true atheist (even if he thought he didn’t believe in god – how’s that for convoluted logic, JK?) and also be a racist. I don’t mean that an atheist cannot be a racist, any more than a Christian (or other religious adherent) can’t be a racist. Rather, from the political and ideological standpoint of the Atheist state that JK proposes (i.e. a state set on crushing any god but the state), racism and anti-Semitism serves no logical purpose. If Hitler were merely out to make man and the state supreme, than certainly any Jew (Catholic, homosexual, Slav, etc.) who renounced their religion and embraced the state/Hitler as god should have been a welcome addition to the community of Nazis.

Keep in mind that the historic (and this pre-dates Luther) anti-Semitism in Germany was religiously based – and clearly, Hitler absorbed in his youthful Catholicism (and I do not argue that Hitler the adult was a “Catholic” by any definition), as did many Germans. By this I specifically mean that the Church (sometimes on its own, sometimes for the purposes of supporting princes and dynasties) posited the Jew as a Christ killers and a race apart. They were, in a convoluted theology, an “evil” race created by and serving Satan.

In short, what I am arguing is that contrary to what JK believes, the racism that Hitler manifested in Nazism is not atheistic, it is rises inherently from Christianity as evolved in Europe and pre-dating Luther. Hitler did not come to his racism “scientifically”; he merely tried to use “science” (abuse Darwin) to justify his more mystical anti-Semitism. By this I mean, Hitler began with the premise of German crypto-Christian anti-Semitism (i.e. Jews as spawn of Satan) and that modern science and technology could and would prove this more mystical conviction. In other words, Hitler aspired to be a “modern” man – a man of science and technology – but he was completely a captive of this ancient prejudice. He and his followers perverted science in order to find a strained justification for their hate.

However, it is important to note that the science that Hitler hoped to use as justification could only come to the conclusion that “race” mattered by being perverted. In other words, the more we know of biology, the more we know that the DNA differences between the “races” are increasingly meaningless, you have to pervert the science to conclude that there is a Jewish “race.” It seems to me, logically, that Nazis – as aspirants to modern, godless socialism (as it were), would have absorbed the scientific method and embraced all comers to their philosophy if they would but deny their former god. This is clearly not the case, because Nazism rested on the foundations, mythical, mystic and inherently religious of both the paganism and forms of Christianity that helped to give form and culture to the German state.

Anyway, I’ve gone on far too long here – but the core of my point is that Hitler, and Nazism would not and could not exist as they did but for the historical religious traditions both in Germanic paganism and Christianity – traditions that ultimately relied on a belief of an inherent higher authority – i.e. God. And, as a result, these beliefs and their manifestation in Nazism were inherently “theistic” – i.e. Nazism was doing god’s work by eliminating those that did not either believe the same way or who were the spawn, as it were, of Satan (the lesser “races”).

9th January 2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I agree it is crucial for this debate that we use the same definition of "atheist"...
I suggest Webster #1 as the most covering:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

Hans

Hans,

I agree we should use the dictionary defintions in this debate. With these definitions as backdrop, then it is worth looking at Mein Kampf. Here are three short passages from it:

But if out of smugness, or even cowardice, this battle is not fought to its end, then take a look at the peoples five hundred years from now. I think you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself ..., I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
And so he advances on his fatal road until another force comes forth to oppose him, and in a mighty struggle hurls the heaven-stormer back to Lucifer.

Now one can argue, as we've already heard, that Hitler wrote or said many things he didn't believe and therefore dismiss these and the many other quotes that support the contention that he was a believer. But if we all subscribe to the assertion that Hitler's statements can't be used as evidence for his belief, then we are equally unable to say anything about his non-belief. We're left in a logical muddle.

Some of that muddle is filled in by presumptions about Hitler's actions. That he committed atrocities is only evidence of his "atheism" if we assume no believer could possibly do such a thing. History clearly shows that to be false.

Cheers,

Nova Land

9th January 2003, 08:43 AM

headscratcher4

9th January 2003, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Hans,

I agree we should use the dictionary defintions in this debate. With these definitions as backdrop, then it is worth looking at Mein Kampf. Here are three short passages from it:

Now one can argue, as we've already heard, that Hitler wrote or said many things he didn't believe and therefore dismiss these and the many other quotes that support the contention that he was a believer. But if we all subscribe to the assertion that Hitler's statements can't be used as evidence for his belief, then we are equally unable to say anything about his non-belief. We're left in a logical muddle.

Some of that muddle is filled in by presumptions about Hitler's actions. That he committed atrocities is only evidence of his "atheism" if we assume no believer could possibly do such a thing. History clearly shows that to be false.

Cheers,

Bill: IMO, you are correct. I, you and others have made this argument before. I note that JK rejects both the normal definitions of words but also your above statement (i.e. that Hilter's words are meaningless and only his actions count). As you and others have and will note, when it is pointed out that, historically and factually, "believers" have commited gross atrocities in the name of their god, JK has concluded that they too are atheists. WHich gets to my point regarding this argument, ultimately there can be no argument. We are not all using the same terms nor tools. THose who oppose JK can not argue Hitler's words or the words of his party, as they were a dodge. THey can not argue the actions of the party (e.g. mandatory prayer, promotion of religion in the schools, etc.) as those were a dodge. We can not use the words or actions of the otherwise commonly called religious in Germany (e.g. the acceptance of the German Catholic and Protestant Churches of Nazism and their accomodation of it because Nazism did not appear to be inconflict with their beliefs and dogma) because those who did so were either cowerds, not real christians (believers), and Protestantism (as we know) was a manifestation of Lutheransim (which lead directly to the enlightenment, humanism, Marxism and Stalinism).

No, in the end, it isn't even deeds that count for JK, it is only those actions/deeds that he defines as consistent with "atheism" as he defines it.

There is a great deal of interesting historical material in these threads, that for most would convince them of the complexity of the issue -- i.e. what Hitler believed. However, the argument is ultimately foolish as one of the proponent can brook no argument that confounds or disputes the conclusion he has already reached.

I say all of this because, oddly enough, I think JK has made a number of intersting, even good point. He confronts all of us with an intersting philosophic point regarding how belief is manifested, and with respect to Hitler, what are the roots of Hitler's beliefs, how they were manifested, and what are the ties to other modern philosophies of governence, the state, etc. Indeed, he really is making a more profound point about mid-evilsim vs. alleged "modernity" than about Hitler and his supposed atheism.

Darat

9th January 2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
...snip...

It should be noted that according to intimates (see the Biography of the young Hitler by his boyhood friend whose name now escapes me), Hitler did not hold the doctor responsible for his mother’s death, nor did he ever speak ill of that particular physician.
...snip....

The biographer I think you are referring to is "August Kubizek"

headscratcher4

9th January 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Darat

The biographer I think you are referring to is "August Kubizek"

Bingo! Thanks.

BTW, while I am thinking of it, I recently completed Ian Kershaw's recent, extensive two-volume and highly praised biography of Hitler. He was quite dismissive, or at least very un-committal on the question of Hitler's sexuality. My recollection is that Kershaw was very unimpressed by the evidence of any homosexual tendencies or experience.

Now, authors, historians and pscho-historians may differ and revisionism has a role and place especially in keeping historians honest -- however, as stated above most scholars looking at very much the same evidence as Machtan in The Hidden Hitler, have not reached the same conclusion...that Hitler was a homosexual.

Nova Land

9th January 2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

... Critically, it seems to me, that it is essentially irrelevant. Given for a moment that JK is right -- Hitler was an atheist -- than you would next have to show that all (or most) atheist subscribe to the views and approve(d) of Hitler's actions, methods, modus operendi. There is no basis for such an assertion. Indeed, some atheists may indeed embrace Hitlerism, but it certainly doesn't seem to be an inherent part of coming to a conclusion that god doesn't exist.There's another reason why Hitler's possible atheism might be irrelevant to an "atheism is bad" argument.

Let's suppose Jedi is right, and Hitler was an atheist by some definition of the word. We next need to ask ourselves which kind of atheist he was. Hitler did not publicly proclaim he was an atheist; quite the contrary, he took pains to appear to be a religious person, maintaining the illusion of still being a Catholic. So the dangerous kind of atheist, is Hitler's actions were related to his atheism, would seem to be people who attains power while claiming to be religious.

This would mean that people such as Madalyn Murray O'Hair, a self-avowed atheist, would fall into a significantly different category from Hitler, and we would not need to have worried about her if she had run for public office. George Bush, on the other hand, has made a public show of religion, and could qualify as the dangerous type of atheist. If Hitler had come to power on a platform promoting atheism and denouncing mandatory school prayer, then we might be justified in being alarmed about others who campaigned on such policies; but he didn't.

The same argument, by the way, would apply to homosexuality. If Hitler was a homosexual, he was the kind of homosexual who tries to hide it by aggressively attacking homosexuality (as, for example, Joe McCarthy's associate Roy Cohn did). So, again, the danger would seem to lie among those who publicly attack homosexuality. If Hitler had come to power by publicly promoting homosexuality, that would be one thing, but he came to power in exactly the opposite way.

Jedi Knight

9th January 2003, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I agree it is crucial for this debate that we use the same definition of "atheist". It has been suggested we use JK's definition, but I instead suggest we use a dictionary definition. This is both in order to accomodate any newcomers, who might be confused at a discussion using a non-conventional axiom. Also it would make any results more universally useful. Of course, JK's definition may not be non-conventional, in which case I apologize for assuming so.

American Heritage:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Webster:

1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

2. A godless person.

Syn: Infidel; unbeliever.

WordNet PU:

someone who denies the existence of god

I suggest Webster #1 as the most covering:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

Hans

But what you are saying is only a small piece of the institutional definition of atheism. I could say that baseball has a pitcher and the entire game of baseball is carried by the skills of the pitcher, but isn't that dishonest knowing that the pitcher has a team behind him?

Religion is a system of worship. That is all religion is. Religion does not need a deity, formal or informal. Religion does not need an omnipotent being.

Anything that humans create, they worship. Anything. It is the human way because humans are hardwired to do so. Look inside any human house and there is some type of icon in there that they worship. If you collect something, you worship. If you enjoy music and the people that make it, you worship (especially if you put posters of them on your walls). They are icons of worship. The same with movie-stars (hopefully they aren't communists).

Now, it is ridiculous to say that atheism is not a religion because all atheism does is think of God. That is what atheism is all about. Atheism also declares that it has the answer to the creation of the universe by dismissing the potential for an omnipotent being. Human atheists are claiming secret knowledge. That is omnipotent thought. That is defining yourself as a God.

If I say that "science" created the universe but I have no proof to support it, that dismisses the omnipotent being while demanding other humans listen to my message in the only form possible--enlightenment. That claim must be the enlightened claim, the claim of a prophet. It is no different than Jesus Christ himself coming to Earth claiming that God created it.

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.

1) I believe you.
2) I do not believe you.

That is religion.

Humans are born with an innate sense of right and wrong. Most humans do not use guns and flame-throwers to kill people. There is something inside of us that prevents us from doing that. However, there are some people who put other people in ovens to completely wipe them out. No God would support that, and a religion based in popularity would decide as an institution to reject the mistreatment of other humans at that level.

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.

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. 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.

In sum, atheism is a religion because disciples of atheism think of God, declare the status of God unwaveringly, and think of themselves as gods.

The true intellectual position regarding religion is agnosticism. The agnostic doubts--he does not make declarations about god. He does not declare to the world that he has "special knowledge" that no other human possesses. Special knowledge is proselytizing. It is preaching. The only true position on God intellectually is agnosticism because there is no evidence one way or the other. But it takes a certain degree of humility to be an agnostic so it is easier to dismiss god altogether and claim yourself as a god. It is easier to do that. It is easier because then you do not have to talk about what your god is to others and simply have to speak from the position of being a god.

That is not skepticism.

Hitler was not an agnostic. He believed that he was God. He developed an efficient state bureaucracy to eliminate other religions and their peoples, specifically the Jews. Those were godless acts.

Hitler, therefore, was an atheist. Atheism only functions with power in the fascist state, because in the fascist state system there is no room for non-human gods. There is no flexibility in assigning political power to a competing non-atheist religion.

Jedi Knight

headscratcher4

9th January 2003, 02:11 PM

JK -- I don't think this tracks. ANyway, a specific question. You assert:

Hitler was not an agnostic. He believed that he was God

How do you know what Hitler believed? More to the point, since you dismiss what Hitler said he believed about himself, his mission, and his commitment to doing the work of god, as so much political blather designed to disguise his true views, what writings/statements would you point to that you would accept as verrifiably Hitler's position regarding his own "godhood"?

Is your conclusion just based on actions? Than, as I have suggested above (please read it), his distruction of the jews was the fulfillment of a religiously based cultural nationalism that far pre-dated Luther. It was the act of a "believer" not a non-believer, as a true non-believer or agnostic would have accepted anyone, including jews, who renounced thier faith in any other God.

In the end, I don't believe that Hitler was a Christian, at least not in any understandable way, but his are the actions of someone who believes in a higher authority, and a higher authority being channeled through him...that is not the same, I argue, as believing you are God.

For example, the Pope's -- as Christ's Vicar on earth -- believe that devine authority is channeled through them...are you arguing the Pope believes he is god. The President of the Mormon Church believes himself to be a Prophet and able to decern and channel God's wishes, you are not arguing that he too is an atheist?

So, back to the point, from what do you draw the conclusion that Hitler believed himself to be god? Is it something more than your interpretation of his actions?

CWL

9th January 2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Hitler was not an agnostic. He believed that he was God. He developed an efficient state bureaucracy to eliminate other religions and their peoples, specifically the Jews. Those were godless acts.

Hitler, therefore, was an atheist.

JK,

Quick and simple questions for you.

If we - just for the sake of argument - assume that Hitler DID believe in "a God" - not the Christian God but in an omnipotent and supreme being with different intentions - and that his actions were justified because that God supported him, would you still say that Hitler was an "atheist"?

If so, why?

Iran is a totalitarian state. It is also a theocracy. Is it notwithstanding an "atheist state" by your definition?

MRC_Hans

9th January 2003, 07:30 PM

JK:
But what you are saying is only a small piece of the institutional definition of atheism. I could say that baseball has a pitcher and the entire game of baseball is carried by the skills of the pitcher, but isn't that dishonest knowing that the pitcher has a team behind him?
Institutional? What do you mean by that? I am quoting the dictionary definition of atheism. Where can I find the institutional definition?

Religion is a system of worship. That is all religion is. Religion does not need a deity, formal or informal. Religion does not need an omnipotent being. Agreed.

Anything that humans create, they worship. Anything. It is the human way because humans are hardwired to do so. Look inside any human house and there is some type of icon in there that they worship. If you collect something, you worship. I disagree. What you mention there has nothing to do with worship in the religious sense. I collect old radios, I enjoy them, but I do not worship them; I would not hesitate to sell them if my family needed bread.

Of course, you will be able to find SOME people who worship the objects you mention in a religious way, but they are exceptions. To claim that it is hardwired into humans is totally unfounded.

Anyhow, the logical implication of what you say would be that atheism does not exist.

Now, it is ridiculous to say that atheism is not a religion because all atheism does is think of God. That is what atheism is all about. Atheism also declares that it has the answer to the creation of the universe by dismissing the potential for an omnipotent being. Human atheists are claiming secret knowledge. That is omnipotent thought. That is defining yourself as a God. I disagree. Please present evidence.

Humans are born with an innate sense of right and wrong. Most humans do not use guns and flame-throwers to kill people. There is something inside of us that prevents us from doing that. Agreed. Exactly my point in an earlier discussion: Religion is not a prerequisite for moral behavior. Thank you.

Now, perhaps we should get back on subject.

Hans

Jedi Knight

9th January 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
JK -- I don't think this tracks. ANyway, a specific question. You assert:

How do you know what Hitler believed? More to the point, since you dismiss what Hitler said he believed about himself, his mission, and his commitment to doing the work of god, as so much political blather designed to disguise his true views, what writings/statements would you point to that you would accept as verrifiably Hitler's position regarding his own "godhood"?

Is your conclusion just based on actions? Than, as I have suggested above (please read it), his distruction of the jews was the fulfillment of a religiously based cultural nationalism that far pre-dated Luther. It was the act of a "believer" not a non-believer, as a true non-believer or agnostic would have accepted anyone, including jews, who renounced thier faith in any other God.

In the end, I don't believe that Hitler was a Christian, at least not in any understandable way, but his are the actions of someone who believes in a higher authority, and a higher authority being channeled through him...that is not the same, I argue, as believing you are God.

For example, the Pope's -- as Christ's Vicar on earth -- believe that devine authority is channeled through them...are you arguing the Pope believes he is god. The President of the Mormon Church believes himself to be a Prophet and able to decern and channel God's wishes, you are not arguing that he too is an atheist?

So, back to the point, from what do you draw the conclusion that Hitler believed himself to be god? Is it something more than your interpretation of his actions?

The Pope is an intercessor. That is not claiming to be an omnipotent being. The Pope intercedes for the church on behalf of God.

It is a good point that you brought this up. What church would have benefitted from Hitler's rampages? Would the religious Jews benefit? I don't see how they could benefit since they were led into gas chambers and then incinerated in ovens.

Were Christians to benefit? I don't see how they would have benefitted either, since Christianity had no real power in the Nazi state. The Christians would have been next on Hitler's list once he finished with the Jews. Hitler's German state system walked away from religion because Nieztche told them to over fifty years prior. The Nazi state and Nazi intellectual thought walked away from God because embracing God meant taking steps backwards with civilization and the fascist nation-state could only move forward.

That is why Hitler is proven to be an atheist.

JK

Jedi Knight

9th January 2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by CWL

JK,

Quick and simple questions for you.

If we - just for the sake of argument - assume that Hitler DID believe in "a God" - not the Christian God but in an omnipotent and supreme being with different intentions - and that his actions were justified because that God supported him, would you still say that Hitler was an "atheist"?

If so, why?

Iran is a totalitarian state. It is also a theocracy. Is it notwithstanding an "atheist state" by your definition?

Iran is a secular atheist state. It is not a pure atheist state. Monotheism demands a level of atheism. We know that some conservative Islamic states don't tolerate even the mentioning of alternate omnipotent beings and acceptable belief systems.

That is atheism. That is saying: "Your God does not exist". It is not agnosticism because then they would say they doubted your religion. The radical Islamic clerics in Iran don't doubt. They are atheists in their approach to Christianity and other religious sciences, a radical secularism that is fascism but not as effective as the National Socialism that Hitler and his crew developed.

Pure atheism is a trait rare in humans. I do not know any pure atheists personally--that is how rare they are. Monotheistic atheism is generally what the defined atheist is in the current age.

The pure atheist will take no actions against any other religious group or institution because the pure atheist recognizes the wasted energy involved in that agenda. The pure atheist doesn't think about God because the pure atheist has completely dismissed God and would spare no effort at debating God.

The monotheistic atheist thinks of God, speaks of God, proselytizes about God to go against God--they are two different beings. Hitler was a monotheistic atheist because he took direct action in genocide to wipe out a specific religion. It wasn't about the Jews as individuals. Hitler wanted to exterminate their collective religious presence from the face of the Earth. Then he would have moved on to fix up Christianity as the next stage of the Final Solution.

If Hitler had no issues with God, why wasn't the Catholic Church and the Vatican specifically standing with him and taking a large role in his government? What religion did? None.

I can't prove that Hitler would have done up the Christians next. He may have chosen an easier target in the Muslims. But he would have done it. The efficient fascist German state would have actively been pursuing new enemies once the old ones were no more.

JK

Jedi Knight

9th January 2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I disagree. Please present evidence.

This existence of this forum.

JK

Nova Land

9th January 2003, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Religion is a system of worship. That is all religion is. Religion does not need a deity, formal or informal. Religion does not need an omnipotent being.Very good point, although I don't entirely agree.

What I agree with is that religions do not need to be about a deity. Because many religions do center on a deity, people familiar with these may sometimes over-generalize and assume all religions must. Buddhism is a good example of one that does not.

What I'm not so sure about is defining religion solely as "a system of worship". It's certainly a good definition, but I'm not sure it's the only reasonable definition.
Anything that humans create, they worship. Anything. It is the human way because humans are hardwired to do so. Look inside any human house and there is some type of icon in there that they worship. If you collect something, you worship. If you enjoy music and the people that make it, you worship (especially if you put posters of them on your walls).An interesting point, although I'm not sure I agree. I've created a number of things over the years which I have saved and peruse from time to time. Many of them stand up well, others I can see significant flaws in. I don't think I worship things just because I have created them.

In fact, one of my favorite sayings comes from the title of a Max Allan Collins mystery novel: "Kill Your Darlings". It's a piece of advice to writers, to look over what you have written, find the self-indulgent bits ("darlings"), the things you want to keep in there regardless of whether they fit or not, and edit them out ruthlessly. If you want to be successful as a creator, this says, you can't afford to worship your own creations.

I'm also not sure I agree that we worship the things we collect. I'm an avid collector of comics, among other things, certainly avid enough about it to be considered a fanatic, but I think calling comics my religion or saying I worship them is a bit of a stretch.
Now, it is ridiculous to say that atheism is not a religion because all atheism does is think of God. That is what atheism is all about.I think there are different types of atheism, different types of atheists.

There may be some atheists who are obsessed with god -- people who feeled called to speak out against theism at any and every opportunity. But there are other people who believe there is no god and feel no compelling need to convince anyone else of this. They are willing to share their belief is the subject comes up in conversation, but do not go out of their way to bring it up or impose it on others.

To say that all atheists are obsessed with god would seem to mean that many people who do not believe in god are not true atheists.
... Human atheists are claiming secret knowledge. That is omnipotent thought. That is defining yourself as a God.This is an interesting idea, but I don't understand how one point leads to another.

Atheists do not believe in god. Some may come up with alternative ideas for how the universe came into existence and other questions that god is used as an answer for; some may be content to say, "I don't know;" and some may even say, "I don't care." I don't see how any of these is an omnipotent thought.

Comics are full of people who can create worlds or destroy them with a thought. I wouldn't call them omnipotent either; most are regularly defeated by the heroes. By comparison, people who do not believe a god exists are pretty insignificant. I can just see the Justice League of America or the Avengers being menaced by the Awesome Atheist: "Beware my power, you fools! I am mightier than any of you, no matter how strong you are, because I don't believe in god!"
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... That is religion.I think I define both atheism and religion differently than you do. But your definition of religion, while not the one I use, sounds like a reasonable one. I'm quite willing to agree that, in the way you are using the words, atheism is a religion.
Humans are born with an innate sense of right and wrong. Most humans do not use guns and flame-throwers to kill people. There is something inside of us that prevents us from doing that.
I strongly agree with you on this!

I disagree with you on many things (or think I do) but am delighted to be in agreement with you on this, as it is one of my strongest beliefs and one of the beliefs most important to me.
However, there are some people who put other people in ovens to completely wipe them out...
You raise a very important point with this. It seems unbelievable, and yet throughout history people have been capable of such atrocities. What kind of people can do this, and why? This is a question worth pondering and examining.
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.Alas, so many things that we know do happen make no apparent sense. The fact that it makes no sense for people to behave this way does not mean it did not happen.

I've seen the argument made many times, by death penalty opponents among others, "So-and-so could not possibly be guilty of the crime s/he's accused of. The actions s/he would have had to taken according to the prosecution's theory make no sense. People who know so-and-so say s/he was intelligent, and s/he would have to have been extremely stupid to make these kinds of mistakes." (In the most recent such case I was following, the person being so defended just confessed to the crime.)
Hitler was the godless man. He was godless because of the godless acts he embraced.I agree. His actions were ungodly. I have no trouble considering Hitler ungodly in this sense of the word.
Hitler and his leadership cells dismissed religious institutions because they propelled civilization backwards in the view of the efficient fascist nation-state.I need for you to explain this more clearly. What do you mean, "dismissed"? And how do you know the reason you cite is the actual reason for their actions? Hitler does say things in the Table Talks which sound something like what you are saying, so I'm not necessarily in disagreement with you on this, but I would like to be clearer on what you are saying and why.
In sum, atheism is a religion because disciples of atheism ... think of themselves as gods.The problem I have with this summation is that, while it might allow us to class Hitler as an atheist, it would mean we could no longer consider people such as James Randi as one.
The true intellectual position regarding religion is agnosticism. The agnostic doubts--he does not make declarations about god.People are entitled to their beliefs and opinions -- even ones I may disagree with. For others to express their beliefs openly is no more arrogant than for you or I to do the same. It is the manner in which beliefs are expressed, not the belief itself, that makes the difference between arrogance and humility. So to define agnosticism as humble and atheism as arrogant seems to me an error. I believe it is quite possible for an agnostic to be arrogant and an atheist to be humble.
Hitler was not an agnostic. He believed that he was God... Hitler, therefore, was an atheist.Unless you are speaking metaphorically in saying Hitler "believed that he was God", then you've lost me on this. CWL already raised some good questions about this, so I'll just echo that and wait to hear your response to CWL.

The Fool

9th January 2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

why wasn't the Catholic Church and the Vatican specifically standing with him
JK

Jedi.
I'm sure the catholic church never stood with the Nazis. Never ever....not ever....well, maybe once or twice?

Nova Land

9th January 2003, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...That is atheism. That is saying: "Your God does not exist".

...The radical Islamic clerics in Iran don't doubt. They are atheists in their approach to Christianity
Earlier in this thread, HS4 raised the possibility you are defining atheism differently than some others of us. That sounds to be the case here.

Saying "Your God does not exist" is not, by my definition, atheism. There are many people who, because of their belief in god -- a specific god -- therefore deny the existence of someone else's god.

To me, an atheist is someone who does not believe in a god, any god. They deny the Christian god, and the Islamic god, and the Hindu gods, and the Norse gods, and any other gods, because they believe in no gods.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are atheists. They are atheists in regard to Hindu gods, Norse gods, the god of Islam, etc. Is this correct, or am I missing something?
If Hitler had no issues with God, why wasn't the Catholic Church and the Vatican specifically standing with him and taking a large role in his government?An intriguing question, but history is full of intriguing questions. One can equally well ask the mirror-image question: "If Hitler had issues with God, why didn't the Catholic Church and the Vatican specifically ex-communicate him?"

The fact that the Catholic Church did not ex-communicate Hitler does not prove he was a Catholic. The fact that the Catholic Church was not given a larger role in the Nazi regime does not prove Hitler was an atheist.

The way to ascertain whether Hitler was a Catholic or an atheist is to define what we mean by those terms clearly, and then see if he met the criteria.

For instance, if we define Catholic as someone raised in the Catholic faith, Hitler would be a Catholic by that definition. If we define Catholic as someone who officially joined the church and was never ex-communicated, Hitler would be a Catholic by that definition. If we define Catholic as someone who pays lip service to the Catholic creed in public, and claims to be acting in accordance with Catholicism, then Hitler was a Catholic. But if we define a Catholic as someone who actually believes in the Catholic creed and tries to live up to its tenets, then Hitler was not a Catholic.

I think all four of those definitions are reasonable ones, although calling them all definitions of the word Catholic gets confusing. I'd distinguish between (1) someone who is raised Catholic, (2) someone who is a member of the Catholic Church, (3) someone who is an avowed Catholic, and (4) someone who believes in Catholicism.

Similarly, it's possible to list and distinguish between different concepts of what atheist means. I think it would be good to do this, as explicitly as we can, before attempting to declare whether Hitler was or wasn't one. I'm starting to understand a little better what you mean (or hope I am) but I'm probably still missing some key points to what it is you mean by an atheist.

MRC_Hans

10th January 2003, 12:05 AM

JK: Reading through your posts a couple of times, I come to the conclusion that anybody who denies the Christian god is an atheist by your definition. Is that so? Otherwise why do you label people of different monotheistic faiths atheists (e.g. Moslems)?

I must say that I will not be able to participate in a debate based on such an axiom.

Hans

Darat

10th January 2003, 01:39 AM

A request to Jedi Knight:

Can you please provide a one or two (short!) sentence description of the definition you are using when you use the word "atheist".

I have been interested in the debate about what we can discern of Hitler's belief system that was sparked by your declaration "Hitler was an atheist".

However it is apparent that you are using a definition of "atheist" unlike any dictionary definition I have read. In itself that is not bad or good - all words can (even comparatively modern words such as "atheist") change their meaning and their common usage over time.

However to have a reasonable discussion we all have to agree on what the terms and words we use in the discussion mean otherwise we may as well speak gibberish to each other!

So to reiterate - please provide a concise definition of what the word "atheist" means when you use it in this discussion.

Jedi Knight

10th January 2003, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
JK: Reading through your posts a couple of times, I come to the conclusion that anybody who denies the Christian god is an atheist by your definition. Is that so? Otherwise why do you label people of different monotheistic faiths atheists (e.g. Moslems)?

I must say that I will not be able to participate in a debate based on such an axiom.

Hans

It may be best if you do not participate, but I would like to see you stay. I am not promoting any religion and there is an overt sensitivity to Christianity on this forum that seeps into any discussion on religion. If people can't get past that it may be too much of a distraction.

Most folks that post any religious opinion here are labeled Christians 30 seconds later by dozens of hard-wired religious atheists. This debate is about Hitler's atheism, not forum particpants.

JK

Jedi Knight

10th January 2003, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Darat
A request to Jedi Knight:

Can you please provide a one or two (short!) sentence description of the definition you are using when you use the word "atheist".

I have been interested in the debate about what we can discern of Hitler's belief system that was sparked by your declaration "Hitler was an atheist".

However it is apparent that you are using a definition of "atheist" unlike any dictionary definition I have read. In itself that is not bad or good - all words can (even comparatively modern words such as "atheist") change their meaning and their common usage over time.

However to have a reasonable discussion we all have to agree on what the terms and words we use in the discussion mean otherwise we may as well speak gibberish to each other!

So to reiterate - please provide a concise definition of what the word "atheist" means when you use it in this discussion.

Atheism is narcissism. Atheism is religious self-love that dictates from the individual a claim of special knowledge about the universe where that special knowledge does not exist. That suggests a desire for personal omnipotence. Atheism is the lack of belief in the external omnipotent being, replacing it with the internal. Atheism is the proselytizing against the external possibility of God in all forms, while lusting for restrictions at proselytizing for God.

Atheism at the institutional level views God as the ultimate hostile invader, and any actions are appropriate actions to repel that invader. Adolf Hitler used certain actions to prove this.

That is my definition of atheism. The atheist religion, like all other religions, cannot be proven by the individual atheist proselytizing for that religion, and is a value of religious faith. Since I cannot prove nor disprove a person's religous faith, I must therefore have faith in the claim by the individual that his declared faith is his true faith. It is this way with all religions.

Jedi Knight

Darat

10th January 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Atheism is narcissism. Atheism is religious self-love that dictates from the individual a claim of special knowledge about the universe where that special knowledge does not exist. That suggests a desire for personal omnipotence. Atheism is the lack of belief in the external omnipotent being, replacing it with the internal. Atheism is the proselytizing against the external possibility of God in all forms, while lusting for restrictions at proselytizing for God.

By this definition we have seen evidence earlier in the thread that Hitler consistently proclaimed a belief in an external deity that was more powerful then he. The evidence shown in this thread shows how time and time again he proclaimed a belief in “God”.

Therefore Hitler was not an atheist. (According to your definition.)

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Atheism at the institutional level views God as the ultimate hostile invader, and any actions are appropriate actions to repel that invader. Adolf Hitler used certain actions to prove this.

I do not see how one person is an institute? Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of this post? Are you are saying that Hitler created an “institution" that was atheistic? However he claimed that the Nazi party and its apparatus was necessary to cleanse the Aryan race; whose racial purity had become diseased and chocked by Marxism & Judaism and this was the will of the supreme being..

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

That is my definition of atheism. The atheist religion, like all other religions, cannot be proven by the individual atheist proselytizing for that religion, and is a value of religious faith. Since I cannot prove nor disprove a person's religous faith, I must therefore have faith in the claim by the individual that his declared faith is his true faith. It is this way with all religions.

Jedi Knight

You state (highlight mine) that you "have faith in the claim of the individual that his declared faith is his true faith."

Evidence has been put forward throughout this thread that Hitler claimed that he believed in an "supreme being"; no evidence has been shown that he ever said “There is no supreme being” or words to that effect.

Therefore even using your non-standard definitions of atheism Hitler was not an atheist. Based on the evidence shown in this thread Hitler never claimed to be anything but a believer in a “supreme being” i.e. it has not been shown, by evidence that he ever claimed he didn't believe in a higher power then himself.

(Edited for mistakes.)

BillyTK

10th January 2003, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Nova Land
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillyTK
...I can see how the condemnations of homosexuality in the bible (albeit with the caveat that these condemnations are the product of the King James translation, not of the original text) would lead people to atheism...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not so sure that I can.

It depends a lot on what we mean by "atheism", which is why I think your previous post (about the difficulties of saying simply one is or is not Catholic) is spot on.

The catholic tenets on homosexuality are amongst a number of things (well, actually a whole bloody encyclopaedia ;) )which led me to turn away from the catholic church. The way I rationalise it is that if there is a god then those teachings are an misinterpretation or even a fabrication of what god intended. but i'm a theist anyway :sighs:

Now my view on atheism is probably at odds with others. It's influenced Neitzchean philosophy and starts off by asking, "What is the function of religion?" rather than "What proof is their that God/gods exist?". In early stages of civilisation, religion provided a worldview (an explanation of otherwise seemingly random events) and with that a means to affect the world (offerings, prayer, the works). I know it causes hostility amongst science people, but this is also what is meant by the idea that science is a religion, in that it provides a worldview (albeit a more coherent and reflexive view) and a means to affect that world (albeit a very direct, demonstrative and instrumental method). This definition isn't meant to trivilialise science (well admittedly, some people do use it that way, but not me) but rather to contextualise it within the development of human understanding. But I digress.

So religion provides a world view and method to influence the world. Both of those are normative (there's a right and wrong way to act) which inevitably becomes an ideology--these are the norms and values of how you should act; these are the people who arbitrate these norms and values. With christianity, I'm thinking particularly of Mediaeval times--how christianity legitimised the social order of the day: Monarchs were divinely ordained as the direct sons of Adam (or somesuch); the Bible was the sole source of law and morality; priests--as heads of a privileged class who could read--were the arbiters of that source.

But the translation to sovereign states, the rise of capitalism via industrialisation, certain kings getting p!ssy with the Vatican and starting their own religions ;) all contribute to the steady erosion of christian power; leaders aren't chosen by god, they're chosen by people; morality is no longer simply interpreted from the bible, but the products of the people; the bible worldview is no longer necessary because it's superceded by philososphy and nascent science.

So certainly the hold that christianity had on the popular imagination was as much to do with its ideological function as its compellingness(?). And that has been superceded by newer, more sophisiticated and thus more compelling ideologies.

Because of that, whereas an atheist may consider the issue of whether there is a god, or gods, or a giant turtle stood on the back of elephants etc; it's not particularly relevant to their worldview; atheists have no need for even the non-existence of god, and the issue neither informs, constrains or explains such a worldview. Atheism may be considered a religion--in the way science may be considered a religion, but not in the contemporary way we understand christianity or islam; although the comparison that springs to mind is zen buddhism, which neither accepts or denies the existence of god(s), but says it's not a particularly relevant question to ask.

From this perspective, Hitler could not be an atheist; if he hated god, wanted to kill god or replace god with himself, that means he acknowledges the (non)existence of god, which imo cannot be an atheist position. Even to deny god involves the acknowledge of the existence of the thing to be denied. Conversely attacking the church is not necessarily indicative of theist beliefs, but rather an obvious step in wiping out all competing ideologies, which I think everyone will admit is not uncommon to history...

headscratcher4

10th January 2003, 07:51 AM

A couple of points:

First: JK I have shown above -- and I may say with as much fact and philosophy as you do -- that the racism and anti-Semitism of Hitler and the Nazis was based on pre-Lutheran (important because of your conviction that Luther set the whole humanist chain reaction off) and Christian prejudices that existed in Europe and extended back into the paganist past and traditions (I note that to you, a paganist who denies other people's gods may be an atheist).

My point being that nothing about Hitler and the Nazis -- save the technology and possibly the scope of their vision (though the first crusade might be a close second) -- is particularly unprecedented.

Second, and you have failed to address this, I have also asserted, with as much proof, fact and philosophy as you bring to the table -- that the murder of the Jews as a "race" was inherently the action of people holding a belief in a higher authority. Atheists would have accepted other atheists into the "party" and not given a rat's ass about their ethnicity. Were Nazi's atheists as you have defined it, a Jew who renounced Judaism and embraced Nazism should have/would have been acceptable? However, as Nazism was based on race -- and specifically based on the pre-Lutheran cultural idea (promulgated throughout Europe by the Catholic Church) that Jews (as a race) were Christ Killers, Satan's spawn and a race-set-apart, "Conversion" was not an option. I.e. because they Nazi's and Hitler believed that they were fulfilling their God Given mission as saviors of Western Civilization, they had to eliminate Jews as a first cause.

Further evidence that Nazi's did not view themselves as atheists rests in their hate of the Communists. Among other reasons (including, of course, the elimination of competing political parties) the atheism of bolshevism that was so disturbing to Nazis. Recall, Nazi purists considered themselves "socialists" -- but they were national socialists, i.e. their point was to preserve Western Civilization. Their concern and rallying cry was that "atheistic" Bolsheviks would destroy Western and Christian civilization.

My point is not that Nazis were Christian or that Hitler was "Christian" or "Catholic" but rather that Hitler, himself, says that he views himself as the agent of a higher authority -- God. He was doing "god's" work on earth. That is the cry of every religious zealot -- or maybe, by your definition, to be a religious zealot is to be an atheist (in which case, this argument must end, because you will be the only one here, if not anywhere, that uses the terms that way).

Second, you asserted that Hitler did more than believe he was on a mission from god, you asserted Hitler believed himself to be god. You have provided no proof or substantiation or explanation for that assertion.

How do you reach that conclusion? Did he say so? Where? And, if he said it, why give it credence when you won't give credence to his other public AND private assertions of his belief that he is doing god's work, etc., as it is so much blather designed to fool the masses?

Again, is it his actions and the actions of the Nazi's that allows you to draw that conclusion? However, I have again just shown, with as much fact and proof as you, that Nazism and its actions beginning with the Jews was completely understandable within the historical and Christian tradition of Germany and Europe (an extreme reaction, albeit). So, if it isn't in words, and the actions are consistent with a religiously and theistically based belief -- i.e. Jews are Satan's spawn -- where do you get that Hitler believed himself God?

And again, if he said it, why do you believe that and not the other things he said?

Third, Nova Land raised a good point. Is Pat Robertson an Atheist? He denies that gods other than his exist. He decries the delusions of believers in other gods than his. He would make the US a "Christian" nation, setting the Christian god and practice above all others. He says he is on a mission from god to bring truth to America and the world. How is this not atheism by your definition?

Fourth, are not all monotheistic religions, ergo, atheistic? TO be a monotheist is to proclaim that there is one and only one god. Not to proclaim that your god is the best god out of a pantheon of god possibilities, but that there is not other god. As a result, of course, all other gods are delusions. Their believers not merely wrong, but indeed dangerously deluded. That is why Islamic terrorists can fly plans into buildings. That is why Roman Catholic Priests could burn Indians at the stake. That is why Protestant settlers could foster their religion on the Native Americans. That is why Hindus kill Buddhists. etc. -- their belief that their god/gods is the only one.

That is why when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, theistic temples were closed and destroyed, and on and on.

Religious tolerance is a relatively recent invention, and I would argue that it exists as a political device to enable diverse populations to function together smoothly. Prior to the emergence of humanism and the Enlightenment, toleration was mostly unthinkable and generally only granted by Fiat. For example, the Pope's "allowed" some Jews to live in a ghetto in Rome and to practice their religion -- though the same church outlawed Judaism and Islam in Spain after 1492.

England expelled the Jews in the 14th Century. The Catholic "king" of Poland invited them in. Fiat.

Anyway, that's enough for this go round.

Nova Land

10th January 2003, 09:05 AM

CWL

10th January 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Since I cannot prove nor disprove a person's religous faith, I must therefore have faith in the claim by the individual that his declared faith is his true faith. It is this way with all religions.

In reference to the above post from Nova Land, you may want to explain the above statement as well.

As is shown by the various quotes presented in this discussion Hitler clearly declared his faith to be theism. Why do you not have faith in Hitler's claim that "his declared faith is his true faith" as you say you must?

10th January 2003, 09:40 AM

Atheism is narcissism.
JK,

This is not a definition, but rather a characterization, and an erroneous one at that.
Atheism is religious self-love that dictates from the individual a claim of special knowledge about the universe where that special knowledge does not exist. That suggests a desire for personal omnipotence.
Here again your definition is severely flawed. You presume that atheism is a religion. And you presume this narcissism. To what "special knowledge" do you refer? The only presumption of atheism would seem to be that there is no god. And since a definition needs to distinguish, the definition of atheism needs to distinguish from all "theisms." All theisms claim special knowledge. Many say there is only one god. Some say there are several. Others create whole pantheons including demi-, hemi- and semi-gods. Still others make no claims about a god or gods per se, but speak of planes of spiritual advancement, etc. Here again, a claim to special knowledge. Hence, the bit about "special knowledge" clearly applies to atheism and theisms equally. It therefore makes no distinction and doesn't serve the definition.
Atheism is the lack of belief in the external omnipotent being, replacing it with the internal.
Yes to the first clause. You need to build a case for the second clause. The foundation laid by the first few sentences is far too flawed.
Atheism is the proselytizing against the external possibility of God in all forms, while lusting for restrictions at proselytizing for God. Atheism at the institutional level views God as the ultimate hostile invader, and any actions are appropriate actions to repel that invader.
Now you are engaging far more in character assassination than in definition.

Perhaps you would care to take another run at a definition?

Cheers,

headscratcher4

10th January 2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Since I cannot prove nor disprove a person's religous faith, I must therefore have faith in the claim by the individual that his declared faith is his true faith. It is this way with all religions.

Though I agree with the others and am not quite sure what you mean by this, if I read this correctly, it presents a problem for your assertion.

Specifically, Hitler says repeatedly in writing and in speeches that he is an instrument of a higher god. You don't have faith in his claim, you have dismissed it as dissembling to fool the masses. You have concluded that Hitler is an atheist and point to his deads as proof (deeds, which I have shown above, are completely consistent with an extreme interpretation of commonly held cultural tendencies in Europe that were based on, among other things, Catholic ideology that pre-dates Luther).

Why don't you have "faith" in Hitler's decleration of his belief in his Mission?

I think you are trying to have it both ways...i.e. "I can not know what is in a man's heart, therefore I must credit him when he prononces himself a man of faith. But I know what was in Hitler's heart, even though he prounonced himself a man under a god (if not a main of "faith" -- btw. I have to assume you mean Judeo Christian "faith" in how you've used the word faith), I know by his deeds that he could not be a man of faith"

Indeed, you go further and place words in Hitler's mouth by determining that he believed himself to be "god"

I don't think you can have it both ways.

If Hitler believed himself to be god, he can not have been an atheist (at least not by any normal definition -- and avoiding for the moment the whole argument about whether atheism is a religion), because atheism requires a rejection in any belief in a god, because of a lack of proof that god(s) exist.

If Hitler believed himself to be god (or even god-like) as you contend, he must have been some sort of theist -- believing in higher powers, and higher powers that coursed into the world through him (and which is consistent with his words, and I would argue deeds).

I really don't think it can be both ways....

MRC_Hans

10th January 2003, 12:55 PM

Mmmm, I seem to have to stick to the conventional, dictionary definition of atheism. I prefer this, although it means that whatever I say may bear no relevance to the position of JK. We'll both have to live with that.

So, to the subject: Hitler. Since we have no real way of knowing the cincerety (and indeed sometimes even the authentity) of Hitler's statements, we need to add some arbitrary truth value to them. For simplicity, this should be either true or false. Since assuming them all to be false would just represent a reversal, we might as well assume that they are true. Any inconsistencies must then be attributed to Hitler's own doubts about his position.

We do then see that Hitler very often referred to some sort of deity, evidently more often than not. Using this, admittedly very simplified, approach, it would then be evident that Hitler did not fit the conventional definition for atheism.

Hans

Nova Land

10th January 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Since we have no real way of knowing the sincerity (and indeed sometimes even the authentity) of Hitler's statements, we need to add some arbitrary truth value to them. For simplicity, this should be either true or false. I'm glad you raised this subject, since I was going to respond to an earlier post relating to this and then the conversation turned in other directions that I didn't want to interrupt. This gives me a good excuse to dig out what I'd written but not posted then.

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Now one can argue, as we've already heard, that Hitler wrote or said many things he didn't believe and therefore dismiss these and the many other quotes that support the contention that he was a believer. But if we all subscribe to the assertion that Hitler's statements can't be used as evidence for his belief, then we are equally unable to say anything about his non-belief. We're left in a logical muddle.One way out of the muddle may be if we agree it is not an all-or-nothing situation.

I think Jedi has a good point that we cannot take all of Hitler's writings and speeches at face value. It seems clear that much of what he says and does is intended to deceive. This is especially true of what he says for public consumption.

What he says privately may also be false, but cannot be dismissed quite so easily as what he says publicly. Where he says the same things in private consistently and to a number of different people, it seems reasonable to accept these things as likely to be reflective of what he actually felt.

I think that it is possible to evaluate different sources and assign more or less weight to them depending on how reliable they appear. A person who knew Hitler only slightly, but writes a book claiming to know him intimately, should carry little weight. With things written by people with a stake in how Hitler (and they) are viewed we should watch the scale closely to see if someone's thumb is on it. And fakes and forgeries should carry no weight.

We may not agree entirely on everything, but I think we can reach some large agreement on what is clearly not reliable, and brush that out of the way. There should still be material left, after we get done brushing aside the fluff, to give us some ideas of what Hitler actually believed.

I'm inclined to assign more weight to what is recorded in the Table Talks, for example, than I am to what he said in public speeches. I'm also inclined to give more weight to what close associates of his say about his beliefs than to what total strangers say, keeping in mind of course that these associates may have reasons of their own for deception. And something he said consistently in private remarks to his associates will carry more weight with me than something he is only known to have said on a single occasion.

This is why I'm interested in taking time to go through relevant passages from sources such as the Table Talks and seeing what is actually said there, which things get repeated, which things seem to be seriously intended, etc., before drawing conclusions.
BillHoyt:

Some of that muddle is filled in by presumptions about Hitler's actions.
There are facts about his actions which we can look at. We can see what he actually said in his speeches, what laws he promoted and which he opposed, which groups he courted in his rise to power and which he demonized. These actions won't tell us what he believed in his heart, but they will give us some clues what fronts people such as Hitler are willing to put up to attain power.

If Hitler is defined as an atheist, for example, it could tell us that atheists sometimes rise to power by denouncing feminism, denouncing "liberal sexual mores" and "sexual perversions", promoting school prayer and public displays of patriotism, denouncing certain racial and ethnic minority groups and blaming them for many of the nation's problems, promoting large families, banning certain liberal writers and liberal writings, etc.

This wouldn't necessarily be true of all atheists, but if other people who we classify as atheists took similar political stands it would give us an idea of who to look for among current politicians as possible dangerous atheists. If all the "dangerous atheists" (people such as Hitler) took pains to appear religious, it would indicate there is little to fear from people who proclaim themselves to be atheists.

Jedi Knight

13th January 2003, 05:45 AM

The following questions simply must be asked about some of the responses to my posts above:

1) If Hitler was a Christian, what religious authority did he confide in as he exterminated 6,000,000 Jews (Christians)? If he was a Christian, why is he not represented by any credible historian as a Christian? If he was a Christian, why did he gas the ancestors of the founders of the Christian religion? Since he despised Jews, how could he as a Christian read a religious document (The Holy Bible), knowing that it was written by Jews?

2) If Hitler was a Protestant, why didn't he allow any Protestant churches to have influence in the Nazi nation-state system? Why did he feverishly attack Great Britain, the most affluent Protestant population in the World?

3) If Hitler was a Catholic, why did he force the Pope to sign off on the Concordat? Isn't it the responsibility of a Catholic to protect the Pope and the Church? Why would Hitler seek to force a hostile controlling treaty upon them?

The answer is clear. Hitler was an athiest.

Jedi Knight

Mossy

13th January 2003, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The following questions simply must be asked about some of the responses to my posts above:

Okay, I'll try:

1) If Hitler was a Christian, what religious authority did he confide in as he exterminated 6,000,000 Jews (Christians)?

Many Christians advocated the killing of Jews. One noted Christian in particular: Martin Luther, said, "We are at fault for not slaying them".

Using your logic, Muslems would never slay Christians or Jews. We know that isn't the case either.

If he was a Christian, why is he not represented by any credible historian as a Christian?

Do we only get to choose between Christianity and Atheism? If Hitler believed in any God, he was not an atheist.

If he was a Christian, why did he gas the ancestors of the founders of the Christian religion?

Again, whether or not he was Christian isn't relevant to whether or not he was atheist. And if he were Christian, why would he not kill the Jews? I have shown the a prominent Christian (that Hitler even quoted) believed it was okay to kill Jews (will provide links if you like - but you can just search "martin luther slay jews")

Since he despised Jews, how could he as a Christian read a religious document (The Holy Bible), knowing that it was written by Jews?

Martin Luther. Unless you would like to claim that he was also an atheist?

2) If Hitler was a Protestant, why didn't he allow any Protestant churches to have influence in the Nazi nation-state system?

The first article of the German Christian constitution read:

Christian faith exacts war against atheistic Marxism and ultramontanism. A religion such as ours conforms to nature in being a message of salvation to all men, though it is given to each folk in a special way.

The Protestants were particularly happy with Hitler originally, and only became sour with him after he appointed people that weren't very popular with the Protestants to head up the German Christians.

Why did he feverishly attack Great Britain, the most affluent Protestant population in the World?

World supremecy? Again - the fact that he wasn't, after a time, friendly with the Protestants doesn't mean he didn't believe in a god.

3) If Hitler was a Catholic, why did he force the Pope to sign off on the Concordat?

"forced"? Where did you get that?

Isn't it the responsibility of a Catholic to protect the Pope and the Church?

I would think so, blame the Pope for not doing his job if you like (or for actually doing it well, depending on how you see it), but how is the Pope's failure (or success) evidence that Hitler was an atheist?

Why would Hitler seek to force a hostile controlling treaty upon them?

World Supremecy? Support from a very powerful ally? But again, the question is, did he "force" it upon them? It may be true, but I haven't heard that - can you point me to a source?

The answer is clear. Hitler was an athiest.

Jedi Knight

If he was, you didn't make a case for it.

-Ed

MRC_Hans

13th January 2003, 06:15 AM

Some answers:

1) Anti-semitism is nothing new among Christians. While Jews "wrote" the OT, they have a different interpretation of large parts of it, and they (orthodox jews) reject the NT. So the feeling of fraternity between Christians and Jews has always been limited. Islam is also based on OT, that certainly hasnt stopped enmity from either part.

2) Hitler had his own political aganda, which didnt leave room for distributing power to anybody. Hitler actually admired England, he was very reluctant to attack her, even when he did, he hoped to persuade the British government to negotiate a peace. Of course, when he realized this was not going to happen, his feelings no doubt changed, like with anybody else who stood in his way.

3) Well, I cant answer than one, but OTOH, if he WASNT a Catholic, why didnt he swear off his connection with the Church?

Hans

headscratcher4

13th January 2003, 08:31 AM

JK: I fear you've sunkonly into a circular argument...you just restate your position but never address the points that anyone else is making...

Let me try a couple of answers of points you are trying to make in the hope that you will specifically address points made by me, NovaLand and MCHans...

1) If Hitler was a Christian, what religious authority did he confide in as he exterminated 6,000,000 Jews (Christians)?

Why is this point so telling for you? In short, because Hitler didn't quote the Bible he cannot have seen himself in a religious context. First, why does Hitler have to be Christian? To be other than an "atheist" he merely had to believe in a higher power and himself as the agent of that higher power. These things he said -- you can dismiss them, but he said them.

Second, what religious authority is ever cited for crimes against humanity? Hitler saw his movement in a historical context of saving Western Civilization from Jews and Communists -- destroyers of civilization...what is Western Civilization/German Culture if not abstractly part of a history that includes notions of Christianity and its role as the moral underpinning of society?

Anyway, as an example where religious "authority" is used to justify the eradication of Jews or others, look no farther than the 12th Century and the Crusades. Not just the murder of Jews and Moslems when Jerusalem was taken, but the murder of Jews in Germany because they were Christ killers (marauding peasants stormed Jewish quarters of cities killing all of the Jews, alleging that they used the blood of Christian babies in the making of motzah, among other reasons). My point is that "authority" for killing for religious/theistic reasons need not be very well stated or understood....

If he was a Christian, why is he not represented by any credible historian as a Christian? If he was a Christian, why did he gas the ancestors of the founders of the Christian religion? Since he despised Jews, how could he as a Christian read a religious document (The Holy Bible), knowing that it was written by Jews?

As stated, I don't think Hitler was a "Christian" in the usual sense and maybe not at all. However, he was certainly the product of a "Christian" culture and, specifically, a "Catholic" upbringing. I would only point out that in his writings/speeches he cited a higher authority (god) for the source of his mission and the power of his ideology (that need not be the Christian god, just a "god" to make him other than an atheist, BTW). And, as noted above, Jews have been persecuted by religious Christians for thousands of years and still reading the bible...example: the priests who manned the Spanish Inquisition and had Jews killed for failing to convert to Christianity or apostasy, they read the Bible (and it was written by Jews).

2) If Hitler was a Protestant, why didn't he allow any Protestant churches to have influence in the Nazi nation-state system? Why did he feverishly attack Great Britain, the most affluent Protestant population in the World?

First, Hitler never claimed to be a Protestant (He was raised a Catholic). Hitler merely claimed that he was acting in accord with God's law and in defense of Western/Germanic Civilization -- As has been pointed out repeatedly, the point is that he acknowledge that a "god" existed, not that he followed a particular sect/cult/religious ideology or was a Christian of any stripe.

Second, clearly, Hitler co-opted most of the religious institutions existing in Germany (or destroyed the small number that resisted). It seems to me that you've got the question reversed, rather than ask why Hitler wouldn't give the Protestants a formal role in the shaping of the state, why not ask why Protestants (who after all read the Bible, written by Jews, etc.) could find it within their heritage/theology, etc. to sign-on with the Nazi's so willingly? Isn't it because as extreme as the Nazi's were, most German Protestants and Catholics recognized something in Nazism that they had seen before -- i.e. German Nationalism, cultural anti-Semitism, etc? Again, Hitler didn't have to be a Protestant; the true failure of religion is, however, that so many Nazis were. My real point is that the dividing line that you want to establish -- that a truly religious person couldn't believe in god and do these things -- was repeatedly crossed again and again by quite sincere believers.

Third, I know you know, JK -- because you are a student of History -- that Hitler's goal in attacking Britain wasn't to destroy a "protestant" country, it was to eradicate the one power in both Europe and the Globe that posed an immediate threat to Hitler's economic, military, territorial and geo-political aspirations. Britain would fight Germany's colonial expansion. Britain would fund and assist those Germany attacked. Britain would challenge Hitler at Sea, Britain didn't ascribe to Hitler's vision of a United Europe under German domination. There are tons of historic, economic and political reasons that have nothing to do with the religion of Britain. Indeed, I challenge you to find any quote anywhere where Hitler said anything along the lines of: "Britain, as a Christian power and people must be destroyed..."

3) If Hitler was a Catholic, why did he force the Pope to sign off on the Concordat? Isn't it the responsibility of a Catholic to protect the Pope and the Church? Why would Hitler seek to force a hostile controlling treaty upon them?

First, as stated, Hitler need not be, nor likely was a practicing Catholic (though raised as one). The issue is whether Hitler believed in a God, not the god of Catholicism. Belief in a god would make Hitler something other than an atheist. For most of the world, if you believe in God or Gods you are an atheist. You continue to define the term in a way that nearly no one recognizes.

Hitler didn't force the Pope to sign a concordant. The Popes of that time (Pius XI and Pius XII -- at least I think it was Pius XI) were more interested in fighting Communism. They saw Hitler as a kindred spirit and governing a country with a large population of Catholics. They wanted the Concordant and they didn't think that Hitler was a particular threat to Catholicism (They were clearly wrong!). In short, the Concordant wasn't a one sided deal struck under fear of a gun, it was signed (I believe) in the Mid 30's before Nazism had emerged as an aggressive European power with the ability to crush opposition everywhere. This isn't to say that Hitler wouldn't have eventually tried to crush the church (I don't believe he was any longer a Catholic), but the question is what does that have to do with whether or not Hitler believed in God? Lots of people believe in God without being Catholic, and lots of people (for example, here in the US) are not Catholic and are not atheists.

In the end, all I am asking is to stick to the point. Hitler didn't have to be a Christian to not be an atheist, by most definitions, all he had to do was believe that he, himself, was under/guided by a higher authority. This, he clearly stated he did.

Further, as I have pointed out, and you have yet to comment on, the anti-Semitism that drove Nazi ideology was based on pre-Lutheran Christian myth and propaganda that had circulated within Germany (and Europe) for hundreds of years. Killing Jews and suppressing Jews has been a common thing in Christian Europe since well before the reformation, Enlightenment, Marx, Lenin, Hitler and Stalin -- all that Hitler did was bring new, better technology to the task.

Finally, as pointed out above, had Hitler been an atheist, being "Jewish" as such would have been irrelevant. Being Jewish is a problem so long as they are viewed racially -- as they are in religion. An atheist seeking followers of a mass movement would have embraced anyone, including a Jew, who denied Judaism and embraced the movement (note that, on paper at least, Jews who were no longer practicing Jews were welcomed into that great atheistic institution: The Russian Communist Party). In Germany, Jews were cursed of god, a race apart, and Satan’s spawn and to destroy them was to fight for god.

In the end, it seems to me, that you are making the wrong argument about the wrong person. You will never nail Hitler as an explicit atheist. You only want to do so here because you are tickled by the reaction that you get from proclaimed atheists on these boards that can't imagine that they might share anything with the likes of a Hitler.

However, it seems to me that Stalin is a better argument for you anyway (so why not use him). He killed more people. He destroyed more culture. His state was more repressive. He proclaimed himself and his state to be explicitly atheistic.

Methinks you are on the wrong path....

headscratcher4

15th January 2003, 07:00 AM

Bump...its been two days without a response, is this the end of this discussion?

MRC_Hans

15th January 2003, 07:20 AM

I guess that despite the limits imposed, JK managed to sort of hijack the thread anyway. Or maybe he is just the only one that really has a differing opinion?

Hans

headscratcher4

15th January 2003, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I guess that despite the limits imposed, JK managed to sort of hijack the thread anyway. Or maybe he is just the only one that really has a differing opinion?

Hans

Hans:

I guess you are right...JK seems to be the only one holding his position and he has stopped arguing it, save to restate it and to ignore any facts, opinion or historic interpretation that clouds that conclusion...so I suppose I should let it sink....

thaiboxerken

15th January 2003, 07:29 AM

We cannot know if Hitler truly believed in "jesus" or not, we only know that he proclaimed to be a christian warrior of god and that he often used references to the christian bible in his speeches. It is apparent, however, that the Nazi's were christian. One does not motivate people to go on a crusade by invoking a deity that the people do not believe in.

Nova Land

15th January 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

We cannot know if Hitler truly believed in "jesus" or not, we only know that he proclaimed to be a christian warrior of god and that he often used references to the christian bible in his speeches. It is apparent, however, that the Nazi's were christian. One does not motivate people to go on a crusade by invoking a deity that the people do not believe in.
Good point! Regardless of Hitler's own religious beliefs, it seems clear that most of his supporters were religious people and not atheists.

We can break the question down even further:

1. What were Hitler's religious beliefs?

2. What were the religious beliefs of his high-ranking Nazi associates?

3. What were the religious beliefs of active Nazi party members and others who supported Hitler's rise to power?

4. What were the religious beliefs of those in Germany who, while not actively supporting Hitler, did not actively oppose him?

5. What were the religious beliefs of those who actively opposed Hitler's rise to power?

The answer to # 3 would appear to me to be predominantly Christian (both Protestant and Catholic). (I'd say it also would be largely the more conservative/right-wing elements of these religions.)

The answer to # 4 would also appear to me to be predominantly Christian. (I'd say it would be the more moderate/centrist elements of these religions).

Category # 5 is where I'd be inclined to place most German atheists, as well as non-Christians and radical/liberal Christians.

For category # 2, there was some sentiment among the leading Nazis to create a new religion, more in tune with Nazi values, based on the worship of Odin (or Wotan) and warrior gods.

As for category # 1: I disagree that we can't know whether Hitler believed in Jesus or not. I think there is good evidence as to what Hitler believed about Jesus in some of Hitler's recorded after-dinner conversations. I had begun quoting excerpts from some of these earlier in the thread, and think it is worth continuing to look at these, since later ones will bear directly on the question of Jesus.

Which is as good a segue as any into my next post...

Nova Land

15th January 2003, 10:19 AM

At the very beginning of this thread, I had mentioned as a source of information about Hitler's religious beliefs the "table talks" he conducted in the early 1940s. These are after-dinner conversations among Hitler and his close associates. Hitler's portions were transcribed, and these were later translated and published.

The book in which these appear, Hitler's Table Talk (also published as Hitler's Secret Conversations) was originally published in 1953 and has been reprinted several times since. It is available at many libraries.

There are over 300 conversations recorded in the book. The ones that refer to religion, and thus provide clues to Hitler's own beliefs, appear to me to be: 3, 4, 5, 27, 33, 39, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 75, 76, 100, 105, 143, 148, 152, 153, 160, 163, 184, 187, 190, 233, 236, 248, 275, 287, 304, 308, 326, and 328.

Earlier in this thread I had begun quoting excerpts from these, in the order they appear in the book, so that those who do not have access to the book could read (and comment on) these passages in context. There are many web sites that quote the juicy lines, but sometimes the lines are not quite so dramatic in context, and some of the minor bits that don't get quoted as often may add to the understanding of the remarks as a whole.

While these "table talks" do not appear to support the claim that Hitler was an atheist (at least not as most of us define the word "atheist"), they do support Jedi's stated belief that Hitler was not a Catholic and was not a Christian.

I had quoted from conversations 3, 4, 5, and 39 (accidentally skipping over 27 and 33). The material in # 27 is minor enough that I won't bother bringing it in now, but the paragraph from # 33 is worth quoting:

# 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.

When I typed in the excerpts from conversation # 39 (which now appears somewhere about the middle of page 2 of this thread) I refrained from highlighting or pulling out the juicy bits, so that others could read it for themselves first. Shortly after that, however, we took a break while considering the idea of a moderated thread. I think it is worth going back to # 39 and looking at some of the things Hitler said in it.

Here are some of the items in it that grabbed my attention.
"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."So Hitler was scornful of atheism and believed there were genuine mysteries in the universe that religions answered poorly and atheism simply ignored.

"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."Many of Hitler's supporters were Christians. This ties in with Hitler's positive references to religion in his public speeches. But Hitler privately indicates, as in this conversation, that he needs these people's support and is just using them, so his public utterances about religion cannot be taken at face value.

"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."This seems fairly clear that Hitler was not a Christian -- had a great deal of scorn for Christianity.

What's especially interesting here is his praise of science. Hitler's own religious beliefs, then, seem to include almost a worship of "science". Taken out of context, this might sound to some people as if he were an atheist, so it is good to keep in mind he just finished scornfully brushing aside atheism a few paragraphs earlier. Just as different people have very different things in mind when they speak of "God", so different people can have very different things in mind when they speak of "Science", and it would be wise to wait for clarification of just what Hitler means by his use of the word before jumping to conclusions.

(It should be noted that several religions relate their beliefs to science -- Mary Baker Eddy's "Christian Science" and L Ron Hubbard's "Scientology" leap to mind. Likewise, many believers in pseudo-sciences make frequent use of the word "science" in promoting their beliefs. By "science", they often are referring to the technologies that have been developed rather than to the method of discovering truth through experiments and empirical evidence.)

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.
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 clear that Hitler had a scornful view of his contemporaries' religious beliefs, brushing them aside as "childish beliefs" What's intriguing is his reference to "higher belief". In other words, while he seems to believe virtually everyone else is a fool who accepts make-believe, he does seem to believe there are better answers that he is privy to and which others may eventually come to accept too.

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. Some of the other Nazis had wanted to replace Christianity (which did not suit the Nazis purposes) with a religion more in tune with their values. Hitler, as he states here, did not agree. He thought Christianity was foolish but thought Odin-worhip to be just as foolish.

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.
Again, Hitler seems to make a religion out of "science".

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?Here is a brief passage in which Hitler speaks about not wanting to destroy faith in God. (However, his reason for wanting belief in God to continue can be taken in several ways, so it would be wise not to draw conclusions too hastily from this passage alone.)

If at this moment we were to eliminate the religions by force, the people would unanimously beseech us for a new form of worship.Regardless of Hitler's own religious beliefs, he seemed well aware that the German people upon whom he relied for support were religious.

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. Here again is a passage that might seem to indicate Hitler and his close associates were atheists, if it were not appearing in a conversation in which he also denounces atheism as the way foolish and uneducated people think.

Hitler seems to believe there are answers to the questions religions pose (about how people came to be here and what purpose there is to life) and that these can be found through "Science", but his science may be one that includes the existence of a God. I would recommend suspending judgment on that question until we examine more evidence.

headscratcher4

15th January 2003, 11:13 AM

Nova, as always, an extremely useful and thoughtful contribution to this thread. Thank you.

I have always been struck by Hitler's belief in science. Indeed, the entire Nazi Movement -- much like Marxism -- has a practically mystical faith in science, specifically that science will prove it the correct ideology, policy, etc.

At the same time, there is a mystical fascination with what I will call the "higher" powers of destiny. The Nazi belief, for example, in the separateness of the Jews, was based on an odd assortment of both mystical/quasi religious beliefs -- i.e. the Jews as Christ-killers and spawn of Satan (used to play to illiterate masses) -- through philosophical interpretations -- Jews as killers/destroyers of civilization -- to scientific -- Jews could be scientifically shown to be inferior, different, a race apart, etc.

However, it is critical to point out that in each instance, IMO, science always gave way to one of the more mystical or philosophical justifications. In short, it is the foundation beliefs, the cultural beliefs -- the ancient and lingering Anti-Semitism that crowds through European history -- that ultimately determines and trumps the science.

None of the scientific investigations and tools used by the Nazis could do more than pervert scientific method in an effort to create "provable" results that buttressed Nazi philosophical and crypto-religious dogma. Measuring skulls, establishing elaborate genealogies, looking at eye and hair color, nose sizes, etc. and trying to formulate a "genetic" science around those studies that proved the superiority of the Aryan German are all a big scientific bust. In order to prove their point, scientifically, the nazi's had to inject their mystical philosophy into it.

The failure of this is clear. The Nazis, for example, had German Physics and Jewish Physics. Einstein could be rejected (at least publicly) because he was the personification of Jewish Physics -- which was some how a false physics.

In short, science, though lauded, was also subordinated to the State Mysticism. Science proved the unique right of Aryans and Nazis to rule lesser men, but any science that conflicted with this pre-determined result was to be rejected. In the end, what you are left with is a Hitler who didn't understand (or really trust) science, but one who view technology and mechanical advancement as one and the same with science.

I am struck that, in it's way, it is not unlike the historic Catholic Church during the Renascence (sic). It loved science so long as it proved the world was an earth-centered universe (with the church at the center of the Earth), but along come Galileo (sic), and suddenly science is subordinated to the dogma.

thaiboxerken

15th January 2003, 01:09 PM

I don't value "Table Talk" as a credible source of Hitler's beliefs.

thaiboxerken

15th January 2003, 01:15 PM

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

An essay about the reliability/credibility of Hitler's Table Talk book.

headscratcher4

15th January 2003, 01:41 PM

Interesting, and thank you for the essay. While it makes a number of good points, it certainly doesn't win at establishing that Hitler was a "Christian" of the sort that most would recognize. If he considered himself a "Christian" it seems it was well outside of established orthodoxies. That doesn't mean he didn't believe himself to be a Christian, only that the theology he espoused may have been unique.

However, all it does go to bolster the argument at the heart of the thread that Hitler did not see himself or Nazism as an atheist movement. He, as has been pointed out by a number of parties here, saw himself in religious tradition and on a mission given him by a higher authority/god...i.e. not an atheist in anyway that the word is normally used.

I note as an aside, from the essay, the quote of Borman reserving the right, it would seem, to edit the Table Talk. Borman, my recollection is, was a professed atheist. No way to determin how Borman's oversight of the words of his hero/meal ticket (Hitler) might have been changed in such a way as to be more compatible with Borman's own views...just a thought...

Jedi Knight

15th January 2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I don't value "Table Talk" as a credible source of Hitler's beliefs.

Neither do I because it is just propaganda that would have been used to teach to children when the global Nazi state evolved had Hitler won.

That said, it does provide insight into Hitler's hatred for Jews (Christians) and his atheism.

JK

Jedi Knight

15th January 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I guess that despite the limits imposed, JK managed to sort of hijack the thread anyway. Or maybe he is just the only one that really has a differing opinion?

Hans

Hitler was an atheist. Disprove it.

This conversation isn't about me. This conversation is about Hitler's atheism. Hitler's atheism has nothing to do with "me", OK? Get past it.

JK

Franko

15th January 2003, 01:50 PM

they do support Jedi's stated belief that Hitler was not a Catholic and was not a Christian.

I don’t seem to recall Hitler going on and on about Jesus Christ (the fundamental required belief to be a Christian), and I certainly can’t see how someone going out of their way to violate as many of the Christian commandments (their moral creed) could be considered a “Christian” … at least not one in good standing.

Is anyone here going to honestly tell me that the Christian God (assuming he actually exist) would consider Hitler a Christian? Is any A-Theist going to argue that if the Christian God exists he let Hitler into Heaven?

headscratcher4

15th January 2003, 01:55 PM

That said, it does provide insight into Hitler's hatred for Jews (Christians) and his atheism.

So, essentially, you don't believe Hitler unless his words can be construed to underpin your conclusions, but any words spoken that are contrary to your conclusions can be dismissed?

Hmmm, and how are you able to decern what is propaganda, what was really intended, and what is both? Obviously, you are a far cleverer scholar than many who have studied Hitler.

Additionally, methinks as your is a minority position -- a position taken by refuting, disputing and dismissing most sources and scholarship on the topic -- proving Hitler was an "atheist" is up to you.

His own words belie the contention, as do the ordinary construction of the word "atheist."

His actions, and those of his followers, belie the constructions as -- and as I have shown above -- they were completely in keeping with the historical and religiously based Anti-Semitism rampant in German and European culture.

So, his words don't support your assertion. His actions don't support your assertion. THe decernable beliefs of the majority of his followers and allies don't support your assertion.

It leads one to wonder that outside of your fixation with maintaining your position against the atheistic hoard, what your position is based on...it has been well over a couple of posts since you've even posited any "facts" to support your position, or that successfully challenge or contradict the position of us who argue that Hitler was some sort of theist -- or even a "Christian" (not my position).

In short, saying it is so doesn't make it so.

Jedi Knight

15th January 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

So, essentially, you don't believe Hitler unless his words can be construed to underpin your conclusions, but any words spoken that are contrary to your conclusions can be dismissed?

Hmmm, and how are you able to decern what is propaganda, what was really intended, and what is both? Obviously, you are a far cleverer scholar than many who have studied Hitler.

Additionally, methinks as your is a minority position -- a position taken by refuting, disputing and dismissing most sources and scholarship on the topic -- proving Hitler was an "atheist" is up to you.

His own words belie the contention, as do the ordinary construction of the word "atheist."

His actions, and those of his followers, belie the constructions as -- and as I have shown above -- they were completely in keeping with the historical and religiously based Anti-Semitism rampant in German and European culture.

So, his words don't support your assertion. His actions don't support your assertion. THe decernable beliefs of the majority of his followers and allies don't support your assertion.

It leads one to wonder that outside of your fixation with maintaining your position against the atheistic hoard, what your position is based on...it has been well over a couple of posts since you've even posited any "facts" to support your position, or that successfully challenge or contradict the position of us who argue that Hitler was some sort of theist -- or even a "Christian" (not my position).

In short, saying it is so doesn't make it so.

There are a variety of groups that make a living demonizing Hitler and Nazism. Communism has caused more deaths in history than Nazism could ever dream of doing and yet Communism is "celebrated" and "respected".

What is it about Nazism that has so many people annoyed? Why can't Communism, an ideology hundreds of times more evil and wicked, even come close to being as despised as the perversion it is alongside Nazism?

So yes, I will find few to agree with me but I am not wrong. The public education of individuals is not my fault.

JK

headscratcher4

15th January 2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

There are a variety of groups that make a living demonizing Hitler and Nazism. Communism has caused more deaths in history than Nazism could ever dream of doing and yet Communism is "celebrated" and "respected".

What is it about Nazism that has so many people annoyed? Why can't Communism, an ideology hundreds of times more evil and wicked, even come close to being as despised as the perversion it is alongside Nazism?

So yes, I will find few to agree with me but I am not wrong. The public education of individuals is not my fault.

JK

I fear your comments are off the topic of the thread...a thread that was designed specifically to attempt to explore your assertions regarding Hitler's beliefs or lack of belief in a god.

I specifically made this point about Communism (stalinism) above. I think you are correct. An assertion that "Stalin was an atheist" would not rouse so much frustration (as it is also generally agreed to). I would suggest that the anger over your assertions about Nazism come not so much out of a belief on anyone's part that Nazism was worse than Communism (they are each, in their own way, foul, hateful and nasty philosophies that have caused little but death and destruction). Rather, for my part at least, it is an assertion regarding descernable history that is posited and asserted to be fact and never supported.

It would seem to me that the failure of education that you speak of is one that allows for the assertion of a "fact" and than the proving of that "fact" by mere repetition rather than show sources or logically discussing how the conclusion that something is a "fact" was reached.

We can shift the discussion to the evils of atheistic communism, if you will, and you may find that I am as likely as not to agree with your "facts" -- but shifting the discussion does little to prove your point. In short, you are wrong -- in this instance -- because you have provided nothing to lead anyone else in this discussion to change their minds, reconsider the evidence in new light, or to contradict the thrust of the opposing arguments.

As stated, saying something is so doesn't make it so, nor does it make you right -- merely misguided, at least until you can prove otherwise.

Finally, as long as we're changing the subject, why -- when you've a perfectly good example of "evil atheism" like Stalin, do you insist on fighting a losing proposition with respect to Hitler? My point is, question your own motives here, rather than the motives of those who have endeavored to have a civilized discusion with you regarding an idea that you proferred for discussion. In the end it is more about throwing gernades (as you know the propensity for just about everyone to fight any affiliation with "nazism" as opposed to the wrongly seen, and wrongly believed to be less vile communism of a Stalin). Throwing gernades can be fun -- god knows I am prone to do it as well -- but it does little to further understanding or to help you make what might be some otherwise excellent points....

Jedi Knight

15th January 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

I fear your comments are off the topic of the thread...a thread that was designed specifically to attempt to explore your assertions regarding Hitler's beliefs or lack of belief in a god.

I specifically made this point about Communism (stalinism) above. I think you are correct. An assertion that "Stalin was an atheist" would not rouse so much frustration (as it is also generally agreed to). I would suggest that the anger over your assertions about Nazism come not so much out of a belief on anyone's part that Nazism was worse than Communism (they are each, in their own way, foul, hateful and nasty philosophies that have caused little but death and destruction). Rather, for my part at least, it is an assertion regarding descernable history that is posited and asserted to be fact and never supported.

It would seem to me that the failure of education that you speak of is one that allows for the assertion of a "fact" and than the proving of that "fact" by mere repetition rather than show sources or logically discussing how the conclusion that something is a "fact" was reached.

We can shift the discussion to the evils of atheistic communism, if you will, and you may find that I am as likely as not to agree with your "facts" -- but shifting the discussion does little to prove your point. In short, you are wrong -- in this instance -- because you have provided nothing to lead anyone else in this discussion to change their minds, reconsider the evidence in new light, or to contradict the thrust of the opposing arguments.

As stated, saying something is so doesn't make it so, nor does it make you right -- merely misguided, at least until you can prove otherwise.

Finally, as long as we're changing the subject, why -- when you've a perfectly good example of "evil atheism" like Stalin, do you insist on fighting a losing proposition with respect to Hitler? My point is, question your own motives here, rather than the motives of those who have endeavored to have a civilized discusion with you regarding an idea that you proferred for discussion. In the end it is more about throwing gernades (as you know the propensity for just about everyone to fight any affiliation with "nazism" as opposed to the wrongly seen, and wrongly believed to be less vile communism of a Stalin). Throwing gernades can be fun -- god knows I am prone to do it as well -- but it does little to further understanding or to help you make what might be some otherwise excellent points....

There is a major problem with historical revisionism in this country and most of the west for that matter. It is getting so bad that I even quote Orwell now because that is what is happening.

The false-history being fed to students in schools today puts Hitler in the "Christian" box because he is "white" and "western" and did "evil" things.

How often in school did you ever hear anyone say that Stalin was an atheist? Or Lenin? Or Kruzchev?

Let me tell you some facts and I have said it before--a totalitarian nation-state doesn't tolerate competing forms of power. There will be one form of religion in the totalitarian nation-state--one the "government" approves.

As millions of Jews, Gypsies and other "undersireables" were being carted off to concentration camps, what were the German people doing? They had to have noticed their neighbors being carted off to be slaughtered. They didn't wake up one morning and say: "Gee, where is Mr. Goldstein at? His family hasn't been seen for 3 weeks."

Hell no. The German people were involved. They constituted the bueaucracy that made that genocide efficient.

Now ask yourself, honestly, would that have occured if Christian churches were in power in the Nazi state? Hell no.

So where were all the Christians? They were either being led to concentration camps (Jews) or part of the oppressed underground, a similar condition approaching American Christians today. America is turning into a Nazi state itself, but with matriarchal fascist structure.

If I say that I am a Catholic or a Christian, would the Catholic Church and the Pope agree to me wiping out an entire race of people? Would I approach my church and force them to sign a surrender treaty? Why would I do that if I was a supporter of the church?

As people were disappearing in the Nazi state and put in ovens, where were the churches? They weren't there before it started.

These facts aren't the fault of the modern student of history. Like I said, Hitler is the eternal icon of hatred for whiteness and Christianity, even though he wasn't a Christian. Hitler pushed for the perfect scientific state envisioned by Niezche where God was cast aside to be replaced by the "Superman" (humans). God wasn't needed anymore because God held the state back from the perfections that it could achieve. That was the ideology of Hitler and his henchmen.

It was the arrogance of atheism and the narcissism of atheism and the megalomania of power. Hitler was not a Christian. No religious authority consented to Hitler's actions.

Hitler didn't seek approval. As an atheist, Hitler pursued godless acts and proved them in history. He is the icon of what happens when an atheist leader seizes power in an advanced nation-state.

JK

The Fool

15th January 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Hitler was an atheist. Disprove it.

JK
Well folks, looks like Jedi has whittled his position down to its bare essentials. "I say it is true, you cannot make me change my mind, Therefore it is definitely true..."

No Jedi, Hitler was actually a wood elf. and you can't disprove that either.

As long as you are sticking to debate proof dogma there is no point in participating in a debate. I am not interested in hearing your evidence free position restated yet again.

This thread has demonstrated that you are incapable of participating in a reasoned debate, moderated or not. As the Thread is moderated I cannot call you an Idiot, so I won't.

Jedi Knight

15th January 2003, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Well folks, looks like Jedi has whittled his position down to its bare essentials. "I say it is true, you cannot make me change my mind, Therefore it is definitely true..."

No Jedi, Hitler was actually a wood elf. and you can't disprove that either.

As long as you are sticking to debate proof dogma there is no point in participating in a debate. I am not interested in hearing your evidence free position restated yet again.

This thread has demonstrated that you are incapable of participating in a reasoned debate, moderated or not. As the Thread is moderated I cannot call you an Idiot, so I won't.

You are just a nasty person. Simply nasty. You are one of the nastiest people I have ever encountered on an internet forum. You gravitate around other people's debates, contribute nothing and just spread your vile nastiness in every post that you make.

Combine all the above with the fact that you have no personal skills and you really fit the mold for the pathetic, marginal atheist that you are--an oxygen stealer.

You couldn't even keep your pathetic drivel out of a moderated thread. No wonder more and more people are starting to view atheism as a hate-group. You could be its poster-child.

JK

Aardvark_DK

15th January 2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
No religious authority consented to Hitler's actions.
And if someone had done that would that make any difference? Wouldn't you just say that that particular religious authority wasn't "truly Christian"? When the Inquisition burned jews as heretics were they acting in a Christian manner? Or were they really atheists?

The thing is, JK, if your theory cannot be disproven then it is worthless. Can your theory be disproven?

Girl 6

15th January 2003, 04:20 PM

The Fool

15th January 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Girl 6

{sigh}

This is baiting and you know it... Please avoid posting something like this in the thread.

G6
{sigh}
I know. Its just so frustrating...I am utterly convinced Hitler was a wood elf and nobody takes me seriously. It cannot be disproved, it suits my narrow and ignorant world view. It just MUST be true, why do people not believe me?

Relax Girl6, I will leave this thread to grind to its obvious conclusion.

Girl 6

15th January 2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

You are just a nasty person. Simply nasty. You are one of the nastiest people I have ever encountered on an internet forum. You gravitate around other people's debates, contribute nothing and just spread your vile nastiness in every post that you make.

Combine all the above with the fact that you have no personal skills and you really fit the mold for the pathetic, marginal atheist that you are--an oxygen stealer.

You couldn't even keep your pathetic drivel out of a moderated thread. No wonder more and more people are starting to view atheism as a hate-group. You could be its poster-child.

JK

And, you couldn't resist, could you? ;) :D

Can we just keep to the topic, please?

I'm actually learning a LOT from this thread. I'd like it if we could just concentrate on the debate. I know it's hard when you are holding a minority opinion, but if you stick with it, we can all learn something.

thanks!
G6

DialecticMaterialist

15th January 2003, 07:36 PM

Hitler was not an atheist. You base this on what? Two dubious books who's authors have an obvious bias? Books based on Hitler's "private conversation"?

First off you ever heard of a little book "Inside the Third Reich" written by one of Hitler's former right hand men, Albert Speer?

Well had you done so, you'd see that Hitler was not an atheist and in fact saw Christianity as an essential part of German culture. In fact none of the Nazis were really into atheism. Some were into paganism but that was a fringe movement. Hitler's religion was more or less a combination of pagan myth and Christianity. Hitler for example theorized Jesus was an Aryan.

Photos of Hitler and Nazis attending religious services:

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

Hitler's writings in which he promotes theism or utilizes it:

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

"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)

From Mein Kampf:

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)

The hard struggle which the Pan-Germans fought with the Catholic Church can be accounted for only by their insufficient understanding of the spiritual nature of the people.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Speeches and proclamations:

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

Jedi Knight

16th January 2003, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Hitler was not an atheist. You base this on what? Two dubious books who's authors have an obvious bias? Books based on Hitler's "private conversation"?

First off you ever heard of a little book "Inside the Third Reich" written by one of Hitler's former right hand men, Albert Speer?

Well had you done so, you'd see that Hitler was not an atheist and in fact saw Christianity as an essential part of German culture. In fact none of the Nazis were really into atheism. Some were into paganism but that was a fringe movement. Hitler's religion was more or less a combination of pagan myth and Christianity. Hitler for example theorized Jesus was an Aryan.

Photos of Hitler and Nazis attending religious services:

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

Hitler's writings in which he promotes theism or utilizes it:

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

From Mein Kampf:

Speeches and proclamations:

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

You should know better than this. How often do politicians tell their constituents what they want to hear? But with Hitler, no, because he distributed propaganda material in speeches and interviews we are supposed to believe everything he said, according to you.

Fascist leaders will say anything to stay in power. However, when those same leaders put 6,000,000 people in ovens, that is a godless act. There was no version of Christianity in the time of Hitler that would have approved that.

Hitler was not a Christian. He did not believe in the omnipotent God because he was an atheist. He was on a mission to destroy Christianity and the founders of Christianity (Jews).

Atheism can't deny a member, even if that member will be remembered in history as the most wicked man ever. Atheism will never be allowed to lump Hitler into Christianity and make it a Christian thing. There is no valid historical connection between Christianity and Hitler.

JK

Aardvark_DK

16th January 2003, 02:57 AM

So I ask again, JK: is your theory falsifiable or not?

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?

Nova Land

16th January 2003, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm

An essay about the reliability/credibility of Hitler's Table Talk book. This is a good article. I agree with a lot of what the author says.

One of the points is not to accept sources uncritically, or to select only those parts that support one's view while ignoring the context or ignoring other parts that contradict one's view. I agree very strongly with that. Indeed, that is why I think it is worth going through a variety of sources -- including Hitler's Table Talk -- and reading over what they actually say and weighing what they say before attempting to draw conclusions.

The author of this article says "I have relied mainly on first-hand quotes from the infamous man himself: Hitler's book 'Mein Kampf,' his speeches recorded by camera, radio, proclamations, and letters personally written and signed by Hitler." These are sources well worth considering.

However, as Jedi pointed out earlier, there is a danger to relying too heavily on any of these. Politicians have been known to lie in their public utterances, and this certainly seems to be the case with Hitler. I think Jedi's arguments for being wary of what these sources contain is as reasonable as this person's arguments for being wary of what the table talks contain.

Does this mean we should throw the internet author's sources out? No! What I think it means is we should read these sources to see what they actually say, and then weigh carefully what if any conclusions we can draw from these pieces of evidence.

And the same applies to the "table talks." There are good reasons not to accept these uncritically; but there are also good reasons to be aware of what is actually in them.
(from the internet article)

Rarely do you see apologists against Hitler's Christianity quoting from these memoirs and secret conversations, yet they want us to buy only out-of-context quotes from the Table-Talk.
While we are putting the point differently, I think the internet author and I are in substantial agreement here.

Early in this thread, I mentioned Otto Wegener's book as one I had glanced at and hoped we might look at later in this thread. The other books mentioned in this article also look to be worth examining. So put me down as one of those "rare" apologists against Hitler's Christianity who does want to examine and quote from those memoirs and secret conversations.

The reason I looked up the "table talks" to start with is because these were the source of material Jedi had quoted (in a different thread) as evidence that Hitler was an atheist. My feeling is very much like the sentiment expressed in the internet article: if we are going to rely on a source as evidence, we should read for ourselves what it actually says.

I was assuming by the fact Jedi had cited as evidence material coming from the table talks that he thought these a source worth considering. That may have been a false assumption, in which case I would be glad to examine whatever other sources Jedi does think are worth considering.

But in all cases, I think it is worth going through the actual material, and reading the relevant parts at length and in context, before attempting to use it in drawing conclusions. Whether we ultimately wind up accepting or dismissing the passages from the table talks, let us first be aware of what they do and do not contain.

In that regard, I find it ironic that the internet article, after criticizing others for "want[ing] us to buy only out-of-context quotes from the Table-Talk" then offers as evidence that Hitler was not an atheist the line from the 3rd recorded table talk: "We don't want to educate anyone in atheism."

Quoted out of context it sounds anti-atheist, but in context it sounds to me more like praise. Atheists, according to Hitler, are people intelligent enough to rise above superstitious fears that make others easier to control. They are brave people quite willing and able to die for their country -- not people it is easy to defeat in combat. This gives us little clue about Hitler's religious feelings about atheism, but it does tell us he had a certain amount of respect for atheists as soldiers.

Those who are interested in forming their own opinion of what Hitler meant by this line can read it in the quoted excerpt on page 1 of this thread.

Nova Land

16th January 2003, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

There is a major problem with historical revisionism in this country and most of the west for that matter.

The false-history being fed to students in schools today...I agree that there is a problem with history being poorly recorded, poorly taught, and poorly understood.

I suspect we would differ on which things being taught as true are false, and which true things are being left out. But that's one reason it's good for people who disagree to be able to talk with each other and find out why they believe differently.

One thing we can rely on in trying to understand what really happened in times past is our own memories of what we experienced. The problem with that is most of us have limited experiences -- we may have been alive to hear and read the reactions of others to events, but we generally weren't present at the events themselves. Thus it is useful to be able to read the words of others who were present and try to understand the events they speak or write of.

What sources do you find to be good ones in providing evidence relating to Hitler's beliefs?

The only source I am aware of so far that you have used is the "table talks", and it appeared from the way the material was quoted that you had gotten that from another source -- a source which was in turn apparently quoting from yet another source. It now sounds as if you do not believe the table talks are a reliable source of evidence after all. I am still unclear if you have actually read the table talks, or are simply going by what others have told you about what the table talks contain.

I agree with you that it would be good to base our judgments on actual history, not on history as others might like us to think it was. To base our judgments on actual history, it seems important to turn to historical sources, not simply to opinion-molders who would like to sway us to their particular interpretation.

I like to look to a wide variety of sources on questions of history, since any single source is likely to have missed key points. No one source can see everything. By turning to a number of sources, especially primary sources, we are often able to see past the spin and the revisionism and get a better picture of what really happened.

So: what are some sources you recommend for those of us who are interested in learning the unrevised history on this subject?

Nova Land

16th January 2003, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

First off you ever heard of a little book "Inside the Third Reich" written by one of Hitler's former right hand men, Albert Speer?

Well had you done so...
Jedi has already explained, several times, why we cannot rely unquestioningly on what Hitler and Hitler's close associates said and wrote for public consumption.

Jedi's point on that seems entirely reasonable to me. It is worth looking at those materials to see for ourselves what they actually say, but the fact that these materials contain positive mentions of Christianity does not prove Hitler was genuinely a Christian any more than Trent Lott's public statements of support for affirmative action (in the wake of his Thurmond-birthday remarks) make him a genuine supporter of affirmative action.

(The Lott example is the first that springs to my mind as I type this, but I am sure anyone reading this can think of dozens of their own examples of politicians making speeches that appear to support a position which, in fact, they oppose.)

If you wish to use the material in Speer's book, or Mein Kampf, or other sources, as evidence to support your view, that's fine. The fact that politicians and others engage in deceit does not prevent us from examining their words and seeing through their deceits, so I agree that these are worthwhile sources to sift through.

But please don't assume that Jedi or others who don't come to the same conclusion you do must therefore be unaware of the sources you cite. I think if you read through the thread you will see that Jedi is well aware of these materials.

Aardvark_DK

16th January 2003, 07:09 AM

Nova, why do you keep referring to these various sources when JK has already said that only Hitler's actions are worth considering?

thaiboxerken

16th January 2003, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
Nova, why do you keep referring to these various sources when JK has already said that only Hitler's actions are worth considering?

JK's arguement that only Hitler's "actions" can show if he was a true christian or not is dishonest. This type of arguement belittles reality and does not help with the gain of knowledge. By JK's arguement, there are no christians that ever committed a violent crime.

Nova Land

16th January 2003, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Fascist leaders will say anything to stay in power. However, when those same leaders put 6,000,000 people in ovens, that is a godless act.
I agree with you on this. I have trouble conceiving of a god that could desire or approve of such acts.

The tragic thing is that, throughout history, there have been people who have believed that such acts were in accordance with the wishes of their god.

The massacre of the Amalekites, as recorded in the old testament, is an example. What shocks me is that there are sincere Christians today who will still defend this massacre as a godly act.
There was no version of Christianity in the time of Hitler that would have approved that.
Here I have to disagree. There are many versions of Christianity. There were then, and continue to be now, people who call themselves Christians who would indeed approve of that.

This may be a semantic difference. There are many definitions of what "Christian" means. By some definitions, the folks who call themselves Christian but who have no qualms about mass murder of their enemies could be excluded as "not true Christians."

However, you wrote "no version of Christianity". That, to me, implies a fairly broad interpretation of Christianity, not limited to the more socially-acceptable ones.
Hitler was not a Christian.
I'm inclined to agree that he was not a Christian by belief. He was, however, a life-long member of a Christian church.

Just as we need to be clear on what atheism means (I listed 5 distinct possible meanings a page or so back in this thread) we also need to be clear on what Christian means. It is quite true that by some definitions Hitler was not a Christian, but this is not necessarily true for all reasonable definitions.
Atheism can't deny a member, even if that member will be remembered in history as the most wicked man ever.Ah, but Hitler was never a member of atheism. There is no record of Hitler ever joining an atheist group or association, no record of Hitler ever publicly declaring himself to be an atheist.

It is possible he was a secret atheist, an atheist by belief. I have not seen any evidence to support this view yet. Can you cite some source which you believe to be reliable in which Hitler expresses the belief there is no god?
There is no valid historical connection between Christianity and Hitler.
Again I have to disagree. There is no valid historical connection between Hitler and atheism, as I just mentioned. There is, however, a valid historical connection between Hitler and Christianity. He was raised as a Christian, maintained life-long membership in a Christian Church, made numerous public utterances in support of Christianity and maintaining he was a Christian acting on behalf of Christian purposes.

The public utterances may well have been lies and acts of deceit. I am inclined to agree with you these almost certainly were. They are, however, valid historical connections. Hitler's being raised as a Christian is an undeniable historical connection to Christianity. He may well have turned away from Christianity -- I believe he did -- but that is different from saying he had no connection.

headscratcher4

16th January 2003, 07:38 AM

Just a thought, discussing whether Hitler was a Christian (classical or otherwise) seems to me to be the wrong tact. JK's proposition is that Hitler was an Atheist. The alternative to Atheist is someone who believes in a God(s). Hitler's alleged Christianity, adherence to it, etc. seems to me to be irrelevent. We should be careful not to set the perameters of the argument as either or Atheist or Christian.

The point that JK continually and willfully ignores is that there is reasonably good evidence from Hitler's life, actions, words, and the fundumental operations of the Nazi movement, that Hitler believed in higher authority of which he was but a instrument.

By attempting to prove that Hitler was more than a deist/theist, indeed that he was a recognizable christian, we fall into a trap.

In other words, JK would have it be that Hitler must be an atheist because no christian could do the things that Hitler did and inspired. And, essentially by making the argument in this way, he sets up a standard whereby anyone who does not act or believe as a christian (by JK's definition) is essentially an atheist. Hitler is an atheist, Islamics are Atheists, Hindus are atheists, etc. As importantly, JK has established a false, though weirdly consistent view of world history to bolster his point.

Every crime against humanity can be laid at the feet of an atheistic religious cult or atheistic totalitarian state, because true believers (Christians) couldn't engage in these kinds of activities -- especially anti-Semetic acts as Jews are the historic foundation of Christianity.

IT is circular. It doesn't jive with history.

The real argument, it seems to me, is that Hitler did what he did believing in a God(s). Now, if we want to change that argument, that is ok, but this thread was started with the assertion of atheism, and with the exception of JK who now will not argue the facts of his own proposition, there is pretty general agreement and the citation of a large number of facts and sources that suggest that Hitler did not consider himself or his movement Atheistic.

That doesn't mean that JK can't assign those labels, if it help him sleep at night, it mearly means that the values JK assigns to those words are personal and can not be shared in rational conversation. We are, in the end, talking apples and oranges.

Nova Land

16th January 2003, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
Nova, why do you keep referring to these various sources when JK has already said that only Hitler's actions are worth considering? Because I disagree with Jedi about that.

(1) I believe we can learn things from what people have written, even when those people were consciously attempting to deceive. So it is worth examining these sources to see what can be learned.

(2) I do not believe anyone is capable of being deceptive all the time. Even Loki in the legends occasionally told the truth.

(3) Even if it is only actions that count, we would still need to find a reliable source as to what those actions were. Speaking, publicly or privately, is an action, so sources which detail what he wrote or said on religion are worth examining.

(4) Regardless of whether people feel these sources are reliable, people are using them. Jedi, for example, quoted material that came from two of the "table talks" (in a different thread) to support his contention that Hitler was an atheist.

So long as people are going to refer to material, I think it is important that we read the actual material itself. Too often people make use of hand-me-down copies. As skeptics, we have seen all too often how that leads to people reaching false conclusions. In politics and philosophy as well as in matters of the paranormal, it is a good habit to look up the actual things being referred to. It takes a little longer, but it's fun, it's educational, and I'd rather take some extra time and actually get somewhere than be in a rush to get nowhere.

headscratcher4

16th January 2003, 08:29 AM

An additional thought, since we are now no longer arguing about fact...the facts in opposition to JK's proposition having been dismissed without refutation...let's me restate an earlier assertion of my own: Hitler could not have been a atheist because he was an Anti-Semite.

As I suggested earlier in the thread, Hitler's and Nazism's anti-Semitism was deeply rooted in the historical and religious (mainly influenced by Catholicism, but also steeped in the Reformation and European Pagan mythology) traditions and thinking that existed in Europe for over a thousand years. As noted above, these were traditions of Jews as Christ-killers (making revenge against the Jews an act of Devine Justice), and Jews as the spawn of Satan (i.e. Jews as a race apart, unable to come to Christ -- having once rejected Christ -- under any circumstances [note that the Spanish Inquisition was particularly interested in second and third generation members of converted Jewish families...]).

In short, it was both Church and state policies in Europe to keep the Jews separate, single them out, ghettoize them and prevent their full participation in society AS JEWs. This even extended (though to a lesser extent) to converts (as noted above).

An atheist would not care about this. Period. An atheist trying to build an atheistic totalitarian state that specifically rejects theistic beliefs might concentrate on believers of any kind who refused to kow-tow to the ideology (and this is in fact what happened in Russia), but would not subscribe specifically to the race of a people, per se. especially when science would not confirm that there was some discernable difference (and, note again, as I have argued earlier, Hitler and the Nazi's had to force the science to achieve the "scientific" results they wanted by engaging in bogus science and research).

My point is that the Nazis were out to kill ALL Jews...not just believing Jews, but all Jews. Why would an atheist care about apostate Jews? Someone who was no longer Jewish, who believed the ideology of the state and was willing to serve the state and it's leader, should have exempted that person from the death chamber. After all, if there is no god, than it is the individual’s relationship to the state and the leader that should matter, not the groups.

Indeed, we see some of this in the atheistic Soviet state. While there were numerous groups that were persecuted because, as a group they were politically unreliable (e.g. the Tartars, the Don Germans, etc.), members of even persecuted groups who ascribed to the primacy of Stalin could avoid the group fate.

One prime example, Stalin too had a residual fear and hatred of Jews (note, Stalin too had a religious education). However, individual "Jews" (I say this not because the individual was a practicing Jew, but Jewish by birth and "group"), could rise above the group by embracing Stalin and forsaking the religion/beliefs of their fathers (very much in keeping, BTW, with JK's proposition that the Atheistic totalitarian state could not stand any belief but belief in the state). One key example is one of the great butchers of history, Lazar Kagnovich.

Kagnovich was born a Jew, but he was high in Stalin's circle and one of his chief henchmen (for example, he used political slave labor with incredible death rates, to dig the Moscow subway). The point here is that Kagnovich's status as a member of the groups "Jews" was ultimately irrelevant to the great atheist Stalin, because Kagnovich gave all and did all for Stalin (and, one suspects, had he been purged, he would have gone to his death like so many Bolsheviks, praising Stalin).

It is inconceivable that anything like this could have occurred in Nazi Germany. Once a Jew, always a Jew. The Nazi terror wasn't about Judaism as a religion; it was about Jews as historic agents of corruption of Western civilization and culture.

The anti-Semitism of the Nazis was almost completely based on an almost mid-evil perception of a battle between the forces of light (Aryan, Christian culture) and Darkness (Jewish decadence and degradation) with only a thin patina of "science" to provide intellectual cover. The Nazi state doing God's work (not, necessarily a "Christian" god, BTW) was going to rid the world of the Jewish people.

The Atheist state (at least the terror state JK describes) would find this distinction/dichotomy ridiculous. In other words if, as JK is intent on asserting, the atheistic state sought to foster the "religion" of atheism (and, thereby redefine the term "religion"), it would naturally seek all comers and converts. A Jew, a Christian, a Buddhist, what have you, who sublimated beliefs, culture, group identification, etc. to the state (and leader, a'la Stalin), could and would find a means of survival and acceptance in the state -- "race" or group, would be irrelevant, at least to the extent that ideology was key.

In the end, one can only logically conclude that while it might not have been "Christian," the Nazi state was manifesting a policy and racialism that can only make sense in the context of a theistic/deistic belief in its mission as the salvation of culture and civilization from the barbarians, lesser races and Jews (i.e. Satan's spawn). In short, it is a puritanical state requiring the zealotry of those who believe they are doing god's work and a belief that their actions are justified; not only by History, but also by their service to the higher spiritual authority that has called them to the mission.

Nova Land

16th January 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

...discussing whether Hitler was a Christian (classical or otherwise) seems to me to be the wrong tack. JK's proposition is that Hitler was an Atheist. The alternative to Atheist is someone who believes in a God(s). Hitler's alleged Christianity, adherence to it, etc. seems to me to be irrelevent. We should be careful not to set the parameters of the argument as either or Atheist or Christian.Excellent point!
In other words, JK would have it be that Hitler must be an atheist because no christian could do the things that Hitler did and inspired. And, essentially by making the argument in this way, he sets up a standard whereby anyone who does not act or believe as a christian (by JK's definition) is essentially an atheist. Hitler is an atheist, Islamics are Atheists, Hindus are atheists, etc.Like you, I do not define atheism that way. However, I think JK may, and I think he may not be the only one who does. And I think this way of defining atheism may relate to a number of other issues of concern to me -- such as the way some Christians perceive and treat people of non-Christian religions.

I am therefore interested in understanding what it is Jedi believes and why, as it may help me not only to understand Jedi better (which will make future conversations in this forum more enjoyable) but also may help me to better understand others I may encounter outside these boards.

So if Jedi feels more comfortable defining atheist in a way unfamiliar to me, I'd much rather learn more about what exactly his definition is, why he holds it, and where it leads him, than to argue his definition is wrong and mine is right.

There are many words already for which I hold numerous definitions in mind so that I can understand what different people are saying. Holding another definition in mind for the word atheist is not that hard.
The real argument, it seems to me, is that Hitler did what he did believing in a God(s). Now, if we want to change that argument, that is ok, but this thread was started with the assertion of atheism, and with the exception of JK who now will not argue the facts of his own proposition, there is pretty general agreement and the citation of a large number of facts and sources that suggest that Hitler did not consider himself or his movement Atheistic.
Since there seems to be disagreement on what atheist means, then simply coming to agreement on a label for Hitler is largely meaningless.

The real argument, as you point out, is whether "Hitler did what he did believing in a God(s)". That's what largely interests me -- not the specific label we assign to a person who holds (or does not hold) that belief.

DialecticMaterialist

16th January 2003, 03:46 PM

You should know better than this. How often do politicians tell their constituents what they want to hear? But with Hitler, no, because he distributed propaganda material in speeches and interviews we are supposed to believe everything he said, according to you.

Well nothing spurrious about that statement. I imagine you could, in theory say that to anything Hitler,Stalin or Mao said. Any dictator in fact, whenever he or she makes a proclamation concerning religion or lack thereof can be said to be lying at any time.

And I admit this is possible. Maybe Hitler was an atheist, maybe Stalin was a theist, maybe Mao was a Taoist.

Yes I know dictators engage in deciet all the time, but if we are to go by the principle of the burden of proof, one has to know that a claim once is supported by evidence, one cannot simply throw out evidence without compelling counter-evidence.

Invoking possibility, or the fact that source has lied in the past on other issues does not offer compelling evidence(without further or more specific support) mainly because such an objection can literally be made on any claim one can imagine.

Hitler really had no reason to lie about his theism. Notice I admit he could utilize theist proclamations but why do we necessarily have to suspect that as a lie? Saying "well he lied in the past" is hardly a compelling argument.

Likewise Speer had even less reason to lie on the issue, as when he wrote his book the Reich had already fallen, written while Speer was serving a 20 year prison sentence, and claiming Hitler was a Christian could only at that point harm Speer's already bad image.

Now I do realize that religion would have made a good tool for the Nazis and of course Hitler would have realized this, however this fact does not in any disconfirm the idea that Hitler really did not mean what he said concerning the Almighty. That would be like saying that since atheism, marxism and materialism were useful tools to Stalin, it is in doubt whether or not Stalin was really an atheist, a materialist or a marxist.

So the sources are like as follows:

Hitler's, his former friend's and Nazis own writings/speeches

Combined with Photos

Along with Soveigner's expressing theistic sympathies

Along with a known occultist leaning which seems incompatible with any secularist viewpoint

vs

Alleged secret conversations

and the possibility Hitler may be lying, along with Albert Speer.

Nova Land

17th January 2003, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

... one cannot simply throw out evidence without compelling counter-evidence.
Fortunately, we have more choices than simply throw it out or accept it. Evidence is not an all-or-nothing proposition. We can consider things, weigh them, even set them aside as undetermined.

Not all evidence is equally good. Some evidence, indeed, is extremely weak. This is something that needs to be taken into account in a weighing process.

For example: suppose someone claims that, 30 years ago, they saw a flying saucer. Their testimony is evidence. I have no complelling counter-evidence, and (30 years later) am unlikely to be able to produce any. Do I therefore have to accept their claim? No. The evidence is simply too weak. There is a reasonable possibility that they are lying or mistaken. Before accepting the claim I would want evidence strong enough to overcome that possibility.

Some people claim Hitler was a Christian. Evidence for this is statements he made for public consumption -- statements which pandered to the beliefs of the people who were supporting him. Is there a reasonable possibility that these were deceptions? Yes.

To throw out the claim simply because there is a possibility it is false would clearly be silly. But to accept the claim based simply on such weak evidence would be equally silly. If claims of the paranormal were to be judged on such a basis, the JREF would likely have had to pay out many millions of dollars.
Invoking possibility, or the fact that source has lied in the past on other issues does not offer compelling evidence (without further or more specific support) mainly because such an objection can literally be made on any claim one can imagine.If someone claims they can do something by psychic means, then the fact they have been caught lying about such claims in the past is a pretty compelling reason to be dubious about the claim. When someone has a past history of lying, that needs to be taken into account in weighing their testimony.

Yes, the possibility always exists that someone is lying. Is it a reasonable possibility? If so, then we need strong evidence to support the claim, not simply someone's unsupported word.
Hitler really had no reason to lie about his theism.Yes, and children who claim to be able to bend spoons with their minds, or to have met Jesus, or to be reincarnations, must be telling the truth. They have no reason to lie...

Perhaps I am more cynical, but I can think of a lot of reasons for people to lie.
...Speer had even less reason to lie on the issue, as when he wrote his book the Reich had already fallen, written while Speer was serving a 20 year prison sentence, and claiming Hitler was a Christian could only at that point harm Speer's already bad image.People in prison have often written books and given interviews. The idea that, once in prison, they have no more reason to lie and must surely be telling the truth, is interesting.
Now I do realize that religion would have made a good tool for the Nazis and of course Hitler would have realized this, however this fact does not in any disconfirm the idea that Hitler really did not mean what he said concerning the Almighty.I like that wording: "does not disconfirm".

You are quite right -- it doesn't. The possibility that Hitler was telling the truth is one we should keep in mind. Before we accept it as true, however, we need good evidence.

For instance: we know that Hitler was raised a Catholic and that he never quit the church and was never ex-communicated. Do you know whether he continued to attend church regularly, took communion regularly, said confession regularly? If so, do you know what his fellow church-goers thought of him? The priests who took his confessions? These are the kinds of details I would look for in trying to determine if someone were sincere in their stated beliefs.

Truth can be determined, but in order to do so we need to look at the details. Jedi has provided arguments as to why Hitler must have been an atheist, but backed these up with very few details. Others have provided arguments as to why Hitler must have been a Christian, but again the details provided are much too weak to let us draw that conclusion.

I will repeat the questions I asked a moment ago: Do you know whether Hitler attended church regularly, took communion regularly, said confession regularly?

If you know, I would appreciate your sharing the details with me, as these will be very helpful to me in forming my own opinion.

If you do not know the answers to questions such as these, then why are you trying to declare the matter settled? Wouldn't it be wiser to leave the matter as a question mark in our minds, something we do not know the answer to yet, until we have enough reliable information to draw good conclusions?

thaiboxerken

17th January 2003, 06:55 AM

Others have provided arguments as to why Hitler must have been a Christian, but again the details provided are much too weak to let us draw that conclusion.

Please don't speak for the rest of the world when you form an opinion. It is my opinion that the evidence is strong enough to assert that Hitler was a christian.

CWL

17th January 2003, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
1) If Hitler was a Christian, what religious authority did he confide in as he exterminated 6,000,000 Jews (Christians)? If he was a Christian, why is he not represented by any credible historian as a Christian? If he was a Christian, why did he gas the ancestors of the founders of the Christian religion? Since he despised Jews, how could he as a Christian read a religious document (The Holy Bible), knowing that it was written by Jews

The above merits the following comments:

1) Hitler, like many Nazi revisionists, believed that Jesus was an Aryan. Hence, to him there was no connection between Christianity and Jews.

2) Although JK is historically accurate in pointing out that Christianity has its roots in Judaism the point he is trying to make does not follow. Christians have ever since Christianity gained influence over society strongly dissociated themselves from Jews, claiming that they were responsible for the death of Jesus and were therefore to be dispised. Even today, one may hear fundamentalist Christians refer to Jews as "Christ Killers". The tolerance and ecumencial efforts that some major Christian communions are showing and making in relation to Judaism today is a very recent phenomenon in history.

thaiboxerken

17th January 2003, 07:34 AM

1) If Hitler was a Christian, what religious authority did he confide in as he exterminated 6,000,000 Jews (Christians)?

The pope certainly didn't tell Hitler he was doing wrong. But he was his own religious authority, he stated that he believed he was doing christ's work directly. Simply put, he implied that god and jesus gave him authority.

If he was a Christian, why is he not represented by any credible historian as a Christian?

You mean christian historians.. there is a difference between christian historians and secular historians. The credible historians differ in their opinions about Hitler's christianity. You are appealing to false authorities.

If he was a Christian, why did he gas the ancestors of the founders of the Christian religion?

Why do christians tend to hate and persecute pagans when it's obvious that christianity borrowed much of the mythology from pagan religions? It's hard to understand the "logic" of the religious. It is clear that the white men preferred to believe jesus was white and not a jew.. it's evident in most of the paintings that portray jesus as a white man with blue eyes.

Since he despised Jews, how could he as a Christian read a religious document (The Holy Bible), knowing that it was written by Jews

The christian bible was hardly written by jews, it was canonnized and adapted by the roman catholic church. But, what makes you think Hitler thought the jews wrote his bible?

Jedi Knight

17th January 2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by CWL

The above merits the following comments:

1) Hitler, like many Nazi revisionists, believed that Jesus was an Aryan. Hence, to him there was no connection between Christianity and Jews.

2) Although JK is historically accurate in pointing out that Christianity has its roots in Judaism the point he is trying to make does not follow. Christians have ever since Christianity gained influence over society strongly dissociated themselves from Jews, claiming that they were responsible for the death of Jesus and were therefore to be dispised. Even today, one may hear fundamentalist Christians refer to Jews as "Christ Killers". The tolerance and ecumencial efforts that some major Christian communions are showing and making in relation to Judaism today is a very recent phenomenon in history.

Maybe some splinter group calling itself Christian with about 30 members does those things, but not the organized Christian Christian churches.

I have never heard a Christian in the United States say that the Jews must be destroyed, so help me out with your "secret knowledge" on the subject. It sounds so much like something that would be taught to children in leftist colleges (marginal) and public schools (extremely marginal) that it is time for you to present facts.

Which American Christian leaders say that the Jews must be destroyed? Does Pat Robertson promote that? No. Does Billy Graham promote that? No. Does the Catholic Church promote that? No. Does Jerry Falwell promote that? No.

What "Christian" churches want to see the Jews destroyed? Remember when you answer that Hitler was not a Christian. Ms. Polly the leftist commie in the 3rd grade may have told you that, but you haven't been paying attention that a public education is a terrible thing and the Ms. Polly's are completely wrong.

JK

thaiboxerken

17th January 2003, 08:06 AM

headscratcher4

17th January 2003, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Maybe some splinter group calling itself Christian with about 30 members does those things, but not the organized Christian Christian churches.

I have never heard a Christian in the United States say that the Jews must be destroyed, so help me out with your "secret knowledge" on the subject. It sounds so much like something that would be taught to children in leftist colleges (marginal) and public schools (extremely marginal) that it is time for you to present facts.

Which American Christian leaders say that the Jews must be destroyed? Does Pat Robertson promote that? No. Does Billy Graham promote that? No. Does the Catholic Church promote that? No. Does Jerry Falwell promote that? No.

What "Christian" churches want to see the Jews destroyed? Remember when you answer that Hitler was not a Christian. Ms. Polly the leftist commie in the 3rd grade may have told you that, but you haven't been paying attention that a public education is a terrible thing and the Ms. Polly's are completely wrong.

JK

JK: once again, you have gone irrelevant and off point...whether willfully or by indirection, I don't know.

A couple of thoughts.

Again, the way you are trying to prove your assertion is, essentially, by making a completely erroneous dichotomy: either Hitler was an Atheist or Hitler was a Christian. It isn't an either or proposition. The distinction isn't between Atheists and Christians (as somehow defined by popularly understood definitions and sects). It is between Atheists (one who does not believe in a God or Gods (ie. Higher, divine, Supernatural authority)) and an Atheist (one who, and getting away for the moment, from your argument that atheism constitutes a religion, doesn't believe or sees an absence of proof, of the existence of a god or gods).

The short and fat "fact," as you like to use the word, of the matter is that there is pretty good indication that Hitler believed himself serving a higher supernatural power. In other words, as the instrument of god(s).

Is this Christian in any normal sense? I don't think so, though some here clearly do. But it does suggest that Hitler believed in a God(s). Indeed, as serving the will of god, he could not, would not expect retribution for his acts, as he was fulfilling destiny -- both historical and personal.

Nothing you've written or asserted refutes that. So far as the record has been presented here, there is ample evidence to conclude that warped, wrong, evil as Hitler was, he saw himself as under the authority of god/fate (Franko may like that one) and acted accordingly. As a result, he might not be "Christian" or "Catholic," but he wasn't an atheist. Again, saying he was over and over again isn't the same as showing that it is true.

Also, as I have repeatedly pointed out, Hitler and the Nazi philosophy he created and espoused come completely, and understandably, from a variety of philosophical and religious traditions that emerge out of European history in general, and German history in particular. While they may not be "Christian", they certainly have their roots in European Christianity (both pre and post Reformation) -- not unlike, e.g., the roots of Christianity in Judaism.

I am NOT saying that Nazism is a Christian faith, movement or philosophy. I am saying that emerges out of a political, social and economic context of both medieval and modern Europe. It is warped by notions of science and of genetics, but its core -- the inherent superiority of Western/Germanic culture -- lies in a view of that culture as the highest form of Civilization to yet emerge, and one that is completely infused with "Christian" imagery, philosophy, history as part of its core.

So, that leaves us, completely un-refuted, with Hitler as a Theist/Deist tainted by some notions and ideas that have been prevalent in European Christian thought for over a thousand years.

In short, the fact is that, for all intents and purposes, the movement was not atheistic, nor can any substantial showing be made that Hitler himself was an atheist...merely that he did not conform to any recognizable Christian church practice or belief (AND THAT IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING AN ATHEIST -- again, look to Stalin, he proudly proclaimed his atheism [he, not worried about duping the people] and ran a brutal, ugly terror state that attempted, specifically, to promote an atheistic [i.e. God-less] society).

Now, as to your next set of diverting assertions. Ultimately, it is irrelevant what Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, the Pope say, today, about Judaism. They are parts of a Christian movement, but by and of themselves they are not Christianity. In my mind, it is both more and less than them.

However, individuals who are hateful and destructive to the Jews -- i.e. destroy the Jews because they are Satan's spawn -- clearly exist. These groups specifically call themselves "Christian." All you have to do is check out the web.

Many a racist site -- e.g. people affiliated with the Aryan Brotherhood -- proclaim their view that they are Christian. That Christ was an Aryan. That there racism is sanctioned by God. That Jews are people outside of God. That the salvation of Christ is reserved only for those who practice racial purity and who would destroy the devil in the form of Jews, and on and on.

This is not Christianity, at least not as I understand it, but they proclaim it as such. I suspect some even believe it. At the very least it suggests that these movements, sects, cults -- whatever -- are "theistic" as opposed to "atheistic" -- at least by the normal definition of those words.

Now, we all know that you, JK, are the ultimate arbiter of who is and who isn't a "Christian." Also, that only you can ultimately tell what is in the hearts of all people -- whether they believe in a supernatural power or are lying to dupe the masses. However, citing what are essentially accepted and "mainstream" leaders of Christian churches does little to buttress an argument that these currents of hate aren't Christian. Indeed, as you yourself are so apt to point out, looking back to Luther he said some pretty foul things about the Jews...so Lutheranism, at least, isn't founded on a "Christian" footing.

And, it seems to me, as a result, any of the Protestant religions that sprang from the Lutheran-founded "Reformation" would thus be tainted. Leaving only Catholicism, and it has a pretty nasty history when it comes to Jews (maybe not on the scale of Hitler or Stalin, but than they were limited by being a "spiritual" authority, rather than a governing authority [save in the Papal states, where until its demise Jews had to live in Ghettos]).

As I have shown conclusively above, Hitler's racism and anti-Semitism can only have sprung from a religious (and, in a round-about way Christian) context. He could not do what he did or seek to destroy "Jews" -- all Jews because they are "Jews" -- as he did and be an atheist.

Nova Land

17th January 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by CWL
... The tolerance and ecumenical efforts that some major Christian communions are showing and making in relation to Judaism today is a very recent phenomenon in history.
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I have never heard a Christian in the United States say that the Jews must be destroyed, so help me out with your "secret knowledge" on the subject.It's not secret knowledge, or revisionist history. CWL is quite correct on this.

It used to be a common teaching in Christian churches that the Jews were responsible for the killing of Jesus, and the epithet "Christ-killer" was commonly used in the US as recently as the 1940s. There has been remarkable progress in combatting prejudice of many sorts, including prejudice against Jews, in the last 5 decades. I don't know how old you are; you may be too young to realize how much has changed.

It's only been about 40 years since the Vatican officially renounced the belief that the Jews are responsible for the killing of Jesus. There's a great Mitchell Trio song "Ecumenical March" on their 1965 album "That's the Way It's Gonna Be" that commemorates the Pope's announcement.

from "Ecumenical March":

Did you hear the news? It's official!
Us Jews didn't kill Jesus.
You can't hold us to blame.
We're not responsible.
As for me: last night I had my first good night's sleep
In 2000 years!

We're clean! We're clean!
The Vatican says we're clean!

So take your Christian by the hand,
And let's all shout: "It's grand! It's grand!"

"Wait a minute! If we didn't kill Jesus, who did?"
[pause]
"The Puerto Ricans!"

Absolved! Absolved! The problem is all solved!
And the previous song on the same album is the "I Was Not A Nazi Polka", so that makes the album even more relevant to this thread!

The Chad Mitchell Trio did a number of satirical songs about political events in the 1960s and 1970s. You might look them up; it's a fun way to absorb some history.

CWL

17th January 2003, 09:42 AM

Nova Land

17th January 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

...once again, you have gone irrelevant and off point...
Oops! You're right. I should have read your post before posting my post.

(But it is a good song...)

Thanks for the reminder, and getting us back on track! Your post sums things up very nicely, so I'll just nod my head in agreement and keep my mouth shut for a little bit.

headscratcher4

17th January 2003, 11:44 AM

The New World Order, (1991), p.17; "Communism was the brainchild of German-Jewish intellectuals."

CWL: not to keep going down this diversionary road...the point remains that, regardless of how Hitler treated the Jews, he could have been very nasty and entirely consistent with not only Christian attitudes (and, dare I say, beliefs prevelent all through Christianity of Jews as Christ Killers and the Spawn of Satan, see above), but also with a deist/Theist philosophy (again, an Atheist could have had millions of people killed -- e.g. Stalin -- but not for any of the reasons or ideology that Hitler espoused -- which required a belief in a supernaturual authority [i.e. a diest/theist]).

Anyway, where I wanted to get to is, of course, you realize that the quote above is entirely consistent with JK's anti-communist rhetoric (though it comes from a Protestant). He has stated that Leuther and the Reformation, through a train of humanist views leading through the enlightenment to Marx to Lenin and Stalin, has made not only Communism possible, but also countanences mass murder of any and all who disagree with the state (i.e. the state as a atheistic and substituting itself for "god").

The interesting thing, as I have attempted to point out, is that he has an excelent example in Stalin and Communism, but he just wants to prod people with a stick on this whole Hitler was an atheist thing. He wants -- for lack of fact or logic -- to posit that everything about the emergence of Nazism isn't what it appears to be. In other words, for JK, there is no differentiation between Nazism and Communism.

Jedi Knight

17th January 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
The interesting thing, as I have attempted to point out, is that he has an excelent example in Stalin and Communism, but he just wants to prod people with a stick on this whole Hitler was an atheist thing. He wants -- for lack of fact or logic -- to posit that everything about the emergence of Nazism isn't what it appears to be. In other words, for JK, there is no differentiation between Nazism and Communism.

You are getting closer but there is a minor misconception in your response.

He wants -- for lack of fact or logic -- to posit that everything about the emergence of Nazism isn't what it appears to be.

This is incorrect. I explained partially how Nazism evolved from the philosophy of Hegel and Neizche. It requires reading of the two philosophes to really nail down how and why the Nazis took to their ideas.

That said, you also correctly mentioned:

In other words, for JK, there is no differentiation between Nazism and Communism.

In this case involving the benefits for the state with the institution of atheism there is no difference. Communism and fascism are different ideologies--opposites in fact--but they share a lust for the power that atheism can bring the ruling class. That makes atheism similar in the totalitarian and authoritarian state.

The communists in Russia used atheism as their primary religion because it empowered the proletariat to destroy the family and ensure that the family was so fluid and powerless that the state became the family. God was a distraction because religious ideas were ideas of freedom--freedom of men and that is an intolerable concept in the authoritarian perversion of communism.

The Nazi totalitarians used atheism also as a tool but in a different way. The Nazi state desired an empowerment of the racial family but viewed God as a distraction from the true God--the Nazi state. Since the Nazi state was God, the actions of its members were those of prophets and any actions or orders issued by them internally were just orders regardless of morality. That is why the German people found it easier to put people into ovens because like the Russian communists next door, they were also a Godless people.

Competing religious institutions in the totalitarian state do not exist. Only atheism exists because Christianity and the idea of the Christian God brings with it mandatory ideas of freedom and morality, concepts foreign to the objectives of the Nazi state. Christianity would never allow concentration camps to operate freely in its midst and the denizens of Christianity would not cooperate in such an immoral endeavor.

Only the godless, the immoral atheist, the man who lost his humanity would allow such events.

JK

Nova Land

17th January 2003, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

... That is why the German people found it easier to put people into ovens because like the Russian communists next door, they were also a Godless people.You've lost me. I thought you were arguing that Hitler was secretly an atheist, and made public professions of religious belief in order to keep the support of the German people.

Hitler would only need to pretend to be religious if the German people were religious. If they were predominantly atheist, then Hitler would have had no apparent reason to do this. While the idea that Hitler was lying about his religious beliefs makes some sense, the idea that massive numbers of German people were lying about theirs does not.

We know that the German people cooperated with the Nazis in the the murder of millions. That shows that even people who attend church regularly and profess a belief in god are capable of ungodly acts. What we do not have is any evidence that Germans who publicly denied the existence of god were capable of committing such acts.

It sounds like you are trying to argue that the Germans who attended church and professed to be Protestants and Catholics were actually atheists, because they committed ungodly acts, and that the Germans who denied the existence of God were actually Christians, because they were sent to concentration camps instead.

I assume that is not what you are trying to say, and that I have misunderstood. Please explain it to me again.
... Christianity and the idea of the Christian God brings with it mandatory ideas of freedom and morality... Christianity would never allow concentration camps to operate freely in its midst and the denizens of Christianity would not cooperate in such an immoral endeavor.

Only the godless, the immoral atheist, the man who lost his humanity would allow such events. You've lost me again.

It was the biblically-christian south that supported slavery, and the liberal-christian north that opposed it, in the US during the 1800s. So clearly not all christianity leads to "mandatory ideas of freedom and morality". Some christianity leads to the buying and selling of human beings, and the inhumane treatment of these human beings (including sexual abuse, the breaking up of families, torture and murder).

Since it was liberal-christianity which spear-headed the opposition to slavery and fundamentalist-christianity that spear-headed the support of slavery (and, later, the support of segregation and of KKK terrorism), are you saying that liberal-christianity is true christianity and fundamentalism is atheism?

Many posts back, I listed 5 distinct possible definitions of atheism. It would be very helpful to me if you would look at those and see if any of those is the definition you are using. If so, please let me know which one. If none of those matches the meaning you intend when you refer to atheism, could you try again to explain to me your definition of atheism? I know you did try to explain it in one of your posts, where you said atheism is narcissism, but I was not able to understand that post and that is making it hard for me to follow your current post.

Aardvark_DK

18th January 2003, 04:07 AM

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?

Darat

18th January 2003, 04:32 AM

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

Truth can be determined, but in order to do so we need to look at the details. Jedi has provided arguments as to why Hitler must have been an atheist, but backed these up with very few details. Others have provided arguments as to why Hitler must have been a Christian, but again the details provided are much too weak to let us draw that conclusion.

...snip...

I certainly haven't seen any compelling evidence put forward by anyone in this thread that Hitler was a "Christian". (Apart from the fact according to the Catholic Church he was, i.e. he was baptised a Catholic and unless he had been ex-communicated - he remained a Catholic at his death.)

However all the evidence here has been that Hitler consistently throughout his life spoke of a "deity" and recognised that there was a being more powerful to whom Hitler, along with everyone else, had to "answer" to eventually.

Therefore anyone who believes in any type of deity is not an atheist. It is really an open and shut case, unless evidence is brought to light that directly contradicts Hitler's words.

As for his actions, HS4 has elegantly explained, they are totally consistent and in fact only make sense if Hitler believed in what he said.

I know it is quite horrendous to think that Hitler’s actions in any way can be said to make “sense” or were “justified”. I’ve always held that he was “insane” and that was why he did what he did - however perhaps his insanity was really his “theistic” beliefs that he then used to rationalise his actions.

Hitler may have been, if you accept the premise his beliefs were based on, totally “justified”. And people wonder what harm beliefs not based on empirical evidence can do.

(Thanks, in a sense, headscratcher4 for making me re-examine my assumptions and beliefs.)

thaiboxerken

18th January 2003, 07:22 AM

JK, Franko and Wraith have all the same opinion about atheism. They think that only atheists can commit murder so any person that murders is atheist. They don't just limit these "atheist" acts to just murder, any crime or immorality is something only "atheists" would do. In short, the only people that don't commit murder and crime are god believers. :rolleyes:

Jedi Knight

18th January 2003, 11:20 AM

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?

That is incorrect.

JK

Nova Land

18th January 2003, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

That is incorrect.Too brief!

Some of us are trying to understand what you're saying. It is not clear from your own words, so some of us have tried to re-state what we think you may be saying in hopes that you can confirm the parts where we've gotten the gist right and correct the parts where we've gotten it wrong.

Aardvark_DK wrote:
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
Is this indeed what you are saying? If not, is it close?

This does sound to me like a fair re-statement of what you are arguing, so I would very much like to know if it is (and if it is not, to know what it really is you are saying).

The aardvark also wrote that if we use your definition of atheist:
we would have to label a number of popes and other religious authorities throughout history as atheist
In other words, if you are arguing that anyone who commits or supports an ungodly act is an atheist, then any popes or other religious figures who condoned ungodly acts would be atheists.

When you say this is incorrect, are you saying that such figures would not be atheists by your definition, are you saying that such figures have never committed or supported ungodly acts, or are you saying it is incorrect for some other reason?

Thaiboxerken also took a good stab at explaining what it is you believe:JK [believes] that only atheists can commit murder so any person that murders is atheist... any crime or immorality is something only "atheists" would do. In short, the only people that don't commit murder and crime are god believers
Is this a correct re-statement of your views? If not, how do your actual views differ from this?

I like the way the aardvark and the reverend summarized things. These are simple, clear explanations that I am able to follow easily. In contrast, your own explanation, about atheism being narcissism, was more poetic, but I was unable to follow what it meant.

That's why these attempted re-statements of your views are potentially very helpful. If you could read over them again, and point out how they differ from your actual views, and re-state your views yourself in a clear format similar to theirs, it would be easier for me to see what it is you mean.

DialecticMaterialist

18th January 2003, 07:50 PM

Fortunately, we have more choices than simply throw it out or accept it. Evidence is not an all-or-nothing proposition. We can consider things, weigh them, even set them aside as undetermined.

This is true, however one does not throw out testimony without reason. The "all or nothing" proposition doesn't even apply.

Not all evidence is equally good. Some evidence, indeed, is extremely weak. This is something that needs to be taken into account in a weighing process.

Yes some does, but saying some does in general and "some does: in this case, is a big stretch.

For example: suppose someone claims that, 30 years ago, they saw a flying saucer. Their testimony is evidence. I have no complelling counter-evidence, and (30 years later) am unlikely to be able to produce any. Do I therefore have to accept their claim? No. The evidence is simply too weak.

Totally FALSE ANALOGY. A fairer comparison would be if someone said he believed in UFOs.

You are comparing testimony of belief to an actual sighting. The difference lies in how much they differ from background knowledge. A testimony concerning belief is more easily accepted, as it is well known that people have beliefs, even if they are false or fantastic. It is also well known that people generally do not lie about what they believe. A statement concerning an actual sighting of a flying saucer is more dubious though as it is more reasonable to conclude that the person is confused or lying(as I have yet to see one flying saucer, but have seen many confused and/or lying).

Some people claim Hitler was a Christian. Evidence for this is statements he made for public consumption -- statements which pandered to the beliefs of the people who were supporting him. Is there a reasonable possibility that these were deceptions? Yes.

Not really. On what basis do you have to think this is deception? Likewise Stalin's making pro-atheist and marxist statements pandered to the beliefs of the people, is it thus reasonable to suspect stalin of deception in that area?

To throw out the claim simply because there is a possibility it is false would clearly be silly. But to accept the claim based simply on such weak evidence would be equally silly.
If claims of the paranormal were to be judged on such a basis, the JREF would likely have had to pay out many millions of dollars.

Again, apples and oranges friend. You are comparing two totally different types of claims (one concerning an admittance of one's personal belief vs a claim to supernatural abilities). The first is very much within the realm of background knowledge whereas the second is not.

Yes, the possibility always exists that someone is lying. Is it a reasonable possibility? If so, then we need strong evidence to support the claim, not simply someone's unsupported word.

Don't be simple. It depends on the context. If for example a friend tells me he believes in god, I don't need compelling evidence at that point to accept his statement. I don't need photographs and eye witness testimony.

However if my friend says he or she has seen and been given supernatural powers by God, then that's a totally different claim which needs to be verified under controlled conditions before it is reasonable to believe.

Perhaps I am more cynical, but I can think of a lot of reasons for people to lie.

Well if you go into the realm of what is absolutely possible...then sure. However then you have abandoned reason.

I like that wording: "does not disconfirm".

You are quite right -- it doesn't. The possibility that Hitler was telling the truth is one we should keep in mind. Before we accept it as true, however, we need good evidence.

And his own statements along with photographs count as this until you suggest otherwise. Perhaps you are simply biased on the issue and willing to use arguments from incredulity more so then if the claim had been one concerning Hitler's racism for example.

If you know basic logic then you should know testimony in this context is evidence enough. Especially when backed by photographs and statements from close associates.

For instance: we know that Hitler was raised a Catholic and that he never quit the church and was never ex-communicated. Do you know whether he continued to attend church regularly, took communion regularly, said confession regularly? If so, do you know what his fellow church-goers thought of him? The priests who took his confessions? These are the kinds of details I would look for in trying to determine if someone were sincere in their stated beliefs.

Yes such information would be useful but it is hardly necessary.

Do I likewise have to look up how Hitler treated Jews in person to determine whether or not he disliked Jews?

Truth can be determined, but in order to do so we need to look at the details. Jedi has provided arguments as to why Hitler must have been an atheist, but backed these up with very few details. Others have provided arguments as to why Hitler must have been a Christian, but again the details provided are much too weak to let us draw that conclusion.

You are commiting yourself to the false dillema you were so quick to accuse me of. Either a case is air-tight, has all the details and thus is considered reasonable, or a case lacks "details" (which you set the standard of rather arbitrarily) and is thus unreasonable. Either all cases are subjected to the same rigoruous demands for evidence or none are. Either testimony counts as strong evidence.....or it does not. However I don't see why these details are so essential in this context. The key thing here is context.

Perhaps if certain details to disconfirm my belief arose, then my case would fall apart. But that's what adhering to a provisional statement is all about. You go by the best evidence available at the moment, not some more precise evidence that may or may not exist.

I will repeat the questions I asked a moment ago: Do you know whether Hitler attended church regularly, took communion regularly, said confession regularly?

And I will repeat my answer(as if repitition is a substitute for argument) I do not and I don't need to. The request is unreasonable. Technically this line of reasoning can be applied to any given case. Whatever a person says I can ask for more "details". This is why the burden of proof principle was established in the first place, to stop all debates from turning into a stalemate.

If you do not know the answers to questions such as these, then why are you trying to declare the matter settled?

Because based on what evidence we have now, the issue is settled. Whether you wish to view the evidence as "weak" or not. All else is proof surrogate at this point.

Wouldn't it be wiser to leave the matter as a question mark in our minds, something we do not know the answer to yet, until we have enough reliable information to draw good conclusions?

No, that is demanding too much certainty and doing so on the basis of too vague a standard. Especially when the only reason you have to doubt is some pretty bizzare comparison of professiing a belief to a a claim to see a UFO/have paranormal powers.

In case you didn't know Nova is are two kinds of doubt: reasonable and unreasonable. It is extraordinary claims, like those concerning flying saucers and paranormal powers that require extraordinary evidence. For more ordinary claims, like those concerning profession of belief, ordinary evidence(such as testimony) is good enough to settle the issue.

Nova Land

19th January 2003, 01:31 AM

DialecticMaterialist,

Hi! Clearly we disagree on how to weigh evidence. You are certainly free to weigh the evidence as you please and draw your own conclusions. My methods seem reasonable to me and have served me well in ascertaining truth, so I will stick with them.

I prefer to be slow in reaching conclusions, and setting aside judgment when there is reasonable doubt until I can find a way to resolve those doubts. That means it takes me longer to get places, but I'm more likely to end up at the correct places.

In the case of accepting people's public statements, there are certain matters where history tells us to be cautious. Sexual preference is one; religious belief is another.

Very few straight people claim to be gay, so if a politician or other public figure says they are gay I am inclined to accept that at face value. On the other hand, many gay people have claimed publicly to be straight; so a public declaration of heterosexuality by a politician or other public figure would not carry the same weight with me.

Likewise, very few public figures have falsely claimed to be atheists, so if a noted figure publicly declares themself to be an atheist I am inclined to take them at their word. But just as gay people have sometimes preferred to conceal their sexual orientation in order to avoid persecution, so atheists have sometimes preferred to conceal their religious orientation in order to avoid persecution. It is, to me, a reasonable possibility to consider before drawing conclusions.

That's all it is: a reasonable possibility to be considered. If no evidence turns up to indicate it's more than a possibility, then it becomes reasonable to dismiss it. That's why I want to examine the details.

If the public declarations are true, then we should find confirmation of this when we examine the less-public details. I do not see why we should be reluctant to ask questions and check the facts. What is true will stand up to scrutiny.

Interestingly, Jedi is not the only person making this assertion that public professions of religious belief cannot always be relied on. Jedi, who is anti-atheist, is joined in that by ntech, who is pro-atheist. In a different thread, ntech has argued that all noteworthy scientists must be atheists, and that any noteworthy scientist who publicly claimed to be religious was merely saying that to avoid persecution.

I disagree with the idea that religious people cannot be great scientists (and hope to start a thread to discuss that soon) but I agree with ntech that public profession of religion alone is not enough to establish genuine religious belief.

CWL

19th January 2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

*Snip*

Anyway, where I wanted to get to is, of course, you realize that the quote above is entirely consistent with JK's anti-communist rhetoric (though it comes from a Protestant). He has stated that Leuther and the Reformation, through a train of humanist views leading through the enlightenment to Marx to Lenin and Stalin, has made not only Communism possible, but also countanences mass murder of any and all who disagree with the state (i.e. the state as a atheistic and substituting itself for "god").

*Snip*

My point is that as Pat Robertson (who Jedi Knight obviously accepts as a Christian) can hold a view that communism is the brainchild of Jewish intellectuals and still be a Christian, one might ask why Hitler - who believed communism was part of a "Jewish conspiracy" - can not.

Again, Hitler's hatred of the Jews is no proof of him being an atheist - or a non-Christian for that matter. As you have pointed out (and this is the point I am trying to make as well) is that a disliking of Jews is perfectly logical for a Christian, considering the Christian attitude towards Jews and Judaism which has been predominant over the ages.

Nova Land

19th January 2003, 10:41 AM

Here are some more excerpts of the after-dinner conversations that touched on religion. The next "Table Talk" with relevant material is # 43. (It's only a brief mention, so I'll also be posting excerpts from # 51 in the post immediately following.)
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!...
I have a couple of comments to make on the above, but I'll wait so that others can have first crack at it.

Nova Land

19th January 2003, 10:45 AM

According to my notes, the next table talks touching on religion are 47, 48, and 49. However, the next one I photocopied seems to be # 51. I'm not sure if I've mislaid the copies of those three, or decided they were too minor to be worth copying, or what. If the copies don't turn up soon then I'll check the book again next time I visit Knoxville (which I hope will be next weekend) and make new copies if need be. Meanwhile, here are some relevant parts from # 51.

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 nat;ure 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...
There's a lot more about religion in this particular table talk, and in the next one a day later as well! Many of the table talks contain only passing mentions of religion, but these are quite lengthy and address a number of points. Rather than put too much out for consideration at once, I'm going to pause at this point so people can consider and comment on the material so far.

I have refrained from highlighting the material in this post so people can form their own impressions of this material first. Once others have had a chance to read over this I'll post some of my own thoughts about it.

CWL

20th January 2003, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
Only atheists/godless people do evil things
Hitler did evil things
Therefore Hitler was an atheist/godless

JK, I think it is crucial for this debate that you respond to the above. Is the above consistent with your analysis or not? Is it in fact your whole analysis?

What you have said so far certainly supports that it is. You have for instance already stated that Iran is in your opinion in reality "atheistic" notwithstandinng it being a formally theocratic state.

I will provide another example for you.

After Pizarro's conquest of the Inca Empire, the Inca population was reduced by an estimated five million within a fifty year period. Although Pizarro and the society he came from would be categorized as devout Roman Catholic Christians, was there - in your reasonable opinion - in fact "atheism" at play here?

Why or why not?

headscratcher4

20th January 2003, 09:40 AM

I will write a longer reply to some of JK's points later when I have more time.

I continue to note that JK has yet to repond to my demonstrative proof that Nazism was not "atheist" movement, indeed, that given Nazi philosophy (and, unlike Marxism, for example), Nazism was completely dependent on a Theistic view of nature. Killing Jews -- ALL JEWS JUST FOR BEING JEWS -- would be an act completely outside of the understanding of an Atheist (note again, Stalin, who killed practically anybody, but people could save themselves by adapting Stalin as their God -- a Jew could not save himself by embracing Hitler or Nazism and becoming a believer in Nazism....).

However, I CWL asks a good, essential question. I believe, historically, there are numerous examples that can be posed that would seem to either directly undercut the assertion (we have no response from JK as to whether it is one that he actually believes) that a diest/theist could not do evil like a "nazi".

In the 4Th Century, The Roman Emperor Theodsius (the Great) ordered not only the ending of all state support for pagan temples and religious institutions, but their closing as well. He essentially decreed that Christianity was not only the state religion, but the only religion that the state would tolerate. Millions of pagans were thus not only cut off from their religion and their culture, but forced to convert to officially sanctioned christian churches in order to function in the official culture. In short, the state would brook no oposition to its official religion. IT would, as it were, have no other gods before it.

This, as much as the "Conversion" of Constintine 50 year earlier, is the foundation of Christian Europe. After Theodosius, pagan worship was limited, secretive, discouraged and persecuted.

This is yet another example of a state, and the official state philosophy (as manifest in the person and the beliefs of the Emperor) essentially decreeing that there will be no other religion/philosophy but that sanctioned by the state and that promotes the state/Emperor's interest.

Is this an atheistic decree? Was Theodosius and the bishops/Pope that advised him Atheists?

If not, why not?

Finally I note, that the way you are arguing this, it isn't about what any individual believes -- i.e. whether it is descernable whether Hitler believed (as an individual) or not -- it come down to how YOU (specifically) JK define it. That isn't a search for truth, in your own terms, that is practically dogmatic atheism (atheism, in this case meaning that no other view, save yours, has any merit now that you've determined what is a fact, what you will accept as fact, and what you are willing to explain and defend).

Jedi Knight

20th January 2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by CWL

JK, I think it is crucial for this debate that you respond to the above. Is the above consistent with your analysis or not? Is it in fact your whole analysis?

What you have said so far certainly supports that it is. You have for instance already stated that Iran is in your opinion in reality "atheistic" notwithstandinng it being a formally theocratic state.

I will provide another example for you.

After Pizarro's conquest of the Inca Empire, the Inca population was reduced by an estimated five million within a fifty year period. Although Pizarro and the society he came from would be categorized as devout Roman Catholic Christians, was there - in your reasonable opinion - in fact "atheism" at play here?

Why or why not?

I already answered this numerous times in this very thread. This will be the last time I answer this question.

The German nation was a nation guided by an atheist (Hitler) who was implementing the works of Hegel and Nietzche. The main theme of those two philosophes was that God was dead and the advanced nation-state could only be propelled forward if God was completely removed from all institutions of the state and the people (God is dead).

That is where the "superman" theory comes from because if God is dead, all that is left is man. Man becomes God and the select from man are the "supermen". Hitler's "superman" program (the master race) was a direct correlation of this. That also proved that the German people were a godless people, an atheist mob ready and willing to do godless acts for their new prince (Hitler).

Now, if you are going to respond to this by asking what it means, go read some Hegel and Nietzche first and then come back and debate again.

JK

CWL

20th January 2003, 03:01 PM

JK,

I am sorry, but as far as I can tell you are not responding to my question. Please read the question regarding the Spaniard's treatment of the Incas more carefully and give it another spin. As Headscrathcer4 is raising questions along the same line, you might also wish to consider his latest post when answering.

thaiboxerken

20th January 2003, 03:10 PM

Despite all of the facts and evidence that point towards Hitler believing in a god, JK will always believe that Hitler was an atheist. It is JK's contention that only atheists could do the acts that Hitler did. It is also his contention that only an atheist can commit murder as well.

c4ts

20th January 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

I already answered this numerous times in this very thread. This will be the last time I answer this question.

The German nation was a nation guided by an atheist (Hitler) who was implementing the works of Hegel and Nietzche. The main theme of those two philosophes was that God was dead and the advanced nation-state could only be propelled forward if God was completely removed from all institutions of the state and the people (God is dead).

That is where the "superman" theory comes from because if God is dead, all that is left is man. Man becomes God and the select from man are the "supermen". Hitler's "superman" program (the master race) was a direct correlation of this. That also proved that the German people were a godless people, an atheist mob ready and willing to do godless acts for their new prince (Hitler).

Now, if you are going to respond to this by asking what it means, go read some Hegel and Nietzche first and then come back and debate again.

JK

Nietzche despised Nazis, not to mention Facism as a whole! I don't know about Hegel, I've never read him. Do you seriously think Hitler wanted an army of Nietzche's supermen who could walk barefoot in the snow becuase they thought of nothing but philosophy? If they're only thinkng of philosophy, then they're not thinking of following orders and marching around, are they? Hitler's idea of "superman" was a person of pure aryan descent, someone with blonde hair, blue eyes, and pure Teutonic indestructibility.

Darat

20th January 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

I already answered this numerous times in this very thread. This will be the last time I answer this question.

The German nation was a nation guided by an atheist (Hitler)

...snip...

Now, if you are going to respond to this by asking what it means, go read some Hegel and Nietzche first and then come back and debate again.

..snip...

Without being picky I assume you mean "Friedrich Nietzsche"? If so I can assure you over the years I have read (in translation) many of his major works including:

The Birth of Tragedy
Daybreak
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Beyond Good and Evil
On the Genealogy of Morals
The Antichrist
The Will to Power

But how reading these are meant to illuminate why Hitler was not an atheist is beyond me. After all Hitler was only 11 years of age when Nietzsche died so I can't see how Nietzsche could be used to bring any evidence to the table about Hitler's atheism or theism?

Can you please tell me exactly which chapters, passages etc. I should be looking to re-read?

c4ts

20th January 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Darat

Without being picky I assume you mean "Friedrich Nietzsche"? If so I can assure you over the years I have read (in translation) many of his major works including:

The Birth of Tragedy
Daybreak
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Beyond Good and Evil
On the Genealogy of Morals
The Antichrist
The Will to Power

But how reading these are meant to illuminate why Hitler was not an atheist is beyond me. After all Hitler was only 11 years of age when Nietzsche died so I can't see how Nietzsche could be used to bring any evidence to the table about Hitler's atheism or theism?

Can you please tell me exactly which chapters, passages etc. I should be looking to re-read?

I think it was "The Will to Power" where he says Facism encourages the slave mentality, but it may have been "the Antichrist."

Nova Land

20th January 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

I already answered this numerous times in this very thread.
If this is your answer, I'm puzzled what the question you are responding to is.

The German nation was a nation guided by an atheist (Hitler) who was implementing the works of Hegel and Nietzche.That tells who was the leader of Germany (Hitler) and what you think his philosophy was based on (the works of Hegel and Nietsche). That's not what CWL asked about.
The main theme of those two philosophes was that God was dead and the advanced nation-state could only be propelled forward if God was completely removed from all institutions of the state and the people (God is dead).That explains Hegelism and Nietschism, again not what CWL asked about.

Are you trying to say that Hegelism/Nietschism is equivalent to atheism? That H/N is a form of atheism? That atheism is derived from H/N? I am trying to understand what you are saying, but your point is not clear.
That is where the "superman" theory comes from because if God is dead, all that is left is man. Man becomes God and the select from man are the "supermen".This tells us where you think Hitler's beliefs came from. It tells us some of what you believe Hitler's beliefs were. It still does not tell us how you define atheism -- which is the question CWL and others of us have been asking.
Now, if you are going to respond to this by asking what it means, go read some Hegel and Nietzche first If you think it will help understand the points you are making, I'll be glad to. The nearest library to me is 12 miles away and is a local 1-room affair, but I hope to be making a trip to a large library next week-end.

Since time is finite, I won't have time to read all the writings of either of these men during that trip. Could you give me page references for about 25 pages or so from the works of each that you think are most relevant to the point you are trying to make, to serve as a starting point for me?

Once I get started looking something up I tend to get curious, and one thing leads to another, so if you give me a good starting point I will likely read a fair amount more. But I would like you to specify some portions which you think relate directly to what you are saying, so I don't spend all my library time reading sections of them entirely unrelated to what you are talking about.

If 25 pages or so from each is unreasonably small, feel free to specify larger sections, and I'll do my best to read what you recommend.

(If you'd like to post some selections from these writings that you think are especially relevant, that could be helpful as well. I can then get a taste of what it is you are talking about here and be able to appreciate it more when I read it in longer form at the library.)

thaiboxerken

20th January 2003, 03:54 PM

It's hardly an original Neitchze idea to make an army of supermen. Generals have dreamed of supermen since the dawn of war. JK's notions absolutely fail in the eye of reason. The simple fact is that JK and other theists want to believe Hitler was atheist because, in their minds, atheism is equivalent to the "evil" that Hitler performed.

It is the contention of these certain theists that all atheists are evil and all evil people are atheist.

Jedi Knight

20th January 2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Darat

Without being picky I assume you mean "Friedrich Nietzsche"? If so I can assure you over the years I have read (in translation) many of his major works including:

The Birth of Tragedy
Daybreak
Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Beyond Good and Evil
On the Genealogy of Morals
The Antichrist
The Will to Power

But how reading these are meant to illuminate why Hitler was not an atheist is beyond me. After all Hitler was only 11 years of age when Nietzsche died so I can't see how Nietzsche could be used to bring any evidence to the table about Hitler's atheism or theism?

Can you please tell me exactly which chapters, passages etc. I should be looking to re-read?

In the final day before Berlin fell there was a very specific event that took place inside the city. Do you know what that event was? The whole city encountered it.

JK

Jedi Knight

20th January 2003, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's hardly an original Neitchze idea to make an army of supermen. Generals have dreamed of supermen since the dawn of war. JK's notions absolutely fail in the eye of reason. The simple fact is that JK and other theists want to believe Hitler was atheist because, in their minds, atheism is equivalent to the "evil" that Hitler performed.

It is the contention of these certain theists that all atheists are evil and all evil people are atheist.

Was Stalin evil?

JK

c4ts

20th January 2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It is the contention of these certain theists that all atheists are evil and all evil people are atheist.

Here is how the minds of certain theists appear to work:

1.) "I am told Hitler was evil. Therefore Hitler must have been evil."
2.) "I am told Hitler was an atheist. Therefore Hitler must have been an atheist."
3.) "My religion is good, therfore it is opposed to evil. Therefore evil is opposed to my relgion."
4.) "Atheism says there is no god. That is opposing my religion. Evil is opposed to my religion. Therefore atheism is evil."
5.) "Atheism is evil, therefore evil is atheism."
6.) "Hitler was an atheist because he was evil. Becuase atheism is evil, it must be true."
7.) "Hitler was evil because he was an atheist. Becuase evil is atheism, it must be true."

And if you want to add two steps:

8.) "Nietzche said 'God is dead' and wrote a book on the Antichrist. Nietzche was opposed to my religion. Hitler was also opposed to my religion. Because atheism is evil, Nietzche was as evil as Hitler."
9.) "Nietzche was German. Hitler was German. Nietzche was evil and an atheist. Hitler was evil and an atheist. Therefore the two collaborated."

Welcome to the tyrrany of belief. 2 + 2 = 5 whenever God says it is!

c4ts

20th January 2003, 04:17 PM

Jedi Knight

20th January 2003, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Nietzche was long dead before that day. Unless Zarathustra showed up or something, you must explain.

Sorry but Nietzche has nothing to do with that question. I think that the communication break-down in the thread now is simply due to the lack of knowledge of the history of the 3rd Reich.

Maybe I will post again in this thread a few days once the noise quiets and there is less uninformed noise.

JK

thaiboxerken

20th January 2003, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Was Stalin evil?

JK

Yes, and he was atheist. What is your point? Stalin is just one guy. Most atheists are not like Stalin just like most god believers are not witch-hunters (these days).

thaiboxerken

20th January 2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

I think that the communication break-down in the thread now is simply due to the lack of knowledge of the history of the 3rd Reich.

What he's really stating is that we lack the belief in the christian revisionist history that has been painted of the Nazi party and Hitler's religious beliefs.

c4ts

20th January 2003, 09:58 PM

CWL

21st January 2003, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Maybe I will post again in this thread a few days once the noise quiets and there is less uninformed noise.

JK

Here we go...

What exactly do you mean by "uninformed noise" JK?

In the polite spirit of this moderated thread I kindly urge you to reply to the questions that have been put to you instead of dodging them.

Why is it you always see it fit to abandon a thread once it gets a little too hot for you to handle?

Jedi Knight

21st January 2003, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Nova Land

If this is your answer, I'm puzzled what the question you are responding to is.
That tells who was the leader of Germany (Hitler) and what you think his philosophy was based on (the works of Hegel and Nietsche). That's not what CWL asked about.
That explains Hegelism and Nietschism, again not what CWL asked about.

Are you trying to say that Hegelism/Nietschism is equivalent to atheism? That H/N is a form of atheism? That atheism is derived from H/N? I am trying to understand what you are saying, but your point is not clear.
This tells us where you think Hitler's beliefs came from. It tells us some of what you believe Hitler's beliefs were. It still does not tell us how you define atheism -- which is the question CWL and others of us have been asking.
If you think it will help understand the points you are making, I'll be glad to. The nearest library to me is 12 miles away and is a local 1-room affair, but I hope to be making a trip to a large library next week-end.

Since time is finite, I won't have time to read all the writings of either of these men during that trip. Could you give me page references for about 25 pages or so from the works of each that you think are most relevant to the point you are trying to make, to serve as a starting point for me?

Once I get started looking something up I tend to get curious, and one thing leads to another, so if you give me a good starting point I will likely read a fair amount more. But I would like you to specify some portions which you think relate directly to what you are saying, so I don't spend all my library time reading sections of them entirely unrelated to what you are talking about.

If 25 pages or so from each is unreasonably small, feel free to specify larger sections, and I'll do my best to read what you recommend.

(If you'd like to post some selections from these writings that you think are especially relevant, that could be helpful as well. I can then get a taste of what it is you are talking about here and be able to appreciate it more when I read it in longer form at the library.)

You weren't paying attention, Nova. This is what he quoted:

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
Only atheists/godless people do evil things
Hitler did evil things
Therefore Hitler was an atheist/godless

......and that was what I was replying to. When I quoted that post it didn't pull it all up. That just goes to show that there is a huge misunderstanding of what I am saying. This is not due to me, it is due to lack of knowledge of the reference material and history regarding Hitler's atheism.

I do not think there is anyone qualified to debate me on this topic, the more I think about it. You and Headscratcher come close to figuring out the history but the other contributors have no understanding of it and are making this supposedly moderated debate rather marginal as most debates on this forum seem to spiral.

I asked what happened in Berlin in the last few days before the city fell and someone mentioned that Nietzche was dead long before that happened--that had nothing to do with my question and simply illustrates that some people have no clue about this topic.

Then someone else mentioned that Hitler was 11 years old when Nietzche died so how could Hitler "possibly" know him--another laughable observation. It is like saying that Plato died two thousand years ago so how could you know him Nova?

Hitler's reich picked up the works of Hegel and Nietzche and put them into action. Did Stalin know Marx? No. How could Stalin possibly be connected to Marx if he didn't "know" him? That is hilarious for people to even use that line of reasoning because it is like saying that a political theory is lost to "everyone" that didn't know the philosoph "personally". Writings and ideas live forever. You do not need to know the people personally that created those ideas and those ideas outlived the authors and Hitler and they will outlive you and I.

Don't be tempted to fall into the trap of the non-intellectuals Nova, especially in defense of some ideas that you have. I have presented an opinion about Hitler. It is my opinion and many people share it. It doesn't have anything to do with me and everything to do with the information provided based upon historical fact.

If the people contributing to this topic can't pull from history to counter my arguments that Hitler was an atheist, don't bother posting. You can, but it is just laughable and makes me consider that I am just wasting my time debating on a topic that could be interesting but spoiled from the new participants that have no clue about the topic nor history in general. I suspect that there are some atheists who are now posting to defend their religion, as a Christian would defend his religion if someone showed up at his church to provide information about a topic that made the Christian feel uncomfortable.

If individuals can't get past their own inner religious lusts (atheism), this thread is going nowhere.

JK

Jedi Knight

21st January 2003, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Here we go...

What exactly do you mean by "uninformed noise" JK?

In the polite spirit of this moderated thread I kindly urge you to reply to the questions that have been put to you instead of dodging them.

Why is it you always see it fit to abandon a thread once it gets a little too hot for you to handle?

I am not answering worthless questions that waste my time. This isn't a level 101 debate, CWL. I haven't responded to your questions because they are amateurish.

JK

Aardvark_DK

21st January 2003, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I do not think there is anyone qualified to debate me on this topic, the more I think about it
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the end of the discussion.

MRC_Hans

21st January 2003, 04:51 AM

No, it was JK bowing out. I see no reason why the peasants cannot continue. We might even reach a conclusion.

Hans

Darat

21st January 2003, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

In the final day before Berlin fell there was a very specific event that took place inside the city. Do you know what that event was? The whole city encountered it.

JK

Sorry but I think you must have been answering someone else posts and misquoted mine.

My question was what part of Nietzsche works provides evidence to support your contention that Hitler was an atheist?

Please provide some references - Thanks

Darat

21st January 2003, 05:37 AM

I am making public my PM request to Girl 6 to step in and apply some moderation to this thread.

This is meant to be a discussion and that must mean that the participants are willing to answer questions raised by their own statements - if they are not then we do not have a debate and the reason for the moderation is removed.

I would urge Girl6 to consider deleting a large number of the above posts (mine included), provide a summary of the questions various debaters have asked and request the participants to resume the debate.

(Sorry for adding work to you Girl6 but authority always carries responsibility :) )

CWL

21st January 2003, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

I am not answering worthless questions that waste my time. This isn't a level 101 debate, CWL. I haven't responded to your questions because they are amateurish.

JK

Fine, you are of course free to ignore my questions (as I am free to point out that this says more about yourself than it does about my alleged amateurishness).

However, as you have dubbed HS4 an (almost) worthy debater, why don't you instead respond to his latest post?

Aardvark och Hans:

Hans har förvisso en poäng. Problemet är dock att det har även Aardvark. Vem skall företräda påståendet att Hitler var ateist om vår intolerante vän lämnar debatten?

thaiboxerken

21st January 2003, 05:38 AM

JK is still holding on to nothing but christian revisionist history coupled with a never-tiring hatred of atheism and atheists to come to the conclusion that Hitler was atheist. Sorry, but atheists don't pray to god or gods........ Atheists don't brag about god saving them from assassinations....

Stalin was an atheist and did many wrongs, yes. I am objective enough to realize that another person that doesn't believe in god (the way I don't believe in god) is able to do evil. Why aren't you willing to admit that a person that believes in jesus or "god" can also do evil?

CWL

21st January 2003, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

In the final day before Berlin fell there was a very specific event that took place inside the city. Do you know what that event was? The whole city encountered it.

JK

Could this perhaps be Goebbels radio broadcasts through which he urged the last faithful "Werewolves" to kill any dissidents as "God has given up the protection of the people . . . Satan has taken command"?

Typically atheist.

Nova Land

21st January 2003, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

You weren't paying attention, Nova. This is what he quoted:

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
Only atheists/godless people do evil things
Hitler did evil things
Therefore Hitler was an atheist/godless

......and that was what I was replying to.I believe the reason Aardvark_DK gave those lines was to illustrate what appears to be your definition of an atheist. The question he (and others of us) is trying to get a response to is:

what do you mean by "atheist"?

This is an important point to clear up. It seems clear that you do not mean simply "someone who does not believe in god" (or "someone who disbelieves in god"). It is not clear just what it is you do mean.

That just goes to show that there is a huge misunderstanding of what I am saying.Yes, and you can help clear up some of this by explaining what you mean by the word "atheist".

A common source of misunderstanding is when one person means one thing by a word and another means something else entirely when using the same word. That appears to be the case here. There may be -- very likely are -- additional misunderstandings, but it's hard to even begin to work on them until we get that initial one out of the way.
I do not think there is anyone qualified to debate me on this topic...That's fine. There's no need to engage in debate if you don't wish to. Debating is fun, but it's not my only (or even primary) reason for wanting to discuss things with people.

What I'm looking for in this discussion is a better understanding of what it is you believe and why. I'm quite willing to argue those things that I disagree with, but I have no compelling need to. I'm quite willing to listen to what you say and put forward, quite separately, my own analyses of the evidence I can find.

If you would like to debate about the things you believe, that's fine too. But before I or anyone can productively argue about what you believe we need to understand what you believe. Since a key term you are using is "atheist", and some of us are not clear what you mean by it, debate is a little premature.
I have presented an opinion about Hitler. It is my opinion and many people share it. It doesn't have anything to do with me and everything to do with the information provided based upon historical fact.And that is what I'm interested in!

I'm beginning to get a fuzzy picture of the outlines of your opinion. Among the things I'd like to understand, but don't, is what factual material your opinions are based on.

You have referred to Hegel and Nietzsche (who are philosphers, although their philosophies were used by players in political arena). I'm certainly willing to read some of their philosophy if you think it will help me to understand some of the historical facts you are referring to. Please provide me page references to selected portions of their writing which you think are especially relevant to the points you would like me to understand. (I will need these page references from you by Friday morning, as I hope to hitch-hike to Knoxville then.)

Many of the posts in this thread (including this one of mine, and the one of yours I am responding to) are empty of substance relating to the discussion topic. They are instead devoted to comments about the discussion itself -- who's responding, who's evading, what people should or should not be doing. We are having a meta-discussion rather than a discussion.

What I would like is to be able to spend more time putting forward evidence to be analyzed and reading the same from others. I have been offering excerpts from Hitler's Table Talks because this is a source you gave earlier as the basis for your belief Hitler was an atheist. I do not know if you have ever read the actual book, or simply excerpts that others have selected for you, but I am interested in your reactions to the material in it.

There are others here who dismiss the table talks (again, I do not know if this is on the basis of actually having examined them or simply on the basis of what others have told them) but do put reliance in other sources such as Mein Kampf and Hitler's public speeches. Rather than simply referring to these sources and implying this proves a point, I would enjoy people quoting from specific materials, especially primary sources which they have read for themselves and explaining what conclusions they draw from the material.

For instance, instead of simply referring to "Hitler's public speeches", I would welcome reading comments from someone who has read through significant portions of the published volumes of these about what they found there and which things grabbed their attention. Often, the selected excerpts we see bandied about give a different impression than the same things read in context.

Something else that might be of interest would be someone looking through microfilm of New York Times reportage back in the 1930s of Hitler's speeches. This might give us a better understanding not only of the content of the speeches but of how people -- such as Christians -- reacted to them. Better yet would be if someone who speaks German could look up the coverage of these in German newspapers from the time.

Whether any of this led to anyone's opinion changing or not, at least we would be having a content-filled discussion rather than simply an exchange of assertions. You have said several times that your beliefs are based on historical facts, so I hope you join me in wanting that kind of discussion here.

Nova Land

21st January 2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Could this perhaps be Goebbels radio broadcasts through which he urged the last faithful "Werewolves" to kill any dissidents as "God has given up the protection of the people . . . Satan has taken command"?
Thank you! This sounds very interesting, and the kind of thing I'm interested in learning about.

Do you know a good book or magazine article describing this event? It is likely covered in many sources and I can locate it by looking in book index, but you could save me a little search time if you have a reference or two handy.

headscratcher4

21st January 2003, 09:06 AM

Well, I am somewhat at a loss. Despite all efforts to engage in a real dialog about the proposed topic – the asserted atheism of Hitler – it seems to have all broken down. Not in a petty, name-calling kind of way, but because some in the thread prefer (and knowingly I suppose) talk past the other participants. That is fine for posturing, but it does little to foster understanding or honest exchanges of ideas – and there are some meaty ideas here.

I guess we can conclude that the conversation need not convince everyone. I am not suggesting, for example, that JK must be convinced of my opinion or resources and conclude that he is wrong regarding his assertions. Rather, I was merely hoping for some intelligent conversation that, if for example I was wrong about something, would point me toward ways to rethink it.

This will not happen, I fear.

JK, you are essentially claiming unique information and insight gleaned from your readings – information and insights that apparently very few scholars of Nazism and Fascism in Germany share. I repeat again, asserting something is fact doesn’t make it fact.

More specifically, it is particularly disappointing to see you completely ignore – NOT REFUTE, IGNORE – key points that I have repeatedly made. I can only assume one of two things – either I am dead on, and you cannot refute them, or I am a fool to believe them.

I am willing to be shown a fool. It happens every day. But, if that is so, please don’t leave me hanging in the wind; please show me specifically where I am wrong.

Here, again, for the fourth time, is my basic contention: Hitler and Nazism sprung from the history, political and economic context of Germany. The anti-Semitism that JK claims was a manifestation of Hitler’s and the Nazi State’s Atheism is anything but atheism in any normal, common sense use of the word.

The anti-Semitism that was practiced by the Nazis, I contend and am backed up by facts, flows from over a thousand years (pre-reformation) of anti-Semitism in European Christianity. For this, and other crimes against Jews, the Pope specifically apologized to the Jewish people.

My base point is that the Nazi’s anti-Semitism (key to JK’s argument that Hitler was Atheism – i.e. the Nazis had to, as an atheistic state, destroy all who would contend our counter their domination of all spheres of life, and thus had to eliminate all Jews as uncontrollable believers in a god other than Hitler/the Nazi State.) is only understandable in the context of the Christian history of Germany. Jews as “Christ-killers”, Jews as spawn of Satan. Everything flows from that “Christian” concept.

Again, I am not saying either Hitler of the Nazi’s were Christian –at least as commonly understood – but they very much believed in nature and a super-natural order of things that was governed by a greater divinity. Cite Nietzsche and Hegel all you want, the facts are in my favor (Indeed, I am not sure, but can be shown to be wrong, that you can even show that Hitler even read Nietzsche or Hegel, little less understood them, or that more than a handful of Nazis did also – the great mass of people accepted Hitler and his anti-Semitism BECAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY reflected the lessons regarding Jews that they had been hearing for over a thousand years in their churches).

In otherwords, the great mass of people accepted Hitler and Nazism becuase, as people who held themselves to be Christians, they completely understood the anti-Semitsim that the Nazi's spouted. THey might not have agreed to the "final" solution (though Goldhagen (sp?) suggests they were in complete accord), but they knew Jews to be Christ Killers and cursed of god --- THEIR CHURCHES HAD BEEN TELLING THEM THAT FOR OVER A THOUSAND YEARS.

Further, as I repeatedly pointed out above, anti-Semitism would be a completely alien concept for a true atheist. I again note Communism, Marx, Lenin and Stalin. Lenin and Stalin could mass murder with the best of them – far better, in fact, than Hitler. However, they weren’t interested in killing Jews for just being Jews. An atheist totalitarian murderer, as I have repeatedly shown with fact and logic, could care less what the blood of an individual was so long as his mind and body belonged to the state. In short, an apostate, non-practicing Jew who embraced the philosophy of the state would be just as welcome as an apostate Christian.

Hitler killed Jews, ALL JEWS. It was in their blood. God had cursed Jews and set them apart. They were the devil’s spawn. That was first and foremost the basis of the anti-Semitism. The scientific approach to genetics was IMPOSED after the fact, and it was a false science to boot. If the science didn’t deliver the genetic results the Nazi’s wanted – i.e. that Jews were different – it was discarded. Because, at base, Jews were seen as the Spawn of Satan…not because there was any credible scientific basis for the prejudice.

JK has refused to even acknowledge this argument. Therefore, I must conclude I am on to something.

In the end, this conversation is dying NOT because participants (other than JK) don’t know enough about philosophy or history. It is because they have brought to the table a vast number of facts, analogies and concepts that JK rejects without refutation and now hides behind “I know more than you, I can’t explain it until you’ve read as much as me…”

That is magic, not logic, not history, not philosophy, pure magic.

PS: This little game of asking folks to name the significant event that occurred in Berlin right prior to the end of the war is very juvenile. What are you referring to, and why play the game? I am very well read on Hitler, Nazism and Nazi Germany. I don’t recognize the reference – though I might if you were a little clearer (and I might recognize what you are referring to and understand the significance to your argument that you are trying to assign to it). However, you are the only one that knows what significance you meant by raising it?

thaiboxerken

21st January 2003, 09:15 AM

It should be noted that anti-semetism is promoted in the christian new testament, specifically the books of Titus, Thessalonians 1, Phillippians and very much so in the books of Acts and John. But.. maybe these books in the christian new testament are atheist writings...hmmmm.

CWL

21st January 2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Nova Land

Thank you! This sounds very interesting, and the kind of thing I'm interested in learning about.

Do you know a good book or magazine article describing this event? It is likely covered in many sources and I can locate it by looking in book index, but you could save me a little search time if you have a reference or two handy.

"The Werewolf Organisation" - Russ Folsom
"The Death of Hitler" - Ada Petrova
"Werewolf" - Charles Whiting

Girl 6

21st January 2003, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Sorry but Nietzche has nothing to do with that question. I think that the communication break-down in the thread now is simply due to the lack of knowledge of the history of the 3rd Reich.

Maybe I will post again in this thread a few days once the noise quiets and there is less uninformed noise.

JK

If I may suggest that you enlighten us with this knowledge? It might help to illustrate your point. If you feel that people don't know it and it's central to your argument, then doesn't it follow that you would want to present your evidence for this knowledge?

Anyway, that last statement is unfortunate. I was hoping that people would not rise to the bait.

G6

Jedi Knight

21st January 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Nova Land
I believe the reason Aardvark_DK gave those lines was to illustrate what appears to be your definition of an atheist. The question he (and others of us) is trying to get a response to is:

what do you mean by "atheist"?

This is an important point to clear up. It seems clear that you do not mean simply "someone who does not believe in god" (or "someone who disbelieves in god"). It is not clear just what it is you do mean.

Yes, and you can help clear up some of this by explaining what you mean by the word "atheist".

A common source of misunderstanding is when one person means one thing by a word and another means something else entirely when using the same word. That appears to be the case here. There may be -- very likely are -- additional misunderstandings, but it's hard to even begin to work on them until we get that initial one out of the way.
That's fine. There's no need to engage in debate if you don't wish to. Debating is fun, but it's not my only (or even primary) reason for wanting to discuss things with people.

What I'm looking for in this discussion is a better understanding of what it is you believe and why. I'm quite willing to argue those things that I disagree with, but I have no compelling need to. I'm quite willing to listen to what you say and put forward, quite separately, my own analyses of the evidence I can find.

If you would like to debate about the things you believe, that's fine too. But before I or anyone can productively argue about what you believe we need to understand what you believe. Since a key term you are using is "atheist", and some of us are not clear what you mean by it, debate is a little premature.
And that is what I'm interested in!

I'm beginning to get a fuzzy picture of the outlines of your opinion. Among the things I'd like to understand, but don't, is what factual material your opinions are based on.

You have referred to Hegel and Nietzsche (who are philosphers, although their philosophies were used by players in political arena). I'm certainly willing to read some of their philosophy if you think it will help me to understand some of the historical facts you are referring to. Please provide me page references to selected portions of their writing which you think are especially relevant to the points you would like me to understand. (I will need these page references from you by Friday morning, as I hope to hitch-hike to Knoxville then.)

Many of the posts in this thread (including this one of mine, and the one of yours I am responding to) are empty of substance relating to the discussion topic. They are instead devoted to comments about the discussion itself -- who's responding, who's evading, what people should or should not be doing. We are having a meta-discussion rather than a discussion.

What I would like is to be able to spend more time putting forward evidence to be analyzed and reading the same from others. I have been offering excerpts from Hitler's Table Talks because this is a source you gave earlier as the basis for your belief Hitler was an atheist. I do not know if you have ever read the actual book, or simply excerpts that others have selected for you, but I am interested in your reactions to the material in it.

There are others here who dismiss the table talks (again, I do not know if this is on the basis of actually having examined them or simply on the basis of what others have told them) but do put reliance in other sources such as Mein Kampf and Hitler's public speeches. Rather than simply referring to these sources and implying this proves a point, I would enjoy people quoting from specific materials, especially primary sources which they have read for themselves and explaining what conclusions they draw from the material.

For instance, instead of simply referring to "Hitler's public speeches", I would welcome reading comments from someone who has read through significant portions of the published volumes of these about what they found there and which things grabbed their attention. Often, the selected excerpts we see bandied about give a different impression than the same things read in context.

Something else that might be of interest would be someone looking through microfilm of New York Times reportage back in the 1930s of Hitler's speeches. This might give us a better understanding not only of the content of the speeches but of how people -- such as Christians -- reacted to them. Better yet would be if someone who speaks German could look up the coverage of these in German newspapers from the time.

Whether any of this led to anyone's opinion changing or not, at least we would be having a content-filled discussion rather than simply an exchange of assertions. You have said several times that your beliefs are based on historical facts, so I hope you join me in wanting that kind of discussion here.

I already defined my position on atheism. I defined it here in this thread. You read that definition. So there it is.

JK

Girl 6

21st January 2003, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

{snip}

If the people contributing to this topic can't pull from history to counter my arguments that Hitler was an atheist, don't bother posting. You can, but it is just laughable and makes me consider that I am just wasting my time debating on a topic that could be interesting but spoiled from the new participants that have no clue about the topic nor history in general. I suspect that there are some atheists who are now posting to defend their religion, as a Christian would defend his religion if someone showed up at his church to provide information about a topic that made the Christian feel uncomfortable.

If individuals can't get past their own inner religious lusts (atheism), this thread is going nowhere.

JK

You were doing fine until you got to this last paragraph. Here's what I think--stating that atheists are now going to defend their religion has NOTHING to do with supporting your position that Hitler was an atheist. It's a diversion, don't you think?

So, as a consequence, people are going to latch on to that instead of concentrating on presenting their evidence and opinions regarding your position.

People are generally confused as to what you think an atheist is. They are trying to draw this information out of you. I know you probably *think* you've presented your definition many times, but there is still confusion. As long as that is there, you're going to have people continue to ask you about it.

My suggestion is that you take the time to define atheism again. It won't hurt and it may even illuminate your position once again.

Also, depending on what your goal is, you are NOT wasting your time. In fact, if anything, you are in a unique position to educate us as to what your thinking is regarding this. Being in a minority position means that much of the time, the burden of proof is on you. Approach it from that angle and you may start to understand how to present your argument so that the majority opinion can appreciate it.

G6

c4ts

21st January 2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Nova Land
Many of the posts in this thread (including this one of mine, and the one of yours I am responding to) are empty of substance relating to the discussion topic. They are instead devoted to comments about the discussion itself -- who's responding, who's evading, what people should or should not be doing. We are having a meta-discussion rather than a discussion.

How do you expect to have a real discussion about something that does not exist?

Jedi Knight

21st January 2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Well, I am somewhat at a loss. Despite all efforts to engage in a real dialog about the proposed topic – the asserted atheism of Hitler – it seems to have all broken down. Not in a petty, name-calling kind of way, but because some in the thread prefer (and knowingly I suppose) talk past the other participants. That is fine for posturing, but it does little to foster understanding or honest exchanges of ideas – and there are some meaty ideas here.

I guess we can conclude that the conversation need not convince everyone. I am not suggesting, for example, that JK must be convinced of my opinion or resources and conclude that he is wrong regarding his assertions. Rather, I was merely hoping for some intelligent conversation that, if for example I was wrong about something, would point me toward ways to rethink it.

This will not happen, I fear.

JK, you are essentially claiming unique information and insight gleaned from your readings – information and insights that apparently very few scholars of Nazism and Fascism in Germany share. I repeat again, asserting something is fact doesn’t make it fact.

More specifically, it is particularly disappointing to see you completely ignore – NOT REFUTE, IGNORE – key points that I have repeatedly made. I can only assume one of two things – either I am dead on, and you cannot refute them, or I am a fool to believe them.

I am willing to be shown a fool. It happens every day. But, if that is so, please don’t leave me hanging in the wind; please show me specifically where I am wrong.

Here, again, for the fourth time, is my basic contention: Hitler and Nazism sprung from the history, political and economic context of Germany. The anti-Semitism that JK claims was a manifestation of Hitler’s and the Nazi State’s Atheism is anything but atheism in any normal, common sense use of the word.

The anti-Semitism that was practiced by the Nazis, I contend and am backed up by facts, flows from over a thousand years (pre-reformation) of anti-Semitism in European Christianity. For this, and other crimes against Jews, the Pope specifically apologized to the Jewish people.

My base point is that the Nazi’s anti-Semitism (key to JK’s argument that Hitler was Atheism – i.e. the Nazis had to, as an atheistic state, destroy all who would contend our counter their domination of all spheres of life, and thus had to eliminate all Jews as uncontrollable believers in a god other than Hitler/the Nazi State.) is only understandable in the context of the Christian history of Germany. Jews as “Christ-killers”, Jews as spawn of Satan. Everything flows from that “Christian” concept.

Again, I am not saying either Hitler of the Nazi’s were Christian –at least as commonly understood – but they very much believed in nature and a super-natural order of things that was governed by a greater divinity. Cite Nietzsche and Hegel all you want, the facts are in my favor (Indeed, I am not sure, but can be shown to be wrong, that you can even show that Hitler even read Nietzsche or Hegel, little less understood them, or that more than a handful of Nazis did also – the great mass of people accepted Hitler and his anti-Semitism BECAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY reflected the lessons regarding Jews that they had been hearing for over a thousand years in their churches).

In otherwords, the great mass of people accepted Hitler and Nazism becuase, as people who held themselves to be Christians, they completely understood the anti-Semitsim that the Nazi's spouted. THey might not have agreed to the "final" solution (though Goldhagen (sp?) suggests they were in complete accord), but they knew Jews to be Christ Killers and cursed of god --- THEIR CHURCHES HAD BEEN TELLING THEM THAT FOR OVER A THOUSAND YEARS.

Further, as I repeatedly pointed out above, anti-Semitism would be a completely alien concept for a true atheist. I again note Communism, Marx, Lenin and Stalin. Lenin and Stalin could mass murder with the best of them – far better, in fact, than Hitler. However, they weren’t interested in killing Jews for just being Jews. An atheist totalitarian murderer, as I have repeatedly shown with fact and logic, could care less what the blood of an individual was so long as his mind and body belonged to the state. In short, an apostate, non-practicing Jew who embraced the philosophy of the state would be just as welcome as an apostate Christian.

Hitler killed Jews, ALL JEWS. It was in their blood. God had cursed Jews and set them apart. They were the devil’s spawn. That was first and foremost the basis of the anti-Semitism. The scientific approach to genetics was IMPOSED after the fact, and it was a false science to boot. If the science didn’t deliver the genetic results the Nazi’s wanted – i.e. that Jews were different – it was discarded. Because, at base, Jews were seen as the Spawn of Satan…not because there was any credible scientific basis for the prejudice.

JK has refused to even acknowledge this argument. Therefore, I must conclude I am on to something.

In the end, this conversation is dying NOT because participants (other than JK) don’t know enough about philosophy or history. It is because they have brought to the table a vast number of facts, analogies and concepts that JK rejects without refutation and now hides behind “I know more than you, I can’t explain it until you’ve read as much as me…”

That is magic, not logic, not history, not philosophy, pure magic.

PS: This little game of asking folks to name the significant event that occurred in Berlin right prior to the end of the war is very juvenile. What are you referring to, and why play the game? I am very well read on Hitler, Nazism and Nazi Germany. I don’t recognize the reference – though I might if you were a little clearer (and I might recognize what you are referring to and understand the significance to your argument that you are trying to assign to it). However, you are the only one that knows what significance you meant by raising it?

I already defined my position on atheism several pages or so ago in this thread. There is no need for me to repeat it when participants can go there and read it. If they disagree with my description of their religion, fine. They do not have to agree with my description of their religion, as many Christians I know do not like my description of their religon.

Getting past that, it is laughable to keep asking me for my position on atheism when I have been very clear already. There is no need to ask me my position on atheism with every post that you or anyone else makes. I have been very, very clear about my position on atheism and have descriptively defined it.

Any questions? (besides my description of atheism which I already completely described)

JK