(Ed) Hitler's Atheism

[BillyTK]

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]

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]

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 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]

Was Hitler gay?

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]

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]

Re: Was Hitler gay?

...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]

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”).

 

[Guest]

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]

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.

Good points.

I'm amenable to a variety of solutions. (The first thing, of course, is to be clear on what, if any, problem there is.)

The reason I offered to use Jedi's definition, if there is a definition problem, is to try to make it clear I'm not trying to start an argument over whose definition is better. It's not an ideal solution, but it's one I'm open to, so let me repeat and expand the offer before going on what I think would be a better solution.

If there is anyone here who has a strong opinion on what the one "right" definition is, I'm comfortable using their definition in talking with them rather than spending a lot of time arguing about whose definition is better. I don't know if that is going to be the case in this thread, but if it is then my offer stands to anyone (not just Jedi): just let me know what you mean by the word, and in directing comments at you I will attempt to use the word in the way you wish.

I agree, however, that could be confusing, especially for new people joining in.

What I'd prefer to do would be to make a list of the various possible meanings people may have for "atheist". I think there are at least 5, and likely several more I haven't thought of. Once they are listed, we could either agree on different terms for each them, or label them atheist-A, atheist-B, atheist-C, etc., so we know which meaning is being used, or find some other way to distinguish the different concepts so that all can be discussed.

Here are a few of the possible meanings that have occurred to me, in no particular order:

1. A person who believes that there is no god.

2. A person who does not have a belief that there is a god.

3. A person who says they do not believe in god.

4. A person who does not believe in the right god.

(HS4 raised this possibility earlier -- that there may be people with strong belief in a particular god, who would regard anyone who did not believe in that god as an atheist.)

5. A godless or ungodly person -- that is, a person who may or may not believe in the existence of a god, but behaves in ways that reject the rules that god has commanded people to follow.

(Again, this is a definition that a person who believes in a particular god might hold. If the person holding the definition believes in a certain god who has issued certain commands, then anyone who does not follow those commands might be seen as "ungodly" and therefore an atheist. The usual application of this definition is to people doing heinous things -- Hitler, Dahmer, Manson, etc.)

 

[headscratcher4]

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]

...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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I disagree. Please present evidence.

This existence of this forum.

JK