Hitler and Stalin

[Elind]

I don't know what you mean by rote Christian.

Was he a baptized Christian? I think so. Did he attend Christian churches for a time? Surely. Was he a dogmatically believing Christian during his years as leader of Germany? I'd bet the dog that he wasn't.

I think there are many many many more atheists in history and today than we will ever know. Hitler was a god to himself. That's a kind of atheism to me. A kind of atheism. I reckon many people in this forum will dogmatically define and classify who is and who isn't an atheist.

-Elliot

I don't think that it is your place, as (I believe) a Christian (not rote) to make up your own definition of atheist and particularly "a kind of" atheist just to suit your own preferences.

You know what rote means. Going through the motions because that is what you've always done. Why do you think evangelicals have come up with this snazzy "born again" ad? Get people to think about it, in their way of course.

If you don't like rote, substitute lazy.

 

[SirPhilip]

Awww son of a something, I didn't post the link to the graph I was talking about, sorry. Here it is...

As much as I'd like (love) to agree, I have problems accepting this. For one thing, it's plainly obvious hurricane activity skyrocketed last year. I don't expect it to technically double this year in light of ever increasing global warming, but before hurricane season is over, we're going to be playing dice all over again with mother nature and a potential situation rivaling Katrina.

 

[Nova Land]

Stalin said he was, did Hitler ever do so? Just because you like to kill certain people doesn't mean you can't do it in God's name.

Can we have some proof that Hitler was an atheist, please.

A lot depends on how one defines the word atheist. There's a good argument over definitions between RSLancaster and Chanileslie back in the thread "Should the JREF formally be an atheist skeptical organization?" from a year ago (and doubtless in many other threads as well).

If one defines an atheist as a person who believes there is not a god, then HItler probably was not an atheist. There is little if any evidence to support a claim that Hitler believed that all gods are non-existent. Hitler never formally declared himself to be an atheist.

If, on the other hand, one defines an atheist simply as a person who does not believe in a god, then Hitler quite possibly was an atheist. This is a much looser, much more inclusive, definition of what an atheist is. It is not necessary to formally declare oneself to be an atheist, or to formally state a belief that there is no god, in order to be classified as an atheist under this definition. (Note, for example, that chani in the thread I referred to was trying to include as atheists a number of people who did not consider themselves to be atheists.)

There are many people who do not explicitly say they disbelieve in gods, but who do not appear to have any belief in a god. Take, for instance, the racist group World Church of the Creator, which is often referred to as an atheist group. Since this is not a group most people care to be associated with or to have associated with them, Positive Atheism wrote a letter to them asking if they were atheists or not. Here is their reply:

Thank you for your inquiry about our Church. No, we do not describe ourselves as atheists. Our race is our religion and we place Nature's laws at the forefront of our lives. We do not "worship" anything, whether it is "God" or any other unproven pie in the sky entity. We do not "worship" Nature either, for to worship anything is demeaning. We simply say that Nature has laws against racial mixing and that the White Race is Nature's Finest. By placing Race as central to our lives as our religion, we stay in line with these eternal laws and from that, all good things flow

So are they atheists or not? On the one hand, "we do not describe ourselves as atheists". On the other hand, "We do not "worship" anything, whether it is "God" or any other unproven pie in the sky entity."

If we use RSL's definition of atheist, then to settle the question of whether Hitler was an atheist we need to see what evidence there is that he declared himself to be an atheist or that he declared that all gods are imaginary. I don't see good evidence for that, so if I were discussing Hitler with RSL we'd probably be in agreement that Hitler was not an atheist.

If we use chani's definition of atheist, then to settle the question of whether Hitler was an atheist we need to see what evidence there is that Hitler held a belief in a god. If there is no good evidence that he held such a belief, then he'd be an atheist.

This is dicier to settle. He was raised as a Catholic, was officially a member of the Catholic church, and at various times in his career made statements for public consumption declaring a faith in god. But did he attend any church regularly? Did he express his faith in his conversations with his friends? If he believed in god, what were the characteristics of the god he believed? If he did in fact hold a belief in god, there should be some evidence of it -- some outward manifestations of this belief in his everyday life, such as church attendance, or private religious exercises, or mentions of his beliefs in his conversations with friends. If that evidence is there, I'm having trouble finding it.

In a different thread in this forum (which Darat linked to earlier) I've been going through Hitler's "Table Talks" -- his dinner-time ramblings to a captive audience of his friends and associates, in which he pontificated on a number of subjects including religion -- to see what Hitler did say in private about his religious beliefs. Hitler had virtually nothing good to say about Catholic belief, virtually nothing good to say about Christian belief, and seems to be generally negative toward virtually all religious belief. Like the World Church of the Creator folks, he appears to have believed in certain natural laws -- which Hitler saw as scientific, rather than religious, belief.

I am still undecided whether Hitler rejected all gods, or whether he had a god of his own which he believed in. But since the evidence that Hitler believed in any god is not very strong, if I were discussing Hitler with someone such as chani and she wanted to apply her definition of atheism I would probably have to concede that Hitler was an atheist. (Whether she would want to claim him, or not, is another question.)

(I am still working my way through the "Table Talks", so may have a clearer opinion by the time I get through it. It's difficult to say, because this is a translation of a transcription of long boring rambles, and since no critical questioning or discussion was permitted Hitler is free to express things in unclear, ambiguous, and even contradictory ways.)

 

[Anacoluthon64]

A lot depends on how one defines the word atheist.

...snip...

Nova Land, I tried to make these distinctions, i.e. flavours of god-doubt, clear to elliotfc (starting here), but they were rejected for no good reason that I can fathom. My argument was that a fanatical rejection of any possibility of god's existence (which I call "strong atheism") could conceivably prompt violence when challenged, and that the observation that such doesn't seem to have happened is curious.

'Luthon64

 

[elliotfc]

I don't think that it is your place, as (I believe) a Christian (not rote) to make up your own definition of atheist and particularly "a kind of" atheist just to suit your own preferences.

Why not? There are many kinds of Christians. Many kind of Muslims. Many kind of atheists. I don't see why I have to be dogmatic about that reality when it comes to my religion, or atheism.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

As much as I'd like (love) to agree, I have problems accepting this. For one thing, it's plainly obvious hurricane activity skyrocketed last year. I don't expect it to technically double this year in light of ever increasing global warming, but before hurricane season is over, we're going to be playing dice all over again with mother nature and a potential situation rivaling Katrina.

If it's plainly obvious, then you don't need to point this out. That you point this out suggests that it is not plainly obvious.

Weather historians disagree with you. I can't speak for people who think that weather began within the past 30 years or so.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

My argument was that a fanatical rejection of any possibility of god's existence (which I call "strong atheism") could conceivably prompt violence when challenged, and that the observation that such doesn't seem to have happened is curious.

And my rejoinder was that it is curious to suppose that strong atheism would lead to violence. Given what you say....that it doesn't seem to have happened. Meaning the reality makes the supposition unfortunate.

-Elliot

 

[Anacoluthon64]

And my rejoinder was that it is curious to suppose that strong atheism would lead to violence.

Not so. The sum total of your rejoinders amounted, as a brief glance will show, to a series of feeble attempts at hijacking the argument via introduction of irrelevancies and obfuscations in the name of "trying to get

to think outside of this specific assertion

." You have singularly failed to provide any cogent reason why, of all possible fanaticisms, fervid atheism should be exempt from manifesting violently.

Given what you say....that it doesn't seem to have happened. Meaning the reality makes the supposition unfortunate.

Once again, your elevated prose is beyond my comprehension.

'Luthon64

 

[Nova Land]

... a strong atheist must logically conclude that believers deceive themselves, and, through such deception, materially endanger themselves and others.

Perhaps a strong atheist must. What about a rational atheist, though? One who, instead of basing their actions on conclusions reached by reasoning from essences, bases their actions on empirical observation. The irrational atheist intuits the essential nature of believers, and reasons from there. The rational one looks around at actual believers, such as Kitty and Rolfe, judging them by the nature of their posts and their behavior in person (such as at skeptical get-togethers).

Rational Atheist: Hmmm. Logically, I know that (a) there is no god, (b) therefore believers in god are wrong to believe in god, (c) therefore they are deceiving themselves, (d) therefore they are a danger to themselves and others. And yet, from actual observation, Kitty and Rolfe seem to be beneficial influences rather than harmful ones, antidotes rather than poisons.

Either my logic, based on what Kitty and Rolfe must be like (independent of actually knowing them) is wrong, or my observation of what they actually are like is wrong.

It's possible they are incredibly good actors accomplishing a phenomenal deception. Or it's possible there's a flaw somewhere in my logic. As a rational person I put more credence in empirical observation than in abstract notions. Therefore I will put more credence in what I know of the actual Kitty and Rolfe than in my imaginary construct of them. I don't know what the flaw in my logic is, but since I can't seem to reconcile my logic with observable reality I'm going to go with the latter.

 

[Nova Land]

... My argument was that a fanatical rejection of any possibility of god's existence (which I call "strong atheism") could conceivably prompt violence when challenged, and that the observation that such doesn't seem to have happened is curious.

Yes, it is interesting that a greatly-outnumbered minority holding a socially-unpopular view would refrain from using violence when their belief was challenged by members of the majority surrounding them.

I have noticed that people in a minority often behave differently when their numbers increase. Minorities are often ill-treated by majorities. There seems to be a mob-mentality which many people hold which makes them seem to feel entitled not just to voice their majority-approved views but to repress those who hold dissenting views. Some members of the mob even feel justified in using extreme measures (including not just verbal violence but physical violence, and calls for the jailing of the minority if it speaks up too vocally, too effectively, or too stridently). And if the minority reacts with violence in turn, the majority often turns a blind eye to the provoking actions directed at the minority but a very hostile eye to the minority's response. Thus, for a variety of reasons, minorities often behave with a great deal of restraint.

But when a group which has been a minority becomes a majority (either because its numbers in the wider world increase, or because it creates its own space in which it is the majority) the behavior of people in the group often changes. Quite often those who have been oppressed when they were a minority turn around and practice the same forms of oppression on others once they become a majority. One good example is the religious groups oppressed in Europe in the 17th century who came to the "New World" in order to set up new societies where they could treat others the way they had been treated.

I greatly admire people who, instead of thinking When we were in the minority people treated us this way, and we didn't like it, so when we're in the majority we'll treat them that way and see how they like it think instead When we were in the minority people treated us this way, and we didn't like it, so when we're in the majority we'll be careful not to treat others the way we were treated. There are religious people who have behaved that way -- Roger Williams and the Baptists in Rhode Island come to mind, as do William Penn and the Quakers in Pennsylvania. It will be interesting to see whether, when atheists have greater numbers, they will continue to behave with restraint, or whether some will attempt to oppress religious people in the way they feel they were oppressed.

There are many posters here who give me hope that atheists will prove to be better if and when they are in positions of power in society than we religious folks have managed to be. Kitty's daughters are atheists, and I would be delighted to see either of them as a senator, as president, or on the Supreme Court (although relatively few Supreme Court cases deal with rocks, so Kitten might not be interested in such a boring job).

On the other hand, there are atheist posters here whom I wouldn't care to see in such an office. I recall one poster arguing that belief in god was inherently harmful and needed to be expunged. Here's a snippet regarding how he felt belief in god should be treated, from page 5 of the thread "What form of religion isn't harmful?".

... I do wish that false beliefs were not admitted into debates on public policy. Just as a politician would be ridiculed and lose his power if he publicly made decisions based on astrology, so should the political process exclude (whether by law or convention) people who attempt to make false or even merely unreasonable ideas a basis for public policy.

That was quite a while back, and the poster said later in the thread he was not really calling for the exclusion of religious people from public debate. He simply didn't feel that people should give any credence to anything a believer in god said on any public policy matter... I would be as fearful of an atheist with views like that being in a position to implement them as I am of a christian with views such as Roy Moore holds.

If what you call "strong atheists" must conclude that people who believe in god present a danger to themselves and others, then the fact "strong atheists" have not resorted to physical violence when their beliefs are challenged does not give me great comfort. A great deal of violence can be done through the legal system. People who want to pass a constitutional amendment to deny homosexuals the right to marry may not pose the physical threat that people who want to beat them up with baseball bats do, but they are a threat nonetheless. At present conservative christians have the political clout to act on their threats, and what you call "strong atheists" don't. My hope is that exposure to the good influences of a growing skeptical movement may help the public to reject both such types of irrationality.

 

[fuelair]

Creature from the Black Lagoon

Does anybody know what genes we can alter so that we can grow gills so that in ten years we'll be able to breath underwater whilst we type and not have to wear the suits that have oxygen tanks? Those are probably really expensive and I also have aesthetic issues with them, they are opposed to my spiritual artistic sense. They are sub-sublime.

yes, I recognize probable humor but just a note, we have to make more adaptations than just growing gills for that to be functional (and I am referring specifically to just the breathing part - other thing too).

 

[Anacoluthon64]

Perhaps a strong atheist must. What about a rational atheist, though?

...snip...

Good post there, Nova Land. Aye, precisely the point I had intended driving at ultimately. Owing to the pervasiveness of god-beliefs, atheism is, I expect, generally arrived at through a process of rational enquiry. If so, there's good reason to further expect that the same rationality will curtail any fanatical impulses.

'Luthon64

 

[elliotfc]

You have singularly failed to provide any cogent reason why, of all possible fanaticisms, fervid atheism should be exempt from manifesting violently.

Are adults who are fanatical about crayons violent? How about fanatics of the defunct TV show Get a Life with Chris Elliott?

I don't know why I should assume that all fanatics about things will act violently. So why the heck would I surprised when they don't?

A flawed assumption. Of course I reject all things that follow from the flawed assumption.

If you're interested, prove your assumption. Prove that all fanaticisms ought to manifest themselves violently.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Yes, it is interesting that a greatly-outnumbered minority holding a socially-unpopular view would refrain from using violence when their belief was challenged by members of the majority surrounding them.

But their belief is essentially a belief in the absence of something. It is not surprising to me at all. Believing that something does not exist is not a proactive belief. Atheist is inherently a negative word. You've defined yourself as contingent to the theist. That's a humbling thing to do, even if you aren't consciously aware of that.

I don't define myself as an a-neodarwinian, or an a-secularmoralist, or an a-materialist. I believe in something. I think this can lead to more hot-headed reactions, which extends to violence.

Let's take a different group. Some people are against fur, and they get violent about that. Are they defined by what they reject? Certainly. But they can actually put their hands on what they reject. An atheist can't. An atheist rejects something that *doesn't* exist. In a sense it's a wacky thing to define yourself as, if you think about it. Defining yourself in terms of something that doesn't exist. I think this has some serious ramifications, and I suspect one of them is the difficulty of getting violent because of this belief in the non-existent.

It's pretty weird, isn't it? I am something that rejects something that doesn't exist. That's what a self-proclaimed atheist is saying. What parallel can we draw to that?

That's another reason why I'm not surprised by so-called atypical atheistic behavior, or lack thereof. To be an atheist...that's an atypical thing, in and of itself.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Good post there, Nova Land. Aye, precisely the point I had intended driving at ultimately. Owing to the pervasiveness of god-beliefs, atheism is, I expect, generally arrived at through a process of rational enquiry. If so, there's good reason to further expect that the same rationality will curtail any fanatical impulses.

'Luthon64

I wish you would have said this 5 posts ago!

Often the *assumption* is made that if you're an atheist, you'd have no compunction about being...nilhilistic, or something. What a daft assumption, eh? Where's the evidence to back that up?

I agree that people generally *become* atheits, and that there is a very personal process that drives that, and that the process is quite rational. Once you're an atheist, several things follow. Coming to grips with morality is probably the biggest one. What of objective morality? Does it exist? Does morality have meaning independent of personal opinion? Being liberated from religious belief doesn't make *any* atheist liberated from morality. This is well understood by all atheists, if not articulated by all atheists. The process of appreciating this and being able to provide a morality, as an atheist, I think is also a very rational process. An atheist tends to be very sensitive about morality. A tad bit...defensive. As in...whaddya mean an atheist doesn't believe in morality or meaning or is free to do anything at all? That's nonsense! I can prove you wrong, or, at least I can provide you with a set-up full of rational thought.

This...sort-of defense mechanism...becomes very important for atheists. I see it all the time, particularly in face-to-face discussion. It becomes *extremely important* for the atheist to articulate morality. In doing so, an atheist appreciates immorality perhaps even more than relgious believers. Atheists who act immorally then, say, in violence or killing, go directly against one of the first things they have to *seriously consider*. The concept of morality.

I think that, by and large, religious believers do not *seriously consider* morality as do atheists. I'd also add that I don't think religious believers have the *need* to seriously consider morality as do atheists.

Thanks for this post. This can further the discussion. The other thing you were on...it was just a blanket assertion that I felt, and still feel, no reason to accept.

-Elliot

 

[Dr Adequate]

An atheist rejects something that *doesn't* exist. In a sense it's a wacky thing to define yourself as, if you think about it. Defining yourself in terms of something that doesn't exist. I think this has some serious ramifications, and I suspect one of them is the difficulty of getting violent because of this belief in the non-existent.

Whacky? Yes, it's as whacky as "defining yourself" as "unemployed" because you have no job, or "healthy" because you don't have any diseases; or "single" because you have no spouse, or "carefree" because you have no cares, or "solvent" because you have no debts, or ...

I'm an atheist. I have no belief in deities.

 

[elliotfc]

Whacky? Yes, it's as whacky as "defining yourself" as "unemployed" because you have no job,

Yes...but umemployed people believe that jobs exist...

or "healthy" because you don't have any diseases;

Yes...but healthy people believe that diseases exist...

or "single" because you have no spouse,

Yes...but single people believe that spouses exist...

or "carefree" because you have no cares,

Yes...but carefree people believe that cares exist...

or "solvent" because you have no debts, or ...

Yes...but solvent people believe that debts exist...

I'm an atheist. I have no belief in deities.

Yes...but atheists believe that gods exist...

Wait a second...

 

[elliotfc]

Approximately 1% of the US population is agnostic/atheist. Approximately .20% of the prison population is agnostic/atheist.

There may, or may not be, something to that. Of course it also must be considered that agnostics/atheists tend to have more education, a better standard of living, etc. There is an at-risk population in the general population that doesn't exactly correspond to an at-risk population in the general atheist/agnostic population.

I do think agnostics/atheists, in general, tend to be more...disciplined let's say, on average. I suggest that the at-risk population in the general population may bring down the average.

-Elliot

 

[Anacoluthon64]

I don't know why I should assume that all fanatics about things will act violently. So why the heck would I surprised when they don't?

A flawed assumption. Of course I reject all things that follow from the flawed assumption.

If you're interested, prove your assumption. Prove that all fanaticisms ought to manifest themselves violently.

It would be helpful, not to mention it being a basic courtesy also, if you stopped putting words in my mouth, so to speak. In particular, I invite you to notice the consistency with which I have qualified "violence" as "conceivable." It would be additionally useful if you applied your grey matter to things, instead of immediately viewing everything as a personal attack and/or as a source of immediately exploitable brownie points.

As for "prov[ing my] assumption," one word: fuh-nat-tee-sizz-umm.

English you must learn. Difficult it will be.

'Luthon64

 

[brodski]

Yes...but umemployed people believe that jobs exist...



Yes...but healthy people believe that diseases exist...



Yes...but single people believe that spouses exist...



Yes...but carefree people believe that cares exist...



Yes...but solvent people believe that debts exist...



Yes...but atheists believe that gods exist...

Wait a second...

Atheistsbelive that faith exsists, we just don't have faith in Gods.